1982-02-17

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, I rise to protest the arrogant manner in which the metric conversion program is being forced on the Canadian consumer. The Metric Commission's own internal Gallup poll, which has been suppressed, clearly shows that a majority of Canadians polled are against metric. To add insult to injury the government is now, by order in council, giving another $3 million to the commission in addition to the $49.3 million already spent. Enough is enough. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga):
That the entire matter of metric conversion be referred to the appropriate committee of this House so that members and witnesses from the public sector may have the right to challenge the legality and necessity of metric conversion in Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, whereas Canadian firms have lost thousands of dollars over the last two years by reason of government indecision and FIRA-created delays, and whereas the government has lost between $5 million and $6 million, to say nothing of its credibility, because of its inept and unfair handling of the duty-free shop franchise at Toronto International Airport, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer):
That the Minister of Transport now adopt a serious and Canada-First posture on this debacle and honour forthwith his government's previous commitment that duty-free shops would be operated by Canadian-owned enterprises.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, whereas the minister responsible for the status of women has today announced the appointment of seven new members to the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women and two vice-presidents for the eastern and western regional CACSW offices, and whereas estimable though some or all of these appointments may be, none comes from the labour movement, even though women constitute 40 per cent of our labour force, and none comes from consistently disadvantaged groups such as low-income women and native women, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans):
That this House urges the minister responsible for the status of women, in making further appointments to the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, to overcome that Liberal propensity which leads her to ignore women in the labour force, low-income women and native women.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FISHERIES
Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) recently ruled that in order to qualify for renewal of a herring-mackerel fishing licence a fisherman must produce receipts from within the last three years. However, a large number of fishermen are unable to produce such receipts and therefore face losing their licences. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain):

February 17, 1982
That this House reprimand the minister for making a change without first consulting the fishermen or their associations and that he be directed to rescind this new qualification for the herring-mackerel licence.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. On Monday, Mayor Charles Royer of Seattle came to Vancouver to publicize a combination of gifts and threats in a stepped-up effort to persuade British Columbians to accept the inundation of 5,000 acres of prime recreational land in the Skagit Valley. Whereas government footdragging in appointing a chairman of the Canadian section of the International Joint Commission presently deliberating on this issue could result in an environmentally unacceptable Skagit Valley flooding decision while Canada is under-represented on the IJC, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett):
That the government take immediate action to appoint a Canadian chairman to the commission, that the IJC hold full public hearings on the Skagit Valley issue and that the federal government make a detailed presentation at these hearings emphasizing the environmental devastation which will take place if flooding is permitted.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, while the unemployment rate across Canada has reached the unprecedented level of 9 per cent, the Indians in my riding of Athabasca are experiencing unemployment rates of up to 80 per cent and 90 per cent. The people of the Bigstone Band, the Janvier Band, the Fort Chipewyan Band, the Cold Lake Band, the Fort MacKay Band, the Fort McMurray Band, the Sucker Creek Band, and many, many others continue to live in abject poverty, a situation which is getting progressively worse. Whereas the economic development which has come to this area has passed native peoples by and continues to leave them
far behind, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga):
That the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development be directed by this House to earmark funds for economic development to allow the native people of northeastern Alberta to participate in and benefit from the economic activity taking place instead of leaving them behind in poverty and despair.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLISHING
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, I rise to seek the attention of all hon. members of this House on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the terms of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the publication News from the Ukraine has entered Canada from the Soviet Union and has attacked the basic human rights of a former member of this House, Mr. Yuri Shymko, the present member of the provincial parliament in Ontario for the riding of High Park-Swansea, and in light of the fact that the July 30, 1981, issue of this publication viciously maligned Mr. Shymko by comparing him to the would-be assassins of the Holy Father Pope John Paul II, and President Ronald Reagan, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie):
That this House express its strong disapproval of the contents of the publication News from the Ukraine.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Fulton:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: The NDP said no.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Madam Speaker, because of the importance of the Crow rate to western Canadian grain farmers, the statutory Crow rate is the Magna Carta of the
February 17, 1982

western grain farmer. 1 therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight):
That this House condemn the government for its direction in regard to the statutory Crow rate when farmers are faced with the highest fuel costs in history, the highest machine costs and the highest production costs in the history of farming.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, in order to take into account the decrease in the value of money brought about by years of Liberal-caused inflation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid):
That the maximum deposit insured by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation be increased from the present limit of $20,000 to a more reasonable limit of $100,000.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLISHING
Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) on a point of order.


Mr. Nielsen:: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Park-dale-High Park (Mr. Flis) moved a motion which was seconded by the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie). There was unanimous consent; the Chair put the question, and a "No" came from the NDP corner somewhere. In my submission the Chair has an obligation to call for the yeas and nays.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member is right. I wanted to do that at the end of motions under Standing Order 43, but I can do it now.
I am referring to the motion presented by the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park and seconded by the hon. member for Rosedale, which reads:
That this House express its stong disapproval of the contents of the publication News from the Ukraine.
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those against the motion please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


James Ross Fulton: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: The yeas have it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Last week I and a number of my colleagues in the NDP caucus investigated charges from citizen and environmental groups that the Niagara River is being severely polluted by the chemical industry which is discharging waste materials into the river, and we determined that there is every reason for concern, despite the protestations from the Minister of the Environment to the contrary. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That this House directs the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry to establish an all-party subcommittee on persistent toxic substances to investigate the charges of citizen, scientific, legal and environmental groups that the dumping of toxic chemical wastes into the Niagara River is posing a serious hazard to this important water source, to fisheries, and to the health of Canadians.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
[Translation)

Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Stratheona):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Thousands of Canadians who borrow money to purchase registered retirement savings plans are very concerned, because the minister proposed in the budget that interest on such loans should not be tax deductible. However, since the budget has under-

February 17, 1982
Oral Questions
gone a number of changes, several of my constituents now wonder whether this particular measure might be changed as well.
My question is as follows: Does the minister intend to remove their cause for concern and allow Canadians to continue to deduct that interest from their income tax?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: No, Madam Speaker, it is not my intention to propose any further changes at this stage.


PROVISIONS AFFECTING HEALTH AND INSURANCE PLANS
David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. The minister is aware that there is widespread uncertainty across Canada about payroll deductions with respect to dental and health insurance plans. Some employees are now paying taxes through payroll deductions, and some employers have not yet begun to make deductions. Because of the prevailing confusion will the minister tell us whether or not he is contemplating further changes to the budget in this area?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I think I should clarify the situation for the benefit of the hon. member. Quite a number of representations were made following the budget in November and December. As the hon. member knows, on December 18 I made a number of changes which I regarded as necessary and urgent. It is my view that any further changes based upon representations and arguments of hon. members ought to be made when we reach the appropriate stage of the legislative process.


INCOME AVERAGING RULES
David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, my final supplementary question is directed to the same minister. Many small business people and farmers sold their farms before November 12, fully intending to buy IAACs before February 28, 1982, as the minister is aware. The minister's various statements, including the one of yesterday, ignored the retroactive impact of the budget in this regard with respect to small business people and farmers. Therefore, will he remove this retroactive feature of the budget by extending the date on which income averaging rules are to be changed, to February 28, 1982?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, where written agreements were in effect prior to the budget, of course these arrangements can proceed. In addition, it is possible for individuals in that particular case to purchase a one-year IAAC and next year to transfer the proceeds from that purchase into a forward-averaging system. It seems to me that these provisions have met the main difficulties and the main concerns. Naturally I am quite prepared, when we go to
committee, to hear the views of hon. members on that and on any other subject.


Mr. Wilson:: When will that be?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As soon as possible.


DISASTERS
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who has sort of pre-empted the issue of the Ocean Ranger. The three inspection reports tabled yesterday referred to supply boats and standby vessels. I should like to ask the minister whether there was a standby vessel in the vicinity of the Ocean Ranger. If so, how close was it to the Ocean Ranger? Was there a signal to the standby boat? If not, why not, especially in view of the stringent regulations of Norway after the Norwegian disaster in the North Sea, whereby emergency standby boats are required under the rules and regulations of the Norway government?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I have been informed that there was at least one standby boat. There may have been more; 1 believe there were two. With respect to the other questions asked by the hon. member, as to whether a signal was sent and what not, I shall inquire and be happy to report to him.


SAFETY REGULATIONS
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, when the minister is checking that rather basic fact, would he also check to see if whatever regulations we were following for the Ocean Ranger in Canadian waters required that each person on the rig have a survival suit? In the inspection report this was mentioned for the helicopter crew. Could the minister in his reply tell us just what specifications and regulations we do follow for oil rigs in Canadian waters? Are they American regulations, the more stringent Norwegian ones, or do we have any regulations?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, first of all the hon. member should note that the Ocean Ranger was not in Canadian waters. It was stationed in international waters. The regulations concerning oil and gas drilling are in print and public. They cover operations offshore. As I indicated in the House yesterday, Section 8 of the regulations elaborates on all the information required to be furnished by operators, with regard to drilling programs.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: On the safety of a rig?
February 17, 1982


Marc Lalonde: He will find numerous provisions and requirements that he cannot expect me to read into the record during question period. 1 will be happy to give the hon. member a copy of the oil and gas drilling regulations if he does not have them already.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: On safety of rigs?


Marc Lalonde: Yes, on safety. There are all kinds of provisions. There are some on support craft and standby craft. There are some provisions concerning anchors, stability of a unit, and on and on. I suggest to the hon. member that he refer to the regulations. With regard to very detailed questions as to the operations and exactly what happened on the platform at a particular time, I have to tell the hon. member right away that 1 am not in a position to give him that information. We have set up a commission of inquiry under the chairmanship of the Chief Justice of Newfoundland. We expect during the course of the inquiry that all those facts will be fully investigated and all the relevant information will be made available. But I am not in a position, and I do not think the hon. member would expect me to be in a position, to give the type of detail that he is asking for today. 1 am taking notice of his request and if I can provide the hon. member with additional information I will be very happy to do so.


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance has indicated on numerous occasions, both in the House and to me personally, that he believed the mortgage interest rates currently being charged in this country are too high. He has further stated that the banks should bleed a little and that he would monitor profits. We now see the banks are again leading the way toward even higher interest rates.


An hon. Member:: Some bleeding.


Ian Deans: Traditionally the difference between the consumer price index and the mortgage interest rate charged has been approximately three points, that is from 1970 to 1981. The banks now claim they need a four to six-point spread. Their spread right now is between five and seven points. Today's announcement of even higher interest rates will take that spread up to nine-plus points between the consumer price index and the mortgage interest rate charged on the some
250,000	mortgage renewals that will take place this year.
Will the minister bring in legislation now that will establish a mortgage interest rate that Canadians can afford?
Oral Questions


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: You voted against that.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, if it were possible to do it that easily, I assure my hon. friend I would be the first to agree to an easy proposal of that kind. I do not think it is possible in these circumstances simply to bring in a bill establishing a particular rate and expect the necessary funds to flow in at a non-competitive rate or one which is not related to the market. The hon. member knows that, and that is why, when a similar proposal was put forward by the opposition in a non-confidence motion, we voted against it. The effect of supporting it would really be to deny individuals necessary funds at the market rate.
The hon. member has raised the question of the performance of banks, and so on. I have already agreed that it would be useful for members of this House to examine the question of bank profits, and I am quite prepared to have that done when hon. members are ready to pass the reference and get the committee in operation.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER GIVE DIRECTION TO BANKS
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, it is incredible how the minister can dismiss the needs of so many Canadians when it comes to the question of finding affordable housing. To say it is difficult to bring in legislation establishing a mortgage ceiling is to deny that people are entitled to affordable accommodation. I put to the minister, notwithstanding any inquiry we might have, it is quite clear on the record that bank profits have gone up from $672 million in 1977 to $ 1.6 billion in 1981.
Now, by anyone's admission there are two irrefutable facts. One, we need housing for people at a price they can afford, and we are falling short by some 70,000 units this year alone; and, two, we have unemployed people who could build those houses. Will the minister not undertake to direct that the banks not only accept a mortgage interest rate ceiling that people can afford, but that they put a significant percentage of their investment capital into mortgages in order that we can create the housing that people need, and create jobs for those currently unemployed?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, there is nothing 1 can add to my earlier answer. I believe it would be useful at this stage, in view of the reference once again by the hon. member to bank profits, to have the matter fully investigated by a parliamentary committee. If that committee can provide recommendations to me on that subject, then I would consider them very seriously. Up to the present I have stated to the House that the reason in my view it is not appropriate at this stage to move on the tax side is because such a move would

February 17, 1982
Oral Questions
deny to many borrowers in the community the tax advantages they enjoy from the banks.
Because of existing arrangements, if we put a tax on the banks we would indeed deny a large number of borrowers access to money at much lower rates of interest. That is the reason I have not proposed a tax on the banks as I have been asked to do. I believe it would be self-defeating. If hon. members want to study the matter and can come up with a better answer, then I would be glad to consider it.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITY
Ian Deans: I am sure the minister appreciates that if there is to be a study, surely it must be initiated by the government and not by the opposition. I ask the minister to consider that there are two factors in life which are absolutely essential: food and shelter. How can the minister claim it is outside his jurisdiction and power to direct banks and all other financial institutions with regard to interest rates and the amount of their investment capital which must go into affordable housing? I simply ask the minister does the government have no sense of responsibility to ensure that people in Canada can get accommodation at a price they can afford, and to ensure that banks do not gouge the public in the way they have?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Why do you support them?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, it was in this particular session of the House of Commons, of the Parliament of Canada-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Only had one!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -that the decennial revision of the Bank Act was undertaken.


Ian Deans: We tried to get it at fixed interest rates.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The House of Commons established the rules and regulations governing the banking system, including the possibility of foreign banks coming into Canada in order to increase the competitive character of the banking system. There is no provision in the law which permits the Minister of Finance to establish the rates at which banks-


Ian Deans: We'll put it in.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -either borrow or lend money. That ought to be clear to the hon. member.


Ian Deans: We will put it in!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member has rightly concentrated attention on the problem of home owners. As he knows, we have provided a system by which we believe no home owner in
this country will lose a home because of high interest rates. We have appealed to the banks, for example, to roll back some of the interest rate increases last summer. One of the major banks did that with considerable benefit to potential home owners. Other banks would have my support if they undertook similar activity. However, there is no power within the hands of the Minister of Finance to direct the banks as to how to conduct their day to day operations, much as-


Ian Deans: We will give you the power.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -at times, I might like to do so.


FINANCE
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. On November 12 the Minister of Finance announced a tax on whole life insurance policies, making Canada the only country in the western world to do so. Since then the minister said he may refer the matter to committee, he may make arrangements with the insurance companies, or he may do nothing. This has caused a great deal of uncertainty, both for the sellers and purchasers of whole life insurance. Will the minister now take the proper course and announce that he is abandoning this foolish tax measure and end the uncertainty?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Madam Speaker.


EFFECT ON WAGE EARNERS
John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, did the minister know when he introduced his infamous budget on the night of November 12 that 78 per cent of all those who own whole life insurance policies earn under $25,000? That is what the average Canadian earns. How, in the name of equity, could he say that this was a budget which was taxing the rich when the average Canadian is paying tax on his life insurance, while deputy ministers earning $80,000 a year get a $4,500 tax break? Why does he not put an end to this nonsense now and come clean with the Canadian people?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Clark:: Answer it!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That's not a question. Get him to ask a question; then I'll answer it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Paproski:: Don't blush, MacEachen!


Charles Joseph Clark: The minister didn't know.
February 17, 1982


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. On September 28, 1981, on December 23, 1981, and on February 3, 1982, 1 wrote to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on behalf of the mayor and citizens of Lockeport, Nova Scotia, requesting that action be immediately taken to ease the unemployment situation in the area through a change in fisheries policy.
I now ask the minister, since the granting of Fishing licences to three former scallop draggers, namely, the Misty Sea, the Cathy & Susie, and the Terry Doreen, will reactivate the groundfish industry in Lockeport and put most of the unemployed in that area to work, when may I expect some action on my three requests on behalf of the citizens of that area?


Walter David Baker: Well said.


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, I sent a letter in answer to the hon. member, which was signed on February 15. In that letter I pointed out that the groundfish quota was fully allocated and that we could not add to that effort. For that reason, I regretfully had to decline his request.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: 1 thank the minister for that answer.


INCREASE IN CATCH ALLOCATION TO POLAND
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, on August 10, 1981, the minister offered Poland an allocation of an additional 8,000 tonnes of fish on top of a previous allocation of some 12,000 tonnes of fish. In light of the economic circumstances in that country, I believe that action was acceptable and necessary.
Today I would like to ask the minister when he will show the same compassion to Canadians who desperately need employment opportunities in Shelburne County, and especially in Lockeport. This is a request which, if granted, will not cost the federal government any money whatsoever and will put three 100-foot deep sea ships back to work, and will actually add to our over-all economy.


Mr. Crombie:: Good idea.


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I have rarely heard such a piece of demagoguery in a few phrases. The reality is-


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Give me an answer! Let's cut out your own demagoguery and give me an answer.


Roméo LeBlanc: If the hon. member would listen, he might get some information. The reality is that we allocated to Poland, as we do to other countries, fish which is totally surplus to Canadian need, mainly species in which Canadian fishermen
Oral Questions
have shown no interest and no desire to catch. What we are referring to here is groundfish in a region of the east coast which is totally and fully exploited. I frankly think that the hon. member knows his geography better than that.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: No answer, eh? You should resign, Romeo. Resign! You should resign!


