1982-06-30

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, with reference to the invitation of the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) to reflect on my position regarding the reinstatement of capital punishment, the facts are that Donald Marshall pleaded innocent from the beginning, and alternately Clifford Olson boasted that he had deliberately planned and murdered a number of young people. These facts strengthen my belief that anyone who deliberately plans and murders another human being, and this is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, should be put to death. Therefore 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper):
That this House requests the NDP to reflect on its policies which permit a murderer like Olson to continue to live, while at the same time supporting abortion which is in reality the murder of unborn children.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, according to confirmed reports in this morning's national press, former Liberal minister of finance John Turner consulted on several occasions with the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen) on the totally inadequate budget which was presented here last Monday. It appears, therefore, that indexation of income, pensions and family allowances which was originally proposed by the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, is now being disposed of by the Turner/MacEachen team on the hopeful assumption that the inflation rate will fall to a mere 6
per cent within only six months. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. Gilchrist):
That if former finance minister John Turner supports the removal of this plan, he should run once again for Parliament and he should therefore urge the Prime Minister to call the long overdue by-elections in three outstanding federal ridings so that the people of Canada will be able to express their clear opinion on his latest removal of full indexation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, Canadian veterans managed to survive a number of wars, but now Find they cannot survive life in Canada due to these tough economic times and an uncaring Liberal government. It is ironic that tomorrow we will be celebrating Dominion Day in Canada, and yet the very people who fought to keep this country free are being forgotten in their time of need. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett):
That this House instruct the Minister of Veterans Affairs to take immediate steps to raise substantially the annual allowable incomes in respect of the war veterans allowance from their current unacceptable and unrealistic levels.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, in light of the fact that Monday's budget failed to retract the government's policy of taxing dental, medical and northern benefits received by many employees, and in view of the fact that the taxation of medical and dental benefits represents a tax on those very benefits the government should be encouraging, and

June 30, 1982
since the taxation of northern benefits is in reality a tax on the extra work-related expenses incurred as a result of higher costs in remote and northern areas and should not be the subject of taxation, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That this government which retreated on so many other tax measures on Monday evening should announce immediately an extension of non-taxation for medical, dental and northern benefits until it has a comprehensive government policy on these issues.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, I seek unanimous consent of the House on a matter of extreme urgency. The Minister of Employment and Immigration has recently taken action to allow Lebanese visitors to Canada to remain in Canada for an additional year, with a minister's permit to work. Further, Lebanese visitors who have eligible Canadian relatives who can sponsor them, or are able to offer a guarantee of assistance, may also apply for permanent residence without leaving Canada.
While the minister is to be commended for his actions in this regard, many Lebanese visitors to Canada will require normal medical care over the next year. The cost to their families will be prohibitive, because their present status does not allow these people to enrol in medicare. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga):
That this House direct the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Minister of Health and Welfare to enact the necessary changes in the regulations to allow these people coverage under medicare so that when the need arises for medical attention the Lebanese people visiting Canada will not be unfairly treated.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, tomorrow we celebrate Canada's 115th birthday and pay our tribute and respect to the thousands of elderly citizens whose effort and dedication in past years helped provide a
better future for us all. Yet in Monday night's budget, grabbing even more of the taxpayers' money to throw away on its disastrous economic policies, the government ignored the financial plight of many of our senior citizens who do not receive the Guaranteed Income Supplement, and announced plans to raise the personal income taxes of this group. These people who, while working hard for our future comfort, set aside a meagre amount of money for their own, should not be so shabbily punished. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That the Minister of Finance, in tribute to this group of very special Canadians on the eve of Dominion Day, immediately announce his intention to rescind the tax penalty on all Canadians receiving the old age security pension.
They worked hard for our security. We should protect theirs.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, I rise- with regard to press reports that the Hon. John Turner, a former minister of finance, met to discuss the current budget with the present Minister of Finance-to establish whether force or coercion was used on Mr. Turner to effect this meeting. Was he tricked into meeting with the leading member of the gang that cannot shoot straight? Was "Old Blue Eyes" bleary-eyed over the budget proposals, or did he concur in this latest canoe trip to Dunkirk? I therefore, move, seconded by the hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer):
That the Minister of Finance explain to this House just how this seemingly impossible meeting was arranged and whether or not the Canadian people have John Turner to blame for the budget mess.
Did Mr. Turner indicate that the Canadian people and the press will have John Turner to kick around again soon, or was the present Minister of Finance seeking ways to vacate the sinking ship?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, on Monday last the Gilson report on the Crow rate was made public in Winnipeg. Since the major impact of any change to the Crow rate will be felt by prairie grain producers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong):
June 30, 1982

That the federal government conduct a referendum among Canadian Wheat Board permit holders so that grain producers themselves can choose between the recommendations of the Hall Commission and those of the Gilson report, and furthermore that a democratic referendum be conducted before any legislation affecting western grain transportation is introduced before the House of Commons in the fall.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Bill Wright (Calgary North):: Madam Speaker, given that the President of the Treasury Board fired Neil Fraser for voicing his opinion about government policy, and given that the Prime Minister has limited free speech by stating that public service personnel may only philosophize about public policy, and given that Steve Rankin, President of Devco, a Crown corporation, spoke at a Liberal dinner last week in West Bay, Nova Scotia, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That the President of the Treasury Board make a statement as to whether there are two classes of Public Service personnel where free speech is concerned, especially depending on their policital affiliation.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The minister will obviously know that on Monday night in the budget speech the Minister of Finance indicated or left the impression that there was to be $750 million allocated for job creation. Indeed, in his own speech on the budget yesterday, the Minister of Employment and Immigration said the following about job creation:
It is for that reason that the budget of this government has put $2.3 billion on the table which will create in immediate, direct term 200,000 jobs.
He also said:
Oral Questions
There is an increase of $450 million for direct job creation; that was put in the budget last night.
Those statements and those numbers are clearly misleading and, in my view, intentionally confusing. I would like the Minister of Employment and Immigration to stand now and confirm to this House that his department received $100 million for direct job allocation for this year and not $2.3 billion, not $750 million, and not $450 million. Will he do that now?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: To be frank, Madam Speaker, I do not know what the hon. member for Rosedale is talking about. His figures are totally and completely confused, because the budget statement was very clear in its allocation of the funds. I would like to point out that with the additional money allocated in the budget this government will be spending more this year than ever in its history on direct job creation. It will be creating close to 60,000 or 70,000 new jobs on top of the over
115,000	or 120,000 employment opportunities provided in this year's estimates for job creation. The total amount we are allocating for direct job creation has nothing to do with the money in housing or the money in economic development. The amount allocated to my department for direct job creation is well over $650 million this year.


FIGURE GIVEN IN BUDGET PAPERS
David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, there the minister goes with his number nonsense and word magic. If he looks at page 13 of the budget papers, he will see new expenditure measures. The first one is direct employment measures. It is not $450 million, not $250 million, not $750 million, and certainly not $2.3 billion, but $100 million. That is at page 13 of the budget papers. Why will the minister not admit it?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. McGrath:: Instead of trying to mislead the people.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, there is only one group in this House trying to mislead the people, and that is the group across the aisle from us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: At a time when this country needs some degree of hope and inspiration-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: -the opposition is irresponsibly distorting the facts and creating confusion. That has a serious detrimental effect on the economic growth of the country. We are looking at the biggest problem in the economy right across from us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 30, 1982
Oral Questions


ACCURACY OF FUNDING COMMITMENT
David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, the figures i used come from the budget papers of the Minister of Finance. Page 13 allocates $100 million for direct job creation this year. There is not any other figure. At a time when the Minister of Finance is asking the people of the country to share the burdens and benefits, what Canadians really want to know is why the Minister of Employment and Immigration and, indeed, the government are not willing to share the truth. The fact of the matter is not in the speeches of the Minister of Employment and Immigration and not in the speeches of the Minister of Finance but in the budget papers themselves. Page 13 tells the truth. Why won't the government?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, let me try to help the hon. member for Rosedale in his addition, because obviously his ability in mathematics is sorely lacking. The fact of the matter is that the budget clearly stated an additional $200 million will go into the new CCDP round of employment opportunities. In addition, there are $150 million for special employment initiatives which are construction related. In addition, $300 million are allocated to the economic development reserve for long-term permament job creation. That adds up, in anybody's language, to $650 million. The hon. member for Rosedale has a problem. We have a new training bill which provides opportunities for retraining, and 1 suggest the hon. member take it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FINANCE
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance on the subject of the budget. The Toronto Star reported today that the Hon. John Turner consulted with the Minister of Finance on "several occasions" about the contents of the budget. This is very appropriate, since the period when Mr. Turner was minister of finance was the last time that government spending got totally out of whack. I would remind the House that government spending over the four years that he was in office increased by 108 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Hon. members opposite do not like the truth, Madam Speaker. 1 repeat, government spending increased by 108 per cent over four years. What did the minister discuss
with Mr. Turner? Was it the proposal to remove indexation from senior citizens, or was it some ideas on how to contain the government's budget deficit?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The question has been asked.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, 1 must say that I am surprised that the hon. member would expect me to advise the House on conversations I have with private citizens, no matter from what source they may come. That is an extraordinarily new idea that is proposed by the hon. member.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, 1 am very interested that the minister does not deny that he took a great deal of advice from the former minister of finance on the contents of the budget. That certainly shows in the budget.


POSSIBILITY OF MANDATORY WAGE AND PRICE CONTROLS
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. A number of Liberal members of Parliament are referring to this budget as a three-month budget. It has fallen well short of their expectations, and some parliamentary secretaries are saying that there will be mandatory controls in the fall.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Who?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I believe it was the member from Willowdale and the member from Sudbury.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: It is very difficult to put questions today, Madam Speaker.
When does the minister propose to bring forward his next budget, and under what circumstances will he do so? What economic circumstances might involve the mandatory controls referred to on page 11 of the budget document where there is mention that one of the options is a controlled society? What conditions would lead to that controlled society?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, in the budget statement I made it very clear that the government is not proposing to the House of Commons the implementation of a system of price controls. That is why, in the final part of my speech to which the hon. member made reference, 1 rejected that possibility again. I want to assure the hon. member that we are proceeding with the implementation of the wage restraint in the public sector and we are confident that the private sector will see the validity of that approach as well. Comprehensive wage and price controls are not in the cards.
June 30, 1982


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Yesterday federal civil servants learned that not only have they been chosen as the principal victims of the government's wage control policy, but that contracts they have signed which afford them increases in excess of the 6 per cent guideline will be broken by the government by force of law. Yesterday the Prime Minister indicated that the federal government could not go back on its contractual agreements with the oil producing provinces with regard to oil price increases this coming month which will add at least one percentage point to inflation.
Can the President of the Treasury Board explain to me, this House, and the Canadian public, why the double standard? How can the minister expect civil servants to continue doing the job required of them when, on the one hand, the government is prepared to break contracts with them, while on the other hand it is not prepared to interfere in the inflationary rise in the price of oil?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, first I would like to point out that the principal victims, as the hon. member refers to them, are the members of this House of Commons and I think we should all be grateful for that. The questioner himself is one of the principal victims. Members of Parliament are taking a cut in wages, as are ministers.
The Minister of Finance, when he delivered his budget, indicated that the exceptional circumstances of our economy today require exceptional action, action which obviously most of us would not like to take were it not for the very serious economic circumstances with which we are confronted, but of which the hon. member does not seem to be conscious. Therefore, the program has been designed to provide a maximum degree of equity to all parts of the public sector which are afffected.


ROLL BACK OF WAGES FOR CLERKS
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I note the minister failed to answer the question. He talks about a maximum degree of equity. How does he explain equity in a situation where, two years ago, when 800 clerks employed by the Government of Canada and earning just slightly over $11,000 a year, had to go on strike to get a 13 per cent increase, and will now have it rolled back to the point where they will lose something in the order of $600 a year? Their wages will go to $ 12,000-plus a year, which is below the poverty line for a family in Canada. Let me ask the minister: where the hell is the equity in that?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, let me point out that the clerks in the last round of negotiations did not go on strike. They have a contract with a particular incremental increase at the present time, and when that contract comes up for a further increase they will go under the program. As a result of that they will also get out of the program sooner than they would have had they gone in after the second year of the contract. That is the way the program is designed to operate.


APPLICATION OF GUIDELINES TO ALL SALARY LEVELS
Ian Deans: Let me ask the
minister again where is the equity in denying people earning $12,000 a year a decent wage increase in order that they can live with their families in some kind of dignity, while at the same time applying exactly the same kind of guidelines to people earning $79,000, $80,000 and $100,000 a year? That is absolutely unacceptable.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Like Bouey.


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, the hon. member does not seem to recognize that what is at stake here is a war, a battle, a national battle-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: -against inflation. Madam Speaker, if we are successful in this crusade then no one will suffer because inflation will be at 6 per cent and 5 per cent. Six and five is where we intend to take inflation in this country, and we can do it with some help from our friends in the NDP, and the constituencies they represent.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF THE HONOURABLE HAMISH GRAY, MINISTER OF STATE FOR ENERGY, OF GREAT BRITAIN
Madam Speaker:: May I draw the attention of the House to the distinguished presence in our gallery of the Hon. Hamish Gray, Minister of State for Energy, of Great Britain.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FINANCE
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In the seven-month budget of November 12,	1981, you stated that the

June 30, 1982
Oral Questions
government's fundamental response to the interest rate problem was deficit reduction which would bring down inflation and interest rates. You said you had a deficit then of $10.5 billion and that you were going to borrow $6.6 billion.
On May 20 you told this House that you were urging the Americans, and I quote, "to reduce their deficit so there could be a drop in interest rates". My question to the minister is this. You have now revealed a deficit-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is a senior enough member in the House to know that he must address the Chair.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my question to the minister is this: on Monday the minister admitted to a deficit of $20 billion and that his financing requirements were $17 billion. What is your strategy now that the deficit reduction strategy is in ruins?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Carnell Crosbie: How are you now going to bring down interest rates since you can no longer reduce the deficit?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows perfectly well that the principal cause of the increased deficit and the increased financial requirements is due to the recession and that, as recovery takes place in Canada, that increase in the deficit will be automatically reversed. The increase in the deficit is the automatic response to the recession. It is a large deficit. It is the result of the recession, and it was not my view that we ought at this time to weaken the economy further by an effort to reduce the deficit below its present level. That is the reason for carrying the deficit which, as I have stated, and I will repeat, will automatically be reversed as a result of a recovery in the economy.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, the economy is in a shambles because everyone has lost faith in this government which will not answer questions put to its ministers.


MONETARY POLICY
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question to the minister is this: your deficit reduction strategy has now gone. There is no longer a deficit. You have to borrow $17 million-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. May 1 remind the hon. member that the correct form is "the minister's deficit ... " and then whatever follows.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my question to the minister is this: his deficit is now $17 billion. He has to go to the markets and compete with provinces, municipalities and private individuals to borrow that amount. My question to the minister in the third person is this: is the government still
going to continue to support the tight money policy of the Bank of Canada, which will mean that with the government's huge demands interest rates must go up? Or is the government going to direct the Bank of Canada to change its monetary policy to print more money so that the minister can borrow this huge amount, more than the whole expenditure of the government in 1968, without interest rates going up? Which is the government going to do? Are we now doomed to high interest rates with no hope whatsoever as a result of your huge deficit?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Madam Speaker. I want to assure the hon. member that will not be the outcome. If the economy were in a very buoyant situation, this current deficit would undoubtedly put upward pressure on interest rates and on inflation. But the economy is not in a buoyant situation. It is in a period of recession and weakness.


Mr. Blackburn:: Why are you raising taxes then?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: With that situation, Madam Speaker, and with savings rates in this country at 13 per cent at the present time, financing of this deficit will not have the effect on interest rates and inflation which the hon. member fears. I want to give him my view that his fears will not be realized.


John Carnell Crosbie: That is assurance, is it?


FINANCING OF DEBT
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. I want to point out to the minister that in the next 12 months either he has to borrow or refinance very close to $60 billion in government debt. All last year the minister and the government were price leaders in the marketplace, as witness the 19.5 per cent savings bond rate. What kind of rates of interest does the minister contemplate paying in order to finance, in the markets of Canada, this $60 billion that it has to look after within the next 12 months?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I have already explained to the hon. member for St. John's West-


John Carnell Crosbie: You did not satisfy me.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -that, in my opinion, because of the current recession in the economy, because of the weakness in the economy, because of the reduced demand of private borrowers in the market as a result of that weakness, because of the high level of savings in this country, that it will be possible to finance the requirements of the government in the market without putting undue pressure on interest rates and without crowding private borrowers out of the market.


Mr. Andre:: Nonsense.
June 30, 1982


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is my view, Madam Speaker, which I gave to the hon. member in reply to his question.


Harvie Andre: That is as accurate as your November 12 view.


LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, the market has indicated pretty clearly that it does not have any confidence in the minister's figures. The minister came to this House and said he had a 6 per cent solution for Canada, but he went ahead and increased the government's expense by 20 per cent. Would he explain to this House how he can expect the country to have any confidence in the management of the country's affairs when he asks everybody to reduce their expectations to 6 per cent and he increases his government expense by 20 per cent?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, that is another false statement that is made by the hon. member.


Harvie Andre: It is on page 12 of your documents.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If the hon. member refers to the Public Accounts, which are the traditional way of looking at total outlays-


Michael Holcombe Wilson: You did not say that last year.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -he will find that the increase in expenditures year to year is significantly less than 20 per cent. I would remind the hon. member, in making these comparisons, that when he uses the national accounts he is bringing into the total expenditures items such as the oil compensation charge which is then offset by compensation payments. When netted out, the total outlays are reduced, as they ought to be.


BUDGET'S CAPITAL COST ALLOWANCE PROVISIONS
Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. We on this side of the House welcome any measure that will assist small businesses in terms of development. But I point out to the minister that on November 12 last year he brought in a provision with respect to capital cost allowance which has done more to prevent retooling and has dried up cash flow. If the minister is serious about resuscitating small business and if he wants to give a signal to the business community, will he consider repealing- which he did not the other night-the capital cost allowance provision in his budget of November 12, 1981?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Madam Speaker, I could not possibly repeal overall the capital cost allowance.


