1982-11-02

MOTIONS UNDER S.O. 43   LABOUR CONDITIONS WORK STOPPAGE AT WEST COAST PORTS

['I have the honour to draw the attention of the House to the distinguished presence in our gallery of Legislative Assembly Presidents and Speakers, namely Mr. James Walding of Manitoba, Deputy Speaker Moore from New Brunswick, Speaker Russell from Newfoundland, President Vaillancourt from Quebec, Speaker Donahoe from Nova Scotia, and Deputy Speaker Muller from Saskatchewan-']
Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver-Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on the most tragic and important issue facing Canada at this moment, about which something could be done. Negotiations broke down completely in the Port of Vancouver work stoppage on Sunday afternoon. The Government should have moved immediately, on Monday morning, with negotiations broken off. It did not, and it has not moved till this time.
This work stoppage is costing Canada thousands of dollars while I stand here talking. This work stoppage means a loss to Canada of $1 million or more an hour; $8 million is being lost in wheat sales every day and more millions in other bulk shipments, as well as the human tragedies of lost work. As of 5.30 this morning, 86 ships were waiting in Vancouver-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I am afraid the Hon. Member is arguing the question. If he could just put his motion that would be sufficient.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Madam Speaker, it is urgent and pressing, but I accept your restraint. How many hours and millions of dollars will the Government continue to waste through inaction? I therefore move, seconded by every Member of this Party, but more particularly by the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen):
That the House condemn the Government for allowing the continuing hemorrhage of jobs, commodity shipments and economic activity in the Port of Vancouver and other ports in British Columbia.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.



Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, despite the Finance Committee report to the Minister, and despite the fact that his officials and his Parliamentary Secretary sat through all the hearings concerning the income tax amendments, the Minister of Finance has still not made up his mind about the further changes he will make to the November 12 budget of nearly a year ago. The delay and uncertainty caused by the Minister's failure to come forward with concrete legislation concerning tax changes are a principal reason militating against new investment in Canada. I therefore move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Brampton-George-town (Mr. McDermid):
That the House direct the Minister of Finance to produce forthwith to this House income tax legislation so that the House can consider in detail the proposals so that the business community and the country in general can know where they stand with respect to taxation.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Madam Speaker, the work stoppage at the major ports on the West Coast has, to date, cost grain producers over $100 million in lost sales. Sales are not being deferred, they are being lost. Our reputation as a reliable grain supplier to international markets is once again in jeopardy. To date the work stoppage has caused over 6,000 Canadians to be out of work.
Since 1972 Parliament has had to intervene in related grain handling and transportation disputes because it was recognized that labour and management difficulties simply do not justify the damage inflicted on the total economy. I move, under the provision of Standing Order 43, seconded by the Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton):
That this House consider designating the grain handling and transportation sectors as they affect grain exports, as essential services.


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

November 2, 1982


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Ittinuar (Nunatsiaq):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of the most urgent and pressing necessity. A recent survey conducted by my office revealed that basic food prices in northern communities were, on average, 80 per cent higher than those in Ottawa. Another survey, just completed, shows that dry goods prices in the Hudson's Bay store in Frobisher Bay are, on average, 28 per cent higher than those same goods in the Bay's Ottawa store, despite a commitment made two years ago by Bay officials that the differential would not exceed 10 per cent. I therefore move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans):
That the House call upon the Government to initiate a task force immediately to investigate all aspects of the cost of living crisis in the Far North.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


IMPLEMENTATION OF MEASURES RECOMMENDED BY YUKON RESIDENTS
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that the economy of Yukon is in a state of collapse because of the widespread unemployment in the Yukon mining industry, and whereas the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has failed to respond to the constructive recommendations advanced one month ago by the Yukon Legislative Assembly, mining unions and employers, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development tell the people of Yukon immediately how he proposes to implement the measures they have recommended, in order to stem the mass exodus of northerners from Yukon before the economy of Canada's north is irreversibly destroyed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
[ Translation)