INSPECTION OF MOBIL OIL OFFSHORE DRILLING RIGS
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I wonder, considering the circumstances of recent events, if the minister would inform the House as to whether or not the other two rigs of Mobil Oil will be subjected to further inspection. Could the minister advise the House whether he will be instructing further inspection of the other two rigs owned by Mobil Oil?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I have had a meeting this morning with the president of Mobil Oil Canada. I have just been advised that Mobil is arranging to have the contractors bring the rigs ashore for total inspection following the recent storm. 1 must remind the House that those two rigs had also been subjected to a full inspection last fall. The inspection will take place as soon as the weather will permit. At the present time the weather is too rough to allow the rigs to be brought ashore.


AIR SAFETY
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, my question today relates to the report on the evaluation of search and rescue by the committee of deputy ministers on defence and foreign policy, and I address it to the Minister of Transport. The report raises serious questions about the failures of the Canadian Air Transport administration to aid in prevention of air distress situations. Examples are failure to enforce weather criteria, flight plan practices, and inspections. Given the fact that the government has also accused these same senior officials of doctoring accident reports and suppressing information to protect the department and the minister, would the minister take immediate steps to remove or at least change the management of the air transport administration, and would he immediately release Part III of the Dubin report which is now in his possession?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I must take note because there are at least three questions in the same one. Concerning this subject of a draft paper from a committee of cabinet or subcommittee of cabinet

February 17, 1982
Oral Questions
secretariat on search and rescue, I answered the question yesterday. This is a draft which is now being submitted to different departments for comments. In due course the ministers will be seized of the final text. Concerning air transport, the question was what, exactly?


Raymond John Skelly: The Dubin report.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Oh, yes. Volume III of the Dubin report is coming out in the coming days. I have every intention of publishing a progress report on Volume II tomorrow. People know that Volume 1, which is on the creation of an independent investigatory board, has already been accepted by the government and that legislation is being prepared on that subject. So, again, I will report on Volume II tomorrow. My expectation is that I will table Volume III next week. So much for air safety.


SEARCH AND RESCUE SERVICES
Raymond John Skelly: "So much for air safety!" I wonder at what point the minister is going to stop protecting those officials who have hung this whole country out to dry. My supplementary is to the same minister. Two years ago the Ministry of Transport and the Department of National Defence both received detailed studies and recommendations on problems and failures in the search and rescue system in this country. The current confidential report that was circulated on the deputy ministers' evaluation is almost identical in its recommendations and analysis. Will the minister commit himself to a full public study of the problems in delivering search and rescue services in Canada and, when those recommendations are forthcoming, will he move immediately to implement them?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, with regard to air safety the hon. member will remember that I set up an advisory committee on the Dubin report. The committee worked remarkably well. I repeat, the Volume I recommendations will soon be in legislation. With regard to Volume II, I will report tomorrow on the progress made. I was expecting some compliments from my hon. friend on that subject because I think the performance has been rather good, if I can say so myself.
On the matter of search and rescue, I said yesterday that progress would be made. I agree with that. I have in my hand a report on the improved budget and improved equipment. I can recite what is here, such as the number of vessels on the west coast, on the east coast, improvement of training, and so on. I will gladly report on all that to my hon. friend. A moment ago the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources referred to the creation of an inquiry into the Ocean Ranger. That inquiry will be as broad as is necessary. There is no doubt that it will be broad enough to include search and rescue capacity on the east coast.


Madam Speaker:: Order. We are trying to keep questions and answers equally short.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Solicitor General. It relates to the death of Dr. Jiri Skvor. I read a statement some days ago that the Solicitor General said no investigation had taken place. Since that time, after a delay of almost a month, I received a letter from him to the same effect. I should like to ask him if he has any comments to make about the assertion by the son of the deceased, Mr. Paul Skvor of Ottawa, made on February 1 to reporters from the Canadian Press, Southam Press and Toronto Star, to the effect that indeed an investigation had been proceeding late last year. Would he have a word with the security service to ascertain what the purpose was of a visit by two individuals to the Skvor residence in Montreal late last year? Was there any official reason for this, or was it a subterfuge by persons unknown?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, I cannot comment on that visit. I do not know whether it took place or who attended it. I did call in the security service and asked them about any investigation that had taken place into the death of Jiri Skvor. I was told that no investigation had taken place and that none will be conducted. Dr. Skvor was a prominent emigre living in Canada, and was an outspoken opponent of oppression in his homeland. That was known to anyone who read about his work and his views. However, simply having strong views and expressing them does not bring a person within the mandate of the security service. Far from it.


INQUIRY RESPECTING MONTREAL AND TORONTO COMPANIES
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, I have another brief question about another Czech matter. Is the minister aware of the existence and activities of a corporation named Omnitrade Ltd., located at 750 McArthur in Montreal, and its three Toronto subsidiaries, Omnitrade Machinery, Vista Industrial, and Pontiac Manufacturing, a corporation controlled from Prague, Czechoslovakia? Can the minister assure the House, the public and the business community, that these four business entities are not engaged in any activities which would be contrary to our national interest? Finally, will the minister inform the House, after checking carefully, about the residence status of the five directors of the corporation, Messrs. Valenta, Machac, and Solomon from Montreal, and Sejbal and Napravnik from Toronto?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I will look into those. I have no comment on them now, and may not after I look into them. I must say that, in my view, it is reprehensible for the hon. member to throw names on the table of companies and individuals, and make no allegations about them whatsoever other than putting their names forward. If he has information against these companies and individuals, I urge him to come and tell me about them or tell the security service about them.
February 17, 1982


FUTURE OF ALSANDS PROJECT
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. As the minister knows, 60,000 to 100,000 jobs across Canada are dependent on the outcome of meetings now taking place to decide the fate of the Alsands project. What assurance can the minister give today that this project will proceed this year?
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Madam Speaker, I am in the same position as the hon. member. I am waiting for the conclusion of the meeting that is now taking place. Once that meeting has been concluded, we will see what the conclusions are. The government of Alberta and the Government of Canada will have to decide. 1 talked with my colleague in Alberta as recently as a couple of days ago. We have concluded that we should wait for the conclusion of today's meeting.


STATEMENTS MADE BY MINISTER
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Over a year ago the minister said in Cold Lake, "This project will go ahead, if not this year then next year, or the next year or the next year." He also made the statement, "Those who have put their heart and their money into the project won't be disappointed much longer." People have lost their life savings in northeastern Alberta and small businesses are going bankrupt because of the lackadaisical attitude of the minister. Would he care to revise those statements?


Marc Lalonde: No, Madam Speaker.


THE JUDICIARY
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister who will perhaps recall that last week I asked him about the appointment of a qualified woman to the Supreme Court of Canada. Since that time the federal Minister of Justice has made ten judicial appointments, all of them men, even though there were qualified women available for such appointments. 1 ask the Prime Minister for an assurance that this ongoing trend of men only to judicial appointments will not be followed in the case of the vacancy in the Supreme Court of Canada, and that a qualified woman will be appointed.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, 1 am surprised to hear the hon. member talk about the government's record, particularly that of the present Min-
Oral Questions
ister of Justice. He has a statistic, which I do not have readily in mind, which indicates that the Liberal government in the past ten or 12 years has progressively increased the number of women on the bench whereas, if my memory is correct, during the Clark government not a single woman judge was appointed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I remind the hon. member that in many areas this government has striven to promote the role of women in the various public bodies. It is this government that first named a woman to a superior court or supreme court in Canada. It is this government that named the first woman deputy minister. It is this government which named the first woman Speaker of the House.


Charles Joseph Clark: Who named the Speaker?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is this government which named the first woman as Speaker of the Senate. It was this government which named the first woman lieutenant governor of a province. In every field we have tried to seek out women who could discharge the role with distinction. We found them. However, we do not name women just for the pleasure of naming women. We name them when they are competent. The examples I have given show that they have been very competent.


MINISTERIAL REPRESENTATIONS
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Prime Minister. I do not know why the Prime Minister has to be so defensive and be so partisan about a move which I can assure him would have the support of at least 52 per cent of the population of Canada and, I would think, of a great many more.
We know that several public representations have been made by cabinet ministers to the Prime Minister with regard to the budget. Could the Prime Minister tell us what representations have been made with regard to the appointment of a woman to the Supreme Court of Canada by either the minister responsible for the Status of Women or the Minister of National Health and Welfare?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I have had many and constant representations from members of my cabinet as well as my caucus-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: By letter and otherwise.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and from my own staff. 1 have appointed people particularly to establish a bank of available women for various functions. That is why the Minister of Justice in the past two years has named more women to the bench in Canada than have been named in Canada's history.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

February 17, 1982
Oral Questions DISASTERS


SINKING OF RUSSIAN FREIGHTER-NATURE OF CARGO
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources or any other minister who may have information about the sinking of the Russian freighter whose captain waved away Danish rescuers before the ship went down.
Can the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, or any other informed minister, advise the House whether the government is in possession of any information to suggest that the freighter was carrying any Canadian material or any Canadian processed material and, if so, what was the nature of the material or processed material being carried?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I heard that rumour at about noon. I am having it checked now. 1 am in no position to confirm or deny it at this time.
What I do know is that indeed the Russian ship may have refused the support of a Danish ship and waited for one of its own sister ships to come to its aid. However, it was too late.
I know that the Sir Humphrey Gilbert, which is a Canadian Coast Guard ship, is in that area now and has 13 bodies and five survivors on board. There is a Russian factory ship, the Dvorsky, in the area which also has seven bodies on board. The remaining crew are missing. If survivors come to Canada they will be interviewed under the provisions of the Canada Shipping Act, Section 545, and there will be a preliminary inquiry under the "casualty at sea" rule of the act.


URANIUM SHIPMENT
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Transport referred to rumours. For my supplementary question I would ask the minister whether the rumours he is investigating are those to the effect that the Russian freighter was carrying nuclear material?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of the Environment and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, perhaps I can respond and be of some assistance to the right hon. gentleman. There were some assertions that the Russian freighter was carrying some uranium hexafluoride (UF). Twelve containers of that substance were indeed destined to be on the ship to Russia, but since the ship was late, Eldorado Nuclear sent those containers on to Russia by another Soviet vessel.


QUERY RESPECTING NUCLEAR MATERIAL
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I think the House would like to have full details of the arrangements between Eldorado Nuclear and the Soviet Union regarding the refining or other handling of nuclear material. Would the Minister of Environment, or whichever minister is informed, indicate to us whether the information
now given by the Minister of the Environment is to the effect that there was no nuclear material of any kind on the Russian freighter?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, to the best of my knowledge that is the case. I have given the information which I have in my possession. I will pursue the right, hon. gentleman's subsequent question to see if there was any other material. To the best of my knowledge that is not the case.


CANADA POST
Mr. David Weatherhead (Scarborough West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for Canada Post. In view of the arbitrary, high-handed and contemptible action of Canada Post officials in Scarborough, Ontario, who have disqualified 55 casual workers, who were successful in a difficult competition to become permanent workers, because of unsubstantiated allegations of cheating by a few of them due to the negligence of these same officials, and in view of the fact that these workers were placed in double jeopardy by being required to take a second test on February 15, despite orders from the executive office of the president of Canada Post that such a test was not to be held at that time, would the minister conduct a full investigation immediately to ensure that the vast majority of the 55 workers who are innocent be immediately requalified, and that the former hiring techniques of Canada Post, which relied heavily on nepotism and star chamber tactics be completely eradicated.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Put the rest of it in a letter.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I will accept the representation of the hon. member. I appreciate that the substance of his presentation is very serious. I do not see the opposition taking it as seriously, but I appreciate that it is a serious matter for those who believe that the procedures were not followed properly. I will raise it with the president of the corporation and report back to the hon. member as soon as possible.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The minis-
February 17, 1982

ter will recall that last week he acknowledged that Victor Regalado is a refugee from El Salvador and the United States, who is presently detained in Montreal and likely to be deported following a deportation hearing because of a security certificate issued against him by the minister and the Solicitor General.
The minister will also recall that on Monday of this week the Solicitor General, in answer to the hon. member for Montmorency-Orleans, said that he hoped to be soon tabling in the House, after discussions in cabinet, a system for external control and review of decisions made with respect to national security.
Will the minister defer deportation of Mr. Regalado until his colleague, the Solicitor General, has had the opportunity to table a system for reviewing certificates of security?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the issuance of a deportation order comes from an inquiry held by an adjudicator. It is not an order with which a minister can interfere. What we did indicate to the hon. member and to the solicitors and advisers to Mr. Regalado is that, considering the judgment of his refugee status, we would not undertake to have him deported to El Salvador or any other country which might simply transfer him to El Salvador, but would give him the opportunity to find an alternative third country to which he could go. I think this is a case where we are respecting the judgment that he is a refugee from El Salvador. At the same time, the fact that we issued a Section 39 certificate indicates very clearly that he was in transgression of the laws of Canada and was against the national security interests of Canada and we therefore would want to see that deportation order carried out as the adjudicator so desired.


REVIEW PROCESS
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, considering that the minister has indicated he can exercise discretion in the timing of the deportation, will he allow Mr. Regalado to have the benefit of whatever review arrangements his colleague, the Solicitor General, may be providing for other people in the same situation as Mr. Regalado in the future?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I should point out-perhaps the Solicitor General can add to the answer-that Mr. Regalado does have available to him, as does anyone who goes through the intitial determination procedures, a redetermination hearing through the Immigration Appeal Board. It is his choice or that of his advisers as to whether he wants to take advantage of that. I say to the hon. member that there are already a number of steps in place which are available to this individual, as they are to other individuals under these circumstances. It is not contingent upon the proposal by the Solicitor General, which I think is a very good one, that he would review the findings of McDonald commission and proceed with those. There is a process which is available to the gentleman.
Privilege-Mr. Crouse SOCIAL SECURITY


DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ORPHANS
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has she anything to report on the long struggle to bring an end to the discrimination against orphans under the Family Allowances Act?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, this problem-which I must say has been raised often by the hon. member-was submitted to my colleagues. The principle of future changes to family allowances in relation to orphans and children who may have earned enough money in a year to be disqualified, even though those small sums of money were probably needed by the families involved, has been adopted. Unfortunately, it cannot be accommodated immediately because it involves a minimum sum of $5 million to $6 million a year. We have to postpone this as a priority, but the principle is adopted.


DISCRIMINATION AGAINST TEENAGE GIRLS
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the minister would make the respresentation to her colleagues that, in addition to discrimination against orphans, under the present regulations-not the law-there is also discrimination against teenage girls.


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of the specifics of this, but I will discuss the matter with my officials and with the minister responsible for the status of women.


PRIVILEGE
[Stage Direction]
MR. CROUSE-COMMENTS BY MR. LeBLANC DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege related to the answer provided to me a short while ago by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc). I now have the letter to which the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans referred. The letter is dated February 15, and it indicates that the allocation to Poland, to which I raised no objections whatsoever, was in the amount of 2,000 tonnes of Atlantic cod, 2,000 tonnes of Atlantic redfish and
1,000	tonnes of Atlantic halibut.
The minister may have unitentionally misled this house when he stated that these fish are of a species surplus to Canadian needs and not in demand by Canadian fishermen. That statement is not in keeping with the facts, since the species allocated are three of the most highly desirable species caught in Atlantic Canada. 1 think the minister should set the record straight.

February 17, 1982
Business of the House


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member, of course, recognizes that he is debating the question and that he has no foundation for a question of privilege. I am sorry, but I must ask him to refrain from continuing.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the government House leader having to do with House business. Will he assure us that it is still the intention of the government to proceed on Friday with an allotted day, thus giving the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), the Minister of State (Mr. Joyal) and eight other Quebec Liberal members-and God knows how many Ontario members-an opportunity to vote on the issue which is the subject matter of that motion now on the Order Paper?


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, I cannot presume to know what your ruling will be on which motion will be debated on the next allotted day, but if there is any change, I will let my hon. colleague know as soon as possible.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I have a further question to the government House leader in order to clarify his answer. We all know that there are two motions set for Friday. Does his reply to me mean that the government is prepared to proceed with the allotted day if the Chair rules in favour of the New Democratic Party motion, but that if the Chair rules in favour of the official opposition motion the government will not proceed? Is that what he means?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I do not know which motion will be debated on the next allotted day. There could be further notices given, either by an independent member or by the Tory party, which could change the motion. However, whatever the motion and whatever your decision, Madam Speaker, we intend to have an allotted day on Friday. 1 indicated to my hon. colleague that if there is any change, I will let him know on time, but it is the prerogative of the Government to establish the order of business. For the time being I have announced Friday as an allotted day, and I do not think we will change our minds, but if we do, I will let my hon. colleague know.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) raises an interesting question. I was not aware that the Chair was contemplating making a ruling on which of the two motions was to be debated on Friday. I just assumed ours was the one coming up.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I should like to table three copies of the translation of the safety inspection reports on offshore drilling operations. 1 am referring to the reports that were tabled in the House yesterday in English only.


PETITION
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, I have a duty to present a petition on behalf of my constitutents. A subdivision in my riding of Halton in the town of Milton, Ontario- namely, the Bronte Meadows subdivision-has been at a stage of completion and meeting postal regulations since July, 1981. As of today, no door-to-door mail delivery is being made or, I understand, contemplated, despite the unprecedented postal rate increase.
I therefore take this opportunity to present a petition signed by over 100 residents of this subdivision outlining their concern regarding the lack of door-to-door mail delivery. At the same time I would like to give notice that 1 will take further action should mail delivery in that subdivision not be initiated in the very near future.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,760, 3,270, 3,285, 3,526, 3,576, 3,592, 3,614 and 3,722.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Since his appointment as Director of Restaurants and Catering of the National Arts Centre, what is a complete list of all travelling done by Mr. Don Marriott, when he was reportedly making such trips on National Arts Centre
February 17, 1982

business, including the places visited, the hotels in which he stayed and the restaurants in which he ate?
2.	Since his appointment, what was the total amount of expenses charged by Mr. Marriott for business conducted outside the national capital area?
3.	Did Mr. Marriott fly first class at any time and, if so, on how many occasions and at what cost to the taxpayer?