John Carnell Crosbie: Why not? You have repealed everyting else.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If accepted, that would be a further large addition to the deficit which hon. members opposite have been complaining about in their last several questions.
Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: Cut government advertising and the Minister of Justice.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The new regime that has been put in place under the November budget does not increase the tax liabilities of firms or corporations; it advances these payments more rapidly than otherwise would take place.


John Carnell Crosbie: Cut out the lies and deceit.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would remind the hon. member as well that the treatment of the capital cost allowance made under the income tax law in Canada is more favourable than the one currently in place in the United States, our neighbour to the south.


Chris Speyer: Madam Speaker, 1 point out to the minister that when businessmen and women of Canada are going broke it is very difficult for them to expand and develop.


SMALL. BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BOND PROGRAM
Chris Speyer: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance. I think the minister will admit, as he did to my colleague, the hon. member for Bruce-Grey, that when there is no tax room banks are not lending money under the Small Business Development Bond Program. Will the minister tell the thousands of Canadians who have made applications at their banks what proposals he has to make the small business bond effective?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the small business bond is in effect and is available from financial institutions which still have tax room available. Their ability to finance these loans will increase as repayments on previously granted loans take place as well.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. He will know that Canadian National Railways and Canadian Pacific Railways bargain as a unit with railway unions. My question is this: how will the government's policy of 6 per cent and 5 per cent wage controls in 1982 and 1983 respectively for Crown corporations affect collective agreements recently signed by CN and CP with railway unions? Will the completed bargaining on behalf of CN workers be respected by the government, or will we have a situation in which CN workers
18948

June 30, 1982
Oral Questions
will be getting only a 6 per cent increase in 1982, that is to say, half the increase received by Canadian Pacific workers in 1982, or will it affect 1982 at all? 1 wonder whether the minister could clarify this question for us. There is a great deal of confusion as to how the new policy will affect existing agreements.


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, upon the tabling of the bill of course we will be able to have a complete exchange and discussion on the full details of transitional provisions under the application of the bill. As I have already said, here and outside the House, the first year of application of the new program comes into effect either at the expiration of an existing collective agreement or at the first wage rate increase under that agreement. Clearly an agreement which is in existence will be respected.
As to the additional consideration which is raised with respect to joint bargaining, that is a legal question which will have to be addressed in another forum.


TIMING OF IMPOSITION
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, is the minister saying that agreements signed at any time in 1982 prior to the coming down of the budget which would be retroactive to January 1, 1982, i.e. that those increases which have been provided for in 1982 will be respected? Is that what the minister is saying, and that only increases provided for within the same agreement in 1983 will be affected by this policy, or has the government bothered to think this through?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, indeed the government has spent a great deal of time thinking it through. All circumstances will be covered in the proposed legislation. I think I explained in answer to the first question that, where an agreement is signed and is in effect, the program comes into effect either at the termination of that agreement or at the next wage rate increase under that agreement.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. It concerns a story which appeared in The Toronto Star saying that on June 17, just prior to the budget, the federal government, under the direction of the President of the Treasury Board, raised the salaries for cabinet ministers' personal staffs, special assistants, and other political appointees in their offices by at least 10 per cent. This was just prior to a budget which imposed restrictions of 6 per cent on the Public Service of Canada. Now, is that story true?
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury
Board): Madam Speaker, perhaps I did not get the full gist of the question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: If the hon. member is saying, "Have there been increases in the public service, in ministers' offices or elsewhere, exempt staff or whatever", prior to the budget earlier this year, of course the answer is yes.


Walter David Baker: No. You heard the question.


Donald James Johnston: The program will then come into effect at the expiration of that contract period as it does with respect to other groups. The same six and five rule will apply to everybody if, as, and when they come into effect under the program.


Walter David Baker: I have never known that the hon. gentleman was so hard of hearing.


TERMS OF REPORTED DIRECTIVE
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, my question was: did the minister, in a directive dated June 17 this year, just prior to the bringing down of a budget on which we are told the cabinet consulted, permit or allow an increase before the budget of ministerial aides' salaries, their office staff, executive assistants and special assistants, by an amount equal to 10 per cent? It is a simple question. Yes or no will do.


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, as I explained, any contract or any pay period which came up prior to the budget date will be respected, whether it is in ministerial staff or in departments. Collective agreements have been approved as recently as last week in the public service. It goes without saying.


COLD LAKE PROJECT-LOAN MADE TO IMPERIAL OIL
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. A year ago the minister arranged a government loan of some $40 million to Imperial Oil in an attempt to salvage the Cold Lake project. What is the state of that loan today? Will it be repaid, or is it now lost forever?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, the condition of the loan was that it would be repaid if the project proceeded before the end of June this year. Obviously the project is not proceeding at the present time and, therefore, the loan will not be repaid because the money has been used to employ engineers and staff who have proceeded with further engineering work on the project. But under the agreement which was arrived at, there was no obligation to repay after July 1.
June 30, 1982


Jack Wendele Shields: When an incompetent minister blows $40 million of taxpayers' money, the honourable thing to do is to resign. If he does not believe that, perhaps he could consult with his visiting colleague from Great Britain.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. Is he prepared to withdraw the national energy policy which is now acknowledged across Canada to be the one single instrument that has deterred investment to get our economy going? It has deterred investment from across Canada and from foreign sources. Will the minister withdraw his national energy policy?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, indeed I will have great pleasure in meeting with my British colleague in a few minutes. I will certainly be listening with great interest to the advice he will provide me, but I expect that the advice he will provide me will not be of the type which my hon. friend is suggesting.
If my hon. friend believes that money paid to Canadian workers, engineers and professionals to develop plans that may be useful in terms of building a plant, or a similar plant, at a later stage, is a waste of money, he has his facts wrong. That money was not blown. It was used in developing plans which may be very useful in the future. The money was used to employ a number of Canadians, including some in the hon. member's own riding. As far as the last question which he raised is concerned, he is talking the same nonsense which he usually puts forward.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. One of the reasons for mass unemployment and business failures is the way the government treats contracts and contractors. On the minister's desk is a letter from a samll contractor which reads in part:
Our construction company is at a standstill, our men have all received their records of employment and so we are becoming a statistic. All happening because a contract that was being organized last August, signed by us and the Fountain Indian Band in January and left to collect dust in the Vancouver DIA office till now it is at this point such a mix-up that we have been informed that the job is not forthcoming.
Is the minister determined to discourage and destroy both the companies and the Indian bands in question in these agreements?
Oral Questions


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, what wide-sweeping, ridiculous conclusions the hon. member has come to; they are beyond any reason. If he cared to indicate the name of the firm which says that it submitted a bid for a contract which was not given to it, I would be pleased to look into it. If he would care to indentify the letter, I will try to find where it is on my "desk".


POSITION OF MINISTER
Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. The company is Varian Construction; the minister can find it on his desk. The letter continues:
Some of the people at the Vancouver branch DIA have done more damage than good and we feel this is not only detrimental to our company but very much so to our native Indian people.
In the interests of protecting the officials of the Department of Indian Affairs in Vancouver, will the minister sacrifice the companies in question?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, I do know that there are many hundreds and, indeed, thousands of relationships between small business contractors, chiefs and band councils, as well as my officials, from coast to coast. I have very seldom heard of any type of bitter complaint of contractors. They are doing business on an ongoing basis with Indian bands and my department, year in and year out.
If there is anything particularly irregular about this matter, or if there have been delays, I will check into it and advise the hon. member. But I am certainly not prepared to come to conclusions of his kind, which attack public servants who cannot speak for themselves, without at least having an opportunity to check the facts, and that is what I propose to do.


CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION RATE INCREASES GRANTED TO BRITISH COLUMBIA TELEPHONE COMPANY
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Communications I will address my question to the Deputy Prime Minister who may know that the latest B.C. Tel rate increase was approved by the CRTC, as were all earlier rate increases, on the condition that the company, B.C. Tel, improve its services to the customers. This has not happened. Indeed, service has worsened. Now B.C. Tel is planning to lay off 2,200 employees throughout British Columbia, which will result in a further deterioration of service to customers. Will the government instruct the CRTC to withdraw a substantial portion of the

June 30, 1982
Oral Questions
rate increases granted to B.C. Tel over the past two years in light of the company's continuing contempt for the CRTC instructions to improve its service?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I cannot answer that question at the moment, but I will discuss the matter with the Minister of Communications and provide the hon. member with a reply as early as possible.


Pauline Jewett: I would like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister for that reply.


EFFECT OF COMPANY LAY-OFFS ON UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND
Pauline Jewett: I now
turn to the Minister of Employment and Immigration who may know that at the same time B.C. Tel is planning this very large lay-off of 2,200 people, the company will tomorrow issue a quarterly dividend of 40 cents a share, amounting to $13.4 million, going to its shareholders and to its parent company in the United States. Therefore, B.C. Tel is clearly taking advantage of bad economic times to generate even more profits at the expense of 2,200 working people.
Since the government will have to pick up the tab in unemployment insurance benefits, will the minister look into this exploitation of both the Canadian taxpayer and of his program? It is flagrant abuse of the UIC program.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, just to repeat the answer given by the Deputy Prime Minister, it is a situation we will have to consider in order to see what responsibilities there may be for the federal government, although-


Pauline Jewett: 


Lloyd Axworthy: -the fact is that when one comes to the matter of paying for the unemployment insurance program, one finds that it is a premium program donated by both the employees and the employers. Therefore, they both share in the contribution toward those funds so that no one is getting a free ride in that case. Everyone must pay their fair share which, after all, is the principle we are trying to discuss-


Pauline Jewett: What about the government?


Lloyd Axworthy: -that everyone in this country should be paying their fair share.


Pauline Jewett: He missed the whole question. Why do you not listen, Lloyd?


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance who will know that after the Minister of Employment and Immigration admitted yesterday that there would be a substantial increase in unemployment insurance premiums, officials of the Department of Finance estimated that employee premiums could rise next year to $2.50 for every $100 of insurable income. Will the Minister of Finance tell the House of Commons why he did not announce, in his budget, this secret tax increase of 52 per cent in UIC premiums?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, it is true that as the unemployment increases the contribution will have to be increased. If the Leader of the Opposition recalls, because of the very satisfactory employment experience in the preceding year, in the last budget of November we did reduce the contribution rates. Obviously, they will have to be increased, but I did not think that the time to have done it was in June. The more likely time would be later in the year. There is no effort to seek to keep secret a matter which could not possibly be secret in any event, because everyone who knows the law knows that the contribution rates must go up in any event.


AMOUNT OF PROJECTED INCREASE
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the public knows that the honest budget of 1979 included those forecast increases in unemployment insurance premiums. This minister's budget, which could not be so described, did not do that. Will he confirm that the government is now contemplating, as his officials said yesterday, a 52 per cent increase in the premiums paid by employees for unemployment insurance, a 52 per cent secret tax?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There is no such secret tax, Madam Speaker. That is absolute nonsense. I am not confirming the so-called comments of some anonymous official.


EMPLOYERS' SHARE OF INCREASED PREMIUMS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, we have the word of the public servants that there will be-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Who is he?


Charles Joseph Clark: Who are they? The minister can indicate himself. They were speaking for his department:-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Who is he?



June 30, 1982


Charles Joseph Clark: -officially, in response to inquiries. Perhaps journalists get better answers from officials than Members of Parliament get from this minister in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We now know that there will be an increase of 52 per cent in the employee premiums paid for unemployment insurance. Will the minister tell us what kind of a percentage increase he is proposing that employers will pay for unemployment insurance as a result of his government's policy of creating joblessness and creating increasing demands on the unemployment insurance fund?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition says that "we now know". Anyone who knows the law, and anyone who knows anything about the unemployment insurance system, would know that there would be increases for contributions-


Mr. Epp:: Why didn't you say so?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -from employees and employers. Here again the Leader of the Opposition is trying to make a big point out of the obvious to everyone except himself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AMOUNT OF EMPLOYERS' SHARE
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, we now know, the Minister of Finance has agreed, that there will be an increase to $2.50 per $100 of insurable income for employees, an increase of 52 per cent in what the employees pay. Will he confirm that the amount being paid by employers will rise from $2.31 per $100 of insurable earnings to $3, that is, an increase of 34 per cent? Will he confirm that, having confirmed the 52 per cent increase?


Marc Lalonde: No, that is not what he said.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I have not confirmed any figure that the Leader of the Opposition has used. I will confirm that the increases will take place in accordance with the law passed by the Parliament of Canada, not in accordance with some secret result which the Leader of the Opposition imagines exists somewhere.


PUBLIC WORKS
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works and concerns the major area postal plant in the City of Montreal. Can the minister inform the House whether, to his knowledge, there were any problems with the construction of this multimillion
Petitions
dollar Montreal postal terminal and, if so, what steps were taken to investigate these problems?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question because it gives me the opportunity, as the Minister of Public Works, to invite all hon. members, and Canadians generally, once again to enjoy the Peace Tower which will be open to the public tomorrow for the first time in two years, on Canada's birthday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, if I had had former notice of the question of the hon. member concerning the specific project, I might have had the opportunity to give him an answer today. Now, having notice, I will attemp to have the answer for him next week.


QUERY RESPECTING DIFFICULTIES DURING CONSTRUCTION
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker,
I wish the minister had made that announcement in a statement on motions so that we could amplify on it.
May I ask his colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, a similar question. Is he aware of any difficulties? Specifically, was there any interference with the Department of Public Works during the planning and construction phase of this Montreal area postal plant in Montreal? Were there any interventions by cabinet ministers with respect to any of the details? Is the minister satisfied that the taxpayers of Canada received fair value for the $300 million spent on this building?
[ Translation]


Hon. Andre Oueliet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, usually, the questions we answer are urgent. The question refers to the time when the post office was under construction, but it has been completed for a number of years. In fact, the hon. member asking the question was himself a minister for several months. If the hon. member was worried about this post office, at the time his party was in power he should have asked about any problems that might have arisen at the construction or at the design stage. I have had no indication that there was anything wrong, but if the hon. member has more recent information, he should be a bit more specific about what he knows and we shall then make inquiries if necessary.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the table reports of

June 30, 1982
Point of Order-Mr. Stevens
the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petitions presented by hon, members on Tuesday, June 29, 1982, and finds that they meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



POINTS OF ORDER


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. Earlier today I had an opportunity to read last night's Hansard. You will note that at page 18923 during the speech of the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens), the hon. member made a statement which I am sure to everyone who was listening would be quite unacceptable and would no doubt be recognized as untrue. However, I note that Hansard picked up a comment that I made from my seat in which I said "That's a lie". No matter what my opinion of it may be, 1 recognize that to be unparliamentary and I withdraw it.


Madam Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for his withdrawal.



MR. STEVENS-REMARKS OF MR. YOUNG AND MR. DEANS

Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my point of order, of which I gave your office notice, touched in part on the matter raised by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). I was also in my point of order going to draw Your Honour's attention to a similar remark made by the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young). The actual exchange, as the member for Hamilton Mountain has indicated, appears at page 18923 of Hansard.
At that time I was indicating that the New Democratic Party had been instrumental in encouraging the government to get into the spending program and into the deficit position that it is now regretting, and that this should be drawn to the attention of all Canadian voters. At that time the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain said, "That's a lie". The hon. member for Beaches said, "That's a lie". The hon. member for Beaches also said "It is a plain, outright lie". Hansard then records the following:


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, it is funny when you hit the quick-


Mr. Young:: Tell the truth.


Ian Deans: If you know it.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: When you hit the quick, it is always interesting to see . .. how the rabbits come out ot their burrows so fast.
I have consulted Beauschesne. I find at page 108 of Beaus-chesne there are no less than 40 instances cited for the use of the word "lie". On all occasions it has been found an unparliamentary expression. 1 would point out two particularly relevant times when this matter has been raised. At page 1593 of Hansard for December 2, 1976, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is recorded in Hansard as saying:
However, it would be helpful if in the meantime members opposite did not smuggle in lies and falsehoods.
The Speaker at page 1646 of Hansard for December 3, 1976, stated:
The argument that was put forward by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants yesterday was that the use of the words "lies" and "falsehood" constituted unparliamentary language. It is always difficult for the Chair to have to decide on the interpretation of language.
The clear precedent of the past is that even though there are always shades of meaning which tend to excuse the use of such language, when such language was used in the past it was found to be unparliamentary, and rather than getting into an interpretation of shades of meaning it is a safer course to take it as a danger signal and when that kind of language is used it must be withdrawn.
I would cite your own ruling, Madam Speaker, of June 16 in this House when there was a similar comment. You said: "It's an absolute, it must be withdrawn."
In view of that, Madam Speaker, I hope you will find that the expressions as they appear in Hansard are totally unparliamentary and that you will request the members to withdraw them.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, 1 withdrew my comment prior to the hon. member rising. I do, however, wish to bring to Your Honour's attention, since you have been asked to look into this matter, that the quotation the hon. member read is not complete. The hon. member was not drawing attention only to the high level of expenditure of the government and borrowing. He went on to say, and he failed to quote this:
-and the high interest structure the NDP is virtually insisting should be put in place.
That is what I said was a lie.


Madam Speaker:: Order. I believe the hon. member is now entering into debate on the speech itself. I recognize that those words are unparliamentary. The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain did withdraw them. I believe there was an indication that the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young) also used those words. Perhaps he would like to take the floor at this time and withdraw.


Neil Young: Madam Speaker, I too was on my feet at the same time as the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Sinclair) who was anxious to get up and repeat his own rhetoric of last night. However, recognizing that the language is unparliamentary, I also withdraw, although I recognize that what the hon. member had to say at the time was certainly not true.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Madam Speaker:: I have to remind the hon. member that he cannot say indirectly what is not allowed to be said directly. The last part of his sentence should also be withdrawn.


Neil Young: Gladly, Madam Speaker.