CANADIAN HOME INSULATION PROGRAM
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Madam Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 on a matter of pressing and urgent necessity-
In view of the fact that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) has twice recognized in the House that some people are misusing the Canadian Home Insulation Program, that the officials of his Department have been aware of such illegal practice for over six months, that some businesses are taking advantage of the shortcomings in the regulations to swindle the government and since thousands of dollars are fraudulently paid out day in and day out and that contractors and salesmen rather than homeowners are deriving benefit from such grants, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Laval (Mr. Roy).
That this House suggest to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that he suspend temporarily the implementation of the Home Insulation Program and order him to issue new regulations that will put an end to fraudulent practices by professional profiteers.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, years of neglect and mismanagement of our economy by Liberal governments have brought on the worst depression since the 1930s and brought our once strong and vibrant auto industry to its knees. A recent study has called for an end to the Government's finger in the dike approach to that industry by recommending that the Government simply let the industry die rather than poke it to death. In view of the fact that one job in five is dependent upon the auto industry, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson):
That the Government publicly respond to that study and take immediate steps to formulate and implement a strategy for the auto industry that would provide for Canadian content requirements and would protect the industry from artificially low-priced automobile imports.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
November 2, 1982


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam Speaker, there are at least a dozen outstanding areas of serious concern to our aging disabled veteran population and, to date, the Minister has made no announcement to the House on how and when he will deal with these serious problems. I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That the Minister of Veterans Affairs make a statement on motions to give the details of when he will be presenting the necessary legislation to deal with these outstanding issues of importance.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, after last night's appalling lack of support by his own caucus, the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) called on 20 Liberal Members for support. This was quite surprising since his previous analysis of what was wrong with our weak economy has been a lack of confidence in Liberals. Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That this House urges the Leader of the Official Opposition to demonstrate his own Party's managerial abilities by providing the House with a clear analysis of his own lack of confidence situation: tell us whether it is a work to rule situation, a wildcat strike or a lockout of a big chunk of his own caucus, and tell us what he is proposing to do to get Conservative Members back to work.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Gordon Gilchrist (Scarborough East):: Madam Speaker, seven Canadians, Jack Thurston, Garry Lindberg, Karl Doetch, Art Hunter, John MacNaughton, Terry Ussher and Claus Wagner-Bartak, are to be honoured and decorated on Wednesday by the United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration for their outstanding contribution to the space program, in the development of the highly successful remote manipulator system, the Canadarm. As a permanent record of their achievement, and that of their many colleagues, in the Parliament of Canada, I move, seconded par le depute
Oral Questions
D'Argenleuil-Papineau (Mr. Gourde) and the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans):
That the Speaker convey to Jack Thurston, Garry Lindberg, Karl Doetch, Art Hunter, John MacNaughton, Terry Ussher and Claus Wagner-Bartak, the esteem and congratulations of this House and the nation, for their outstanding achievement in the development of the highly successful remote manipulator system, the Canadarm, and for the example they have given to their countrymen that, whenever Canadians put their minds and their efforts into the creative areas of science and technology, they are unsurpassed in the world.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to draw the attention of the House to the distinguished presence in our gallery of Legislative Assembly Presidents and Speakers, namely Mr. James Walding of Manitoba, Deputy Speaker Moore from New Brunswick, Speaker Russell from Newfoundland, President Vaillancourt from Quebec, Speaker Donahoe from Nova Scotia, and Deputy Speaker Muller from Saskatchewan-



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It relates to the ports dispute on the West Coast. The Prime Minister will recall that he said in the House:
-That if the parties had not settled their dispute through the process of free collective bargaining by Monday night this Government would ensure in some way that the strike would be ended-
That repeated an undertaking given six days ago by the Minister of Finance. Can the Prime Minister tell us when the Government will be acting to open the ports, and what form that action will take?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Yes, I would be happy to answer the question asked by the Right Hon.