Mr. Jack Masters (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: I am informed by the National Arts Centre
as follows:
1.	Over the 27 months since his appointment as Director of Restaurants and Catering of the National Arts Centre, Mr. Marriott travelled to places, stayed at hotels and ate at restaurants, as listed hereunder:
Place	Hotel	RestaurantToronto	Royal York	Not specifiedStratford	Not applicable	Church RestaurantToronto	Hilton	Not specifiedStratford	Not applicable	Church RestaurantNew York	St. Moritz	Charlies, The PlazaToronto	Not applicable	Proud PopovcrMontreal	Meridien	Not specifiedToronto	Royal York	Not specifiedStratford	Not applicable	Mother'sToronto	Royal York	Meyers, TrolleyGuelph	Guelph University	Not specifiedToronto	Royal York	London FisheryMontreal	Not applicable	Not specifiedChicago	Blackstone	Not specifiedMilwaukee	Pfister	Not specifiedToronto	Royal York	Thinstons, Whalers, Markangelos, ChivesStratford New Ham-	Not applicable	Old English Innburg	Not applicable	WaterlotToronto	Royal York	Coffee House, Abundance, La FolieFrankfurt	Holiday Inn	PlazaMontreal	Windsor	Dunn'sMontreal	Bonaventure	Not specifiedToronto	Park Plaza	CopenhagenToronto	Park Plaza	Copenhagen, ScaramoucheStratford	Not applicable	ChurchToronto	Royal York	SimpsonsToronto	Park Plaza	Not specified
The restaurants identified are those recorded on travel expense claims submitted by Mr. Marriott.
2.	Over the 27 months since his appointment, the total amount of expenses (including travel, accommodation and meals) charged by Mr. Marriott for business conducted outside the national capital area is $6,695.64.
3.	Mr. Marriott did not fly first class at any time while travelling on corporation business.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is the government opposed to foreign investment in Canada, if such investment provides jobs and leaves the greater part of its profits for reinvestment in this country?
2.	Is the government ^ware that it has the legislative capacity to nationalize any foreign company operating in Canada that contravenes or disrespects either Canadian laws or the welfare of the Canadian people?
Order Paper Questions


David P. Smith: I am informed by the Foreign Investment Review Agency and the Department of Justice as follows:
1.	It is the declared policy of the Government of Canada to welcome foreign investment that is likely to be of significant benefit to Canada.
2.	Federal legislative capacity resides with Parliament. It is subject to the constitutional division of powers between the federal and provincial legislatures. However, the federal Parliament, in its field of jurisdiction, is legislatively supreme and the government is certainly aware of this fact which is a basic principle of the Canadian Constitution.


Mr. Althouse: 1.	Under the National Energy Program, by province and by date, how many applications for licences were received for the manufacture of fuel alcohol?
2.	By province, how many plants were brought into production since the program began and how many gallons are produced by the plants?
3.	By province, how many methane gas production units are operating and (a) how many are part of (i) agricultural production units (ii) municipal sewage disposal units (b) how many gallons of equivalent gasoline are being produced by the units?
4.	What proportion of Canada's portable fuel requirements are made up by alcohol and methane plants?


David P. Smith: I am informed by Energy, Mines and Resources Canada and Revenue Canada as follows:
1.	Since the legislation was enacted, July 8, 1981, to the date of this question, no official application had been received. However, to date, two official applications for licences have been received.
2.	None.
' 3. (a) (i) According to Agriculture Canada, there have been two dozen farm scale anaerobic digestors built in Canada but only six are operating. Most of this type of activity has been in Ontario and Quebec.
(ii)	According to Environment Canada, there are 136 municipal sewage disposal units in Canada equipped with anaerobic digestors. The breakdown by province is:
Alberta	- 6
British Columbia	- 7
Manitoba	- 4
New Brunswick	- 1
Newfoundland	- 3
Nova Scotia	- 3
Ontario	-90
Prince Edward Island	- 1
Quebec	- 19
Saskatchewan	- 2
(b)	(i) None.
(ii)	None. About half of these produce methane which is used for plant and digestor heating.

February 17, 1982
Order Paper Questions
4.	The proportion of Canada's portable fuel requirements made up by alcohol methane plants is insignificant; less than
0.1 per cent.


Mr. Cossitt: Is a Miss France Nadeau employed or was she employed by the Royal Canadian Mint and, if so (a) what arc/were all her duties (b) what was the commencement date of her employment and was it during the time that Mr. Yvon Gariepy was Master of the Mint (c) was she hired by Mr. Gariepy on the recommendation of Miss Claudette Nadeau, former head of the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: I am
informed by the Royal Canadian Mint as follows: Miss Nadeau is presently employed by the Royal Canadian Mint on a temporary basis.
(a)	Miss Nadeau was hired for a summer project as Coordinator of Exhibitions. Her duties were the following:
(i)	assisted in the preparation of the exhibits for the pavilion at Terre des Hommes, convention and trade fair
(ii)	trained six hosts/hostesses-Terre des Hommes
(iii)	supervised the operation of the pavilion at Terre des Hommes
(iv)	ensured the safekeeping of all exhibits
(v)	obtained information and gave verbal responses to queries
(vi)	accepted orders for numismatic coins, transmitted all orders to mail order fulfilment
(vii)	arranged tour appointments at Terre des Hommes
(viii)	recorded daily count of visitors
(ix)	ensured projection equipment is in good condition.
At the end of the summer employment, Miss Nadeau was asked to stay on a temporary basis. Her present duties are the following:
(i)	keeps sales records, customers' performance evaluation
(ii)	ensures distributors and dealers' shipments meet delivery dates
(iii)	assists in preparation of quotations
(iv)	assists the administrator
(v)	participates in coin shows as required
(vi)	assists the Manager of Numismatic Products as required.
(b)	Miss Nadeau's employment commenced on April 3, 1981, during Mr. Gariepy's tenure as Master of the Mint.
(c)	No.


Mr. Cossitt: In each of the past five years for which figures are available, what was the total value of (a) exports to Poland from Canada (b) imports from Poland to Canada and what are the estimated figures for the current year?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Statistics on Canadian exports to and imports from Poland in each of the past five years are as follows:
Years
(a) Exports
(b) Imports
($*000)
1977	156,693
1978	224,800
1979	276.226
1980	357.403
1981	328,957(p)
47,868
73,722
82,778
72,159
73,878(p)
(p): Preliminary.
With regard to estimated figures for the current year. Statistics Canada does not make projections for this type of data.


Mr. Cossitt: What was the total of Canadian (a) exports to (b) imports from the Soviet Union during each of the past five years for which statistics are available and what are the estimated figures for the current year?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Statistics on Canadian exports to and imports from the U.S.S.R. in each of the past five years are as follows:
Years	(a) Exports	(b) Imports (S'000)1977	360,044	56.6591978	567,306	38.4601979	776.231	64,0881980	1.540.415	59,2901981	1.861,089(p)	77,636(p)
(p): Preliminary.
With regard to estimated figures for the current year. Statistics Canada does not make projections for this type of data.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What amount is to be paid in the current fiscal year to the Urban Transit Authority in British Columbia and what is the purpose of the payment?
2.	Were any funds already transferred and, if so, on what date and in what amount?
3.	What is the total government commitment to the project and is this amount to be transferred in this fiscal year?
4.	What will be the estimated percentage completion of the project as at March 31, 1982?
February 17, 1982


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: In so
far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned:
1.	The federal government may provide $60 million this fiscal year to the Urban Transit Authority of British Columbia. The payment is conditional upon the federal government being satisfied with arrangements concerning Transpo '86, a fair featuring transportation developments, and that the B.C. government will proceed with this exposition. The payment is to be applied: $20 million to a pre-build section (completed mid-1983) and $40 million toward the purchase of 114 vehicles.
2.	No funds have been transferred to date.
3.	The total of $60 million may be transferred this fiscal year.
4.	Estimated percentage completion of the entire advanced light rapid transit project as of March 31, 1982, is less than 2 per cent; this includes some engineering and design work, and some soil testing. Formal ground breaking is planned for February 15, 1982.


Mr. Herbert: What percentage of public servants working in the Department of External Affairs in Quebec indicate English as their first official language?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: In the Department of External Affairs there are two (6 per cent) public servants out of 34 that are working in Quebec and have English as their first official language.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, 1 ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Beatty:: Madam Speaker, may I bring to the attention of the parliamentary secretary question No. 2,672, which I put on the Order Paper on June 2 of last year, simply inquiring as to what public opinion surveys were commissioned by the government at public expense since the last election. Surely by now he should have been able to obtain the information. When will the House be apprised of that information?


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I do not have that information in front of me, but I will look into the matter on behalf of the hon. member.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, 1 put a question on the Order Paper on January 29 regarding the legal authority the government presumes it has for the collection of taxes in advance of the passage of legislation. It seems to me to be a fairly simple question that the government ought to be able to answer at a moment's notice. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary might indicate what it is that is holding up the answer. Is there
Motion for Papers
some plot in the back rooms? Or perhaps the government does not have that authority. I would be interested to know.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I will look into the progress being made in answering this question, but I am sure the hon. member knows it is not the policy of the government to release legal opinions.


Neil Young: Madam Speaker, I also have a question for the parliamentary secretary. On several previous occasions I have asked the parliamentary secretary to expedite answers to my questions on the Order Paper Nos. 3,380 to 3,438. The last time I asked the parliamentary secretary, he indicated that he would actively pursue obtaining answers to those questions from the ministers involved. I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary how he is making out in his hot pursuit of those ministers. I hope we will have the answers by the end of this week because if this is hot pursuit, it is little wonder that the people on behalf of whom I am asking these questions are becoming rather concerned.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, 1 have made representations with regard to those inquiries, and I will continue to do so in hot pursuit.
I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. 71 in the name of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton)?


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 71-Mr. Fulton:
That an order of the House do issue for a copy of the legal opinion and any other documents advising the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on the effects that Bill C-48. an act to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, may have on land claim negotiations or the aboriginal rights of native people.
Mr. Ray Chenier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, the documents requested by the hon. member cannot be provided because the motion for production of papers specifically requests government papers or documents which are exempt

February 17, 1982
Taxation
from production as described in Citation 390 of Beauchesne, which says:
Legal opinions or advice provided for the use of the government.
I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I would ask that motion for the production of papers No. 71 be transferred for debate. The reason I ask is that on June 1, 1981, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) said that he had such an opinion and would provide it to Parliament.


Madam Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
Before we proceed to orders of the day, there is a point of order by the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty).


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, on the question of Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers, I wonder if 1 might be allowed to bring to the attention of the House and of the parliamentary secretary that Motion No. 731 stands in my name since December 2, 1981. It requests a copy of the results of each public opinion survey commissioned by the government since the last election. When will the government make up its mind about that?


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I will make inquiries with regard to that matter.
While I have the floor, I would ask that the other notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, February 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bussieres that Bill C-93, to amend the statute law relating to certain taxes and to provide other authority for the raising of funds, be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Madam Speaker, as you are aware, Bill C-93 is another attempt by the government to dupe Canadian citizens out of billions of dollars. This time it is $6.6 billion. Last time it was $14 billion. All of that money is to be borrowed.
I stand as a member of the opposition but also as a member who represents citizens who have had enough of this growth of government and who are opposing this wholesale borrowing of money. This money is to be raised in any currency. This means that the government can borrow from any country in the world. This would only exacerbate the problem we already have with our balance of trade. It means that more money will leave this country than comes in. The government can give any form of security that it wants-it could put a mortgage on your house, Mr. Speaker, on my house, and it is certainly putting a mortgage on our future. Therefore, I have no difficulty at all in opposing this bill.
It is clear that we have a government that is totally out of control, and that has been the case since it was returned. I should like to go through the remarks made by the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) which show that the government has no idea how to run an economy. Our economy is being run by a bunch of people who have never had to meet a payroll and who have never seen the tragedy of people losing their jobs as a result of government inflation.
The minister proudly referred to the fact that the government had signed agreements with Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. He was trying to gather some credit for the government as if all the energy taxes, because they were part of an agreement, somehow gave the federal government legitimacy. That argument will not hold, Mr. Speaker. In fact, what the producing provinces did under the agreement was to get a confirmation that they simply had rights as owners of the assets; all they were putting into the agreement was their right as owners. All of the other taxes that have been imposed upon Canadians and that are in the process of being imposed upon them, are the result of decisions made by the Liberal Party of this country.
We must keep in mind that when a gallon of gas sells in Ontario for $1.67, some 22 cents of that goes to the citizens of Alberta as owners; some 25 cents goes to the Ontario government as a provincial tax it has chosen to levy on its own people, and some 57 cents goes to the federal government by way of a simple tax. It is not necessary for the federal government to raise money that way. There is income tax and sales tax, but rather than increase the income tax, the federal government has chosen to impose this tax on energy. It is another way for the federal government to raise money. Some 63 cents out of that $1.67 goes to the companies, most of which are Canadian, that explore for the oil, that drill for the oil, that will produce it, and then refine it. All of the distribution system, all of the wholesalers and retailers-that huge package of Canadians- shares some 63 cents.
The price of energy is much higher than it needs to be in this country, and the reason for this is taxation by governments and primarily by the government opposite. We must always remember that, Mr. Speaker. The minister said that in the perspective of the government, inflation is the number one problem. It is true that inflation is a serious matter; no one
February 17, 1982

denies that. He said that inflation forces interest rates up and slows investment, and that it must stop. He is absolutely correct, but he never said that there are three strings to the bow of this problem.
The first string is the deficit which the government will not admit it is responsible for. The deficit is over $90 billion. One dollar in five of our revenue goes to service that debt, so the government has lost the flexibility of being able to step in and help other parts of the industry when they need help. It is unable to help citizens who are losing their farms and ranches. But the one dollar in five of federal revenue that services the debt goes into the hands of people who already have wealth. Those are the people in our country and in other countries who have wealth. That is a very bad thing, because it leads to a class society.
So the first string, Mr. Speaker, is the deficit, and it is the one that the government will not admit to-it is too many dollars chasing the available goods that causes inflation. People have the money and they put out more on goods than they need to, and that causes inflation. As a result of inflation we have high interest rates, in order to try to bring it down.
The government says that we need high interest rates to bring inflation down but in truth, Mr. Speaker, the way to bring inflation down quickly and permanently is to get the size of government itself under control, and particularly the government deficit.
From the last financial statement we know that the government has some $7 billion on deposit with the chartered banks today. Yet it comes before us, as elected members responsible to our constituents across the country, and asks permission to borrow an additional $6.6 billion. I do not believe that we should give the cabinet that authority. I believe that the government backbenchers, in response to their own citizens, should deny the government access to this money. It simply does not need it when it already has $7 billion in the till. When that money is gone it can come back to the House when it genuinely needs more and ask for it. If the government takes that $6.6 out of the economy tomorrow, that means it is not available to the private companies and the ordinary citizens who may need it to build the plant and manufacturing capacity that will put Canadians to work. When that $6.6 billion is drawn from the capital market, it is just not available.
The government should not be able to do that to people, and that is why I believe that we need a constitutional amendment to block governments from having deficits. West Germany has this in its constitution. Governments should only be able to go into a deficit situation if there is an emergency or a crisis. Such a provision should be part of our Constitution in order to protect the citizens against the government.