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, there is a little wriggling and eeling going on over there. There is no doubt that our precedents require a direct, unqualified withdrawal. The hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young) should
June 30, 1982

state simply and concisely that he withdraws the offensive expression used.


Neil Young: Madam Speaker, 1 suppose I have been following and watching the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) too long. I absolutely withdraw, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: Thank you very much.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Madam
Speaker, 1 have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the third and fourth reports of the Special Joint Committee on Official Languages.


TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS-PRESENTATION OF ELEVENTH AND TWELFTH REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Pierre Deniger (La Prairie):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour of tabling the eleventh and twelfth reports of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
[Editor's Note: For above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Madam Speaker:: Presenting reports from standing and special committees.
The hon. member for York-Peel.


POINT OF ORDER
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I have a further point or order. It has just been said for the record, and I heard the hon. member say for the record, that I was a "friend of d'Aubuis-son, a pathological killer." That, to me, is totally unparliamentary and it is absolutely repugnant to me that any member of this House would make such an accusation. 1 refer to the hon. member for New Westminster (Miss Jewett), and I ask that she immediately withdraw the inference and the statement.


Madam Speaker:: The Chair certainly did not hear those words. We had entered into a new procedure. The attention of the Chair, at any rate, was completely tied up with other
Petitions
procedures and I certainly did not hear that particular word. I am not sure whether it is an unparliamentary expression. I would ask that we wait until tomorrow to see if it is in Hansard.


PETITIONS
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Madam Speaker, it is my duty to present a petition signed by residents of the constituency of Oxford, who strongly request that the Government of Canada vote against Bill C-451 and see to it that this bill never receives passage in this House. In the view of the petitioners, Bill C-451 is the most abominable and arbitrary proposed legislation that has ever been presented in the House of Commons.


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today on a matter of great concern to residents of my riding of Grey-Simcoe and I am sure to Canadians in general. They are gravely concerned, as I am, about the provisions of Bill C-10, the Canada Non-Profit Corporations Act. In particular, there is universal condemnation of clauses 116, 214 and 215 which would interfere in the memberships of churches and other religious organizations. There is a unanimous call for the repeal of these three clauses and all other possible references to churches and other religious organizations in this bill.


Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Madam Speaker, the Petition of the undersigned residents in the City of Barrie in the province of Ontario who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy, humbly sheweth:
That due to the current high rate of unemployment, many positions which previously were available as summer employment for students are being filled by unemployed adults and,
That many companies and the federal government itself are discriminating against students by placing age as a condition of employment in that applicants must be at least 21 years of age,

June 30, 1982
Introduction of Bills
Wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to adopt measures to end such discrimination because of age.
And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I present a petition on behalf of several hundred people in my riding who are concerned about the effect of the Crow rate and concerned about the possibility of the Crow disappearing and affecting their farm income and their farm communities. What they are specifically asking, Madam Speaker, is the following:
Wherefore, the undersigned your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the Crow rate in perpetuity as presently guaranteed by statute, And as in duty bound your petitoners will ever pray.
That, Madam Speaker, is signed by some 730 people, over 700 of whom are in my constituency of Yorkton-Melville and the other 15 or 20-odd are in the City of Regina.

[ Translation]


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-123, an Act respecting the organization of the Government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto and to amend the Regional Development Incentives Act.


Erik Nielsen: I am sorry, Madam Speaker, it is a small matter but it should not create a precedent. The Prime Minister is not in the House and I think I heard you say that he was the mover of the measure. Surely, it should be another minister of the Crown, for the record.
[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: Yes, of course, you are quite right.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (for the Prime Minister) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-123, an Act respecting the organization of the Government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto and to amend the Regional Development Incentives Act.


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


Donald James Johnston: for leave to introduce Bill C-124, an Act respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,179, 4,190, 4,198, 4,199, 4,200, 4,202, 4,204, 4,205, 4,206, 4,207, 4,209, 4,211 and 4,232.


Mr. Robinson (Burnaby): 1.	(a) What was the size and budget of the (i) management audit unit (ii) financial audit unit (iii) administration and personnel audit unit within the RCMP for each year since it was established in 1977 (b) how many audits and reports have the units produced?
2.	(a) What was the size and budget of the operational audit unit of the RCMP for each year since it was established in 1978 (b) how many audits and reports has the unit produced?
3.	(a) What was the size and budget of the Security Service's own audit unit for each year since it was established in 1978 (b) how many audits and reports has the unit produced?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: 1. (a)(i) Since of the management audit section: 1977-15; 1978-19 (increased by two auditors, one audit co-ordinator and one more secretary); 1979-23 (absorbed the administration and personnel audit section); 1980-24; 1981-27.
(ii)	Size of the financial audit unit: 1977-1981-5.
(iii)	Size of the administration and personnel audit section: This section was approved as an audit branch unit in late 1977 but did not start auditing until January, 1978. In March, 1979, it was integrated with management audit section. 1978-4; 1979-4.
The management, financial and administration audit units are not provided with budgets. Individual units expend funds against a total RCMP Headquarters budget.
(b) There was one report per audit. Therefore: Management Audit Section: 1977-8; 1978-11; 1979-15; 1980-15;
June 30, 1982

1981-14. Financial Audit Unit: 1977-1981-17. Administration and Personnel Audit Section: 1978-17; 1979-6.
2.	(a) The operational audit unit has had an establishment of four since its inception in 1978. It is not provided with a budget but expends funds against the total RCMP headquarters budget, (b) Six audits and five reports.
3.	(a) From 1978 to April 1, 1982 the Security Service audit unit had an establishment of four. One additional person was assigned effective April 1, 1982. The Security Service does not have a separate budget, rather it is incorporated into the total Security Service headquarters budget.
(b) The following audits and reports have been produced: 1978-5; 1979-6; 1980-4; 1981-3; 1982-3 (to date).


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton): Were loans made to any employee of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation or its subsidiaries since March, 1980 and, if so, in each case (a) what is the name and title of the employee (b) on what date was the loan taken out and on what date is it due (c) what was the amount of the loan (d) what interest rate is being charged (e) what was the purpose of the loan?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: In so
far as the Minister of Finance is concerned, I have been advised by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation as follows: No. (a) to (e) Not applicable.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton): Were loans made to any employee of the Farm Credit Corporation or its subsidiaries since March, 1980 and, if so, in each case (a) what is the name and title of the employee (b) on what date was the loan taken out and on what date is it due (c) what was the amount of the loan (d) what interest rate is being charged (e) what was the purpose of the loan?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Farm Credit Corporation advises: No. (a) to (e) Not applicable.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton): Were loans made to any employee of the Federal Business Development Bank or its subsidiaries since March, 1980 and, if so, in each case (a) what is the name and title of the employee (b) on what date was the loan taken out and on what date is it due (c) what was the amount of the loan (d) what interest rate is being charged (e) what was the purpose of the loan?


Mr. David Berger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: In so far as the Federal Business Development Bank is concerned: No. (a) to (e) Not applicable.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton): Were loans made to any employee of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation or its subsidiaries since March, 1980 and, if so, in each case (a) what is the name and title of the employee (b) on what date was the loan taken out and on what date is it due (c) what was the amount of the loan (d) what interest rate is being charged (e) what was the purpose of the loan?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: No. (a) to (e) Not applicable.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton): Were loans made to any employee of the Northern Transportation Corporation or its subsidiaries since March, 1980 and, if so, in each case (a) what is the name and title of the employee (b) on what date was the loan taken out and on what date is it due (c) what was the amount of the loan (d) what interest rate is being charged (e) what was the purpose of the loan?


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The Northern Transportation Company Limited advises as follows: No. (a) to (e) Not applicable.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton): Were loans made to any employee of The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority or its subsidiaries since March, 1980 and, if so, in each case (a) what is the name and title of the employee (b) on what date was the loan taken out and on what date is it due (c) what was the amount of the loan (d) what interest rate is being charged (e) what was the purpose of the loan?


Jesse Philip Flis: The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority advises as follows: No. (a) to (e) Not applicable.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton): Were loans made to any employee of The Seaway International Bridge Corporation Limited or its subsidiaries since March, 1980 and, if so, in each case (a) what is the name and title of the employee (b) on what date was the loan taken out and on what date is it due (c) what was the amount of the loan (d) what interest rate is being charged (e) what was the purpose of the loan?


Jesse Philip Flis: The Seaway International Bridge Corporation, Ltd., a subsidiary of The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, advises as follows: No. (a) to (e) Not applicable.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton): Were loans made to any employee of Teleglobe Canada or its subsidiaries since March, 1980 and, if so, in each case (a) what is the name and title of the employee (b) on what date was the loan taken out and on what date is it due (c) what was the amount of the loan (d) what interest rate is being charged (e) what was the purpose of the loan?

June 30, 1982
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Jack Masters (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: I am informed by Teleglobe Canada that their reply to the above question is no. (a) to (e) Not applicable.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton): Were loans made to any employee of VIA Rail Canada Inc. or its subsidiaries since March, 1980 and, if so, in each case (a) what is the name and title of the employee (b) on what date was the loan taken out and on what date is it due (c) what was the amount of the loan (d) what interest rate is being charged (e) what was the purpose of the loan?


Jesse Philip Flis: The management of VIA Rail Canada Inc. advises as follows: No. (a) to (e) Not applicable.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton): Were loans made to any employee of the Bank of Canada or its subsidiaries since March, 1980 and, if so, in each case (a) what is the name and title of the employee (b) on what date was the loan taken out and on what date is it due (c) what was the amount of the loan (d) what interest rate is being charged (e) what was the purpose of the loan?


Pierre Bussières: In so
far as the Minister of Finance is concerned, I have been advised by the Bank of Canada as follows: No. (a) to (e) Not applicable.


Mr. Young: 1.	What is the total cost to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to air the film "Our Children are Our Future", including time, line charges, packaging and all other associated costs?
2.	What is the fee being charged by the CBC to the Nova Corporation as the sponsor of the film?


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1 and 2. It has not been customary to require the CBC to provide such details of its internal management and administration as the costs involved in individual program projects or of its dealings with private companies. The background to this custom is explained in detail in the reply to Question No. 2,530, answered November 6, 1975.


Mr. Fretz: 1.	Did the government contribute to the production of the film "Les Plouffe" and, if so, what amount?
2.	Did the government contribute to the production of showing the film abroad, in France or in other Francophone Commonwealth countries and, if so, what amount?
3.	What amount did the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation budget for its production and promotion for its show "The Plouffe Family"?


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: I am informed by the Canadian Film
Development Corporation as follows: 1. The Canadian Film Development Corporation invested $250,000 in the production of "Les Plouffe". 2. No contribution was made by the Canadian Film Development Corporation. 3. To be answered elsewhere.
I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1 and 2. To be answered elsewhere. 3. It has not been customary to require the CBC to provide such details of its internal management and administration as the costs involved in individual program projects. The background to this custom is explained in detail in the reply to Question No. 2,530, answered November 6, 1975.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, if question No. 3,290 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 that question No. 3,290 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Dantzer: 1.	During (a) 1979 (b) 1980 (c) the first half of 1981, how many persons checked their record of contributions with a Canada Pension Plan office and how many applied (i) in person (ii) by letter?
2.	How many offices are there and where are they located?
3.	During (a) 1979 (b) 1980 (c) the first half of 1981, were advertising campaigns held to inform individuals of how to check their record of contributions and were information circulars distributed and, if so, what amount was spent on each campaign and how many persons did each campaign reach?
4.	How many major public or private pension plans with assets over $100 million (a) do not provide annually (b) provide annually (c) provide at least once every three years disclosures to the participant?
5.	Does the government's superannuation program provide annual disclosure and, if not, for what reason?
6.	(a) Can an individual find out if his/her record of CPP contributions is correct and can he/she review the plan's record for his/her entire lifetime of employment (b) can an individual have errors corrected (c) are there any limits and, if so, what is the nature of and the reason for such impediments?
7.	Does the CPP have an estimate of how many contributions may have been registered incorrectly and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, what measures are being carried out to correct the situation?
Return tabled.


David P. Smith: I would ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
June 30, 1982


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise today, rather significantly, with respect to a question on the Order Paper in my name, No. 4,120. It has been on the Order Paper since March 9, 1982 and remains unanswered. I bring it to the attention of the parliamentary secretary, particularly in light of the question posed today to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) by my colleague from Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker)in which he indicated that there had been a directive by the President of the Treasury Board which in effect would give a preferential wage increase to exempt staff and political staff of ministers of the cabinet of the country.
I am just wondering about the budget which was brought down asking Canadians to restrain themselves to the extent of 6 per cent increases in salaries. My question, Madam Speaker, deals with the practice which releases an undertaking by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) to use Crown corporations and other forms of emoluments for exempt staff, to circumvent the guidelines with respect to salaries for the exempt staff of ministers and thereby in another way circumvent the restraint that one would expect from a Canadian government under such attack for its profligate spending ways. The question, Madam Speaker, is not a difficult one to answer. I simply bring it to the attention of the parliamentary secretary. The question is as follows:
1.	For each Cabinet Minister, what are the names of executive assistants and other members of exempt staff who are receiving income from sources other than from funds allotted to ministerial budgets?
2.	What are the names of those who receive income, favours, loans or other benefits of value from sources other than those permitted by the conflict of interest guidelines for Cabinet Ministers and former Cabinet Ministers?
3.	Did the Prime Minister supply every cabinet minister, every executive assistant and all members of the exempt staff with copies of the "Code of Ethics" produced by the late Prime Minister Pearson and with a copy of the conflict of interest guidelines for Cabinet Ministers and former Cabinet Ministers?
If the parliamentary secretary were doing his job, he certainly would have this question answered. This is not the first time I have brought to his attention the fact that he is attempting to delay answering this question until this session prorogues.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I do not know the exact stage of preparation of the answer at this moment, but I will be more than delighted to look into this on behalf of my good friend, the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn), and see what I can do to come up with the answer for him as soon as possible.


Neil Young: Madam Speaker, my question to the parliamentary secretary concerns Order Paper question No. 4,165 placed on the Order Paper on March 19. The question concerns the
Motions for Papers
apartment buildings in Toronto named Main Square. This series of questions concerns the rents CMHC is charging people in those apartment dwellings who are on fixed incomes. The answers to these questions are even more important as a result of the budget the other evening, as it affects people who are on pension incomes. Surely the question should not be difficult to answer, and I ask the parliamentary secretary-1 urge him-to bring forward the answers as early as possible; next week, perhaps.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I will be very happy to look into the progress of the answer to this question as well.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, once again 1 draw the attention of the parliamentary secretary to the fact that question No. 2,042, asked by me on January 29, 1981, has still not been answered. It simply asks for the total costs of the December-January world tour of that year by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and goes on to ask:
What percentage of the total cost of the trip will be paid by the Canadian taxpayer?
Surely it is an affront to the House and to the people of Canada that a simple question as to what cost was run up in the Prime Minister's world tour is not being answered.


Erik Nielsen: A year and a half later.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I think this is at least the twelfth time I have risen to ask why this question has not been answered. I have tried the quiet method. I have not asked about this question for a few weeks, in the hope that that method might pacify somebody. Obviously that is not working, so 1 ask the parliamentary secretary once again why the question has not been answered.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, the last time I looked into that answer I believe most of the information was in. However, the answer did involve several departments, and one or two had not filed their returns. However, 1 will be more than pleased to look into this on behalf of the hon. member. I will be delighted to do so.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 62, 63 and 64 in the name of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton)?