November 2, 1982
Oral Questions
Leader of the Opposition, Madam Speaker. We are sorry the process of free collective bargaining has not brought this regretful strike to an end. Today the House Leader will be giving notice of legislation-


Mrs. Mitchell:: It's a lockout.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I beg your pardon, it is a lockout and it is a regrettable one. My point remains that we are sorry the parties have not been able to find a ground on which they could accommodate each other's points of view. Therefore, we will be giving notice today. We hope to be able to get the consent of the House to proceed with the legislation tomorrow. It would be the hope of this Government that there will be cooperation from all Parties to pass the legislation as soon as possible, hopefully dealing with all three stages within a day.
As a first stage the lockout would be ended and work could resume in the ports on the West Coast. Failing that, if the legislation has to be proceeded with, then the Government would intend applying the spirit of the six and five legislation.


REQUEST FOR QUICK LEGISLATIVE ACTION
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister would know that this dispute is costing Canada at least $8 million a day. He is talking about introducing something today for action tomorrow. We on this side of the House would be prepared to deal today with legislation brought in today, and to deal with it in all stages.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: In that light, will the Prime Minister agree to bring in that legislation today to seek agreement, which I hereby give on behalf of my party, to have it proceeded with today so that we will not waste $8 million and another day? Can we act today?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am happy with the spirit of co-operation extended to Parliament by the Leader of the Opposition. I would expect that he would want Members of his own Party and Members of the New Democratic Party at least to know what the content of the legislation is before agreeing to pass it through all stages today.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is why I thought it preferable to give a general indication of the content of the legislation which, once again, would entail an immediate return to work and an application of the six and five type of guidelines that were in the June budget, for this particular bargaining group. It is still our hope, in the knowledge that this is the intention of the Government and now of the Official Opposition, to introduce and pass this legislation in all stages, perhaps tomorrow, but I would still hope that this further delay, with the notice of the legislation and its general content, would permit both parties
to return to the bargaining table and to reach an agreement by the process of collective bargaining.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Prime Minister speaks of what would be preferable. What would be preferable is to act today to resolve the dispute today and stop another $8 million, at least, of loss to the Canadian economy. That is what would be preferable today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


QUERY RESPECTING PREPARATION OF LEGISLATION
Charles Joseph Clark: Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether this legislation of which he speaks is ready now, at 20 minutes after two o'clock, to be introduced in the House of Commons? Will he tell the House of Commons whether there are any negotiations proceeding between the Government and any political party in the House respecting the nature of that legislation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I know of no negotiations proceeding at this time but I would hope that the announcement that I made in answer to a question from the Leader of the Opposition would incite the parties to return to the bargaining table and to reach an agreement through the process of free collective bargaining.
This Government would rather not legislate. We would want to see the strike end as soon as tomorrow, once again-


An Hon. Member:: Lockout.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The lockout end as soon as tomorrow. It will if we have co-operation from all sides. We are still hopeful, and we find it preferable not-as the Leader of the Opposition suggests-to slam on a piece of legislation that he has not seen, his Party has not seen, that the New Democratic Party has not seen, and that the parties to the dispute have not seen.
I repeat to the Leader of the Opposition that to impose six and five on the bargaining parties is something that we would rather not do, but they are under notice now that we will do it with the obvious enthusiastic support of the Conservative Party if they cannot reach an agreement within a very short period of time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


READINESS OF LEGISLATION
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I do not understand why the Government is stalling. The Minister of Finance gave a clear commitment that there would be action by Monday. The Prime Minister gave a clear commitment there would be action by Monday. Monday has passed. It is now Tuesday. Nothing has been done. The Prime Minister has indicated that he intends to do nothing today. Will the Prime Minister answer the question that I put earlier?
November 2, 1982

Is the legislation ready to be presented to Parliament today? Is it ready now?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Madam Speaker, the legislation is ready. I would be happy to know right now from the Leader of the Oppposition if he is prepared to debate this legislation unconditionally, sight unseen. If he is, we will be ready to proceed.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MOVEMENT THROUGH CHURCHILL-UPGRADING OF RAILWAY FACILITIES
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport I will address my question to the Prime Minister. I am sure that the grain producers in western Canada are disappointed at the answers he has given to the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister is well aware of the disastrous effect that the tie-up of the west coast ports is having on western agriculture. With low grain prices and losses in sales in the neighbourhood of $8 million a day, as well as the effect the port closure has on our credibility as an exporter, the time has come to examine the expansion of port facilities at Churchill in order to increase our export capacity and to act as a buffer in the event of strikes.
Can the Prime Minister advise the House whether or not the Minister of Transport has discussed the question of upgrading the facilities at Churchill with Canadian National Railways with a view to upgrading the line to handle hopper cars to carry grain and other commodities from western Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, as I understand the question, it is not directly related to the question of the lockout. I will take notice of it on behalf of the Minister of Transport.