Mr. Benjamin:: We have a crisis right now.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Yesterday the Minister of State for Finance talked glowingly about how the government was restraining itself. 1 believe he is a man of some honour and reputation, a
Taxation
man with a sound educational background, but surely he must find that statement incredible in these tough times when every citizen has to cut back and tighten his belt. On the basis of the public accounts as well as the national accounts, government expenditures are rising 22 per cent. How can he possibly say that this amounts to restraint? If he could parallel this with a rate of inflation of only 11 per cent or 12 per cent, perhaps he' could say that it was restraint. But surely increasing government expenditures at twice the rate of inflation must be extravagant and are not restraint.
It is regrettable that history repeats itself. In 1974 when the Anti-Inflation Board was established, the government said to Canadians and to corporations that there had to be restraint. Thus, AIB held down wages of ordinary Canadian workers and held down prices to a lesser extent. Surely the third string in the bull had to be government holding itself down, but it did not. When we look at the record of the AIB we find that government expenditures rose enormously, and finally the controls had to come off. Canadians realized they were tricked, and they are being tricked again. Liberal members made campaign promises to hold down the price of energy and to be a sound government, but the Liberal government got us into deep trouble. Now we are at the point where the government is saying that we must hold back and tighten our belts, but once again it is not holding itself down. The whole system will not work. I say without a shadow of doubt that there will be enormous increases in inflation and high interest rates for many months, because the third string in the bull is not prepared to get itself under control.
Also the minister of state pointed out that all western nations were suffering from inflation. This is true, but most of them are suffering because they have had similar types of social democratic governments which have taken ordinary citizens into deficit positions. They are doing, as nations, what no one can do as an individual. None of us can spend more than we make and survive for more than a few weeks, months or years at the very most. Governments are no different. It is just that the time-frame before they are called to account is much longer, but the pain is always the same. If as an individual I spend more than I make, I am pushed into bankruptcy by my creditors, I declare bankruptcy and I suffer. When nations go into bankruptcy, people suffer. We can always predict who it will be-it will be people on fixed incomes because invariably governments get out of deficits by turning on the printing press. Every Canadian across the country needs to watch the weekly statement of the Bank of Canada. When the printing press is turned on, the nation is flooded with money. It is true that they will be paying back the deficit with 25-cent or 50-cent dollars, but who will suffer? It will be senior citizens on fixed incomes because they have no way of protecting themselves, and all people on welfare today will never get off the rolls. Now it is affecting middle-income Canadians, to the point where one must earn over $50,000 per year to purchase even a modest two-bedroom home.
What kind of a future is this for young people? Why should the government be able to get away with it? The answer is that

February 17, 1982
Taxation
the government should not get away with it, but it will continue to do so until people realize and vote in governments committed to financial restraint and prepared to bring forward a constitutional amendment which, as a matter of law, the supreme law of the land, prevents governments from doing such things.
Another argument used by the government is that tax rates for some 12 million Canadians will drop. All of this has been exposed for what it really is-a joke and a lie. In order to benefit these 12 million people, the government had to bring in an indexation clause. Because of the indexing, which is part of our law, the government is taking credit for 12 million people receiving a benefit. This is a lie because indexing is part of the law, and the government should not take credit for it any more than it should take credit for personal exemptions.
I suppose the government could say that 14 million Canadians are receiving a tax reduction because of personal exemptions, but it does not make sense. It is technically true that part of the budget will result in a reduction for some Canadians, but we must realize that it is a trick because on 11 separate occasions the government filed Ways and Means motions imposing taxes upon Canadians. I should like to refer to the various notices of Ways and Means motions that have been filed by the government. On Monday, April 21, 1980, a number of Ways and Means motions were filed; on July 11, 1980, the text of a Ways and Means motion was filed; on October 28, 1980, another notice was filed; on December 17,
1980,	another was filed; on Thursday, December 18 and on Friday, December 19, 1980, a separate taxing bill was filed; on March 2, 1981, a notice of taxation was filed; and on April 23,
1981,	another notice of taxation. These are all notices to impose taxes on Canadian citizens. For the government to stand and say that it reduced taxes on November 12 or December 18 is simply a lie. There was another notice of Ways and Means on June 2, 1981; one on November 12; one on November 27; and one as late as February 1, 1982. There were 11 separate occasions upon which the government imposed taxes on Canadian citizens. In total, 21 notices were filed. For the government to say that it reduced taxes in one provision might be technically correct, but in terms of honesty, equity and fairness to Canadians it is not true.
Why is Canada failing? It is a good question. We can look at our land and see some 24 million people sitting on resources spread across half the continent. We can look at our competitors, Japan and Germany. How would Mr. Speaker like to be one of 114 million Japanese sitting on a rock in the middle of the ocean, with no oil or resources? Its industry is its people. It has a low rate of inflation because the people work, and it has good productivity. It has the benefit of decent, honest government which does not try to fool the people. When we look at Germany, we see the same situation. Germany has a constitutional provision that the government cannot bring the people into a deficit position unless there is an emergency such as war.
Here we are in Canada with a government which is taking us into debt. It is the same situation with Crown corporations.
I had a paper prepared by the research department of the Library of Parliament which pointed out all our Crown corporations in Schedule C and Schedule D. Then it listed the subsidiary corporations owned by Crown corporations, and even the subsubsidiary corporations. Government involvement in our lives by virtue of Crown corporations is truly enormous. Indeed, the Liberal way to socialism in Canada is through Crown corporations. Fortunately, Canadians-and particularly university students-are beginning to realize that their futures are bankrupt. A deficit means that those of us who are middle aged will not have to pay the debt, but the next generation will be saddled with a deficit of over $90 billion. This has to be paid back out of the sweat and work of human beings, such as young people who work on oil rigs. It was a tragedy to lose 84 people off the Newfoundland coast. Every year in the western provinces there are 19 or 20 fatal accidents among oil rig workers. These lives are lost at the expense of providing oil for the rest of the country. That is the cost of operating oil rigs. They are very dangerous machines. What about those accidents involving crushed feet and other horrendous things? What about the miners who get black lung disease? All of these people are paying for the deficit. They work by the sweat of their brow. You would think that we would let them decide how to spend their money. But that is not the socialist way. The socialist way is for a government to take away all the money from the individual and decide how it will be spent rather than leave it to the individual to decide. The major difference that is now so clear to many Canadians is the difference between the Liberal-NDP style and our style. We would leave money with millions and millions of individuals and allow them to decide what to do with it. We believe this method leads to a better result for the nation than taxing money away from them and a small group of 36 cabinet ministers and deputy ministers deciding how to spend it.
The next budget will involve some $75 billion or $76 billion. That is about $2 billion for each cabinet minister. That is an incredible amount to me. I have a great suspicion of government. I would not want to see either a Conservative, an NDP or a Liberal government given that kind of power over us. Whenever power concentrates, power corrupts. It is not some pet phrase that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is the experience of civilizations that have come and gone in the past. That is wisdom that has come to us through the passage of time. To the extent that we permit socialism to concentrate power in the hands of a Liberal government, an NDP government or a Conservative government, it matters not. But we will have to relearn that lesson of history. We will have to fight the French Revolution again. We will have to fight the American Revolution again, and we will have to go back to the year 1215. Unfortunately, it will not be you and I, we will trot along all right, but the next generation coming along, the students in university, our sons, daughters and our grandchildren will be the ones to suffer.
Let us track the Liberal record. It was not always like this. If we take a look at the economic history of Canada, we can
February 17, 1982

see that during the 1950s and the 1960s Canada was doing well. The country was growing at an enormous rate each year vis-a-vis other countries in the world. Canada's standard of living was the second highest in the world. We were the envy of the world. Millions of people immigrated to Canada, but since the Liberals came to power in 1968, we have seen that envious position reversed, even though for a year or two we had balanced budgets. For the most, in the 1950s we did have balanced budgets but since then, we have gone downhill.
Are individual Canadians better off today? Maybe we are but it is only because we have been spending ourselves into a deficit and mortgaging the future of our children and our grandchildren. What has been the federal government debt? In 1968 it was some $30 billion. It is now almost $140 billion. That is gross debt. That is the amount of money that we have spent over what we have taken in. Federal spending has gone from $13 billion in 1968 to about $75 billion the next year when the estimates were filed. Unemployment has risen from just over 300,000 to well over one million. Inflation has risen from 4 per cent to 13 per cent. The value of the Canadian dollar has declined and today it is worth less than 40 cents in terms of its 1968 value.
All the senior citizens who retired in 1968, having worked all their lives for this country from the 1920s to the 1960s, retire on a fixed pension. But the dollar they had in 1968 is now worth only 40 cents in the stores. Yet the price of goods in the stores has risen by an equivalent amount. Is it any wonder that our senior citizens are eating dog food? People have come to my constituency office and have told me that. Farmers have come to my office last week with complaints. One man told me he had come to this country and worked for 20 years building up about a half a million dollar livestock business. He is married and has five children. But today he is being petitioned into bankruptcy by his credit union and the shortfall will be over $100,000. The man sat in my office and cried. He told me that the only way out that he could see was to shoot himself. Once he is released from bankruptcy he can shoot himself and the life insurance will at least give his wife and family a home. That is what that man is contemplating. That is what governments are doing to people.
No doubt, Mr. Speaker, you have seen the Auditor General's report wherein it states that the deficit is $9 billion higher than reported. Once governments start to get into huge deficits, they try to shave the edges to make things look a little better than they really are. Thank goodness we have auditors general to audit the books and find out these misnomers.
I spoke earlier about the money supply. Last week the money supply increased some $181 million. Is that the start of things? Is the government starting to turn on the printing presses? If it is, anyone who owns land in this country had better hang onto it because land will be the only protection an individual will have. Anyone who does not have land will simply be a serf. With deficits like this, you get a landed class and a non-landed class. That is a return to the feudalism system of the middle ages. Our ancestors fought to get us out of that dilemma. Why we in Canada would permit ourselves to
Taxation
get into that kind of mess is beyond me. We have experienced this. Governments will lie and people in governments will lie. Therefore, people need to be putting in place mechanisms to keep government under control.
Let me deal now with the gross national product and how it has changed under a Liberal government. Our gross national product in the third quarter is down. Real gross national product is down. Corporate after-tax profits-this is the money that is used to build plants and a manufacturing base for more jobs-in the third quatter have dropped to $20.8 billion. This amount was $25 billion in the second quarter. Therefore, in a short period of three months, as a result of these enormous taxing bills that have been imposed on Canadians, we have $5 billion that will no longer be going into plants and creating jobs. Where is that $5 billion going? It is flowing into the government coffers. Even if the government were using it to reduce the deficit, we could say that there is light at the end of the tunnel and that we will be out of the mess in five years if we are prepared to put up with the situation. But that is not the case. Government spending is up 22 per cent. And this increase in spending is not being used for job creation for our young people.
Merchandise exports in December were down enormously. Merchandise imports were up. Another way of expressing that is that we are exporting less of our manufactured goods that create jobs for Canadians and importing more, meaning all of the jobs are held by people in other countries. We are increasing the export of our raw resources. We might be able to justify that in terms of bringing dollars into the country. But every time a raw resource is exported without any refining, you are really exporting jobs. For instance, coal leaves western Canada for Japan and it is brought back in the form of cars and refrigerators. It means the Japanese have the jobs to build those cars, refrigerators and other things instead of Canadians. The statistics on trucking outfits are quite revealing, if anyone knows how to follow this data. Trucks are invariably used in a work capacity. It means corporations are buying trucks for their employees. Truck output was down 36.3 per cent during this last measurable period.
Most of us in western Canada live and work with the oil industry and know that most of the decline there is a result of the National Energy Program which has, without a shadow of a doubt, taken 187 rigs out of Canada. Each rig that leaves involves about 25 jobs. If 187 rigs had remained in this country with 25 people working on each rig, imagine the number of jobs that could have been saved. Then there are the highly skilled technicians of the service industry who would have been paying income tax and helping to reduce the deficit. Instead of this, the rigs have left. As I understand it, each of those rigs can employ only one Canadian, the balance is left for the Americans. That means Americans are working, getting the benefit of the oil, paying income taxes. What has happened to our people? They have had to come back to Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces and go on social assistance. So we lose tax revenue at the same time we increase our expenditures by way of social assistance. It is all unneces-

February 17, 1982
Taxation
sary. The bitter irony, Mr. Speaker, is that it is not Alberta's students and young people losing those jobs, because there is enough job creation in Alberta to handle its own needs. These are kids from Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces who were taking those jobs.
The same argument applies to the Alsands and Cold Lake projects. Had it not been for the NEP, there is absolutely no doubt that the Alsands plant would have been built. Indeed, Sir, if it had not been for the 1980 election, those plants would have been in place today because we would not have had that loss of business confidence. That is a very difficult concept for people to understand, and absolutely impossible for the NDP to understand because none of their members have ever met a payroll. They do not understand the concept of investment, and that is tragic. Then, Sir, when you lose that confidence not only do international capital market investors take their money out, but so do ordinary Canadians. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker,
I know of members across the way who have put a portion of their money in the United States in order to protect their financial future. Now, that is Liberal Members of Parliament, and they have told me that personally.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


An hon. Member:: We don't have any money.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Well, Sir, that is what happens when the government thinks that it can take over and make decisions. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, a small group of politicians sitting in an office in Ottawa with a few bureaucrats around them, who think that they can make decisions better than Canadians who are out in the oil patch or drilling in the Atlantic Ocean. It is so patently impossible that you wonder why they want to do it. The reasons, of course, is power. The more people they can get coming into Ottawa for grants, the more people they can get on social assistance or old age security, the more they become tied to that. And then they have them.
That was the big change in the oil industry. Before that you or I could form a company, Mr. Speaker, decide where you wanted to drill your wells and the cost could be deducted from your income tax. The decisions rested with you. Now, under the existing program, you cannot make those decisions. First of all you have to come in and talk to the bureaucrats here. They will decide whether or not you get a grant. It will depend on how Canadian or how foreign you are, and it will depend on where you want to drill. If you want to drill outside of Brooks, Alberta, you are not going to get much money. However, if you want to go into the far north or offshore, you will get much more. What does that do to those 700 Canadian corporations, most of them in Alberta? We hear about the big five, and it is true they are big, but there are over 700 oil and gas corporations in Canada, Mr. Speaker, and many of them operate on the great plains of western Canada. They now find they cannot get the same type of grants. They do not have the capacity to go into the north, the Beaufort, the Arctic or off
our coasts because they are not big enough. They need to work on the great plains. Yet, because so much tax revenue has been taken away from them, they do not have the cash flow. Then, because they have to come in and get grants and those grants are so low, they just cannot operate so they are folding up or moving to the United States.
Now, Sir, this is not some wild opinion of mine; there is hard evidence. We can give you data as to the number who have left. If you ever want to have an interesting holiday, Mr. Speaker, go down to Denver. It is like going into Alberta, because they are all Albertans, Canadians, and they are building highrises and doing other things in the U.S., and they are going to make the United States self-sufficient in energy. And here we are importing energy at an enormous rate.
Well, Sir, the Minister of State for Finance talked about the equity of the budget and how they needed this S6.6 billion to bring equity to Canadians. Again, it is simply untrue because taxes have been imposed on Canadians 11 separate times since 1980. They are all outlined in the Order Paper. In the last budget alone there are over 163 clauses which change the act and put additional taxes on people. Sir, we as Canadians who genuinely believe in equity should be concerned about the form of the taxes because the government leaves the impression that we have a progressive income tax system which means that the rich pay a higher percentage than the poor. To the extent we have an income tax system that is true, but when you look at government revenue, the amount collected from that system as compared to that collected from sales taxes and energy taxes, you realize the income tax portion is small. The bulk of taxes collected in Canada now come from indirect taxes, retail and municipal taxes, licence fees and energy taxes, all of which are regressive. So it means that the poor are genuinely poor and paying a much larger share of their income to government than people with real wealth. So it is not an equitable budget at all.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the government purported to be equitable to the provinces. It continues to claim that it is not cutting back on the provinces, and yet all of the data shows that the amount of transfers to the provinces will be cut in the order of $5 billion. How can we say that is equitable to the provinces? Because, Sir, not only are there rich and poor people, there are rich and poor provinces. The idea of revenue transfers was to use the taxing power of the central government to take more money from the richer areas and less from the poor and redistribute it. What is the government doing? It is backing out, and to the extent that it transfers this $5 billion responsibility on to the shoulders of the provinces, some of them will not be able to handle it. Clearly British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan will be able to cope with it, and some without much problem. But how is Prince Edward Island going to handle it? How will Nova Scotia, with less than a million people, and Newfoundland in a similar boat, handle it? They do not have the fiscal capacity to increase their own taxes. The fiscal strength of Prince Edward Island is really restricted to agriculture, primarily the potato industry. Compare that to Alberta with its huge ranching areas, its irrigated farms and
February 17, 1982

the oil industry. How does it compare with Ontario and its incredible manufacturing infrastructure? Those provinces can handle the burden, but the weak ones cannot. So the government budget, by unilaterally cutting $5 billion, is not equitable in any way to the poorer provinces.
Neither is this budget equitable for students. I am talking about those students planning on going on to university and technical schools. We all know that the technological revolution is sweeping the country and that as a nation we need to be directing our resources into that because, if we do not, we are just going to be whipped by Japan, Germany, France and the U.S. What does the government do? It is now cutting back its contribution of money for post-secondary education. That means that the universities must increase their tuition fees, and that students who until now were able to have access to universities will no longer have access.


An hon. Member:: That's not true!


Blaine Allen Thacker: That is absolutely true, and Quebec will be one of the provinces which will be hurt the most. The one dream we had in this country and the one success of the fifties and sixties, during the time of John Diefenbaker and Lester Pearson, was that children from ordinary families of modest income would have the privilege of going to universities and colleges and then could go into all sorts of exciting careers. That will not be so any longer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Blaine Allen Thacker: 1 did not realize that 40 minutes could go by quite so quickly.


An hon. Member:: It was fast?