COPIES OF ALL CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING AMAX LIMITED Motion No. 62-Mr. Fulton:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence concerning Amax Limited forwarded to Mr. P. Chamut on March 30, 1981, including a

June 30, 1982
Motions for Papers
letter from (I) M.D. Nassichuk to D. Goyette, dated July 5, 1977 (2) B. Heskin to W. Johnson, dated October 5, 1977 (3) R. Stewart to B. Heskin, dated October 12, 1977 (4) E. Taylor to N. Perret, dated October 18, 1977 (5) W. Johnson to B. Heskin, dated December 13, 1977 (6) H. Freeland to D. Farmer, dated December 15, 1977 (7) T.D. Bird to B. Otway, dated December 22, 1977 (8) I.K. Birtwell to R. Kussat, dated June 6, 1978 (9) R. Kussat to P. Scott, dated June 16, 1978 (10) R. Hoos to "Distribution", with attachment, dated June 28, 1978 (11) D. Farmer to P. Nasmyth, dated July 12, 1978 (12) C. Wong to P. Nasmyth, dated July 14, 1978 (13) P. Nasmyth to R. Hoos, dated July 19,
1978	(14) L. Retfalvi to R. Hoos, dated July 19, 1978 (15) I.K. Birtwell to R. Hoos dated July 27, 1978 (16) R. Hoos to "Distribution", dated August 1, 1978 (17) P. Chamut to L. Dominy, dated August 31, 1978 (18) L. Dominy to P. Chamut, dated September 1, 1978 (19) R. Hoos to "Distribution", dated September 1, 1978 (20) D. Shutz to G. Jaltema, dated September 27, 1978 (21) I.K. Birtwell to M. Waldichuk, dated October 3, 1978 (22) I.K. Birtwell to M. McNally, dated October 3, 1978 (23) I.K. Birtwell to C. McAllister, dated October 3, 1978 (24) I.K. Bitwell to Z. Kabata, dated October 3, 1978 (25) I.K. Birtwell to D. Shutz, dated October 3, 1978 (26) D. Shutz to G. Jaltema, dated October 11, 1978 (27) J.C. MacLeod to Cornwall, dated October 1 1, 1978 (28) P. Meyer to M.D. Nassichuk, dated October 18, 1978 (29) C. McAllister to I.K. Birtwell, dated October 26, 1978 (30) Z. Kabata to I. K. Birtwell, dated October 27, 1978 (31) M.D. Nassichuk to R. Hoos, dated November 6, 1978 (32) I.K. Birtwell to P. Chamut, with attachment, dated November 6, 1978 (33) P. Nasmyth to R. Hoos, with attachment, dated November 6, 1978 (34) M. Waldichuk to I.K. Birtwell, dated November 7, 1978 (35) R. Hoos to RSCC Task Force, with attachment, dated November 17, 1978 (36) K. Smiley to B. Kurtz, dated November 30, 1978 (37) J.C. MacLeod to McEachran, dated December 5, 1978 (38) B. Kurtz to W. McKenzie, dated December 11, 1978 (39) B. Kurtz to G. Jaltema, dated December 11. 1978 (40) D. Trethcwey to R. Hoos, dated December 11, 1978 (41) W. Johnson to B. Heskin, dated December 12, 1978 (42) F.C. Boyd to B. Heskin, dated December 12, 1978 (43) W. Johnson to McEachran, dated December 29, 1978 (44) I.K. Birtwell to M. Waldichuk, dated January 3, 1979 (45) G. Jaltema to D. Shutz, dated January 18, 1979 (46) D. Shutz to G. Jaltema, dated January 30, 1979 (47) I.K. Birtwell to R. Hoos, dated February 19, 1979 (48) M. Ito to I.K. Birtwell, dated March I, 1979 (49) R. Hoos to "Distribution," dated March 26, 1979 (50) P. Nasmyth to R. Hoos, dated April 3, 1979 (51) P. Chamut to M.D. Nassichuk, with attachment, dated April 5, 1979 (52) P. Chamut to F.C. Boyd, dated May 4,
1979	(53) I.K. Birtwell to R. Kussat, dated Juned 1, 1979 (54) P. Chamut to I.K. Birtwell, dated June 22, 1979 (55) P. Chamut to I.K. Birtwell, dated October 23, 1979 (56) P. Chamut to J. MacLatchy, dated November 6, 1979
(57)	J. MacLatchy to I.K. Birtwell, with attachment, dated December 14, 1979
(58)	J. Seaborn to the Minister of the Environment, with attachment dated December 18, 1979 (59) J. MacLatchy to M. Ito, on the subject of metals in stream sediments, dated December 3, 1980 (60) J. MacLatchy to M. Ito, F. Claggett and J. Scott, on the subject of by-product recovery of metals, dated December 5, 1980 (61) F. Clagget to "File", on the subject of preliminary results, EPS surveillance samples, dated May 5, 1981 (62) M.D. Nassichuk to F.C. Boyd, on the subject of the Amax-US Borax meeting with Alaskans, dated April I, 1981.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 63-Mr. Fulton:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of following correspondence in the records of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in Prince Rupert from (1) various individuals to Mr. J.H. Hitchcock, from the period February 24, 1949 to December 29, 1954, on the subject of reported pollution of the Kitsault River by Torbrit Silver Mines Ltd. (2) J.H. Hitchcock, in 1956, on the subject of a report on salmon stream spawning (3) P.D. Murray to W.R. Hourston, dated May 12, 1965, on the subject of the disposal of tailings from B.C. Molybdenum Ltd. (4)
J.V. Thirgood, in May 1971, on the subject of relcamation at Kitsault (5) B. Lea to W.H. McKenzie, dated December 16, 1974, on the subject of the Fisheries Information Observatory Inlet (6) W.H. McKenzie to B. Lea, dated January 29, 1975, on the subject of the spawner runs, Hastings Arm and Alice Arm (7) H. Nelson to D. Goyette, dated June 23, 1976, on the of the Trip Report-Anyox and Climax Molybdenum, June 1976 (8) B. Kurtz to G. Jaltema, dated August 24, 1976, on the subject of Permit AE 4335 to discharge effluent into Alice Arm
(9) F.C. Boyd to R.H. Kussat, dated November 18, 1976, on the subject of Climax Molybdenum at Alice Arm (10) M. D. Nassichuk to D. Goyette, dated July 5, 1977, on the subject of Climax Molybdenum at Kitsault (11) D. Schutz to G. Jaltema, dated September 27, 1978, on the subject of Climax Molybdenum at Kitsault (12) D. Shutz to G. Jaltema, dated October 11, 1978, on the subject of Climax Molybdenum at Kitsault (13) an unnamed individual, dated November 2, 1978, on the subject of Mr. Jim Schubert, an Alice Arm fisherman (14) B. Curt, dated November 6, 1978, on the subject of the 21st Annual Nishga Tribal Council Meeting (15) K. Smiley to B. Kurtz, dated November 30, 1978, on the subject of findings and comments concerning Alice Arm fisheries (16) B. Kurtz to G. Jaltema, dated December 11, 1978, on the subject of the Climax Molybdenum (17) B. Kurtz to W.H. McKenzie, dated December 11, 1978, on the subject of the Climax Molybdenum Project at Alice Arm and road construction (18) H. Klassen to the Climax Moly. Corp.. dated January 12, 1979, on the subject of a letter of transmittal and Permit PE 4335 (19) G. Jaltema to D. Schutz, dated January 18, 1979, on the subject of Climax Molybdenum Project at Alice Arm (20) I.K. Birtwell to G. Jaltema, dated August 15, 1979, on the subject of PCB Permit Application No. AR 5639 (21) K. Smiley to W.H. McKenzie, dated September 10, 1979, on the subject of PCB Permit Application No. AR 5639 (22) K. Smiley to W.H. McKenzie, dated September 12, 1979, on the subject of PCB Permit Application No. 5638 (23) I.K. Birtwell to M. Ito, dated September 26, 1979, on the subject of PCB Permit Application AE 5622 (24) K. Smiley to "File", dated October 31, 1979, on the subject of a visit to Kitsault (25) R.G. Killam to K. Smiley, dated November 7, 1979, on the subject of approval to move logs (26) I.K Birtwell to G. Jaltema, dated November 20,
1979,	on the subject of PCB Permit Application AE 5744 (27) I.K, Birtwell to G. Jaltema, dated December 6, 1979, on the subject of PCB Permit Application AR 5639 (28) B. Huber to W.H. McKenzie, dated December 19, 1979, on the subject of PCB Permit Application AE 5744 (29) I.K. Birtwell to M. Ito, dated January 8, 1980, on the subject of PCB Permit Application AE 5744 (30) I.K. Birtwell to G. Jaltema, dated January 24, 1980, on the subject of PCB Permit Application PE 5622 (31) K. Smiley to W.H. McKenzie, dated January 28,
1980,	on the subject of an application from Climax Moly. (32) K. Smiley to W.H. McKenzie, dated January 29, 1980, on the subject of a Crown grant (33)
K.	Smiley to W.H. McKenzie, dated February 5, 1980, on the subject of mine tailings disposal (34) M.D. Nassichuk to G. Jaltema, dated March 27, 1980, on the subject of WMB Permit Application AE 5853 (35) B. Huber to W.H. McKenzie, dated April 9, 1980, on the subject of WMB Application AE 5853 (36) W.H. McKenzie to E. Zyblut, dated April 15, 1980, on the subject of WMB Permit Application AE 5853 (37) V.A. Pakalniskis to J.W. Sanders, dated April 25, 1980, on the subject of the Kitsault Mine (38) J. MacLatchy to M. Ito, F. Claggett, D. Goyette, J. Scott, R. Harbo and B. Huber, dated May 20, 1980, on the subject of a report on the DOE-DFO Visit to Kitsault Mine (39) W.H. McKenzie to R.D. Brodie, dated May 28, 1980, on the subject of a referral to the Lands Branch (40) K. Hebron to G. Robbins, dated June 13, 1980, on the subject of bulk oil storage facilities (41) B. Huber to W.H. McKenzie, dated June 18, 1980, on the subject of a memo concerning Dolly Varden Res. Ltd. (42) B. Huber to W.H. McKenzie, dated June 19, 1980, on the subject of Clary Creek File No. 0366114 (43) K. Conlin to the Prince Rupert Office, dated June 30, 1980, on the subject of underwater blasting and construction (44) W.H. McKenzie to B. Hubert, dated July 24, 1980, on the subject of the Indian Food Fishery at Alice Arm (45) E. Zyblut to G.H. Robbins, dated July 25, 1980, on the subject of blasting for the tailing outfall area at Alice Arm (46) B. Huber to E. Zyblut, dated August 13, 1980, on the subject of the Indian Food Fishery at Alice Arm (47) G. Vardy to B. Huber, dated August 29, 1980, on the subject of a permit held by Dobrocky Seatech Ltd. (48) B. Huber to W.H. McKenzie, dated September 16, 1980, on the subject of right of way stabilization along the shore at the head of Alice Arm (49) B. Huber to W.H. McKenzie, dated September 16, 1980, on the subject of the mine tailings outfall system (50) R. Brodie to W.D. Lenton, dated September 26, 1980, on the subject of the removal of foreshore material for road stabilization in Kitsault (51) M.D. Nassichuk to M. Ito, dated September 27, 1980, on the subject of a WMB Amendment Application No. PE 4335 (52) B. Huber to W.H. McKenzie, dated October 22, 1980, on the subject of an application by Amax for approval of a proposed sewage disposal outfall (53) R. Snow to B. Huber, dated October 23, 1980, on the subject of the Alice Arm Native Food Fishery (54) R. Bell-1rving to A.C. Duncan, dated November 3, 1980, on the subject of an application by Amax for approval of a mine tailings outfall system (55) B. Huber to W.H. McKenzie, dated November 7, 1980, on the subject of Lands Branch referral No. 0354180
June 30, 1982
[Stage Direction]
(56) W.H. McKenzie to R.D. Brodie, dated November 13, 1980, on the subject of stabilization at Kitsault (57) K. Conlin to "File", dated November 13, 1980, on the subject of blasting for tailing outfall (58) M.D. Nassichuk to P. Chamut, dated November 18, 1980, on the subject of PCB Analysis at Alice Arm (59) R. Potter to W. Lenton, dated November 25, 1980, on the subject of road stabilization at Kitsault (60) R. Bell-Irving to A.C. Duncan, dated December 1, 1980, on the subject of an application for approval of a proposed sewage disposal outfall (61) B. Huber to H. Doolan, dated February 3, 1981, on the subject of lab results of fish specimens from Alice Arm (62) N.J. Sterritt to R. Barkley, dated March 26, 1981, on the subject of the Kitsault project (63) C. Marshall to the "Times-Colonist", dated March 20, 1981, on the subject of Alice Arm (64) B. Huber to G. Jaltema, dated April 21, 1981, on the subject of biological sampling and distribution of crabs (65) B. Huber, dated March 5, 1981, on the subject of herring sounding (66) the Nishga Tribe, dated April 21, 1981, on the subject of the Council Convention.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 64-Mr. Fulton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the correspondence pursuant to the Alice Arm Tailing Deposit Regulation and the Fisheries Act which was issued to the scientific review panel created by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to study the Amax Limited dumping of mine tailings into Alice Arm, British Columbia, especially (a) the correspondence applying to the DOE Technical Review List, including a letter from (1) Goyette to Heskin, dated February 13, 1976 (2) Waldichuk to Heskin, dated March 22, 1976 (3) Waldichuk to Heskin, dated March 29, 1976 (4) Stucchi to Heskin, dated March 30, 1976 (5) Naysmith to Heskin, dated April 21, 1976 (6) Schouwenburg to Kussat, dated April 21, 1976 (7) Boyd to Kussat, dated November 18, 1976 (8) Farmer to Goyette, dated January 17, 1977 (9) Goyette to Kussat, dated January 27, 1977 (10) Goyette to Kussat, dated June 10, 1977 (11) Peiker to Heskin, dated August 10, 1977 (12) Farmer to Goyette, dated September 19,
1977	(13) Thompson to Goyette, dated April 10, 1978 (14) MacLatchy to Scott, dated May 9, 1978 (15) Farmer to Naysmith, dated September 12, 1978 (16) Hoos to Kussat, dated October 18, 1978 (17) Farmer to Naysmith, dated October 31, 1978 (18) MacLatchy to Ito, dated November 1, 1978 (19) Goyette to Gardy, dated November 7, 1978 (20) Dayal to Scott, dated November 8, 1978 (21) Scott to Ito, dated November 9, 1978 (22) Hoos to RSCC, dated November 16, 1978 (23) Villamere to Ito, dated November 28, 1978 (24) Goyette to Hoos, dated December 7, 1978 (25) Boyd to Heskin, dated December 12, 1978 (26) Brodie to Hoos, dated January 31, 1979 (27) Harbo to Birtwell, dated March 7, 1980 (28) Goyette to Ito, dated May 14, 1980 (29) Lenton to Ito, dated June 25, 1980 (30) MacLatchy, dated June 9, 1980 (31) Goyette to Ito, dated July 11, 1980 (32) Ferguson to Ito, dated August 1, 1980 (33) Heskin to Lenton, dated September 26, 1980 (34) Heskin to Lenton, dated September 29, 1980 (35) Lenton to Heskin, dated October 14, 1980 (b) the correspondence dealing with radioactivity, including a letter from (1) Scott to Rothschild, dated November 2,
1978	(2) Scott to Ito, dated November 7, 1978 (3) Vasudev to Scott, dated November 9, 1978 (4) Hallam to Claggett and Kussat, dated November 22,
1978	(5) Scott to Rothschild, dated January 11, 1979 (6) Steininger to Scott, dated January 24, 1979 (7) Scott to Rothschild, dated February 9, 1979 (8) Steininger to Scott, dated February 12, 1979 (9) Scott to Steininger, dated February 15, 1979 (10) Goyette to Ito, dated April 18, 1980 (11) MacLatchy to Ito, dated April 18, 1980 (12) Ito to Higgins, dated April 17, 1980 (13) MacLatchy to Lenton, dated April 21, 1980 (14) Robbins to Goyette, dated April 22, 1980 (15) Goyette to Ito, dated May 13, 1980 (c) the federal correspondence concerned with monitoring the program, including a letter from (1) Stucchi to Goyette, dated July 19, 1979 (2) Thompson to Goyette, dated July 23,
1979	(3) Lenton to Ito, dated October 3, 1979 (4) Stucchi to Goyette, dated November 26, 1980 (5) Ferguson to Claggett, dated December 1, 1980 (6) Heskin to Lenton, dated December 18, 1980 (7) Lenton to Heskin, dated December 31, 1980 (8) Harding to Farmer, dated January 16, 1981 (d) the provincial correspondence concerned with monitoring the program, including a letter from (1) Ito to Klassen, dated September 20, 1978 (2) Brodie to Goyette, dated June 1979 (3) Ito to Klassen, dated August 17, 1979 (4) Birtwell to Ito, dated August 13, 1979 (5) Brothers to Kussat, dated August 14, 1979 (6) Klassen to Ito, dated January 9, 1980 (7) Goyette to Birtwell, dated January 28,
1980	(8) Boyd to Ito, dated March 5, 1980 (e) the correspondence concerning a
Business of the House
contingency plan, including a letter from (1) Ito to MacLatchy, dated January 2, 1980 (2) LeBlanc to Lenton, dated October 24, 1980 (3) Staff, dated October 1980, on the subject "Management Notes" (4) Ito to Lenton, dated November 28, 1980 (5) Lenton to Ito, dated December 11, 1980 (6) Lenton to Ito, dated December 30, 1980 (7) Ito to Boyd, dated January 5, 1981 (8) Ito to Klassen, dated January 14, 1981 (9) Robbins to Ito, dated April 3, 1981 (/) the correspondence concerning metal recovery, including a letter from (1) Reid to Lenton, dated April 15, 1980 (2) Lenton to Ito, dated June 20, 1980 (3) Ito to Lenton, dated September 10, 1980 (4) Lenton to Ito, dated September 29, 1980 (5) Lenton to Ito, dated March 2, 1981.
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers Nos. 62, 63 and 64 in the name of the hon. member for Skeena are acceptable to the government, subject to the usual reservations concerning internal departmental memoranda.


Mr. Fulton:: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) could give this House some idea of what the last part of that sentence, "subject to the usual reservations concerning internal departmental memoranda", means. These motions for the production of papers have been on the Order Paper for a year now, and they involve 212 documents. Is the parliamentary secretary saying that parts of some of those documents are being tabled, some of the documents are being tabled or some of the parts of some of the documents are being tabled? Perhaps he could give us some idea of exactly what is being tabled today.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I am sure it is not necessary for me to give a definitive definition of what that means. If the hon. member consults his House leader, I am sure he will be enlightened. There are many precedents which quite clearly define the scope of that phrase, and the documents are at the Table in any event. They are with the Clerk now, so if the hon. member wants to go to the Table and peruse them, I think he will quite readily find the answers to his questions.
Notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 62, 63 and 64 agreed to.


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


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to House business. This will be our last day of sitting until next Monday. I wonder if the government House leader could confirm for the record the business for as far into next week as he can take us.

June 30, 1982
Business of the House


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, we shall vote on the New Democratic Party's subamendment later today, and after this second day of debate on the budget, we shall resume debate next week on Monday, when we come back after Canada Day and the weekend. Monday will be the third day of debate on the budget. Tuesday will be the fourth day, and a second noconfidence vote will be on the motion proposed by the Progressive Conservative Party. Wednesday will be the fifth day of the debate on the budget and Thursday the sixth, with a final vote on the motion concerning the budget. That is the order of business for next week, unless circumstances dictate otherwise. This may happen, as I explained to my fellow House leaders, when, after discussion, they have examined the bill or bills that were introduced and that arise from the budget, and if we manage to agree on how to proceed with the bill or bills, we may have to change the order of business for next week, starting after Tuesday. As far as Monday and Tuesday of next week are concerned, that is final. Unless there is agreement otherwise at our level, Monday and Tuesday will be two of the days for debate on the budget. Obviously, we still assume Monday will be the third day and Tuesday the fourth day of the debate on the budget.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I rise with respect to two matters. One relates to what the governent House leader has just said. My understanding is that Monday will be what is normally called "leaders' day". I just hope that understanding holds.
The second matter 1 want to raise is this: the government House leader will be aware of the study conducted by several members of the New Democratic Party into pollution in the Great Lakes, and Lake Ontario in particular, and of the meetings which they held. There has come to light a situation whereby traces of dioxin have been found in the human tissue of the bodies of individuals in Kingston, Ontario. I wonder if the government House leader might give some consideration to a special reference, which we would support, of the matter of toxic waste and its disposal to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry in order that the committee might look into this entire matter and determine whether there are recommendations which might be made, given the severity of the problem and the difficulty we are encountering in dealing with it.