REQUEST THAT TASK FORCE STUDY FARMERS' LOSSES
Douglas Charles Neil: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Prime Minister. He must be aware that whenever there is a tie-up in the ports, either on the West Coast or at Thunder Bay, the farmers who suffer a substantial loss have no recourse to recover any of that loss. I am wondering if the Prime Minister would consider setting up a task force comprised of Members of the Senate and the House of Commons to consider what can be done to ensure that farmers in western Canada will have recourse in order to make up the losses that they suffer from these disastrous strikes.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, the Minister of Transport has announced and is presently engaged in the following through of a policy, including these very aspects, which will
Oral Questions
involve some $3.5 billion spent for transportation in the west, and that policy is in the process of discussion now. If the Hon. Member thinks it could serve the purpose of implementation of that policy to form a further task force or House committee, I will refer the suggestion to the Minister of Finance.


MINES AND MINING
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Mines. At the outset I just wanted to say that the recession the people of Canada are facing is bad in general, but it is particularly bad for one industry towns like Faro, like Sudbury, the Minister's home city, like Port Alberni, and like a number of communities which are totally dependent on one firm.


Mr. Paproski:: Like Oshawa.
[ Translation]


John Edward Broadbent: Today, the Iron Ore Company has announced the end of its operations at Schefferville. It is a disaster for that community.
Here is my question to the Minister: what long- and shortterm programs has the government worked out for the people of that area?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State (Mines)):: Madam Speaker, this morning I held long discussions with the Iron Ore Company concerning the plight of the workers in Schefferville. I am happy to report that of the 285 workers who will be directly affected, at least 72 of whom will be taking pensions or early retirement, and perhaps more. The remaining workers will be receiving a very generous settlement, including two weeks' pay for every year of service, full vacation and extended vacation. They will be invited to stay on in their homes for the remainder of the winter and every effort will be made to help. We are co-ordinating a committee with the Department of Employment and Immigration to relocate these workers with full maximum use of government grants.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SITUATION IN FARO, Y.T.
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister a question concerning another community which has been devasted by a shutdown. This time I refer to Faro in the Yukon. This community is experiencing a lay-off which has continued since June. It will continue on for many more months into the coming year. Men and women are without jobs, and there is a total absence of a financial base for

November 2, 1982
Oral Questions
that community. Considering that a number of groups in that community have approached the Minister to ask the Government to take specific action to restore some operations in that mine, is the Government now prepared to take an equity position in the mine's operations? Beyond that, what other programs or set of actions is the Government prepared to undertake to bring some help to that terribly devastated community?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, if I may answer the Leader of the New Democratic Party with regard to Cyprus Anvil, let me just tell him that so far there has been a tripartite approach in an attempt to re-open the operation by this spring, at the latest.


An Hon. Member:: A four-way approach.


John Carr Munro: It involves the United Steelworkers of America, the Yukon Government, ourselves, and the management of Cyprus Anvil. Up to the present time there has been an all-party type of agreement to put forward an action plan which I could take to my colleagues in Cabinet for approval. The action plan involves various elements, but certainly one of them is a commitment by Cyprus Anvil to reopen by a specific date, the sooner the better, and, as well, the union and management have agreed to get under way with serious negotiations in order to get a collective agreement. Therefore, I and everyone else interested in the question will have some cost figures on what is involved, but we cannot have them without some indication of what the final labour agreement will be.
As far as their share is concerned, the unions also agree to contribute undertakings with respect to improved productivity. The Yukon Government has also indicated it is prepared to divy up or inject certain beneficial elements to the pot.
I do not believe the action plan will be ready for at least another week or two, hopefully sooner. While that action plan is being put together, the Government, with the help of my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, has been making representations in Japan with the desire that the Japanese enter into commitments regarding the purchase of Cyprus Anvil lead and zinc. As Hon. Members know, Madam Speaker, that situation is very tenuous.