Blaine Allen Thacker: I was going to speak about the money outflow from this country, because the hard data on it is incredible. I was going to speak about the federal deficit as shown in The Globe and Mail of February 12. Again, these are sad businesses.
Under the Excise Tax Act, Part II, one will notice that the government, in effect, is admitting failure in ever having coped with inflation because under Part II of the Excise Tax Act, and Section 2, the government sets the rate of default or penalty at 1.5 per cent. That amounts to 18 per cent per year. The government figures that the rate of inflation will be 18 per cent per year. It is even putting it into the form of a statute, because that will be the penalty if one does not pay one's taxes.
I would like to continue, because there are many more things I would like to discuss, but I will leave it to other hon. members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a good deal of pleasure to speak on Bill C-93. I wanted to say, first of all, that we as a nation are inordinately blessed with all sorts of riches, but we have not yet learned how to manage
Taxation
those riches appropriately. I wanted to indicate that in order to overcome our economic ills, we must surely deal with inflation. With inadequate productivity, with technological redundancy and inadequate inadequacy, with regional disparity and government debt and expenditure, the question is how and at what intensity or rate we should deal with inflation.
Today I want to try to be constructive, if I can. I want to say that I am in agreement that reducing inflation is the first priority, and that Canada's interest rate structure must, of necessity, closely follow that of our massive trading partner, the United States of America, on the short term, particularly so until we increase our relative productivity. Nevertheless, I am also convinced that Canada is rapidly approaching the bottom of the recessive cycle and that it is perhaps timely to give serious consideration to a program of selective stimulation of the economy, particularly with the prime objective of job creation.
1 believe we must minimize the length of the recession and accelerate the recovery period in any way we can, and we must start pretty soon. However, any regime of selective stimulation of the economy must unreservedly meet at least two conditions on the short term and perhaps on the longer-term basis. The first condition is that any program of selective economic stimulation must be non-inflationary. Some people may have difficulty envisioning programs of this sort; but there are many which can be implemented. The second condition must surely be that such programs must not increase government debt and direct government involvement in the economy through massive public borrowings.
These two conditions are important to be met with regard to any program of selective economic stimulation undertaken at the earliest opportunity. The question is, can it be done? If one anticipates substantive economic recovery in the next two or three years and government debt and expenditures can be held in check, then a basic selective tax policy, using future government tax revenues as an incentive to selectively stimulate the economy today, is an appropriate direction in which to move. The question is, how can it be done? Some of the long-term revenues of government should be used to selectively stimulate the economy today.
Let us examine the construction industry, and particularly the housing sector. Concerning the general industrial and commercial construction industry, surely rapid capital recovery or turnover in this high interest rate climate would be a substantial incentive. Why should the government not give very serious consideration to initiating a rapid, five-year regime or variable capital write-off regime for new construction during the next five years? Such a policy could start at the lower rate of depreciation or write-off in the first year and accelerate by 5 per cent a year to something like a very high rate in the fifth year, permitting capital recovery over a five-year period. This would be for new construction only. This would permit rapid capital recovery for reinvestment but, as it would only apply to new construction, increased construction would tend to increase government revenues rather than decrease them. The construction industry is so depressed today
15114

February 17, 1982
Taxation
that inflation would hardly be stimulated by such a program. Surely, a more generous and flexible use of the capital cost allowance, principle or incentive is timely today.
Let me look briefly at the housing industry. I have in my hand the report, I believe, of the last federal-provincial ministers conference on housing, which was held in Edmonton from January 31, 1978, to February 1, 1978, and jointly chaired by the current hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) and myself. It is an interesting document, and most people should read it today because the predictions are quite accurate.
If governments wish to stimulate the housing construction in today's high interest rate climate, what type of housing should be stimulated? I think that is a very basic question. Should it be done? Should it be social housing? Should it be middle-income housing or should it be high-income housing? How should it be done, and with what incentives?
If job creation is to be the paramount objective, then it must be done without increasing inflation or government outlays. I believe this can be done through the construction of middle and high-income housing rather than low-income or social housing. I will explain this in more detail as I go along.
To build a one-bedroom suite or a senior citizens suite today, under the various government programs, be they federal or provincial, requires some $40,000 to $50,000. To service such a suite economically, with interest rates at 18.5 per cent, and considering taxes and capital recovery, the cost is approximately $10,000 a year, or just under $1,000 a month. Government subsidies for this type of housing vary in one form or another, but they run between 50 per cent and 60 per cent, so that a subsidy for all such housing would be in the order of $6,000 a year supplied by one or another level of government. Building an additional 100,000 units over a period of two years, for example, would involve subsidies by governments amounting to a minimum of $.5 billion.
Some people say "good" when the debt structure of the government, particularly the federal government, is what it is today. If one wanted to increase inflation through government borrowing, one would move rapidly and massively into the area of constructing social housing. However, if the priority were job creation and at the same time minimizing government debt and government involvement in the economy through government debt, what would one do?
First, let me say that our occupancy rate has fallen below three people per dwelling in most locations across this nation. Our housing stock is vastly underutilized. It is related to a period in our growth when we could afford a substantial amount of luxury. What is vitally necessary today are policies and programs to increase the utilization of existing Canadian housing stock.
A partition suite or a basement suite can readily be built today in the order of $4,000 to $5,000 as compared to new suites at $40,000 to $50,000 per unit. Why not allow home owners to partition houses and build basement units? This was
a great consideration of the housing ministers across the nation.
Why is it that existing housing stock is so inadequately used? Primarily this is because of municipal government regulation. I am certain that senior levels of government could meet with municipalities at the earliest opportunity to change bylaws and provide additional accommodation by way of more adequate use of existing housing, building basement suites or dividing homes in such a way that the vacancy rates of most of our urban centres would rapidly be increased. We should look seriously at moving in this direction at the earliest opportunity.
Just imagine the energy savings involved. Imagine the savings in reductions of government subsidies. Also, it would provide some degree of job creation without massive capital outlays. A meeting with the Urban Municipalities Association of Canada should be held at the earliest opportunity. If an incentive structure can be set up with small grants being made to the communities to cause them to move in this direction, this will provide a useful direction in the whole area of housing for lower-income people in this country.
Let me get back to the selective economic stimulus of new housing construction. Building a very modest house requires one man-year of direct house construction labour. A mediumsized house will provide two man-years of skilled labour employment and a more spacious dwelling, three to four man-years.
How is the construction of housing for middle and high-income earners to be stimulated so that jobs can be generated today without a massive infusion of government capital? One possible course of action is to provide selective incentives through the tax system, in other words, tax perks that produce new wealth and create jobs. I realize the government has removed most of the tax perks which tend to provide new wealth or jobs.
If the government had the political courage, it could give serious consideration to providing mortgage interest rate cost deductibility above a base figure of 10 per cent or even 8 per cent on new houses built and marketed only in the next two to five years. This would act as an incentive for middle and higher-income people to build more homes and provide job creation.
One could argue this would be subsidies for the rich or middle-income earners. However, if one considers that the intent of the policy would be job creation without inflation and without government borrowings, it might be considered seriously. Why not? What can government lose? Its revenues would increase rather than decrease. Such incentives would automatically disappear when interest rates again drop to reasonable levels. Therefore, the incentives would be of short duration.
With regard to selective stimulation, why can the government not permit borrowing interest costs on the purchase of Canadian-made cars, those with a certain percentage of Canadian content, as income tax deductible items for the next one or two years? Ontario stimulated car sales substantially
February 17, 1982

with a similar program. The federal government would surely end up in the black rather than in the red with such a short-term policy.
Many other examples of selective stimulation for meeting the two conditions I laid down earlier are possible. I hope that a task force can be put together at the earliest opportunity to come forth with a whole series of programs by government for selectively stimulating the Canadian economy and creating jobs without necessarily increasing inflation.
I now want to dwell very briefly on the megaprojects, particularly the Alsands plant north of Fort McMurray and the Cold Lake heavy oil plant. Let me say that megaprojects are rapidly evolving a new form of enterprise. These massive projects require enormous capital and cross literally every level of enterprise; social, economic public and private. They have assumed the characteristics more closely resembling massive utility projects rather than high-risk capital enterprise projects. They are evolving as government and private sector partnerships rather than pure private enterprise partnerships. Government involvement is almost mandatory to reduce political risk on such massive projects and guarantees not only an energy source, but rapid recovery of the massive capital outlay.
1 want to indicate that when we first dealt with Syncrude, the extent of capital involvement was nowhere near the level required in an oil sands plant today. We talked about somewhat under a billion dollars. These costs are now reflected in the order of $12 billion to $15 billion. The capital requirements are massive. Therefore, the risks must be minimized in every possible way.
The basic requirement for bringing into reality a project such as the heavy oil plant in Cold Lake or the Alsands plant is government involvement in a minority equity position and massive involvement in building the community infrastructure and transportation facilities. The private sector likes to see the government involved in a minority equity position so that it can reduce its risk and guarantee success of the subject in the longer term.
The second requirement is a guaranteed rate of return on invested capital following normal utilities, in a general way. This would assure product price structures on the short and long term.
The third requirement is rapid capital investment recovery for redeployment of such capital. The fourth requirement is the total remission of all federal government taxes and provincial government royalties during the early life of the projects so as to reduce risks and assure capital recovery and recycling over the shortest possible time-frame. Simply, the government must delay its tax revenues and royalties on plants of this type to the period after investment capital is recovered in order to provide both the spark and inertia to make such plants a reality.
In my opinion, the Alsands project is dying rapidly, and it will take a miracle to revive it. The priorities on the Cold Lake heavy oil project should have been and must be reviewed.
Taxation
Alsands required a massive new infrastructure and transportation system, most of which is now in place in the Cold Lake facility. The Alsands plant is the third such plant, and the technology is fully commercialized so that new plants can await a more favourable interest rate climate. The Cold Lake plant is the first of its kind. It involves the commercialization of a new technology related to a heavy oil reserve in the order of 40 billion to 50 billion barrels of oil. The environmental consequences are minimal when compared to the Alsands plant. Furthermore, the ability to raise vast capital requirements is enhanced by the very nature of the possible government-industry partnership at Cold Lake.
I remember the early negotiations on the Great Canadian Oilsands plant. I also remember the early discussions and the manner in which Syncrude had to be saved. These projects involved relatively mild capital requirements when compared to both the Cold Lake plant and the Alsands plant. No knowledgeable or experienced industry partnership would invest $13 billion in one area unless it was guaranteed a rate of return on investment and guaranteed a price for its product. It must recover that capital over the shortest possible time-frame. Surely governments can make all their money after the first five or ten years of operation when, in fact, most of the invested capital is recovered. Government should regard these projects as effectively being utility plants providing energy at a reasonable rate of return on investment.
I wrote a letter to the Premier of Alberta and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in the fall of 1980 to indicate that the Cold Lake plant was the First of its kind and we were involved in the commercialization of a technology which had not been commercially proven anywhere in the world. The reserves associated with that technology, 50 billion barrels of heavy oil in place, were enough to serve Canada for many years to come. The Cold Lake heavy oil plant must be revived at the earliest opportunity and this can only be done by providing an incentive climate which would minimize the economic risk. 1 believe that the two governments must get together as soon as possible and develop that climate and provide for the Cold Lake project a total federal crude oil tax and provincial royalty remission until the investment capital is fully recovered. A second necessary requirement is an established product price regime for at least the first ten years of the production cycle, followed by a tracking of world price thereafter. As I have said earlier, inflation and high interest rates have required a somewhat different format from that which made Syncrude a reality. Surely this new format can be negotiated and evolved in Canada's interest.
The failure or indefinite postponement of the Cold Lake heavy oil project is a national disgrace. In my estimation, it is tantamount to a form of national treason. What other nation can look to a reserve of 50 billion barrels of heavy oil? What other nation can look to a developed process which has had a pilot plant running for several years? What other nation can look to having a company which is developing a regime to build a plant in the order of $12 billion to $15 billion to

February 17, 1982
Taxation
generate 140,000 barrels of oil per day? Throughout our discussions, we have allowed this to fail.
Perhaps I have strayed somewhat from the pertinent aspects of Bill C-93, but the reason I rose to speak today was to indicate that the government should be seriously thinking of entering into a phase of selective economic stimulus. I agree that inflation is our primary problem and it must be reduced at the earliest opportunity. Economic stimulation can be achieved without increasing the government debt or increasing inflation, with the primary concern being job creation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to speak briefly on this matter.


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 will begin my remarks on Bill C-93, which contains the statutory provisions for new taxation and increased government borrowing, by underlining a comment made by the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) when he explained the bill in the House. He said that Bill C-93 is directly concerned with the infamous budget presented to the House on November 12, 1981. He then reviewed what he called the main objectives of the budget because, he said, this was the background for evaluating the merits of this bill. According to the minister's own words, we must examine the provisions of the budget to evaluate Bill C-93. You will therefore not be surprised that I want to review the most objectionable features of the budget, particularly the onerous tax measures, as well as comment in specific terms on the provisions of Bill C-93.
1 briefly will deal with one of the major features of Bill C-93. First, it authorizes additional federal government borrowing to the extent of $6.6 million.


An hon. Member:: That is billion dollars.


Howard Edward Crosby: I am corrected on that. Unfortunately, this $6.6 billion is a mere trifle when it is added to Canada's current gross debt load of $128 billion. It is interesting to note in passing that a one-time prominent member of the Liberal government, C. D. Howe, created a national storm by remarking, in response to an accusation of monetary inaccuracy, "What's a million?". That is what he said at that time. If he were alive today, he would have to say, "What's a billion?" to even draw the slightest attention to monetary maleficence. This is the extent to which successive Liberal governments have inoculated the Canadian public against the disease of financial mismanagement. Canadians have come to expect government financial mismanagement to the extent that million dollar errors no longer shock the public. The $500 million loss at Mirabel, the $600 million debt write-off for the St. Lawrence Seaway, the $450 million to $550 million annual losses in the post office are hardly even newsworthy. What Canada needs is a billion dollar fiasco to attract sufficient public attention. The government is working hard to achieve this objective of a billion dollar fiasco which will draw attention to the financial plight of Canada.
Apart from changes in excise and sales tax of a relatively technical nature, the other major thrust of Bill C-93 is the implementation of a price and tax regime which will now be imposed on energy supplies, particularly oil and natural gas. I do not intend to review the mechanics of these tax measures, but 1 will consider the energy problem in Canada since it has such a gigantic impact on our financial position and our economic future.
Let me now consider the budget, recognizing that Bill C-93 is part of that ongoing process. What I want to do first is try to reduce the motivation for the 1981 budget to understandable and general terms. In order to do that it is almost necessary to review the 1980 budget which was introduced in the House of Commons on October 28, 1980. In that budget, the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), in explaining the financial plan of the government for that year, commented on the tax structure and said:
-I turn now to questions of taxation. I have a special responsibility to ensure that our tax system is fair and that it contributes to the achievement of our economic and social objectives. On the whole, our tax system is one of the best in the world. Canada's individual and corporate taxes were lower than in many other industrialized countries, including the United States.
In October of 1980 the Minister of Finance was pleased to speak in glowing terms of Canada's tax system but, strangely enough, just a year and a month later, on November 12, 1981, when he introduced the 1981 version of his budgetary process, he said in his budget speech:
Many Canadians find our tax system unfair, and I agree with them. They realize that taxes are necessary to pay for important government services, but they feel that rates of tax are too high. They sense that others, the well-advised or the wealthy, very often pay less than their fair share.
What we have in two successive budget speeches is the Minister of Finance contradicting his view of Canada's tax system. On the one hand, in 1980, he said it was one of the best tax systems in the world, and then a year later he said it was unfair and that people had said it was unfair. The Minister of Finance has never stated, in the House or in any other place of which I am aware, who said the tax system was unfair or what was the claim of unfairness in the tax system the Minister of Finance was asked to remedy. If we knew what the claim of unfairness was with respect to the tax system- and I hasten to add that there certainly are measures which are unfair-and if we knew exactly who made the claim of unfairness and what their claim involved, then we could deal with that, but we were not allowed that opportunity. The Minister of Finance simply announced in 1980 that we had a good tax system and in 1981 that we had a tax system which was unfair. This would lead one to believe that the Minister of Finance was simply using the tax system to bring about changes which he had in mind to make; that is to say, he was not responding to any initiative from the public. He was not responding to any thrust from the business world, any thrust from the world of education, any thrust from the world of finance or any thrust from any other of the segments which make up our Canadian society. He was simply engaged in an internal operation of introducing some tax measures, the real
February 17, 1982

result of which was to gain more revenue for the federal Treasury.
What we are faced with in the budget is simply an exercise whereby, under the guise of reform of the tax system, the Minister of Finance is introducing measures which will bring more dollars into the federal treasury.
1 ought to answer the question: why does the federal government need more dollars in its Treasury? The answer is very simple. Years of overspending and financial mismanagement have led to a situation in which drastic action must be taken, but unfortunately, the only resource left to tax in Canada is the hard-working people of Canada who engage in enterprise and who work for wages for a living. They are the only resource from which money can be drawn, and that is what the government is doing, but it is doing it under the guise of reforming the tax system.
There are other methods of reforming a tax system, and I ought to deal with the fact that in the past these methods have been reviewed at great length. Over a decade ago the Carter commission examined in great detail the tax system in Canada and came up with very serious recommendations which would perhaps have led to a fairer tax system for all Canadians. But at that time there were members of the government and members of the Liberal Party who rose up and said that those reforms would not come about, that the recommendations of the Carter commission would not be implemented in Canada and that they wanted the tax system we now have in place. That consultative process, which went on over a long period of time and dealt with the Canadian tax system in detail, was simply chucked out the window because of Members of Parliament like Senator Olson, who now resides in the other place and not in the House of Commons. Perhaps it is for that reason he rejected out of hand tax reforms and opted for the system the Minister of Finance now tells us has to be changed in the way he has changed it.
There was another thrust in the 1981 budget which would have gained the support of most people in Canada, and that was the government's promise to reduce the deficit. In his budget speech the Minister of Finance said he would reduce the deficit of the Government of Canada over a period of two or three years by $4 billion to $6 billion. I think he said approximately $5 billion by 1984.
How are the government and the Minister of Finance proposing to reduce that deficit? Their proposal is simply to deprive the provinces of funds in the form of transfer payments, equalization payments and payments made under established programs funding. What the government really proposes in the 1981 budget, in the name of reducing the deficit, is to transfer the deficit to the provinces of Canada. More important, the provinces of Canada to which this deficit will be transferred will be the provinces which can least afford to carry that deficit. They are the provinces which are now required, because of their lack of financial capacity, to seek assistance from the federal government. I am talking primarily about the Atlantic provinces of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, but the province of
Taxation
Quebec also benefits from these programs, as do the western provinces and the province of Ontario with respect to specific programs. These provinces can ill afford to bear the federal deficit. These provinces are already burdened. Nova Scotia has a deficit of about a quarter of a billion dollars which, in terms of population, is very substantial. Hon. members may not be aware that the province of Prince Edward Island, for example, spends more money per capita on providing services within that province than any other province of Canada, approximately $3,000 a year per citizen. The other maritime provinces pay similar amounts. That is because those provinces do not have economic advantages. This is the region that sutfers from economic disparity. Because of this, the strain on government is greater. The people need more services and more assistance in terms of social welfare payments, education and all the services government has to provide, particularly in areas where the population cannot provide for itself to the extent it can in other parts of Canada.
The reduction of the deficit is not really a reduction which will benefit the financial situation across Canada or balance the books, so to speak, of government. It will simply transfer that debt to another level of government, a level of government which can least afford to carry the debt, and it will not be able to carry that kind of debt without raising taxes or without reducing services.
There are two main thrusts to the budget-reduction of the deficit and the reform of the tax system. The Economic Council of Canada has confirmed that the claim of reducing the federal deficit is false, that it is simply a matter of refinancing some of the government's assistance to the provinces and, as a result, the deficit will be carried by the provinces.
We know from people who have complained to us directly and in the press that the government's claim of tax reform is false, and that the claim that equity and fairness will be brought into the tax system is also false.
I can explode that myth with some facts and figures, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance told us in this House that under the new tax measures approximately 12 million taxpayers will pay less tax, that 3.5 million will pay the same amount of taxes and that only 800,000 will pay more. Those statistics have been challenged again and again, not just by members of this House but by the Canadian Labour Congress and by tax experts like Mr. Arthur Drache who, in an article, indicated that at least two million Canadians would be paying more tax in the 1982 taxation year.
The almost seven million Canadians who participate in health and dental care programs and receive financial assistance with respect to those programs from their employers will be taxed on the financial contribution made by or allocated to the employer. So as many as seven million Canadians and certainly at least four million Canadians will be facing increased taxes because of that measure.