Erik Nielsen: It should be discussed at House leaders' meetings.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the first question was whether Monday is "leaders' day". There is no such day in the Standing Orders. It all depends on who speaks on Monday and who the leaders are. We will see at that time.
The second question was about making a reference to a committee. I do not have sufficient information to judge and conclude whether such a reference might be advisable at this time under the circumstances. I will refer the request of the
hon. gentleman to the ministers concerned, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc), and when we have a House leaders' meeting, probably some time next week, we might discuss this subject again.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, June 29, 1982, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government, and the amendment of Mr. Wilson (p. 18905) and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Riis (p. 18908).
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have 28 minutes afforded to me. I started last evening and took two minutes. I want to spend some time speaking about the budget.
The budget does not begin to address the problems that confront by far the vast majority of Canadians. The budget has attempted, in a piecemeal way, to put forward some proposals which, I assume, are intended to deal with the unemployment situation that confronts us in Canada, to deal with the very high interest rates that confront us in Canada, to deal with the massive deficit that confronts us in Canada, to deal with the problem of inflation, which is undoubtedly a problem which must be grappled with, and to deal with the lowest dollar value in Canadian history.
Had the government been serious about the problems of this country, it would have recognized right away that the single most difficult and vexing problem that Canadians who are working have to deal with, is meeting their mortgage interest cost. The high level of interest being charged on mortgages is usurious by almost any standard that could have been applied up until 1980. The government should have dealt directly and forthrightly with the problem of high interest rates for people faced with trying to provide their families with a decent place to live at a cost they can afford.
Had the government been serious about the economic dislocation that occurred in businesses, large and small, and about the cutbacks in employment, it would have recognized that the single largest contributing factor to the unemployment that has occurred from coast to coast is the high interest rates that manufacturers and consumers have been required to carry. This has meant that products manufactured by Canadians cannot be purchased by consumers because they cannot afford to pay the 20, 22 or 24 per cent interest rates they have been faced with.

June 30, 1982
Had the government been serious about the record high level of inflation, it would have recognized that the exorbitant interest rates of the last two years have made a serious contribution to it. It would have recognized that every single commodity that is for sale, every single product manufactured in any part of this country, must of necessity incorporate the high interest rate into its price structure as a cost of doing business. Had the government been serious about reducing the deficit, it would have immediately addressed the problem of high intrest rates which have reduced the purchasing power of Canadians, which have made it virtually impossible for Canadian families to buy a home and which have until now eaten away at wages of people who are attempting to make ends meet. Had the government been serious about the deficit, it would have understood that the single largest contributing factor to the deficit has been the outfall of high interest rates which meant a decrease in consumer purchasing, which meant a decrease in manufacturing, which meant an increase in unemployment, which meant a decrease in the amount of personal taxes paid by the majority of Canadians, which meant an increase in unemployment insurance costs, which meant an increase in the cost of operating government in terms of the necessity to provide social assistance for Canadians unable to find work, and which meant a decrease in the corporate tax payable.
Why has there been such a massive shift in the level of indebtedness of this country and a shortfall in revenue over expenditure from November of last year to July of this year? That has come about because not enough people are working or buying products or paying taxes. The government's policy has been one of the contributing factors to the significant downturn in the economy.
You will recognize on behalf of your constituents, Mr. Speaker, that if the government had been serious about dealing with the economic problems of the country, it would have begun by addressing the exorbitant and usurious rates of interest and the destruction that has flowed from allowing those rates to be charged.
In November last year, some seven months ago, I pointed out to the government the need to address the problems of Canada where they existed and the need to look seriously at measures that could be taken in the House to assist Canadians to get back to work, to assist Canadian families to stabilize their lives, to assist the government in raising the necessary tax dollars to pay the important bills, and to assist the government in designing an economic strategy. At that time I put it to the government that there is one real motivator in the economy that rises above all the others in terms of social and economic impact, and that is the provision of housing to meet the need that has been established from coast to coast.
It has been clearly demonstrated that 220,000 housing units should be built in Canada this year but that no more than
130,000	are to be built, and I suspect that is the absolute maximum. Many Canadians cannot find a place to live-not only a place within their means but any kind of decent accommodation for their families.
The Budget-Mr. Deans
I pointed out to the government that for every single house built, 2.2 to three jobs were created, some on the site and some in the industries that provide the bath tubs, the shingles, the tiles, the eavestroughing and other component parts. If an additional 80,000 units were built, close to 200,000 jobs would be created. If those 200,000 jobs were created now, the rate of unemployment, seasonally adjusted as it always is, although I do not know how you adjust people who are seasonally employed-would decrease from 11.6 per cent to 8.8 per cent. We should build the homes that people need and begin the process of creating jobs. Unemployment would then be brought down to a level which, if not acceptable, would at least be closer to being manageable. If those 200,000 people were put to work building the homes people need, unemployment insurance payments would be reduced by $2 billion per year. That could already have been achieved if the government had paid attention to those of us who are every bit as committed to the future of the country as it is. We would have created
200,000	jobs, we would have reduced the level of unemployment from 11.6 to 8.6 and we would have reduced unemployment insurance payments by $2 billion. Then, by way of federal, provincial and municipal taxes, we would have raised $1.16 billion. What would we have? We would have housing for people and we would have 200,000 people working, building and manufacturing. We would not have to find $2.2 billion for the government to spend. We would have a tax benefit of $1.16 billion as a result of this program. In addition to the well known statistical information which says that every dollar invested in a mortgage is recoverable through the payments, we would have saved the government over $3 billion. I would suggest to those who are still in the House-only a few I know-that when you measure that potential against what the government has offered as an economic recovery plan, you have to ask yourself what in heaven's name is wrong. Why is this government so pigheaded, foolish and blind to the methods available to us to begin that process of rebuilding this country? Why is this government tampering when we all recognize that a massive effort is required?
What does the government's program do? It brings forward a $3,000 grant to first-time home buyers, and first-time or otherwise buyers of new homes built during the current year. What that says is that as long as you dig a hole in the ground by the end of December, 1982, then that house will be eligible for the $3,000 grant some time in 1983. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that when you consider it, it is ludicrous. That does not even begin to address the problem. It does not begin to provide homes for people at a price they can afford. It takes money out of the treasury which will not be recovered. It is the kind of program typical of a government bankrupt of ideas. Let me just tell you, Mr. Speaker, that if a person living in Ottawa wanted to buy a home he or she would find the average price of that home to be $68,500.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Not a new house.

June 30, 1982
The Budget-Mr. Deans


Ian Deans: That is the average price. The average income in Ottawa is just under $30,000 a year. The strange thing is that with that income you do not qualify for a mortgage on a $68,500 house. Therefore, $3,000 in that kind of situation is absolutely of no help. For the government to offer this up as its answer to the housing crisis is shameful, but then it suggests that somehow or other the introduction of this program, and these other small and piecemeal programs it has brought forward, is the way we are going to get Canada back on its feet. The government suggests this is the way to create the economic impetus to enable us to rise from the ashes of destruction brought about by its policies. It will instil in Canadians the desire and drive to build this country to even greater heights and we are going to be able to give homes to people. The government says that people will be able to find and keep their jobs and earn enough to pay the necessary cost of living. If this is the government's answer, then I ask you: is it any wonder that those of us on this side of the House look at the government with disdain, and feel, as my colleague, the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) says, despair?
I do not understand this government's initiatives. I do not know how it expects that people, who the day before the budget was brought in could not afford to buy a car, buy a home or meet their mortgage payments with these high interest rates, will, as a result of this budget and its hidden taxes, be able to meet those commitments once the budget is in place. 1 mean, how can you do those things now that you could not do before if you have less money? How can you possibly expect that there will be a recovery when people are in that kind of situation? I do not understand it. There has to be something missing in the minds of the people who advise this government. How in heaven's name can we expect to have manufacturers back to producing at 90 per cent or 100 per cent of capacity, how can we expect to have people back working on the lines, in the shops and offices, if the money available to be spent on goods and services is to be reduced by $1.3 billion? I say through you, Mr. Speaker, that it defies logic. Yet this government proudly stands up and tells us that this budget is really going to meet the need.
This budget, Mr. Speaker, reduces by $1.3 billion the money available to consumers, people who were struggling along and making ends meet. The government then says that this is somehow or other intended to stimulate industry in such a way, and create purchasing power in such a way, that we will have greater employment, more productivity, more tax revenue, and we will be back to the good old days.
Well, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that is patent nonsense. That is absolutely false hope. That is the worst kind of chicanery I have seen in years. There is no doubt in my mind that if the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen)-and I have always considered him to be an honourable man-stops to think about it, he must surely understand clearly that you cannot reduce the size of the consumer marketplace and expect to sell more. You cannot restrict people's wages to a level below that of inflation and expect them to be able to buy more. I am sure the end result will be-and I hope I am wrong although I do not see how-that people will buy less because they do not have
the money to spend, and those who manufacture will manufacture less, those who work in manufacturing plants will work less, we will have higher unemployment, and that will mean an even larger burden on those who continue to pay taxes. In addition, the deficit will continue to grow, and in the end we will be faced with virtual bankruptcy.
Now, I put it to the government in the most forceful terms I can that it is not too late. It is almost too late, but there is still time. 1 put to the government that if this government is serious about the future of this country and if this government feels any sense of obligation to the working families from coast to coast in this country who are struggling today, the government will pay heed to their cry. Their cry is as loud in the eastern part of the country as it is in the west. The cry is that we must take steps to bring down the interest rates currently being charged. We must, as an absolute priority, bring that level down to a level that is manageable in order that average income earners can go into the marketplace and purchase those things which their neighbours and friends are making. That is the cry of the people of Canada. That is the cry of the small businessman who just put on his door the notice "Out of business, bankrupt" because he could not meet the short-term high-interest payments that he had to make in order to carry his inventory. That is the cry of the large corporations paying out millions of dollars yearly on interest payments which they can ill afford to pay and which price their products out of the market, making it impossible for Canadians to absorb the productive capacity of the country. That is the cry of those who are locked into mortgages paying 20 per cent or more. They are begging and saying to the government, "Please, we cannot carry this burden any more." That is the problem in this country.
I say to you again, as I said before, that we have the ability to solve this problem. I recognize that building homes for people is not the end-all and the be-all. That is not a panacea for everything, but I want to put to the government that activity is vitally important and it is the single most important motivator of any in economic terms. If we were simply to follow the example I have given, and if the government had followed in November what 1 suggested by putting $2 billion to $3 billion-not necessarily all tax dollars-into building homes, we would not have seen the increase in the deficit from the $10 billion or $11 billion to beyond the $19 billion at which it now stands.
When the government told me in November that we could not afford to spend that money because we did not have it, I said then that was wrong. I said then that this was an investment in the future of Canada, an investment from which we would derive a return both in social and in economic terms, an investment from which we would get every single penny back plus interest. I said then that if this investment had been undertaken in November it would have, by virtue of the statistics that I have given, made it unnecessary in this country to absorb that additional $9 billion worth of indebtedness. I do
June 30, 1982

not understand it. If there is a flaw in it, for God's sake, get up and say so. If there is something wrong with that and it will not work as a means of starting the recovery process, then let someone rise and tell me.


Mr. Keeper:: They do not dare.


Ian Deans: I say to you, Mr. Speaker, it is clear to me that between November and December we wasted an opportunity to put Canadians to work because this government was too blind to the realities. We cannot afford such waste many more times.
What do we need? We need a government worth its salt that is prepared to stand up on behalf of Canadians. To stand up on behalf of Canadians is not asking people earning $12,000 a year to tighten their belts. To stand up on behalf of Canadians is to say that we recognize the major problem. It is the interest rate and we are going to bring it down. It is to say we recognize how to create jobs, and build homes. We recognize that small businesses are not able to carry the burden any longer and we will make sure that in the interim period during the recovery these people are given assistance. It is to say we recognize that farmers who have been attempting for years to make it on a meagre income deserve to be given some additional consideration during this very difficult time, and we recognize that what we invest in Canada today we will reap tenfold in the years to come.
This government's policies are bankrupt. It appears that the government is intending to make the country bankrupt like its policies. I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to anyone who cares to listen that there is another way. There may be more than one way, but the way I am proposing today will work. It will not inflict on Canadians additional tax burdens nor will it require Canadians to tighten their belts. It will not require us to suffer 12 per cent or 15 per cent unemployment. It will not require us to pay high interest rates, which this government has supported over the last three years together with its friends in the Conservative Party. This has to stop, and it has to stop now.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and indeed a privilege for me to have the opportunity to intervene in this debate on the budget. It has also given me the opportunity to follow the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), for whom I have a good deal of respect on most subjects except for his view of the economy and how it works as well as the solutions that he proposes in the well known tradition of his party, which is to spend our way out of all problems.


Ian Deans: That is not what I said.


Donald James Johnston: He asked what is the road to recovery. He invited someone to stand up and tell him what it is. I would like to spend a few moments doing that this afternoon, and I
The Budget-Mr. Johnston
hope the hon. member will remain in the House for that purpose.
He asked what we can do. He said, "Let us stand up on behalf of all Canadians". I invite him to stand up with us on behalf of all Canadians and support this budget, and particularly to support the restraint measures which are contained in this budget.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Where?


Donald James Johnston: I invite him particularly to support the measures which are designated to bring down inflation and interest rates in Canada at the same time to 6 per cent and 5 per cent.


Ian Deans: You cannot do it and you won't do it.


Donald James Johnston: The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain says that it cannot be done. That, of course, is his privilege.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: And you have increased government expense by 20 per cent.


Donald James Johnston: I do not think most Canadians would agree with the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain's point of view.


Ian Deans: Your policy won't do it.


Donald James Johnston: We are counting on the good sense, judgment and the commitment of Canadians to stand up and support us in this national crusade about which I will be speaking this afternoon.
My colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) yesterday spoke about the budget in terms of employment opportunities. Today, I would like to spend a few minutes dealing with a number of other aspects of the budget which I consider to be relevant and which I think hon. members, particularly from the party of the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain, will be interested.


Mr. Riis:: And so will the stock market.


Donald James Johnston: The opposition, and I refer to the collective opposition, refers very little to the international slump in which the entire western world finds itself.


Ian Deans: It does not affect housing.


Donald James Johnston: Why is that?


Ian Deans: Why does it not affect housing?


Donald James Johnston: Why is that? I suppose, as political opportunists, the opposition would like Canadians to believe that all the problems that beset this country and the economy at the present time are the product of the sins, past or present, of this government. If they are to win any respect for their views from Canadians-and nearly all Canadians know better-they have to acknowledge that a good measure or a good part of our problems stems from the international economic situation in which we find ourselves today as members of the industrialized western world.

June 30, 1982
The Budget-Mr. Johnston
I would ask the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain: would the market for B.C. lumber be helped a great deal by way, for example, of a housing program in Canada in the absence of a U.S. recovery? Does he seriously believe, or is he seriously putting forward the proposition, that the B.C. lumber market will come back in the absence of a U.S. recovery?


Ian Deans: It would be better than it is today.


Donald James Johnston: Is he suggesting that larger Canadian domestic markets for such items as copper, lead or aluminum will come back in the absence of an international recovery? Canadian sales of automobiles or our output of finished cars, for example, are they likely to come back in the absence of an international recovery?


Ian Deans: If you restrict Japanese imports.


Donald James Johnston: I am thinking of a company in my own area, Pratt & Whitney of Montreal. As the hon. member knows, it is a manufacturer of jet aircraft engines. Is it likely to come back in the absence of sales in the United States and abroad?
I am interested in noting a comment by Mr. Jack McArthur in The Toronto Star of June 22. I think he had the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain and some members of the Conservative Party in mind when he said:
Some criticism now is so exaggerated that it's just silly.
Also he said:
Who caused the similar inflations in France, Italy and in Britain? Or the dropping currencies in those and other countries such as Japan, Germany and Switzerland? Who's responsible for the terrible unemployment in the U.S. and in almost every other important western industrial nation?
It wasn't Trudeau and MacEachen and they can't insulate us from those things.
That is a lesson the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain and other opposition members have yet to learn. As I said earlier, their criticisms will be taken more seriously if they deal with the real world. To that extent, opposition criticism of the government without reference to the international circumstances in which we all find ourselves frankly is biased, dishonest and misleading. It gives the people of Canada a very false picture of the real situation and also gives them false hopes that a new government such as theirs could pull rabbits out of the hat and that a magic touch here and there, with a bit more spending on this or that, will resolve all our problems and make them go away.
As hon. members know, this point has been made a number of times by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen)-the understanding of Canadians about the seriousness of the situation in which we find ourselves could be helped immeasurably if hon. members across the floor publicly recognized that we cannot float Canada off the world on some pink, puffy cloud, protected and isolated from our neighbours with whom we have so much trade and such extensive financial links. When the world slumps, so do we, and in particular with the U.S. in recession.
In this period our ability to solve our problems is seriously limited by those facts. We must realize-and if I can get the attention of the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain-that inflation is, has been and continues to be the number one problem of western society. All other serious problems which concern us, such as unemployment and unacceptably high interest rates to which the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain made reference, cannot and will not be satisfactorily resolved until we come to grips with the inflationary issue. Most other western countries, including our principal trading partner, that is the United States, have done a much better job at controlling inflation than we have. I suggest to opposition members of the House that we cannot afford to lag behind any longer.
We have also finally come to learn that in our long and less than successful battle against inflation, we must commence with restraints on our own incomes. There is simply no other way. Every country in the western world has turned to this as a focal point in its efforts to hold down prices. It is absolutely fundamental in our battle against inflation. Along with the need to curtail wages is the growing recognition in many countries that the indexing of wages and benefits is an automatic generator of further inflation. The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain shakes his head; I will give him evidence of that in a moment.