February 17, 1982
Taxation
Another consideration is the provision with respect to the taxation of insurance benefits as they accrue. There are 13 million policyholders across Canada, 40 per cent of whom earn under $25,000 per year and 60 per cent of the policies are for less than $50,000 per year. Pensioners will also have to pay increased taxes because they will lose the $1,000 pension deduction if they are contributing to an RRSP. Approximately 2.3 million senior citizens in Canada receive old age assistance and almost two million receive the guaranteed income supplement. About 2.5 million Canadians over age 65 may be adversely affected by these tax measures. When we complain about the measures contained in the budget, we are not talking about the business community or the high priced executive; we are talking about 2.5 million senior citizens and the seven million Canadians who receive assistance through health and dental plans. In other words, we are talking about the ordinary people that this budget attacks.
These people may not be too aware now of the price they will have to pay but they will know all about it next year when they file their income tax returns and find that they must pay tax on their health and dental plans, and that they cannot deduct the interest on payments made to an RRSP for which they borrowed funds. A year from now pensioners will know that they will not be able to use the $1,000 deduction.
It is our job, in this House, to get the word out to the Canadian people so that they may respond to these measures. That is exactly what we have done, Mr. Speaker. This party had a special committee on the budget and the economy which travelled across Canada. It was a forum at which interested persons could register their complaints and ask questions about the budget and its measures. If Canadians want to protect themselves against these unfair measures they have to act now. We know that they are acting now because they are writing to Members of Parliament on this side and on the government side. I do not think any member on the government side could say that he or she is not receiving complaints from constituents-from pensioners, the ordinary workers and construction workers who will be taxed on housing benefits.
The government is backing off, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Rompkey) has backed off the measure to tax travel passes issued to transport workers. The budget provided that the passes issued to the 45,000 transport workers of Air Canada and CN would be taxed on their market value. There was such an outcry that the government knew 45,000 votes would be lost, so the minister issued a paper stating that was not what was intended at all, that the passes were not to be taxed at market value but only on a certain percentage. The gobbledygook is all written out in the statement issued by the minister, Mr. Speaker. There are no regulations to back this up but I suppose they will be issued as soon as the minister figures how they can work things out without contradicting the budget proposal.
If the 1.2 million of the 2.5 million pensioners in Canada who face the loss of the $1,000 pension deduction protest, the government will back off that provision as well. I do not know how the transport workers got the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of Finance to issue that paper. Perhaps the pensioners could get in touch with them and find out what is going on.
It appears that the government is willing to back off because it wants to save its political hide. It has to save it or it will lose the next election. This is not like their promise on the energy tax where they told the people to vote for them and then there would be no increase in the price of gasoline. They told people not to worry about the 18 cents.


Mr. Evans:: Nobody said that and you know it!


Howard Edward Crosby: A year later the government put the price up 80 cents, 90 cents, $1.20. But that is different, it seerns, because they did not put the 18 cents tax on, just an 80-cent increase. They will not get away with anything like that with income tax, Mr. Speaker, because taxpayers will see that they are to be taxed on their health and dental plans and that they would have been taxed on their transportation passes. I do not want to lead a revolt, Mr. Speaker, but I think taxpayers must make their position known.
I want to speak now of the tremendous problem facing the provincial governments with the transfer of the deficit to their budgets. The less fortunate provinces in the Atlantic area already carry a large debt load. Their expenditures per capita are higher than in the rest of Canada. They cannot effectively increase their public debt because, for one thing, they will lose their credit rating. The provinces of Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are running at maximum debt now and if they are deprived of federal funding or if it is reduced, they will be in greater trouble. We know there is a bottom line involved in this. It is very easy to calculate that the province of Nova Scotia will lose $100 million over a five-year period, or $20 million per year. It has to come up with that amount, but we must remember that it is a small province with
800,000	people. If one divides the $20 million by the 800,000, one will find out what each Nova Scotian will have to come up with.


John Leslie Evans: How much?


Howard Edward Crosby: The parliamentary secretary will be able to do that calculation because he has a pencil. I do not and I have to stand here on my feet, so I cannot make the calculation. In any event, it is on the record for anyone to make. But my point is that in order to meet the difference, the province of Nova Scotia will either have to raise taxes or cut services. The choice is to raise taxes or cut services because the money is not there. Regardless of what hon. members opposite say, it is not there. The minister of finance of Nova Scotia would not lie. He said it was not there. There is $100 million missing, maybe more. What will the province of Nova Scotia do?
The percentages of total government expenditures in Nova Scotia are 22.1 per cent on education and 28.4 per cent on health. I do not need a pencil to add those two figures and come to the conclusion that the province of Nova Scotia is
February 17. 1982

paying 50 per cent of its total revenue on education and health. The figures are much similar for the province of Newfoundland. The Minister of National Revenue had better take note of this. Its percentage of total expenditures on health and education is 45.6 per cent. The figures are similar for the province of New Brunswick as well.


Mr. Rompkey:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, just to set the record straight. I refer the hon. member to the speech of the president of Memorial University at the last convocation in which he indicated that provincial revenues to post-secondary education in Newfoundland were dropping and that federal contributions were increasing. If the hon. member does not want to take my word for it, 1 refer him to the convocation speech of the president of the university. The facts of the matter are that there will be a net increase in transfer payments to Newfoundland of $80 million next year, $140 million in the following year, and a 12 per cent average increase for the next ten years.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Taylor):: That is hardly a point of order; perhaps it is a good matter for debate.


Howard Edward Crosby: I thank the Minister of National Revenue for his comments because it provided me with a chance to look at my documents. 1 am sorry, I confused the province of Nova Scotia with the province of Prince Edward Island on the list of statistics because of my poor glasses. I will probably be deprived of dental care and health plans, so I will not be able to obtain a new pair of glasses for a while; I will not be able to pay the tax and the cost on my own.


Bill Rompkey: Will they be rose-coloured?


Howard Edward Crosby: 1 should like to change the record. The province of Prince Edward Island pays 50 per cent of its revenue on education and health; the province of Nova Scotia pays 42 per cent; the province of Newfoundland, for the information of the minister, pays 45.6 per cent out of total government expenditures.
Now I should like to deal with the point raised by the Minister of National Revenue. I cannot explain it because it is simply the numbers game. The Government of Canada says, "Here are the numbers"; the provinces say, "Here are the numbers". But what counts is the dollars which flow through to the institutions providing educational services or to the hospitals and persons providing health, hospital and medical services. They are the ones who say that the dollars are not coming through.
Whether one blames the provinces or the federal government, it is just a numbers game. My answer to the minister is that it is a numbers game. But I should like to say something to the president of Memorial University in Newfoundland. In 1982 he will not receive as many dollars as he thinks he should; in 1983 it will be less; and in 1984 it will be even less than 1983. This will be the result of changes in federal government policy. He can blame it on the province of New-
Taxation
foundland as well. It is up to him. He can work out the numbers, but he will receive fewer dollars.
I am very glad the Minister of National Revenue focused attention on this matter. The president of Memorial University will be faced with some choices-he will have to cut services in the university, raise tuition fees, or find other methods of financing through alumni contributions or funds from the private sector. Those will be his choices. I believe he will have to employ all of them. He will have to cut services at Memorial University, raise student tuition fees, and look for funding from the private sector. He will not be in the same position he would have been in if the federal government had really and truly continued its contributions at the rates provided in the past and had not become involved in cutbacks.
Not just universities, but hospitals and a wide variety of government services will have to cut back or raise taxes. There is no avoiding it. When the dollars flow through, they will not be in the amount they have been traditionally as a result of government policy to reduce its deficit and pass it on to the provinces. It is as simple as the man in advertising who says, "You can pay me now or you can pay me later." I am saying that it will happen. I will have to wait a year or two, but the minister will be forced to admit in the House, that it has happened. The money will not be there. Hospital, medical and educational services will be cut back, and taxes will be raised. I am referring to provinces which cannot carry the deficit.
I do not know about the province of Alberta; it is very ably represented in the House and those members will speak to that problem. But what about the province of Quebec? The Premier of Quebec, Rene Levesque, has stood up time and time again and said that it will happen. It will happen, and when it happens hon. members from that province who did not speak out as 1 am speaking out now will be faced with the problem and fixed with the responsibility. I suspect that is why ten of them signed the letter which outlined the situation in point form. They know it will happen. They know services will be cut in health, education and other social fields. They know taxes will be raised and that educational institutions will be required to seek private funding.
I think I have said enough about the concerns of the provinces and the transfer of deficits as a result of the budget. Now I want to deal with some tax measures which affect individual Canadians. I have already referred to some of them, but first I would like to indicate how I know about this. I was a member of the special committee on the budget and the economy. I was appointed by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). It was with great foresight and interest in individual Canadians that he set up this committee, so ably chaired by the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson). We travelled around the country and talked with people. Members of the committee reached out and said, "What do you think of the budget? Here it is, let us discuss it." We wanted to hear what the people thought and travelled to many places across Canada, and we heard from the people of Canada. It was a new exercise, but it was a very important one. It allowed us to be in contact with the people.

February 17, 1982
Taxation
The Minister of National Revenue is not fooling anyone in the House. He has been in touch with people, he knows that they are complaining, and he wants to respond to their concerns. The important point is that we put the concerns on record. People know what is happening, and they knew it before the budget was finalized. They are making their complaints now, and they are timely. The government is starting to withdraw. On December 18 the minister stood in the House and withdrew some provisions and modified others. The Minister of National Revenue, left to his own devices, attempted to achieve some justice within his regulatory power and within the regulatory power of his department. I think he will do more.
I want to detail some particular tax measures respecting pension income deductions which are of great concern. First and foremost, I am interested in senior citizens; I hope to be one some day. Under the law as 1 understand it, a person in receipt of pension income can deduct $1,000 from his or her total income, which includes pension income. It will be taken away if the person contributes to a registered retirement savings plan. If an executive of a large corporation, such as Imperial Oil or some goliath, retires early, receives pension benefits, a new yacht and everything else, and because of his great wealth continues to contribute to an RRSP, I would not even stand in the House to defend him. Such persons will not be affected. But thousands of retired Armed Forces personnel across the country who retired early because of the pension system in the Armed Forces will be affected. In order to maintain themselves they are forced to seek other employment. There are thousands of public servants in the same position who retired early with small pensions, continued to work, and naturally contributed to registered retirement savings plans. The government has come along and is taxing those persons by taking away their $1,000 deduction simply because some corporate executive will receive the same benefit.
We know that you do not have to hit every pensioner, whether over 65 or not, who continues to work. Why are people doing this? It is being done because people receive a smaller pension at an earlier age, an age when they are still able to work. They know down the line when they reach their senior years that they will not be able to work and they are trying to provide sufficient income for those years. Surely those are not the people who ought to be attacked by the Government of Canada, the Parliament of Canada. As a parliamentarian, I do not want to be any part of that attack.
Now we come to the registered retirement savings plans. Again the government is coming in with a gun to kill that. Certainly there has been a little abuse of registered retirement savings plans. People who do not need to provide for retirement are involved with them, but the people who borrow money to contribute to a registered retirement savings plan are in the early stages of their activity-for instance, young engineers who hope later on, if they get a job and continue to be employed, they will have enough money to continue to contribute to the plan and pay off the debt. They are the ones who are
taking advantage of the interest borrowing advantage, not the corporate executive or the millionaire. They do not need to borrow money to contribute to a registered retirement savings plan. That is a lot of nonsense, Mr. Speaker. The ordinary people are the ones who are borrowing for an RRSP. We wish the government would come to its sense about that.
Then we have life insurance. About 14 million people across Canada have life insurance. Are you telling me, Mr. speaker, that the Minister of Finance really believes that these people are trying to gyp the tax man? Of course not; these people are trying to provide for their families. That is the Canadian tradition. If I had an unfortunate accident, which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Evans) might like to see happen, and I did not have the ability to earn income for my family, 1 would want some life insurance to take its place. That is perfectly reasonable. I am not trying to avoid taxes, yet the government wants to tax that accrual. Really, who is the government trying to kid? Canadians are not trying to cheat anyone. Canadians are trying to provide for their families and there is no reason for this type of thing to be taxed.
Next there is the health and dental plans. There are four million Canadians covered by health and dental plans. In the private sector alone there are another million who are covered by the employer-employee arrangement that has been worked out through collective bargaining. There are another 500,000 involved with union health plans in the building trades. There are probably another two million people involved with Blue Cross and other non-profit institutions that provide health and dental care. Maybe as many as seven million Canadians and probably 11 million are covered, and the government steps in and says "This is not available to all Canadians; it is a tax dodge. You are trying to give a benefit instead of dollars; therefore, we will tax you." But that is not true. Those plans are there to help people and to see that they get adequate medical care, particularly dental care. If they do not have such plans, they will not get the care. If people have to pay tax, the plans will be endangered because people will say "Give me the money and I will pay for it myself." Then the plans will collapse. That is what the government is doing. The government has to back off from doing this.
Now I shall talk about capital cost allowance. That is in the business field. In my travels I learned that as a result of the change in the capital cost allowance, the first year allowance will be reduced to 50 per cent or one half. For example, this will mean that car rental companies who are used to taking the larger allowance, the faster write-off in the first year will be forced to hold on to a car for another year. They usually hold them for two years; now it will be three years. They purchase
45,000	to 60,000 cars in Canada each year. It will mean a reduction of one third in car purchases if they cannot take up this write-off. What will that do to the automobile industry? It will mean a loss of 15,000 or 20,000 sales. Yet the Government of Canada is contributing to the automobile industry by financing it and trying to keep it afloat. The government is contributing public funds to the automobile industry, and the
February 17, 1982

government is taking away 15,000 to 20,000 sales of cars a year by a tax measure. Who is going forward and backward on that? How ridiculous can you get? We will not let the government get away with that.
Now to the positive side. Let me talk about child care. The government knows that Canadians who have to maintain a child in separate accommodation outside a home have to pay more for that service than the tax system allows, but the government does not do anything about that. 1 could go on and talk about that but in my last two minutes I want to talk about unemployment.
We can talk about the economy, but the big thing is employment. We have to keep Canadians employed. We have a labour force of over 11 million people, but 1.2 million people are out of work. That is not only an economic problem but a social problem. I read an article by a psychiatrist, Dr. Thomson, who comes from my constituency. He pointed out this problem very graphically. We have to solve these problems on a positive note.
We can beat this economic situation in Canada. All we have to do is get the energy projects going, the offshore projects and the Alberta tar sands. We should take advantage of our strengths and build on them. Our object, however, is to provide jobs for people. That is what people want. If people can get work they will pay their bills. Canadians still have incentive. They still want to work and contribute, but unfortunately it is the Government of Canada that is standing in their way.
Strangely enough, the government is not getting the projects going. The energy projects are stalled. They will take place; the tar sands will be developed some time, but they might as well be developed now. The offshore resources have to be explored. That exploration might as well start now. We are not saving anything. We have the manufacturing components. Let us not let things die because we have economic reversal. We have to create economic activity. We have to create jobs. We have to provide jobs for Canadians. This is no time for economic purism. This is no time for people to say "We have a long-range plan to reduce inflation; that will cause this and this will cause that." How do we know? Because some economist in a tax book says so? We are dealing with people. Canadians are the ones who determine what they want. Canadians are the ones who determine what the government must do. What Canadians want is economic activity; they want job creation. This government ought to give it to them. It is the right thing to do and it will have the best result.


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-93 asks for a borrowing authority of some $6.6 billion this year. In the first year I was a Member of Parliament, the government asked for borrowing auhority of some $14 billion. In my second year as a Member of Parliament, that borrowing authority was reduced to some $12 billion. I see this year it is now $6.6 billion. It appears that the government is likely making some progress in reducing its deficit. But the reason the amount has been reduced so dramatically has to do with the responsibility for the debt that has been incurred by the federal government in its policies. It
Taxation
has transferred the responsibility for payment of that debt to the provinces and municipal governments. For instance, the community services contribution program; I think of the transfer of the increased costs of the RCMP and policing services. Many municipalities and provincial governments saw this as a dire hardship.
Another area on which I will dwell at some length is the Crow rate and the government's intention to abolish this statutory and historic rate. The Crowsnest Pass agreement was a continuation of national policy when it was first started. The national policy of which I speak is the banding together of the country from the Pacific to the Atlantic by a ribbon of steel, so to speak, the railway that should have been in place. The major aspect was a publicly subsidized, privately owned transcontinental rail network. In 1897 the only rail line into the mineral rich Kootenay region of B.C. was a branch line of the American Great Northern Railway which had reached Nelson in 1895. This was perceived as a threat to Canadian sovereignty and the region provided Canadian Pacific with sufficient leverage to extract some $3.4 million and 3.7 million acres of land from the federal and British Columbia governments to finance the construction of a 300-mile line from Lethbridge, Alberta, through the Crowsnest Pass to Nelson.
During the same period of time political pressure from the west had brought the federal government to the realization that exorbitant freight rates arising from the monopoly power of the rail companies were working against another goal of national policy, that being the rapid settlement and agricultural development on the prairies which was essential. This realization was reflected in the other half of the Crowsnest Pass agreement whereby Canadian Pacific agreed to reduce certain of its rates, including grain and flour, on commodities moving from the west to the Lakehead, and they were to remain there indefinitely.
During the time from 1903 until about 1918, Mr. Speaker, during which time the War Measures Act was invoked because of World War I, the rates fluctuated drastically but the producers did not really complain a great deal because of the overriding national interest in preserving our freedom during time of war. However, in 1922 the rates were restored under pressure from the west, with opposition by the railway interests, because they had really fluctuated quite wildly during that period of time.
Then in 1925 the rates were fixed by statute and extended to cover shipments to the Lakehead on any line in the west, including those built after 1897. The rates were extended in 1927 to the shipment of grain and flour to west coast ports for export, and to the port of Churchill in 1931. In 1961 raw oilseeds were added to the Crow rate structure which now applied to western rapeseed meal going to Thunder Bay but not Vancouver. Rapeseed oils move at regular rates but western shippers received a federal freight subsidy on shipments to western markets.

February 17, 1982
Taxation
The Crow rate has, since its inception, been regarded in the west as a sort of balance, Mr. Speaker, to the benefits that central Canada has always derived at the expense of the rest of the country from the tariff wall protecting its industry. One question which often comes to mind for many of my constituents, Mr. Speaker, is: does the Crow rate really affect the quality of service in grain movement by rail in western Canada? The statutory freight rates have given prairie grain farmers effective protection from a railway monopoly over rate setting. They provide no such protection when it comes to the level of service the railways provide, nor does the Railway Act. In fact, the quality of service has been poor for a very long time. Grain cars have generally been poorly maintained. I stand to be corrected, but I believe the last time CN and CP actually purchased cars for the movement of grain was back in the early 1950s, and they have certainly deteriorated since that time. They are obsolete and in short supply. The track and roadbeds have been allowed to deteriorate, and as a result sales opportunities have been lost. The cars produced lately have been at the expense of either the federal or provincial governments, or the producers themselves.
At the moment the railways cover their grain transportation costs from three different sources of income: the producer, who pays the statutory freight rate; the federal government, which pays the railways a subsidy of about $100 million a year for continued service on uneconomical branch lines; and the balance comes from other sectors, possibly from the transportation of other commodities.
The federal government has in recent years assumed some costs directly, such as the provision of hopper cars, as I mentioned, and also the rehabilitation of branch lines throughout many points in Canada. Nevertheless, the railways still seem to lose some money on carrying grain. Just how much is uncertain, but estimates range from $60 million to $400 million a year. And the quality of service is still inadequate. They cannot say they are putting this money into upgrading the line or the service they are providing.
Furthermore, planned increases in production of grain will require the elimination of a number of bottlenecks in the transportation system, Mr. Speaker, but the railways argue that unless the Crow goes they will not be able to finance these investments. Although the railways may lose some money on the actual movement of grain, if you look at the profit figures of the railway companies you will see that in 1970 CN had a net loss of some $30 million. But if you move up to 1980, one decade later, they have a profit of $193 million. CP Rail had a profit in 1970 of $24 million. A decade later they have a profit of $122 million.
However, the point that particularly bothers some people about CP's profit is that it does not all go into the rail service they are supposedly providing to the Canadian public and producer. It goes into such things as Canadian Pacific Limited, where they have chosen to invest much of the money they should have been investing in the actual railway system which should be part of our economic and industrial strategy. In 1980, Mr. Speaker, Canadian Pacific Limited had a profit of
some $583 million. So I find it hard to believe that the railways are hard pressed and losing money.
The situation has led many western grain growers and farm organizations to seek some other method of ensuring that more money goes into improving the railways' performance in moving grain, Mr. Speaker. The following positions have been developed by different organizations in western Canada. For example, the National Farmers Union says that the Crow rate is not negotiable, a position I agree with. It must remain as part of an over-all transportation policy which recognizes the needs of rural communities, and should be extended to other crops and processed products as well. The railways should be compelled to provide adequate service. The railway companies' over-all profits, including their non-rail enterprises, are very high and I have given a few examples. If they refuse to cover the grain transportation shortfalls through internal corporate transfers, then they should be integrated and operated as a public utility to serve the national interest.


Mr. Siddon:: They will have to borrow more money.


Douglas Keith Anguish: I think, Mr. Speaker, it would be advisable for some of the hon. members to my right to listen and not heckle. If they listened to the end of the speech and they have the ability to digest the information, they might be able to make the analysis themselves that there is a better way for Canada to work.


An hon. Member:: The friends of CPR.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Now, Mr. Speaker, the western agricultural conference says that, subject to a guarantee of railway performance, the farmers' share of future increases in the cost of shipping grain would be negotiable. There is considerable opposition to this position by some of their members, most notably the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool which I do not think really wants to negotiate the Crow rate and have it placed as an extra economic burden upon the producers, especially in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. A third group, which is a spokesman for the producing community, is called the Prairie Farm Commodity Coalition. It is made up of such groups as the Palliser Wheat Growers Association plus the western flax, rapeseed and barley producers' organizations. It holds that farmers should pay the railways the full cost of moving grain and they say a Crow benefit would be paid by the federal government to producers to compensate them for the increase. The benefit would be paid on a per acreage basis, and variable rates would be permitted to encourage a more efficient grain handling system. The coalition favours this solution as an ideological doctrine on the grounds of free enterprise, and puts that forth as their position.
They are supported in this by several of the livestock producer organizations, and by the Conservative government of Alberta. This is a position which this party certainly disagrees with. We do not think the Crow rate should be negotiable and opened up on the table to be chopped away at, further reducing what has sometimes been a very small profit margin for the farmers.
February 17, 1982

Another question which arises quite often is whether the Crow is a barrier to economic development in the west. The western cattle feeders, in particular, see the Crow rate as contributing to the already high cost of feed grains on the prairies which, in turn, puts the prairie livestock industry at a disadvantage relative to its eastern counterparts. 1 disagree with that. 1 do not think it stops economic development in the west. However, the reasoning is that the price at which grain growers are willing to sell feed grains on the prairies is closely related to what is called the farm gate price of export grains-for example, the world price of grain in export positions in Vancouver and Thunder Bay, minus the freight charges, actually paid by the grower to get it to the port.
If the grower had to pay the higher rates on the movement of export grain, the effective farm gate price would automatically fall, presumably to an amount equal to the difference between the Crow and the new higher rates. The logical result would be that there would be cheaper feed for prairie cattle and hog producers, and it would encourage oilseed crushing and flour mills in the west. The cheaper food would mean higher incomes for cattlemen, I suppose, but the theory might not work through into the practicality of the situation. There is no guarantee that these increases in cattle prices, which I do not think are there, would offset the disastrous economic effect on the farmers in western Canada.
I think there is an alternative proposal which should be considered as opposed to the position of the federal government at the present time. The government is holding closed sessions across Canada which is a real violation of the democracy of this country in that there should be open and public input into the discussions which are centring around the one-man commission which has been set up by the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin). An alternative proposal which would get around this problem while retaining the Crow rate included in the recommendation of the Hall commission report and the Grain Handling Transportation Commission of 1977 that subsidized freight rates be applied on the transportation by rail of meat, processed grain and oilseed products from the west to eastern markets. This position is supported by the National Farmers Union and the New Democratic Party. 1 think this is a good position, it would do much more toward strengthening the ties across Canada and would do a much greater job of helping the producers of western Canada increase their profitability picture somewhat.
In this party we are very fearful that, once the statutory rates are tampered with, there will be talk about variable rates. The current statutory rates are related to distance. It costs the grower half a cent to ship a ton of wheat one mile by rail, no matter to which elevator on the line the wheat is delivered. For the railways, it cost more to handle grain through many low volume elevators on low volume branch lines. In addition to wanting more money for every bushel of grain they carry, the railways would like to have a means of persuading the farmers to truck their grain to a relatively smaller number of high volume, inland terminals on main lines. Variable rates, in
Taxation
other words, would do just that, and we do not want variable rates to come in.
The only way the railways could get the farmers to pay this higher cost of trucking their grain to the inland terminals rather than delivering to the nearest local elevator would be to charge a higher rate per ton mile for serving the local elevator. In effect, variable rates would provide the railways with a device for reorganizing the prairie grain handling system so as to minimize their operating costs without the nuisance of public branch line abandonment hearings. However, efficiency for the railways would be achieved at considerable cost to the other systems that we have in place on the prairies. If there were no grain handling system providing the focal point for the producers, the farming community and the ranching community around small prairie towns, many of those small towns would have a hard time existing. The larger centres would, in fact, grow and flourish, and that is not a way of life that we relish in most of the provinces in western Canada.
The existing prairie branch line network and the country elevator system could quite possibly even disappear. The farmers would be burdened with higher and rapidly increasing trucking costs for hauling longer distances, and elevator companies would likely be stuck with hundreds of elevators abandoned by the producers. Many of the rural communities would lose their principal reason for existence, and the provincial governments would have to absorb an increase in road maintenance costs resulting from much heavier traffic.
Looking back in time, one wonders why the railway companies accepted this Crow rate at the time. 1 think it was well put in the book "Canadian Transportation Economics" written by A.W. Currie in 1967. In discussing the reason Canadian Pacific accepted the deal in 1897, Mr. Currie stated:
Sir William Van Horne, then general manager of the Canadian Pacific, has been credited with enormous vision because he saw that low rates would induce new settlement, increase the volume and profitability of the railway's traffic, and enormously enhance the value of the company's extensive holdings of land.
I think that latter comment certainly describes the high priority of Canadian Pacific, because it has certainly utilized those land holdings to its best advantage and not to the advantage of a railway system within this country of ours.
One quite often wonders whether the transportation system would get better if variable rates were removed. If we paid more to the rail companies, would they move our product in a better manner?


An hon. Member:: No.


Douglas Keith Anguish: The answer is no. The potash industry, for example-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The Chair is having just a little difficulty in relating the borrowing authority bill to the railway problems to which the hon. member refers. Perhaps he could tie the two together once in a while to make it more relevant.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Just once.

February 17, 1982
Taxation


Douglas Keith Anguish: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. With all due respect, I think that part of the $6.6 billion which is being borrowed could quite well go into the rail network and into agricultural programs in western Canada. I think my speech is very relevant to the point of this bill we are debating.


John Leslie Evans: Nonsense.


Douglas Keith Anguish: The answer that the rates would go up does not necessarily mean that the movement of grain would get better. The potash industry pays six times the Crow rate, but it must buy or lease hopper cars because the railways have not supplied enough cars in that area. Livestock rates are four times the Crow rate by volume and nine times the Crow rate by weight; but the railways are phasing out livestock cars. They reduced the number of cars by 37 per cent between 1973 and 1978.
Concerning the movement of potatoes, potato rates are seven times the Crow rate; but the railways have reduced potato shipments by 75 per cent since 1973.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Douglas Keith Anguish: They have been reduced 73 per cent since that period of time.


Mr. Nystrom:: Liberals!


Mr. Blais:: What is he going to do for his speech on Friday?


Douglas Keith Anguish: The Crowsnest Pass rate is a binding agreement. If the Canadian Pacific wishes to be relieved of its obligations under the agreement, I think it should also relinquish the benefits that it received from the establishment of the Crow rate. A 1917 royal commission determined that Canadian Pacific Railway had received some $279.5 million in identifiable public aid as of June 30, 1916, plus other aid which was not even estimated. Allowing a 5.8 per cent annual increase in value, today's value of those benefits would amount to $10.9 billion. In addition, since 1967 Canadian Pacific Railway has received $770 million in direct subsidies and owes the people of Canada $1.2 billion in deferred income tax.
The total identifiable public aid to Canadian Pacific Limited is $12.8 billion compared with assets listed in its 1980 annual report of $13 billion. There should be no corporate grumbling about its responsibilities. It has been treated very fairly by the producers, by the Canadian government and by the Canadian people. The borrowing capacity and profits from non-rail properties should not be separated from the railways they were intended to finance.
Since Canadian Pacific Limited is asking to be relieved of its railway responsibilities for grain transportation, it should be relieved of its assests as well. If it were relieved of its assets, this money could be put towards the $6.6 billion being asked for in this borrowing authority. The borrowing authority could thus be reduced even more. If we gathered that money, there would be a surplus. That is how my point relates to this bill. I say that not in anger as revenge will not make past wrongs right, but from a sincere belief that these bountiful resources
should be put back into the hands of the Canadian people, given back to the Government of Canada for national development.
The revenue problem caused by the Crow rate is recognized to some extent. Grain accounts for about 13 per cent of the loaded freight car miles and therefore for about 13 per cent of the workload and the expense of Canadian railways. The Crow rate earns about 4 per cent of the total railway revenue, leaving a bit of a shortfall there. However, the taxpayers have been meeting a good portion of that gap through such programs as branch line subsidies, rail rehabilitation, and absorbing interest on the cost of hopper cars.
Including these indirect subsidies, grain earns the railway companies about 12 per cent of their total revenue, nearly balancing the grain share of the workload and expense. Therefore, the federal treasury would not have to spend very much more to actually implement the Hall commission report recommendations and pay the railway for their loss in keeping the Crow rate, because it would not cost much more than what they are subsidizing the railways now.
The estimated losses of grain traffic are overstated by the railways which tell us that grain accounts for 21 per cent of the workload of Canadian Pacific and 17 per cent of the workload of Canadian National on the basis of revenue ton miles. This is a convenient statistical exercise which overstates the cost of hauling grain which can be easily and heavily loaded into freight cars, compared to refrigerator cars or cornflakes which are more expensive to haul per ton. Although the Crow rate per ton has not changed over the years, the real revenue per car mile has increased because of the efficient hopper cars given to the railways through provincial governments, the federal government and the producers.
The international price of wheat is actually dropping dramatically. Net farm incomes are expected to fall between 15 per cent and 20 per cent this year, yet farmers are being asked to pay more to ship their grain to market. At this time the federal government claims that the rail companies need this money to build the branch lines in the west and producers must pay their fair share. The producers have paid their fair share out of their pockets and through subsidies from provincial and federal governments. It must be remembered that grain comprises only 21 per cent of the total traffic of CPR and 17 per cent of CNR. That share is expected to fall throughout the 1980s-


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if you could ask members on the government side who find it necessary to chat to go into the lobby rather than speak in the House.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you observe or enforce the rules on two bases, one on the basis of relevance, which would greatly increase the interest of members on this side, and second, the rule that precludes a member from reading his speech, despite his cries of anguish.
February 17, 1982


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: On the first matter of relevance, I have indicated to the hon. member that there is a little difficulty. However, the borrowing bill is so wide by its nature that the member has the option to go into virtually any subject he wants. The only problem is that the Chair sometimes has difficulty following the subject matter to which the hon. member refers, such as the Crowsnest Pass rates, and tying it directly to the bill before the House. That relevance is a problem for the Chair and a very difficult matter to define. All the Chair can do is bring to the attention of hon. members from time to time that it would help if they would try to link the two matters together.
On the other matter of reading speeches, the Chair has taken the view that it would be a great contribution to the workings of the House of Commons if hon. members were prohibited from reading speeches. As soon as hon. members by considerable visible or audible majority inform the Chair that that rule should apply to everybody at all times, then it will be applied.


Douglas Keith Anguish: 1 thank you for that ruling, Mr. Speaker. 1 do not know whether it is parliamentary or not but 1 think the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) is a jerk.


John Leslie Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is clear that that language is unparliamentary and I ask the hon. member to withdraw it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 1 hope the Chair has not contributed to the ill-temper in the House. If so, I would ask the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) to take into consideration the Chair's intervention and perhaps not take it out on some other hon. member. I may have to look up the records and the citations, but I have little doubt at the moment that the expression is probably unparliamentary. If the hon. member would be so kind as to withdraw it, he could get on with his speech.


Douglas Keith Anguish: I refuse to withdraw my remark, Mr. Speaker, because I believe it is correct.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I have to ask the hon. member a second time to consider the alternatives available to the Chair, which are to examine the precedents and, if necessary, bring to the attention of the hon. member a ruling by the Chair that in fact he is out of order. I hope the hon. member would not ask me to do that. I hope rather that he would take the easier and more courteous course. Perhaps I, in some form, contributed to his difficulty. The easier way would be simply to withdraw the expression. If the hon. member insists, within the next couple of moments I will have a ruling. I presume the hon. member knows the eventual result of being asked to withdraw a remark and refusing to do so.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the remark for the convenience of the Chair. Thank you. The exchange here is very typical of how that bunch on the other side of the House views western Canada, the problems we have in transporting commodities, and part of the deal we had in confederation.
Taxation
Some of the Quebec members should understand that better than anyone. I do not blame some fat cat from Ottawa, who has never understood problems outside the elite within Canada, for not understanding how this ties in with borrowing money, a very important part of our system.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Fat cat Evans.