Ian Deans: I am shaking my head at your whole presentation.


Donald James Johnston: It is not just indexing by contract or legislation which is at fault. We have often been conned by the insidious argument that because wages do not go up more than the rise in the consumer price index, these increases which are less than the CPI somehow do not count in the inflationary equation. This ridiculous argument has been used with considerable success by a number of people in our society and by a number of union leaders. Where there is no productivity improvement, which has been the case in recent years, all wage or benefit increases push prices up sooner or later. They validate inflation. They turn the screw another notch and they simply build inflation further into the system.
There was an interesting article from which I should like to quote several passages in Business Week of June 21. The article dealt with Europe breaking the grip of wage indexation. If the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain has not seen the article, I would be more than delighted to send along a copy of it, but in the meantime I should like to read several passages into the record. It reads:
On June 1 the Confindustria, Italy's major employers' association, abruptly revoked its wage indexation compact with the country's trade unions. The action highlights a growing attempt throughout Europe to reverse a decade-long surge in real wages. With more than 10.5 million unemployed, hitherto-docile European corporate officials are turning militant, attempting to squeeze some of the biggest concessions out of trade unions in years.
It continued:
But Italian executives are willing to take the risk of squeezing the unions, in part because the existing wage indexation program is moving the country into an increasingly skewed trading position with inflation-resistant Britain and West
June 30, 1982

Germany. While Italy's wages have risen, pay increases in the other two countries have consistently slowed. This is reducing their inflation and improving trade competitiveness with both Italy and France, which are moving in the same high-wage orbit.
Further on it pointed out that:
-Germany is entering a "virtuous circle" in which low wage settlements are bringing inflation down enough to increase employees' purchasing power despite the pay cuts. And although Britain will not reverse its wage-price spiral to the degree of Germany this year, wage and price increases may come in line in 1983.
It is clear that the experience of European countries is such that everybody benefits when wage demands are reduced and the wage-price spiral is broken.
I suggest that we in Canada must reduce real income. I realize this doctrine is very difficult for some members of the NDP to accept. It is stiff medicine, but it aims principally at the employed people of the country rather than Canadians generally. The weak, the unemployed, the poor and the pensioners are people who must be our first concern, but it is the employed who must pay part of this price. It is certainly the employed-and I number among them members of the House and everyone else, all employed-who must accept the main burden for bringing down wages, the rate of inflation, and of course our deficit.
What happens if wage restraint in the country cannot be effectively achieved? What will happen is more and higher inflation, a dollar continuing to fall and imposing its own price penalties which we have seen, and our deficit rising as we stand to help those in trouble. Why should this burden not be concentrated on the employed of the country as opposed to the disadvantaged Canadians to whom I made reference? Why should that not be done through restraining our own wage demands, those of us who are employed?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Why do we not restrain government?


Donald James Johnston: Is this too much to ask of Canadians at this time? This is why the government has taken the lead in attempting to break the pattern of wage and benefit increases.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Six per cent across the board, eh?


Donald James Johnston: For the benefit of all members of this House, I would like to say that we do not like singling out government employees whose pay increases have not been noticeably out of line.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Can we quote you on that?


Mr. Blais:: Please do.


Donald James Johnston: Nor do we believe that the recipients of government benefits are less deserving than anyone else in this society. But leadership must begin at home.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Especially the cabinet ministers, right?


Donald James Johnston: It must begin here by those employees who are affected by our own legislation and by our own benefit programs. We are hoping to see the six and five rule and
The Budget-Mr. Johnston
objective which we are introducing adopted by other sectors, by other governments, by other businesses and by the private sector.


Nelson Andrew Riis: You are not introducing this program.


Donald James Johnston: Preaching restraint without action on our part, action of the kind we have taken, will not be taken seriously.
For a moment, I would like to turn to the deficit problem. If hon. members opposite were conscious of it before, clearly the response in the marketplace after the announcement of the deficit the other night should make them more aware of the seriousness of our projected deficit of just under $20 billion.


Nelson Andrew Riis: You were aware of it seven months ago.


Donald James Johnston: Both domestic and foreign investors perceive this deficit to be dangerously high-a question mark about our resolve to improve the management of our affairs.
But 1 must say that I was astonished on budget night to see the response of the leader of the New Democratic Party to our proposals. He is undoubtedly the last of the big time spenders, perhaps followed by a few other hon. members of his caucus. 1 have made some rough calculations, but I think my Figures are approximately right, and his proposals to cure all our ills come to something over $5 billion a year. We need this injection of new spending, he alleged, to get the economy rolling.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The pot calling the kettle black. A $20 billion deficit.


Donald James Johnston: I would say to the leader of the New Democratic Party that the deficit which was revealed the other night is equivalent to injecting $9 billion into the economy. But where was the applause from the New Democratic Party? I must say that I had expected some excited cheering from the ranks of the New Democratic Party when they witnessed the extent to which the economy has been stimulated during this period.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: That is their approach. What do we see? Stony silence. Perhaps they are beginning to learn, even at this late date, that this deficit route which they preach is full of pitfalls which will cause great damage. The side effect of some of our restraint measures will help to hold the deficit down by reducing government expenditures-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: To 20 per cent.


Donald James Johnston: -and adding to our income. But let us look at the reality.


Nelson Andrew Riis: No, let us not.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Let us look at the reality of 20 per cent.


Donald James Johnston: The essential attack on the federal deficit and on provincial deficits can only come when people contribute more out of their incomes to reducing them. We have built in

June 30, 1982
The Budget-Mr. Johnston
this country one of the best welfare systems in the world, one of which we can all be proud. But we must also pay the bill for that system. That is what I meant when I said that the real incomes of the employed in this country must be reduced so that the capital, which would otherwise go into consumption and into higher and higher wages and prices, into a higher and greater accelerating wage-price spiral so that those resources can be diverted to-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: To ministerial offices and their expenses.


Donald James Johnston: -our society in time of crisis. That is what the budget is doing. The deficit issue is clearly a real one and it is obviously something which cannot be wished away. It can generate a crisis of confidence and it can undermine other actions that we must take. Therefore, we cannot slow our efforts and our approach to bringing it down at every possible opportunity. We must not be seduced into the expansionary spending programs that are foisted upon us, or I should say, preached to us by our friends in the New Democratic Party.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Not friends. Please change that. Not friends.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Liberal-NDP coalition.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Not friends.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Brothers.


Donald James Johnston: I would like to speak for a moment about the program of restraint. The program of restraint has, as its principal objective, the beginning of a national crusade in this country against inflation. The people instinctively know what is needed. Only some of their union leaders and a few others simply do not seem to understand. The people of this country know that inflation cannot be brought down if their pay increases are not cut back. They have learned how the process works by observation. For wage restraint to become a crusade, other governments and businesses must be involved. I must say that it is disturbing to see recent settlements such as 18 per cent for Toronto University professors, or 15 per cent for Toronto metro outside workers. I was reading some comments by Mr. Godfrey.


Nelson Andrew Riis: What about MPs, what was their last increase?


Donald James Johnston: Today's Toronto Star states:
Etobicoke Council will likely prove Godfrey's point today by ratifying a 1982 contract giving the borough's outside workers a 15 per cent pay increase.
The union and borough negotiators reached agreement on the 15 per cent raise on Monday night shortly after finance minister Allan MacEachen's plea for economic restraint.
Until then, the union had threatened to go on strike if workers were not given a 17 per cent "catch-up" increase.
"Fifteen per cent is way out of line", said one councillor, "but I guess it will go through because this council had no trouble voting themselves a 14.7 per cent increase effective in November."
The country simply cannot tolerate wage settlements at this level. 1 must say that it is equally disturbing to find most construction workers in the Province of Ontario have been given an increase of $2 per hour. That adds a cost of $4,000 to
the price of the average house. Do hon. members realize what that means in terms of the kinds of housing programs we are trying to introduce? A $2 per hour increase raises the cost of the average house by $4,000.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Do you get to the energy agreement?


Donald James Johnston: That is surely not the way to control inflation. People in Canada must become seized with the need for wage restraint. They must accept it themselves. They must support our position with regard to union leaders who are extreme in their demands. They must urge their elected representatives, at whatever level, to fight for our 6 per cent and 5 per cent targets so that we will in fact have a rate of inflation of 6 per cent in 1983 and a rate of 5 per cent in the year that follows.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Any bets?


Donald James Johnston: Failing the acceptance of this challenge by the people of Canada, what do we have to fall back on? What would there be? Perhaps mandatory, across-the-board controls which would be difficult to enforce without the kind of support that this crusade is intended to generate. Drift? That is the other alternative. Cruising down the river on a Sunday afternoon? We know that rough water lies ahead and we have already drifted over some rapids. To continue that analogy, drifting-


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: For fourteen years!


Donald James Johnston: -always seems to be the easy course until the canoe spills over.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Why not call an election on the issue and then we will find out what the people think about it?


Donald James Johnston: The choice is before us. The choice is here for Canadians to make. We on this side are doing our best. We are determined in our efforts to make sure that the reality of the situation in this country is put before the people of Canada.
We would expect, we would hope, and I would exhort the members opposite in their discussions of these very critical issues in this very critical period to make known their own awareness of the depth and universality of this problem to Canadians and to themselves. This is no time for posturing to secure short-term political advantages, even if some of the opportunities look inviting. I hope hon. members of this House will deny themselves those inviting opportunities and raise their sights to the level of the national interest and away from their own partisan interest.
I am saying that the national interest demands a national approach. It demands a national commitment. That is what we seek. Let me quote George Reylea, whose quote appears in yesterday's Ottawa Citizen. When asked to comment on the restraint program, he said:
I don't mind it a bit; it's a hell of a good thing, we should set the example.
June 30, 1982

An unnamed RCMP officer said:
The federal government has got to take a stand some place. This is it.
That is the kind of attitude that we see among our public servants. Perhaps we do not see it among the union leaders. That is the kind of attitude we must see across the public service. I hope that ultimately we will see this kind of attitude across Canada.
These are people with an awareness that is much broader than their own personal interests. I received a telex from Mr. R. S. Hurlbut of General Foods dated June 29. Responding to the plea of the Minister of Finance for voluntary wage constraint in the private sector, he said that General Foods today placed a 6 per cent limit on increases to salaried employees. The program is effective July 1. President Hurlbut said that the federal budget "set the tone for an economic recovery in Canada. Now it is up to business, industry and labour to get behind it and make the program work". He went on to say that "if Canada hoped to regain its competitive place in world markets, inflation must be brought under control. Restoring economic health to this country must become the number one priority of every Canadian".
These people know what the national interest is. It is up to every Canadian, not just Mr. Hurlbut of General Foods who has already begun and is doing his part to make this program work. I hope that what we have seen in the case of General Foods and others who will be following their example and our own is the beginning of an avalanche of support for this program to push that crusade I referred to in my earlier comments.


Hon. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) in his appeal to have this restraint initiative flow out through and across the various sectors of Canada. The time is long past due where a restraint initiative should have become a part of government policy.
After having listened to the NDP House leader, the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), I wonder why they voted against the budget of my colleague, the minister of finance in the Thirty-first Parliament. When a sincere initiative of restraint was put forward, it was labelled short-term pain for long-term gain. It was rejected by both the Liberals and the NDP. It was the NDP who made it possible for that government to fall. It was their motion. As a result, we now have long-term pain for short-term political gain. We have lived with the abuse of political power ever since that dark night of December 11.
It was the NDP who today appealed for lower interest rates, I believe 1 per cent above the rate of inflation. How they get that magic combination of arithmetic, I will never understand. It was the NDP who voted against mortgage deductibility for the home owners of Canada. That in itself has turned out to be the national tragedy. There is not a member of this House who is not aware of the deep, sincere and pitiful anguish experienced by families in thousands of households across this nation as I speak today.
Our trouble started back in 1968 when we changed the rules of this House and deemed the process of supply to be passed,
The Budget-Mr. Huntington
the estimates on May 31 and the appropriations bill on June 30. That is when the trouble began. There were no longer any checks and balances within this chamber, which is really here for the fundamental purpose of controlling supply and forcing accountability.
Accountability was lost from that day forward. Spending went out of control, as has been reported by Canada's auditors general. It is still out of control. They are profligate spenders. When there were good days of high revenues, they never thought of putting a dollar in the bank to cover the bad days, which always come within business cycles.
In 1968 we were spending something like $692 per taxpayer in this country. Today this government is spending over $8,200 per taxpayer in this country. Today we are spending $3,175 for every man, woman and child in Canada. In 1968 it was $549. Our overspending in this fiscal year alone is $1.66 billion a month. I can remember you, Mr. Speaker, being in the Chair not too many months ago when I used to complain about the overspending being a billion dollars a month. In the last year, this government's spending habits have risen from $1 billion a month to $1.66 billion. This government is spending that much more than it is taking in through revenues.
Something is wrong with the whole federal system. Every single person in Canada feels it, knows it and is worried. Everyone is asking what they can do, how they can help, how to get this in check and how they can bring discipline to their own spending.
Spending is out of control. Not only that, we have been borrowing to pay interest on our borrowing. We have been borrowing as though the only source in Canada that needed funds was the federal government.
In the next six months we face potential maturity on official government debt instruments which amount to 48 per cent of the total marketable debt that this government holds. In case that figure is not sufficiently startling, that is some $443A billion in potential call on the federal government as we appoach closer and closer to a condition of collapse. This is reckless and irresponsible spending for short-term political gain. It is a tragedy. Our democracy is paying for it.
Since this government has been in power the inflation rate has moved from 9.2 per cent to 11.8 per cent, correct at May. The Canadian dollar has slipped from 84.6 cents to under 77 cents today. As to interest rates, the mortgage rate has moved from 14.69 per cent to 19.75 per cent. The unemployment adjusted rate, Mr. Speaker, has gone from 7.6 per cent to 10.2 per cent in May.
I heard the appeal of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) today. I know that gentleman and he is very sincere, in spite of the fact that he was one of the most powerful critics of this government's spending habits prior to becoming a member of the House of Commons. He was the author of that book "Fiscalamity". It laid it all out and said how the

June 30, 1982
The Budget-Mr. Huntington
economy should be corrected, but not one measure in that book has been put into place since he has been a minister.
The Minister of Finance on budget night made an appeal to reduce the inflation rate of this country from 12 per cent to 6 per cent by capping increases, and he was to start with Members of Parliament and the federal civil service. Fie put peculiar emphasis on the word "solidarity" in that appeal.
I have in my hand a copy of the committal order of Lech Walesa, the father and creator of the Solidarity movement in this world. That man was struggling for the people of Poland. He was struggling for their right to join a union. He was struggling for the freedom to choose for the Polish people. He was struggling for the freedom to bargain with employers, even if it was the state. Political freedom was a dream in that land. Mr. Speaker, if you ever want to experience some sober reading, flip through the committal order of Lech Walesa and read the list of places of detention in Poland. They are all listed with the numbers of internees.
As we watch Canada unfold in 1982, more and more people become concerned. When we use the word "solidarity" I hope we can return to a complete understanding of how important that word is to so many people in a country that dreams of the freedom that we have a tendency to take for granted and abuse.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: That is what is happening here today. I say this, Mr. Speaker, in all sincerity, because the form of government in Canada has been changed. Many of us are very concerned about the condition of rules in this House and that it is moving away from a participatory democracy more and more to a leadership form of democracy, where announcements are made outside the Chamber. We have 3,500 orders in council, rules and regulations coming down per year. We are jammed up with details on massive legislation that is all leading us and directing us to one thing, Mr. Speaker, and that is structured intervention in the marketplace.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, we of all people can understand and feel the historic warning that once you lose freedom in the marketplace, all through history people have lost their political freedom.
1 have watched this alliance between the New Democratic Party and the Liberal government, this Liberal-NDP socialist alliance, move in with structure and intervention and control over the marketplace. They move in with an avalanche of Crown corporations. We have just given the minister responsible for the national energy policy powers to put in place, at his will and whim, subject to cabinet approval, Crown corporations with agency of Her Majesty status, which puts them in a place all by themselves. The laws of the provinces, the laws of this federal government, cannot touch these people. These people can commit themselves to debt and to risk, and they create contingent liabilities on top of the burden on this country. The last time 1 checked, our burden was something like $137 billion of direct debt. We now have another $20
billion to add to that. On top of that debt, our Crown corporations' sub-government has created another known $58 billion of contingent liabilities on this government. It is no wonder that some of us at large in this country, including the chief executive officers of banks, are now outwardly and outspokenly concerned about the condition of this country. Countries do go bankrupt, just the same as we are watching small business, medium business and now large business face bankruptcies and receiverships.
Last evening I heard my colleague, the hon. member from Provencher (Mr. Epp), comment on the Minister of Finance's appeal to the country. He pointed out that the trouble the Minister of Finance and his colleague the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) have, is that no one trusts this government. No one believes them any more, because they are a party that can justify anything. When I say a party that can justify anything, Mr. Speaker, back on January 29, 1982 I was in this House with my earphone plugged in, and the member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Gimai'el) told us exactly what a Liberal was and pointed out how easy it is for a Liberal to justify anything.
That brought to mind the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when he wrote in Cite Libre in April, 1963:
The political philosophy of the Liberal Party is simplicity itself; "Say anything, think anything: better still, think nothing but put us in power, for we are best fitted to govern."
Today we have corrected a budget from last November 12 with a deficit projected at $10.5 billion; and some six or seven months later, that projection was out by an obvious 60, 70 or 80 per cent. In fact, I will say 100 per cent, because the deficit is now projected, seven months later, to be $20 billion. Something is seriously wrong.
With this restraint program and the appeal in the budget from the Minister of Finance and the President of the Treasury Board to work, you need the trust of the nation. As the hon. member from Provencher (Mr. Epp) last night said: "You have cried 'wolf too often and the people just don't trust you." You have only to go back and look at the question period today to see some of the answers that deliver further mistrust of the government.
In 1968, in the book "Federalism and the French Canadians", the Prime Minister stated:
Federalism must be welcomed as a valuable tool which permits dynamic parties to plant socialist governments in certain provinces from which the seeds of radicalism can slowly spread.
The people of Saskatchewan woke up to that statement and the truth of it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: My appeal through you, Mr. Speaker, is that the people of Canada wake up before it is too late, before the system is gone and the freedom that we struggled and fought for through the centuries is gone.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 30, 1982


Arthur Ronald Huntington: In 1968 the Prime Minister promised to hold government interference where it is not needed. What did we have through the last 14 years but a gradual building up, and into the last two years a rapid movement into a structured, totally interventionist federal government, with centralist control over the whole marketplace in the economy of Canada. That is our lot. He said he would not do it; he has done it.
In 1968 this same Prime Minister promised his government would not spend more than it earned. In 1968 the gross debt was $32.5 billion. We do not know what the gross debt is today, but it must be close to $160 billion. The Prime Minister said he would not spend more than his government earned. I heard him.
The 1966 white paper on metrication and the minister who charted the omnibus bill through for the then Liberal government said-and reiterated-that although the implementation dates were not mandatory, they served as guidelines for each member's company or organization in a given sector. Today we have orders in council making metric mandatory. Prison sentences are being imposed or threatened on small merchants and large merchants; it does not matter where. The government wants trust; it has not earned it.
In 1974 the Prime Minister promised not to implement wage and price controls. He said so during an election campaign. He said he would not do it. What did he do one year later? He implemented wage and price controls without a mandate.
In 1974 the Prime Minister promised to rehabilitate passenger train traffic. In 1981, through order in council, 20 per cent of our passenger lines were abandoned. And the government wants trust?
In 1975 the Prime Minister declared there was no way the free market system could be made to work. He added that after wage and price controls were lifted, the government had other tools of control at its disposal. He was speaking of the CTC and the CRTC.
In 1979 the Prime Minister said his government would provide some compromise and some sense of solidarity in federal-provincial relations. During that same election campaign he described himself as a chairman who could reconcile the provinces' differences. What did he do in 1982? He announced the death of co-operative federalism.
In 1980 the Prime Minister campaigned against an 18-cent gasoline tax, an excise tax in the Crosbie budget. What has happened is pitiful history. Even the gasoline and electric light bills of the people of British Columbia have a subtax added to the bottom whereby they are paying for Petro-Canada. Eighty-three cents will be the burden on the Canadian people by the end of 1983, when 18 cents was defeated by the political opportunists of the socialist alliance. I could go on and on and give hon. members chapter and verse as to why this appeal in this hour of need in this country will not reach out. It is because the people do not trust the Liberal Government of Canada.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Right on!
The Budget-Mr. Huntington


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Does this budget address the interest rate problem? No, it does not. If we want one indicator of the emotional level of sophisticated people in the land, we can read the stock market indicators. Activity on the stock market is mostly the result of emotion in anticipation of the future. The day after the budget was known the Toronto Stock Exchange indicator dropped 40 points. That tells us how the knowledgeable people of the country reacted. The dollar opened at 76 cents and climbed back to almost 77 cents.
There are only three ways to bring interest rates down. High interest rates are a national dilemma. Their high level has been caused by the inflationary policies of governments. They have been caused not just by the policies of the Canadian government but by those of governments the world over. When we move away from a currency or monetary system based on something which can be measured against and turn the currency or monetary system of a country over to politicians, it is not long before it is prostituted and destroyed. It is called fiat money, or false money. Our currency is no longer a medium of exchange in this country. It is a commodity, and somehow or other government policies have to address that.
If we are to address the real problems which have developed as we have come out of the Keynesian era of post-war reconstruction, we have to recognize that we have repeated history once again by allowing rigidities to be built into our system. Those rigidities are the result of control over the marketplace by too much corporate concentration. Capitalist units cannot compete. They are exactly the same as states and state bureaucracies. They want control. They cannot be bothered with the rough and tumble of competition and the give and take of the marketplace. So we have allowed massive corporate concentration unparalleled in any other free society or western society to take place in Canada. These capitalist concentrations buy up all the little annoyances in the marketplace and create monopolies. We allow marketing boards to control supply in order to keep prices up and drain the consumer's pocketbook and wallet.
We also have allowed too much power to be concentrated in the hands of organized labour in key segments of the economy. I am not attacking the rank and file of organized labour; organized labour was necessary and good because it had to match and balance the degree of capitalist corporate concentration we had allowed to develop. That offset had to be there. However, as these organized labour units bargain for more and more of the pie, it is very interesting that fewer and fewer people go back to work. I agree with what the President of the Treasury Board said today. Somehow or other we have to deliver on this one. It is just too bad the people of Canada no longer trust hon. members opposite, and in order to deliver they will need a lot of help.
There are three ways to bring down interest rates. One is an economic collapse, and we are coming dangerously close to the end of a business cycle which could collapse. The second one is to use the Bank of Canada more effectively in controlling the flow and taking the heat off the flow of exchanges in and out of Canada. I spoke about that on June 21, as recorded in

June 30, 1982
The Budget-Mr. Huntington
Hansard at page 18680, and I tried to put out some questions which would excite some minds to see if we could not break through the impasse the country's economists have come to in managing our economy more effectively in international monetary systems and marketplaces.
Our dilemma also stems from the 1971 Benson tax act. We have now had a decade of socialist taxation. It is an absolute failure. We cannot enter the GATT era unless we move ourselves back to something which taxes costs instead of the profits and home-generated capital we so desperately need in order to manage, own and control our own affairs. We still have to go out and borrow from other countries which save in order to expand and make use of the vast resources we have in this country. Our taxation system is wrong, and we in this House should be paying a lot of attention to a new taxation philosophy which would allow us to prepare for the GATT era and once again allow this country and its workers, its managers, its professionals and even its politicians to hold their heads high in the industrialized world, because we have slipped to thirteenth place from third.
Something is desperately wrong and we are not addressing the fundamental causes of our problems. They are there. They have to be identified, and then we have to go to work with vital debate in order to solve them. We cannot go on listening to the economists who have turned themselves into a debating society, one on one, each putting the other down. That day has gone. The Keynesian era has gone. The rigidities must be addressed. New taxation policies are needed. This government will not bring them in. 1 am speaking in a canyon here because this government is a structuralist, interventionist, collectivist type of government. It will control, one way or another, everything in the marketplace. There will be no freedom left. I want to go in the opposite direction, and that is the way I want to see my party go.
I am always fascinated when the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) speaks. Many members of the New Democratic Party are good speakers.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Hear, hear!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: They are very fluent and oratorical, and there are some very nice guys down there, too. But we get into trouble with them on their mindset. It pays to listen to the NDP rhetoric.
They have made an appeal to the small business community. In fact, every time they speak they appeal to the small business community. The rhetoric is pretty smooth. In one ad they said, "We should be diversifying our economy away from resource exploration". I think resource exploration has the greatest multiplier for creating jobs and wealth, Mr. Speaker. I do not think we could start from a more sound base, but the policy of the NDP is diversification away from the strongest element there is in the process of creating wealth. The advertisement reads well. Without jobs and wealth how can we sustain the welfare benefits in our system? If we do not develop the
resources that we are blessed with, how can we create the jobs and the wealth that is needed to sustain the enviable social welfare system that exists in this country?
For the eight years that I have been a member of this House I have been telling the NDP that, if they continue to support the profligate spending of the Liberal government, one day the welfare system that we are so proud of in Canada and that attracts so many people to the country would be threatened with collapse. That day is here, Mr. Speaker.
This ad that I referred to says that the NDP would restructure the FBDB. Mr. Speaker, it has been in the process of being restructured for the last three years. The ad says they would lend money with more reasonable rules on collateral. How is that possible? The FBDB lost $48 million last year and this year its losses will probably amount to $70 million or $80 million. It is the lender of last resort and has to come to this House for very large appropriations. I support those appropriations, Mr. Speaker, because some winners emerge from the system.
The NDP would give small business managerial, financial and marketing advice. What is CASE doing? It is one of the finest consulting services that this government has ever made available to the business community.
The ad talks about an industrial strategy that would de-emphasize the "rip and run" of resource exploration. It says that the NDP wants rent controls. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the Marxist activitists are always working against landlords. We have had a period of an almost zero vacancy rate in some parts of Canada.
I have a real feeling for the need for public housing because I could not have started in business if I had not lived in a CMHC house at $49 per month when I was starting out. I know the value of government assistance in housing. Renters could buy those houses when their income reached a certain standard. That is the type of housing that should be provided now; it was very efficient, very effective and very humane. It allowed people dignity and gave them a start in life.
Today grants are offered but people have to apply for them. This means there is more control over their lives. Business has to apply for grants to drill holes-but only if they are winners. Business and individuals have to apply for funds that should be given in tax points. Two million people making decisions at large in this country is a lot better than having 350 bureaucrats isolated and insulated from the reality of the business place making decisions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: The concepts of the Minister of Finance are exactly opposite to the concepts that work in the world. I told him that on June 21 but, judging from his answers in question period today, apparently he did not hear me.
How are we to resolve the problem, Mr. Speaker? I think the only way we can keep ourselves from being a totally structured, interventionist, centralized government type of
June 30, 1982

country where we risk our basic freedoms and our freedom to choose is to change the government.
Every person in this country who believes in the parliamentary system is concerned about the move away from the fundamental concept of ministerial responsibility. In this session of Parliament we should have seen three ministers resign because of their lack of responsibility for their departments. A minister who creates a jungle of confusion, such as the Minister of Finance has, must resign if the fundamental principle of parliamentary democracy is to survive.
In conclusion, I see you have a copy of "Fiscalamity" in your hand, Mr. Speaker. The author of that is the President of the Treasury Board. It is worth reading because it will show what his mindset was when he wrote it and before he became a politician. It will also show how little he has done since he became a politician.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if my friend from British Columbia would be prepared to answer a serious question.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Certainly.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The hon. member said that the New Democratic Party advocated policies of reckless spending. I wonder if he would tell us if he is aware of what happened in a province where we can judge the NDP by what it has done. I do not maintain that the NDP is perfect. In Saskatchewan under three Premiers, Tommy Douglas, Woodrow Lloyd and Allan Blakeney, there have been balanced budgets almost all the time and it has had what is probably the lowest per capita debt of any province. Is the hon. member aware of that? Is he also aware that compared to Conservative provinces like Ontario, the per capita debt is greater in such places?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of those facts. I am also aware of the manner in which resources were taken over and the degree of taxation cash flow that was used to nationalize industries, to buy land and farms and so on. I am also aware the the Government of Saskatchewan would not touch the potash industry as long as there was a risk. It was the private sector and American capital that took all the risk in developing the technology for mining potash. As soon as that technology was in place and all the risk was known, the socialist government of Saskatchewan nationalized the industry.
Now the people of Saskatchewan have spoken out. Too much of their cash flow and too much of their taxation dollar has gone to nationalization and state ownership. They spoke out and rejected the government. I think the NDP went too far with their mania for state ownership over the means of producing goods and services.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentions that the NDP government would not take the risk for public ownership of the mines when they were being constructed. Is he aware that with perhaps one exception, all the mines were
The Budget-Mr. MacLaren
started under a Liberal government and therefore the NDP could not do anything sooner?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I remember a statement by the leader of the NDP in Saskatchewan to the effect that they were not interested in nationalizing or taking something with that much risk. I could probably find that statement because it is my vertical file at home on Mr. Blakeney.


Mr. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, Canada, along with other industrialized nations, is passing through a period of economic recession. To varying degrees unemployment, inflation, high interest rates and lower productivity are apparent in all industrialized countries.
The fundamental reasons for this widespread recession are varied. Higher petroleum costs have adversely affected the cost of everything else. It is difficult to think of any product which does not require energy in its growth, extraction or manufacture. Increased expenditures by governments dating back to the United States financing of the Vietnam war have exceeded real economic growth. As the public's expectations of what governments should provide have greatly expanded, governments have not always matched their increased spending with increased taxation. Accordingly, deficits have grown and money has been printed, which creates the classic inflationary circumstances of more money chasing fewer goods and services.
Canada has not, of course, been immune from these and other international economic misfortunes, and Canada has responded in ways similar to those of other western countries. We have reduced our money supply, we are absorbing substantially higher energy prices, we have sought ways to reduce federal government expenditure.
On the question of restricted money supply, the Business Council on National Issues recently endorsed the government's policy by saying:
We have nothing but admiration for the battle being waged in the name of common sense with respect to the Bank of Canada's monetary policy. There is really not much point in validating with increased money supply the very inflation that must be reduced.
Excessive money supply is not, of course, the only element which must be addressed resolutely in attempting to reduce high inflation and interest rates. However, in introducing broader policies to reduce inflation and interest rates as the sure route to more jobs and real prosperity, Canada is in a more vulnerable position than most other industrialized countries. About one-third of our gross national product, indeed our very prosperity, if you will, depends upon exports; a much higher percentage than most countries.
Further, about 70 per cent of those exports are to the United States. That fact alone makes us especially vulnerable to economic policies pursued by Washington. We are rendered even more vulnerable by the fact that of our trade with the United States, more than one-half is really intracompany

June 30, 1982
The Budget-Mr. MacLaren
transfer; that is, products or components moving among the plants or warehouses of a single company.
Over the years we have from time to time heard about how, when the United States sneezes, Canada catches a cold, or about the twitchy elephant and its wary bedmate, the mouse. Such metaphors, while colourful and excessive, do have some validity. The U.S., while having achieved some success in reducing inflation, has done so at the expense of massive unemployment. Also, the U.S. although remained incapable of reducing its own interest rates, with its federal government deficit seen as a major factor contributing to the upward pressure on interest rates. If interest rates in Canada were lower than those in the United States, money would naturally flow out of Canada in search of the higher rate of return.
As Canadian dollars were sold to purchase U.S. dollars, the exchange rate of the Canadian dollar against the U.S. dollar would decline. Our imports, largely paid in U.S. dollars, would cost more, as would the repayment of interest and principal on past borrowings. Inflation in Canada would grow as a result. An alternative, in theory, would be to impose currency controls; but if Canadians wish to maintain an open boundary for currency exchange with the country with whom we do so much trade and which has so heavily invested in Canada, then controls to retain capital in Canada are simply not an option.
While we must, apparently, anticipate that interest rates will remain high in the U.S., at least until Congress and the President resolve their current differences over the size of the deficit, there are some things that we can realistically do to increase our own productivity and reduce our inflation and interest rates. The new budget introduces or strengthens a variety of such measures. Other opportunities reside in such concurrent government initiatives as a national program for occupational training, increased export promotion, and more regulatory reform. However, the possibilities for improvement by all such measures are unfortunately limited by an inescapable fact, which again the business Council on National Issues has stated succinctly:
We cannot and will not return to strong economic growth as long as our major trading partners continue to experience slow growth or stagnation. Canadians' expectation of what can be achieved must be realistic.
This is a truism that Canada and other western nations took to the recent Versailles Summit meeting when they sought modifications of current U.S. economic policies. But it is a statement of cold comfort to the 1.2 million Canadians now unemployed or those who are facing business bankruptcy or farm foreclosure.
To lessen the adverse impact of economic policy pursued elsewhere, we in Canada must achieve more singleness of purpose here at home. Our prosperity in the past has allowed us to afford the luxury of differences between federal and provincial governements which has lessened our ability to define national directions.
Equally, we have allowed ourselves the luxury of an adversary relationship among labour, business and government. Several of our major trading competitors have, in contrast, achieved a harmony of national intent not evident in Canada.
Accordingly, I welcome the initiative of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to bring together today the provincial Premiers in an effort to ensure that the two levels of government practise the same restraint, that they march to the same economic tune.
Equally, the refinement of much needed measures to encourage investment by Canadians in productive capacity- not in consumption but in productive capacity-will be recommended by a national committee composed of eminent businessmen, economists and financial experts. This should in turn reinforce consultation and understanding between at least two of the major forces in our economy.
If greater cohesion of national purpose results from these and other initiatives, Mr. Speaker, the probability will be enhanced of Canadians placing themselves in a position to compete effectively when international economic recovery does come.
The economic problem confronting Canadians today is not, after all, a short-term one, however difficult and painful for many those short-term problems may be. There is also the longer-term problem of ensuring that our inflation is sufficiently reduced for us to be able to compete against those who have already achieved such reduction. We must ensure that we do not price ourselves out of world markets.
Canada is not in such a position today, Mr. Speaker. Typically, wage settlements in Canada, including those in the federal and provincial public service, have run well ahead of a number of our major trading competitors during the past few years. Further, our income expectations have considerably exceeded our limited productivity increases. When that happens more inflation and more unemployment inevitably result. Canadians must accept lower income increases if such increases are to match increases in our productivity. This must happen if we are to compete with those in other countries who have achieved a greater equilibrium between increases in their income and their productivity.
Such restraint is now becoming evident elsewhere even in the United States, our major trading and investment partner. That is why in the budget the federal government has shown the way to breaking the wage-price spiral, breaking what is frequently called inflation psychology. The federal government could, of course, impose mandatory wage and price restraints on the whole economy, but that is a Draconian intervention which can be avoided if the example now set by the federal and some provincial governments is followed by the private sector. As the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) stated in his budget speech:
This strategy will lead in the short run to a lowering of our real income.
There is no escaping that unpalatable fact. The minister added:
But it will soon slow the process that is eroding our pay cheques. It will check the rise of unemployment. And it will establish a firm basis for the resumption of real income growth throughout the economy.
June 30, 1982