John Leslie Evans: I have lived all my life in western Canada.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Now that the hon. member has sufficiently disturbed my train of thought on a speech that 1 at least thought was important to the borrowing bill, I will try to get back to it. The share of the hauling of the grain is expected to drop even more during the 1980s. By the year 1990, the volume of grain hauled on the Canadian rail network is expected to be only between 12 per cent and 14 per cent of their total volume.
The federal government and the railways claim that the Crow rate provides the western grain farmers with a unique advantage, but I do not think it does. In 1980, federal government transport subsidies across Canada totalled some $2.4 billion. Of that total, only $284 million related to the prairie grain movement. In short, transportation subsidies have always been used as an instrument to achieve national goals and objectives within this country. If the Crow rate is eliminated, livestock producers will be in a worse competitive position in western Canada. Do the railways or the federal government seriously suggest that the livestock industry in western Canada will expand at a time when market prices are 30 cents to 40 cents per pound below the cost of production? 1 do not believe that livestock producers in western Canada will gain any advantage by removing the Crow rate. In fact, with the attitude of this government, I do not know what advantage any Canadian will have.
Let us consider the federal plan. At one time the federal policy was to guarantee statutory protection for the producer because of the monopolistic concept of the railway system. The federal government has now decided to reverse this fundamental principle in the belief that the railways need protection from the farmers.
Second, the plan of the federal government is to eliminate a fixed rate for producers. Just as important as the level of the Crow rate is the fact that it is a rate for the producers which has been guaranteed by statute. It is not a rate which any railway, quasi-judicial body or any order in council can wipe out at will. It is a rate upon which Canadian producers could depend as a fixed figure in helping them plan their future during uncertain times.
As I mentioned earlier, the federal plan provides no protection for the principle of equal rates for equal distance. If this principle is removed it will have disastrous consequences for those rural communities to which the Crow rate applies.
The federal government has indicated that it recognizes the need for railway modernization in western Canada. Moderni-

February 17, 1982
Taxation
zation is not only needed on the prairies but in British Columbia and other parts of Canada. Instead of giving handouts to the railways from the Canadian taxpayer or at the expense of prairie farmers, our party proposes that the anticipated $2.1 billion in additional capital be provided by the federal government and participating provincial governments jointly in return for equity. In other words, we will build the rail system but we would want some equity in that system as well.
I would like to quote for the record what the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) had to say recently. He said:
If farmers operated under the business principles of the railways, they would stop growing food and invest in shopping centres or oil wells. Were it not for a dedicated farm population taking low-sometimes no-return on their labour and investment, Canada would go hungry.
This could very well be our problem in the future. The government will have to borrow more than $6.6 billion if it continues to erode its economic policies and erode our transpo-ration system which is such an important part of Canada's industrial strategy. We cannot put these debts on the backs of the other governments which have already been given more debts than they should be asked to absorb. If a crisis situation arises in our agricultural industry due to the government's attitude and its policies, we will be borrowing much more than $6.6 billion.
The New Democratic Party believes that 100 per cent improved rail capacity would support even greater borrowing authority to ensure that we had the best rail system in the world to serve all producers. We cannot support a change in the rate unless the government improves the railway system, and not only at the farmers' expense because they are an important part of the whole Canadian economy. The government reaps billions of dollars from the agricultural industry which it uses to reduce part of Canada's trade deficits to other countries. This money not only comes from the producers in the western provinces but from Quebec and rural communities in Ontario, which is a fact that should be emphasized.
There is a contradiction in all this. On the one hand, the government proudly proclaims that Canada's exports will increase substantially to 30 million metric tons by 1985-86. Under the agri-food strategy, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) claims that grain production for the prairies will increase by 77 per cent to 100 per cent in the next 25 years. On the other hand, the government is doing all in its power to discourage the production of grain on the prairies. Any change in the Crow rate will be at the expense of the farmers, it appears, therefore affecting their net income. I do not know of a farmer who will voluntarily grow more grain with the knowledge that each new bushel that he grows will decrease his present net income. It is unfair to ask that of any sector in our economy. Even the Minister of Agriculture must realize that if he makes the farmers pay more to ship their grain he is undermining his whole strategy for increased exports, which we conceivably will not be able to get to the terminals.
I ask members to recognize the economic importance to all Canadians of the statutory Crow rate, which was locked in so
many years ago but which is still very relevant. It must not be used as an excuse for the erosion of Canada's transportation system.
My speech may have varied somewhat from the context of the bill but this bill certainly does have financial implications for Canadians. If the government would develop a policy with closer consultation with other members and producers, the loan of $6.6 billion could be reduced even further. However, if the government continues with its present legislation, that $6.6 billion will increase as a result of further economic problems for Canadian agricultural producers.


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Mr. Speaker, once more the House is considering Bill C-93, which authorizes the Canadian government to borrow money in order to meet its obligations for the fiscal year. Canadians probably wonder why Canada is borrowing money, what is going on and especially, why there seems to be some disagreement and debate about the fact that the Canadian government borrows money every year. A good question, because obviously, that money is being borrowed for a purpose. It is supposed to enable the government to meet its obligations to the people of this country. In fact, there is a vast complex of Canadian legislation that obliges the government to spend money, legislation brought in by the Liberal and Progressive Conservative governments, and passed in the House of Commons by Liberal, Progressive Conservative and NDP members, in other words by members of all parties.
So if all present members and their predecessors, who have worked in committee in the House of Commons in order to create laws with a view to better government and the wellbeing of all Canadians, if they passed these laws, they should know what they involve. So why do we always have a debate whenever the government has to borrow money? Why borrow money? I think that the member who is here to represent his constituency, who knows his job and knows the statutes, is not going to ask "why borrow money" at the end of the year. The Government of Canada has made commitments to the Canadian people and it must meet those commitments. Those commitments were made under legislation passed in this House, at the request of the Canadian people. So why should there be any attempt to have a debate on the question whether a government should or should not borrow? It is both necessary and normal that as a result of presentations or suggestions made by members of the House of Commons, by groups and by individual Canadians, that the government should borrow when its funds are not adequate to meet its commitments. And speaking of commitments, Mr. Speaker, it would perhaps be useful to define more clearly for the people across Canada and the people in our ridings what these obligations are.
Not long ago in Ottawa there was a first ministers' conference on the economy. The Government of Canada was told:
February 17, 1982

You are causing the problem, you are trying to fight inflation but you are not trying to fight unemployment, you are doing this and you are doing that. In fact, it was the same old story: blame everything on the federal government.
If we look at the facts, we must ask ourselves a few questions. Is the Canadian government really fighting unemployment? I shall take my riding as an example, Mr. Speaker. There are job-creation programs across Canada, and this year, the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean received its first grant of $1.5 million under the Community Development Program. Subsequent increases added $600,000 to that amount, which means that for the current year, Lac-Saint-Jean will receive $2.2 million under this program and I am not including the quarter million for the Opportunities for Youth program this summer, the vast number of policies being implemented by DREE, which is paying 25 per cent of capital investment in new projects, $5,000 per new job created, and so forth. The Canadian government is clearly spending money on job creation. The amounts involved may be fairly high for a single riding-$2 million-but we can certainly not accuse the government of not doing its job and not creating jobs. I challenge any province in Canada to come up with a plan that can compete with what the government is doing, and I would particularly challenge the government of the Province of Quebec, the PQ government, which is bragging about its own job-creation activities.
Last year, Mr. Speaker, 58,000 jobs were created in Quebec by the Canadian government, and whether or not they were temporary, at least people had work. And here is another way the Canadian government spends money in my riding: at the Canada Employment Centre in Alma, and I am not including the centre in Chicoutimi-my riding is so big that it has two centres-in Alma alone, 6,200 unemployed workers are registered with the centre and receive an average of $100 per week each in unemployment insurance benefits. This means that the Government of Canada has invested $600,000 per week in the Alma district, Mr. Speaker, which means $30 million annually. I challenge the government of the province of Quebec, the PQ government, to show me any figures that can disprove that.
Mr. Speaker, to use an example that brings the subject even closer to home and makes us realize what the Canadian government is doing for Canadians, take the average Canadian who gets up to go to work, and who happens to live in the Lac-Saint-Jean area. So everybody gets up in the morning, which is not unusual. You turn on the radio, and if you listen to the CBC, you may not realize this but its annual deficit costs the government $600 million, and the total cost is almost $1 billion. Then at breakfast, if you happen to like cheese or butter on your toast, these products are subsidized by the Canadian government to the tune of $2.60 per hundredweight of milk-$2.66 according to my colleague, the member for Roberval (Mrs. Beauchamp-Niquet), and she is right. After breakfast, our average Canadian may, if he is a man, use an
Taxation
electric razor, and in some provinces he will probably be using electric power generated by plants the Canadian government helped to set up-not in Quebec, however, where hydro is strictly a provincial matter.
Meanwhile, the heating system, which has been on all night and is on all day, runs on oil, and in eastern Canada this is imported oil which is almost 50 per cent subsidized by the Canadian government. When our average Canadian gets in his car, he may drive to a service station to buy gas with Canadian dollars which cost the government billions of dollars to keep at a reasonable level. The gas is subsidized by the Government of Canada by almost 50 per cent. And I can go on like this all day, merely listing areas where the Canadian government is involved in our daily lives, including recreation, cultural activities, nutrition and health. Because, you know, if that individual is a health or a social worker, 60 per cent of his salary is paid by the Government of Canada. If he works in a post-secondary school or at a university, if he is a support worker in some schools, 58 per cent of his salary is paid by the Government of Canada. We are then asked in the House, Mr. Speaker, why the government has to borrow. Quite simply in order to meet Canadian needs. I know that as far as the Progressive Conservative opposition is concerned, if the government borrowed to wage war, there would be no problem. That is a good idea. There would be no problem either if we wanted to give financial aid to the British government. It has been done in the past and such a move was applauded. However, if economic conditions become more difficult, as our young people seeking jobs have learned during the past ten years, and the government borrows billions to meet their needs, some find it strange. Questions are raised.
All the same, it should be realized, Mr. Speaker, that Canada is the second largest country in the world with only 24 million inhabitants. It is one of the countries endowed with the most resources in the world. Compare countries of equivalent size and their population: India with more than 600 million, China, one billion, Russia, 300 million, the United States, 250 million, Brazil 200 million. They have no more resources than we have. It will be suggested that we should perhaps restrict our social and job-creation policies or reduce our spending because we are only 24 million inhabitants with the greatest wealth for the future. No, Mr. Speaker, 1 think that this government should take action. The provincial governments are always asking us to do something and, what is more fantastic, so is the opposition, which blames us for borrowing. They urge us to create jobs and use the means at our disposal. One hon. member will say he has this or that project in his riding, another will say that he has such and such a project in his own riding, and so on and so forth. The requests keep on coming from both sides of the House. So I am amazed today when I see these same hon. members stand up in the House and say that the government should stop borrowing. I do not agree with them.

February 17, 1982
Taxation
Mr. Speaker, if the government must intervene in these critical times for the economy, it is because year after year it has fought against high inflation and unemployment by increasing productivity. Canada's record between 1970 and 1980 was the best of all industrialized nations. In Canada, we are proud to be able to say that Canada has a better record than any other country on a job-population ratio. How is that? Because the Canadian government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), is the government which developed the most projects and which helped put together programs for streamlining the industry. And this, in many ways. And because of this, our industry has not had the time to age. Today, we are having difficulties in a number of areas.
Let us consider the case of the automobile industry. That is an area where we are having difficulties. Why? Quite simply because we do not control this industry. It is clear that our automobile industry is an important element of the North American automobile industry as a whole, and if our industry is lacking in productivity, it is because we do not control enough of the factors to help it develop. And because of the slowing down of the whole automobile industry in North America, we must accept the lot we share with the Americans. But in other areas, Mr. Speaker, in the case for instance of Canadair, we have a fantastic and extraordinary record. My only qualm about the aeronautics industry is that around 1957 or 1958, it reduced its activities, although is was recognized as the best airplane builder in the world. This occurred unfortunately while a progressive government was in power, but we must still live with the consequences. However, a government rose in 1977 which was not afraid to invest money.
Of course, we had to borrow to invest in Canadair but today it has 6,000 people on its payroll as compared to 1,300 hardly four years ago. And now, Mr. Speaker, the case of Bombardier. Who asked the Bombardier company to manufacture something other than snowmobiles? Who asked them to manufacture buses, trains, subway cars and to go into the field of transportation? Who did? I see the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne) has just awarded them a contract for trucks. Who has urged them to buy a licence to build jeeps? The Government of Canada has. That is where the government invests the billions of dollars it borrows. Fortunately, those billions of dollars have meant increased revenues for the government in recent years. What for? They have enabled the government to implement aid policies for ail Canadians in the field of health and education, and to help idle workers in trying situations. What about manpower training? Here again the government has been the driving force, the major motivation of Canadians to prosper, and above all it has given them the necessary tools. We are entering a new and important phase.
Right now, some of our basic industries such as the one I referred to earlier, the automobile industry, need revamping. Our industries updated their equipment ten years ago and now
find that they will have to go through the same process over again. They will have to rebuild and, in that respect, the Government of Canada is already on the move. Was it not the Canadian government that signed agreements with the provinces to modernize the pulp and paper mills and ensure reforestation? Indeed it was. We are building for the future. The $5 billion borrowing authority we are seeking today, those $6.6 billion are earmarked for that future. In what context?
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) is now negotiating new manpower training agreements with the provinces. We as Canadians-and 1 mean industrial workers as well as their representatives here or in any other legislature-we Canadians want to be able to continue saying that we are the best workers in the world, the most competent, the most productive, as it has always been our trademark. That is why this government is already spending hundreds of millions of dollars for manpower training. I need only refer to the Canada Manpower Industrial Training Program through which millions have been invested in the Lac-Saint-Jean riding. I need only refer to the new policies being implemented with respect to designated areas.
Let us see what has been going on in the regions of Sept-Iles, Tracy-Sorel, Drummondville and, lately, Montmag-ny. The Government of Canada took the initiative and decided to spend the funds required to retrain workers who are interested in new challenges and want to learn new skills. It also decided to spend money to help update those industries which could be modernized and to support others which could not face the challenge single handed. That is the role of a government. Mr. Speaker, why should the Government of Canada be afraid to borrow when necessary if any Canadian can do so when his needs exceed his capacity to pay? Why should the Government of Canada be expected to act differently than Canadians? Does the Government of Canada represent Russia or the Russian people? No! The Canadian government is like the Canadian people. It is vigorous, it knows its potential and it has confidence in the future. Indeed, to be able to borrow, one must have confidence in the future. And one of the resources of this country for the future is our youth. Of course, the Government of Canada could say tomorrow morning: We shall no longer pay for unemployment insurance. We need to borrow $6.6 billion, but instead, we shall stop paying the $4.8 billion deficit for unemployment insurance. Then, our borrowings would only amount to $1.8 billion instead of $6.6 billion. But what would become of our young people, Mr. Speaker? What about our major resource? What is unemployment insurance in the final analysis if not temporary support for someone with practical employment problems, if not the possibility for people to receive training during a period when they cannot find jobs. That is what it is!
If we were to abandon our young people tomorrow morning, what would become of them? They would do as others have
February 17, 1982

done. They would probably do what my father did when he left his native Lebanon, they would go to another country where they can get a job. We would then have lost part of our major resource. We might have saved 25 cents by refusing them unemployment insurance benefits, but it would have cost us thousands of dollars and the loss of an immeasurable human resource. If this is the type of policy that some want to implement in this country, let them do it. I can assure you that the end result will not be anything like the vision that a Liberal can have of our country.
Mr. Speaker, we know that to support an economy-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Gimaiel:: Mr. Speaker, I know that the members opposite can only laugh. I have been a member of this House for over two years, and during that time 1 have seen those people laugh at Canadians regularly. They come here as teenagers, as 18-year-old children who only want to create a disturbance and are not interested in seeing Canada develop. 1 shall go even further. They form coalitions with certain provinces simply to play a political game. They are not interested in the development of Canadians, but simply in keeping their little constituencies, their little jobs as Members of Parliament. Not one of them would be willing tomorrow morning to risk his seat to help a youth in his own riding to develop. 1 know some members from Alberta and Saskatchewan who come here to complain that everything is wrong in Canada.
Go and see their provinces. Never before has the western economy been doing so well. Never! Thanks to whom? Certainly not to the nine months of Progressive Conservative rule! In nine months, the Progressive Conservatives moved the Canadian embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. In nine months, they almost went to war against Russia. Canadian sales abroad came to a stop. In nine months, they had time to sell Petro-Canada, scuttle Loto Canada and almost get rid of the CBC.
Mr. Speaker, it makes you wonder whether these people are Canadians. As a case in point, last year, when we wanted
Taxation
to call our national holiday Canada Day, they preferred the name Dominion Day. Anything that is called Canada bothers them. Whether it be Labour and Immigration Canada or Unemployment Insurance Canada, or Finance Canada. My impression is, they are much more interested in the development of their personal friends' corporations. And, Mr. Speaker, I seriously ask myself why opposition members come here in this House and ask the government: Why borrow $6.6 billion? The hon. gentlemen all know very well that this stems from legislation they themselves passed for the benefit of Canadians. All they have to do is allow the Government of Canada to go on helping Canadians. For instance, I recently heard the Quebec government referring to a salary for housewives at home. 1 would like to state, Mr. Speaker, that the only government doing something in that area is the Canadian government, through the child tax credit we are giving them each year, over and above family allowances. This is what the Canadian government is all about, the redistribution of wealth, notwithstanding the Progressive Conservatives and the opposition from the New Democratic Party, or should I say the New Salvadoran Party.
Mr. Speaker, I hope next year we will not have once more to face such an austere debate, to know what are the benefits Canadians derive from their own government. Why does this government work so hard for Canadians, their development in a climate where they will become the most developed citizens in the world, the most productive ones, to the benefit of our whole society and our future in particular, despite reactionary opposition members?


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

Thursday, February 18, 1982