Income restraint in the federal and provincial public sectors will set not only an example for voluntary action by the private sector-and it is the private sector which has itself advocated voluntary action and not mandatory controls-but it will also release funds to stimulate more private investment in productive capacity. Such funds are not, however, adequate in themselves to enable the federal government to provide necessary investment incentives and to encourage an early return of greater business confidence.
At the same time as the government limits wage increases to 6 per cent this year and 5 per cent next year for a half million federal and Crown corporation employees, it will place similar limits on the indexing of major social programs, exempting those recipients, however, who are in the greatest need. Equally, the government will move on the other side of the equation. It will limit indexing of income tax to the same 6 per cent and 5 per cent formula. And price increases under federal regulatory agencies will also be limited by the same amounts. This whole package, when taken together, will contribute to a national goal of reducing substantially our current high rate of inflation and of regaining our growth momentum.
This package sets for the provinces and the private sector a common goal of no more than 6 per cent this year and 5 per cent next year in those areas of income prices under their control. To succeed, this must be a truly national effort. The national government has now shown the way to move, as the finance minister has noted, from the 12 per cent world of recession to the 6 per cent world of recovery.
This action in itself will contribute to a growing realization in our business community that the federal government deficit will be both constrained and increasingly used in a positive, constructive manner. Investor confidence will be enhanced. Government revenue will be released which, when diverted into incentives for productive investment, can reinforce the mood of greater investor confidence and, in turn, generate greater tax revenue as well as creating badly needed jobs. The private sector is, after all, the principal motivator of the economy, the principal employer of Canadians as well as the generator of prosperity.
It is for this reason that the reduction in government spending is being used in two ways, both directly and indirectly to reduce the deficit and to promote more productive investment.
Some direct measures are immediate. Others are for final decision this autumn but will be retroactive to the date of the budget. When I speak of immediate measures, I have in mind, for example, those relating to the housing industry. The government proposes a $3,000 non-taxable cash grant to all purchasers of new houses for which construction starts before December 31 and first-time buyers of existing houses purchased up to December 31. Some members opposite have argued that such a grant will do nothing to promote the construction industry in particular or the general investment climate in general. This measure is, in fact, an unprecedented aid to help both home buyers and the construction industry.
The Budget-Mr. MacLaren
For example, many Ontario residents can now combine the federal grant of $3,000 with the $5,000 interest-free loan provided by Ontario. Accordingly, the vice-president of the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada said that:
This is a very good attempt, especially with the Ontario program-no one can ignore a combined grant of $8,000-it is a good short-term stimulus and we'll look after the long-term ourselves.
The vice-president of the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada suggested that approximately 30,000 more new houses would be built this year because of these incentives. Thus the incentives not only illustrate the importance of existing federal-provincial co-opertion in the economic field, but also suggest the benefits that the construction of new houses will bring to the Canadian economy as a whole.
When coupled with provincial grants, it is projected that as many as 100,000 new home buyers will take advantage of the scheme. Moreover, the federal grant program is estimated to create 50,000 new jobs in the construction industry alone. Undeniably, such stimulus by government is good for the hard hit construction industry and for the economy generally.
In speaking of immediate measures, I also have in mind such initiatives as the new investment grants to small business, which have been outlined in the budget, the postponement of the dividend tax on small business and the taxation of interest income. Foreign investment review procedures will be streamlined to avoid delays and red tape that have hindered efforts to ensure that Canadians receive maximum benefits from foreign investment. Increasing the threshold for mergers and acquisitions by non-Canadian investors can, for example, bring new opportunity for increased productivity in our economy.
All these and other direct and immediate measures contained in the budget are in a sense bridging mechanisms leading to yet more substantial measures in the time ahead. The budget's more indirect and more fundamental method to encourage investment is based on the fact that current Canadian savings are at levels substantially ahead of several of our major competitors. Our capital markets cannot, however, channel these substantial funds into productive investment when inflation so grossly distorts real earnings. The attractiveness of investing in common shares to provide companies with the funds essential for renewal or expansion are simply not there when inflation distorts the measurement of income from capital. As the valuable document tabled on Monday night entitled "Inflation and the taxation of personal income" states:
Inflation-induced increases in interest rates can lead to cash flow problems for borrowers and can hamper the proper functioning of the capital markets. These problems have become particularly acute for home buyers and for many businesses contributing to the depth of the current recession in a number of industries. At the same time, the tax treatment of investment income has left many investors facing negative real after-tax rates of return on their savings in spite of higher interest rates.
Accordingly, the government has put forward tax proposals that would remove some of the distortions caused by inflation. These proposals are designed to provide for more appropriate

June 30, 1982
The Budget-Mr. Blenkarn
taxation of interest income and capital gains from selected investments by individuals. The committee of businessmen, economists and financial experts which was announced on Monday, during the next three months, refine the measures intended to result in new incentives for investment. These include a registered shareholder investment plan, an imaginative step which, by offering a shelter for investors, will make available substantial additional funds for productive investment. Companies which have found that their traditional sources of investment capital have dried up in the face of inflation and high interest rates will have new funds to invest in the new plant and equipment which we need so urgently to improve our industrial productivity. In welcoming this initiative of the Minister of Finance, the president of the Investment Dealers' Association stated: "His diagnosis of what we have to do in Canada is correct: improve productivity and confidence."
A second major step to improve productivity and confidence will be to create a new form of term deposit. Tax on interest earned on such deposits would not include that part which merely reflects the rate of inflation. With such an incentive, buyers of new homes would be able to obtain mortgages at 3 to 6 percentage points lower than prevailing rates. Loans for new investment would be available at the same reduced rates to farmers, fisherfolk and small businessmen. Here again is a major new opportunity to channel Canadian savings into Canadian productive capacity and into improved productivity which, when matched with wage restraint, will place Canada in a position to compete effectively in world economic recovery.
In accordance with the widespread desire across Canada that major tax reforms be discussed publicly, the Minister of Finance offered proposals for such consultation in his recent green paper. The decision to refer the major proposals which I have just described to an expert committee and to invite public comment by the end of August is fully in accord with the new, more open approach to budget-making. The need for prompt action will, however, be as evident to members of the committee as I am sure it is to every member of the House.
Measures to increase productivity are, after all, the only real panacea for inflation. However, they will only succeed if we have the collective will, unity and determination to reduce our inflation. I do not doubt that Canadians have that will and that determination and that the new budget shows the way forward. Supplementary programs and additional measures such as 1 have already mentioned will also be necessary, but as a result of the new budget the course is now clearer.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I feel sad for my country today. Our economy is in terrible shape. Businesses are failing. We have heard evidence before the committee of the House on banking and bank profits and we now have the extent of the recession or depression, if one wants to call it that.
When we look at our country, we look at the fact that we have enough oil in Hibernia, in the tar sands and in already known heavy oil deposits to last for more than 200 years. Also we have gas, coal, hydro, uranium and energy of all kinds. Yet we are prevented from exporting that energy and developing that energy for export by a foreign investment review policy and a foreign policy promulgated by the New Democratic Party and certified by the government to ensure that we fail to develop the resources and the potential of the country and fail to supply our people with jobs.


Mr. Waddell:: We are against the National Energy Program.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: You are in favour of the foreign investment review process and you want to ensure that people do not have jobs. You want to keep people out of work.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Baloney.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: You are the same type of party as the party opposite.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: You have voted with them twice as much as we have.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: We have a non-confidence motion today. It is an amendment by those people to my left to the motion we have put forward. They are trying to trap us and ensure that we will not vote against the government, that we will vote with the government. I want to tell my friend, because he is the only member of that party who is present in the House, that we will vote against the government. We do not care what kind of a fool motion his party puts up because his party is irrelevant. It is irrelevant to the workers of Canada; it is irrelevant to Canadians generally. It will not be long before there are very few of them here.
As 1 was saying, we in this country have more resources, more water, more available arable land, more fishery resources, more timber resources, more minerals of every kind and more literate people than any nation of the world. Yet we have one of the most serious depressions we have ever faced since the 1930s. Perhaps it is as serious as, or even more serious than the one of the 1930s.
Our gross domestic product has declined 5.1 per cent in the last 12 months. We have a situation where the government comes before the House of Commons with a budget deficit of $20 billion. We have a situation where we have a banana dollar at 77 cents. 1 ask why we have 11.8 per cent inflation. Why do we have a million and a quarter people unemployed? Why do we have interest rates 2 to 5 percentage points above those in the U.S.A.? Why do we have a lack of confidence in Canada? Why do we have people in Canada who are unable to find jobs when we have assets that any other nation or people in the world would be absolutely jealous of?


Mr. Benjamin:: Conservative policies.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I hear the hon. member. I remind him that he is a member of the no-hope party. It is called the New
June 30, 1982

Democratic Party, but it is the no-hope party. It is a party which looks after the welfare of people-a welfare party is what it is. It wants to put everyone down to the lowest common denominator. It wants to put everyone in blue jeans, so that they will all be equal and they will all march to the socialist drum. This is what they offer the people of Canada, no future or hope.
It is surprising that the government across the way has accepted their philosophy. Perhaps it is not too surprising. After all, was it not the leader of the government who was an active campaigner for the socialists in the 1962 election and in the 1963 election? Was he not a member of that party who worked so hard for socialist philosophies then and found that the only way to make socialism really work was to join the Liberal Party, because they would then have a base on which to put socialism in charge of Canada?
There once was a Liberal Party, the Liberal Party of Laurier. It was a Liberal Party which said that Canada would be the country of the twentieth century. Would Sir Wilfrid Laurier, as the Liberal leader, have said: "Lower your expectations, lower your hopes, lower your chance to build a profitable business, lower your chance for a better home, lower your expectations; don't go for a better job or more money to get ahead and build your family"? Are those the kinds of things we would have heard from Laurier as leader of the Liberal Party? No, not on your life.


Donald W. Munro: Nor from St. Laurent.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: My friend says "Nor St. Laurent". Nor Mackenzie King, even. But what do we hear from this party opposite in its budget address? "Lower your expectations".
Then it is wondered why we have not used our Canada to its great potential. We find the answer in the minister's budget address, on page 2, in the second paragraph, where the minister complains about foreign governments and says:
Their governments are unable, or have not chosen, to design their economic policies to help us get out of our recession.
Well, there you are. A banana republic we surely have become, because now we hear the government saying that foreign governments have not organized their affairs to help us get out of our recession. Well, should they? Should we, with our inherited assets in this great land occupied by about 24 million people, be looking to foreign governments, to foreign countries, to be bailing us out of the recession?
1 asked the minister just that type of question in the House the other day, on June 16. With respect to the question of confidence in Canada, the minister said in reply to me that I was responsible for undermining the confidence of the investment community. He said, as reported at page 18514 of Hansard'.
I would suggest to him that he has undermined it by suggesting that somehow the way the bond issue went was due to some Canadian policy. It was due basically to a nervousness in the market environment-
He said:
Maybe he would agree that he has a responsibility-
The Budget-Mr. Blenkarn
He was referring to me and for the first time I wondered how a poor country lawyer from the City of Mississauga was also all of a sudden responsible for the fact that a $750 million bond issue in Europe did not sell very well.
The government's policy has been to the blame the United States, to blame the provinces, to blame business, to blame Brian Peckford on one day, or Peter Lougheed on another day. On June 16, the government blamed me. All of a sudden, it was I who could not make things work, because the people did not have confidence in their government and its operations.
On that same date 1 forecast in the House of Commons that our deficit would be somewhere between $13 billion and $16 billion. On Monday night I could not believe my ears when I heard that our borrowing requirements were to be in excess of $17 billion and that our deficit would be $20 billion. I had no conception of how badly this government had mismanaged the affairs of Canada. It finally got to the point at which it had to come to the House of Commons on June 28 and tell us that it needed to borrow $17.1 billion, nearly three times what it said in November last would be its financial requirements.
I was first elected to this House of Commons on October 30, 1972. In that year, total government spending was $21,228 million. The total taxes taken in were $19,560 million and the deficit was $566 million. That was ten years ago. If we had kept within the range of inflation, this year's spending would possibly have reached $50 billion. Had we not been a little careful with spending, we might have reached a deficit of a billion dollars. Where are we going? Just ten years later our spending is $90 billion and our tax take is $70 billion. Where have these socialist policies, these N DP-oriented policies, taken us?
This is the party to my left which has been advocating certain policies to the Prime Minister and his colleagues. They are all the same type. They are the front runners for the Liberal Party. My western colleagues refer to the NDP as "Liberal Party West". Clearly it is the "Liberal Party West" because it does not have any member in what is traditionally called east of the Ottawa River, or eastern Canada. What do its members advocate? They have been advocating further state intervention in the lives of individuals, further government control.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Cutting taxes, stimulating the economy, industrial strategy!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: What have we received from this government? We have received a whole series of these socially-oriented programs, programs designed for what was formerly called an industrial strategy. In 1972, that is what the leader of the NDP, the late David Lewis, called industrial strategy. So what we have received has been the EDP programs, I LAP programs, enterprise development programs and the DIP program.


Mr. Fisher:: Tell that to the people at Admiral.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: They once said they wanted housing programs, so we now have housing programs. We have the NIP

June 30, 1982
The Budget-Mr. Blenkarn
program, the CHIP program, the COSP program and all sorts of programs. My goodness gracious, one could write a book about the programs. Indeed, they do write books about the programs and send them around. They are well bound, but I do not think even those books contain all the programs. It would be impossible for a Member of Parliament to really understand all the various alphabet soup programs produced by this government, programs really designed for one purpose and one purpose only.
Let us talk about that purpose, because that is the essence of where we are and the problems we are experiencing. That purpose is to make individual Canadians more and more dependent upon government.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Control the population.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The purpose is to take away, bit by bit, the individual economic freedom-making decision of individuals. I point out to Your Honour that when the freedom of people is taken away, their political freedom is taken away. That is why the New Democratic Party made sure that the right to own property was not in the Constitution.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Oh, get out. That was provincial.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The NDP did not want it, and the Liberal Party did not want it because somewhere along the line some man would have gone to court and said, "I have a right to own my property and you cannot take it from me".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Hon. members of the NDP do not like it when it is brought back to their attention. They do not like to be reminded-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is irrelevant.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: -that the farmers of Saskatchewan, the voters of Saskatchewan, realized what the NDP had done with the right to property-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: -how it operated a government which bought up all farmland and pushed up farm prices in Saskatchewan. That is why the NDP was thrown out.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Why do you not attack those guys?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Take it easy on our friends!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: My friend from Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher) says to take it easy on their friends in the NDP. We now have positive proof that the alliance is there-"take it easy on our friends".
We have a situation where we have had a whole series of economic programs that bit by bit control individuals. A builder may be afraid to criticize the government because he hopes Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation will give
him some money to finance a new apartment building in the form of a grant or interest-free loan.
Until recently a public servant was on my mailing list. When he was getting too much mail from me, his wife telephoned my constituency office. She asked that we take their name off the list. She said they support Mr. Blenkarn and are behind him 100 per cent, but are afraid the postman will note that they are always getting mail from him. They are worried that what happened to Neil Fraser might happen to them.
A chartered bank may be afraid to blow the whistle on this government because its guarantee for a loan may not come through. What is going to be the situation with Dome Petroleum?
An executive of an oil company may be worried about whether he will get his PIP grant on one basis or another. Perhaps he does not criticize.
An electrical manufacturer negotiating a foreign sale wants to make sure he receives his financing from the Export Development Corporation at a fancy low rate of interest which the minister and only the minister can supply. Maybe a volunteer organization would like to have a grant. Maybe a Portuguese club, an Italian newspaper or a senior citizens group are looking for a grant. Maybe it is a native person or a researcher at a university. 1 could go on and on.
These grant and aid programs bit by bit compromise people. They force people into making decisions. Bit by bit they leech away the political and economic freedom that Canadians have. Bit by bit they destroy vitality, entrepreneurship, drive and initiative because it is part of a program designed to bribe, cajole, manoeuvre and direct people from the ivory towers of Ottawa.


Donald W. Munro: And build up a debt.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: They do that for sure. What part does the budget play in this great control program? This budget is another giant step toward control. It imposes for the first time wage controls and wage guidelines on a mandatory basis at 6 per cent. It is a further control mechanism.
The budget provides for $3,000 grants to those who buy a new house and fill in the forms to prove that they paid some of their own cash. It is a further dependency. It proposes a program of 4 per cent interest related to small businesses that may want to expand. It subsidizes interest expense for those who do not have the ability to make their mortgage payments. Again and again and again it further intrudes into the decision-making process of individuals. Bit by bit it leeches away by these various measures, by the tiddley make-work programs and by tiddley grant programs, the freedom and capacity of Canada to compete in the world market.
I note, Mr. Speaker, you are ready to call it 5.45. I suggest we call it 5.45 for the bells.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I thank the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). It being 5.45 p.m., it is
June 30, 1982

my duty, pursuant to Section (6) of Standing Order 60, to interrupt the proceedings and put every question necessary to dispose of the amendment to the amendment now before the House.
The question is on the amendment to the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Call in the members.
*****
Before the taking of the vote:


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 think we are in a little bit of difficulty here. The seconder of the motion now before the House is not here, so that if the motion is to be put, 1 suggest it would have to be seconded by an hon. member other than the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I understand that before we entered the House the motion had already been moved and seconded, and therefore we can proceed to the vote.


Erik Nielsen: But surely, Madam Speaker, that is the point of order. The leader of the New Democratic Party is not here to second the motion. Therefore, to make our proceedings proper, I suggest to the Chair that the motion be put again and seconded by an hon. member who is in the chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, as usual, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is wrong.


Some hon. Members:: Where is your leader?


Ian Deans: I am sure you are aware, Madam Speaker-and I am sure I do not have to bring it to your attention-that the mover and seconder need only be in the House at the time the motion is accepted by the Chair. The leader of the New
The Budget-Mr. Blenkarn
Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), who seconded the motion on the day it was moved by our finance critic, the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), is in western Canada today undermining Conservatives.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: My best advice tells me that the motion was moved and seconded the other day when it was presented to the House. What I am doing now is putting the motion to hon. members so that they will be reminded of what the motion really is. We can proceed with the motion as it was seconded whether or not the hon. member for Oshawa is in the House.
The question is on the amendment to the amendment.


Madam Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order to seek information on whether the leader of the New Democratic Party and six other members of that party were absent so as to make sure that the government would not be defeated.


Madam Speaker:: It being past six o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 2(3), this House stands adjourned until Monday, July 5, 1982, at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.17 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, July 5, 1982