Madam Speaker:: Order. I do not want us to get out of the marvellous pattern which seems to have been set today. The questions all seem to be relatively short and the answers, therefore, should be short also.


RECOMMENDATION THAT SPECIAL FUND BE ESTABLISHED
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I have a final question for the Minister of State (Mines), but I would hope that the Minister who just replied would elaborate outside the House, perhaps, later, and tell us what action the
Government plans to take. Is it prepared to take an equity position in Cyprus Anvil, or is it not? He did not answer that.
My supplementary question is for the Minister of State (Mines). Just yesterday the Government's task force report on one-industry towns came down and it contained a number of recommendations, at least some of which are good. Among these was the suggestion that a special fund be created whereby companies may put a portion of their profits in good years into this fund, so when there is a turndown in the economy the fund may then be used to bring some stability and decency to the communities that are badly hurt during this period.
Considering, for example, that the Iron Ore Company of Canada in the past 11 months paid out a dividend of some $108 million to its shareholders, is the Minister now prepared to announce to the House of Commons and, more important, to the people in these communities, that the Government using federal powers will insist that a fund be created of this kind, and companies like the Iron Ore Company of Canada will be required to put a portion of their profits into that fund to help those people when it is needed?


Judith A. Erola: Madam Speaker, I am delighted that the Leader of the New Democratic Party has seen fit to read the task force recommendations. I agree, also, they are excellent recommendations. Unfortunately, the latter one to which he referred was just made yesterday and it would be very premature of me to suggest that such a fund be set up immediately. It would also require the co-operation of the Provinces involved.


BROADCASTING
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications and it arises from an October 14 Cabinet document outlining the Government's national broadcasting strategy and which discusses the possibility of having a parliamentary committee struck to look into the particular strategy. How can Parliament take seriously his talk of Parliamentary input in the process when the document also explains that the Minister has suppressed the Applebaum-Hebert report for a month and a half, that he is planning to spend up to $175,000 on a media blitz designed to sell his particular proposals, and that the plans call for giving the information to the Americans before it is made available to Parliament or to the Provinces of Canada?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member speaks in riddles. It is true I have in my hands a copy of the Applebaum-Hebert report. It is an advance copy. It is presently being reviewed in order to be published. I have just come from a meeting with Mr. Applebaum and Mr. Hebert and they inform me they expect to make their report public on November 16. I should also tell the Hon. Member I am still working on the final Cabinet
November 2, 1982

documents outlining the national strategy and I have made changes in it as late as this morning.


DURATION OF PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE HEARINGS
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, this is interesting timing. The Minister says the Applebaum-Hebert report is to be released on November 16. This document indicates the Minister plans to unveil his proposals at a nationally publicized press conference by satellite, and at the CAB conference in Toronto as well, the day before. Therefore, how can anyone take him seriously when he talks about Applebaum-Hebert?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: May I ask the Minister this question? In view of the fact the CBC remains as the underpinning foundation for the national broadcasting strategy, how can the Minister be taken seriously when he talks about either Applebaum-Hebert or about a Parliamentary inquiry, when the proposal here would have the parliamentary inquiry conduct its hearings and wrap up within three months, and he intends only to have the CBC study itself and have its report after six months, three months after the parliamentary committee has been wrapped up? How can he be taken seriously?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is speaking from a document which I just indicated is certainly not finalized. I instructed my officials to bring some changes to it as late as this morning. The Hon. Member is also out of touch as far as my intentions are concerned regarding the release of a proposed national broadcasting strategy.
While it is true I am indeed addressing the members of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters on November 15 in Toronto, I will not at that stage be revealing the contents of the Government's position on the national broadcasting strategy. I have indicated time and again that I want to benefit from the Applebaum-Hebert report in this respect, as in others. A number of the recommendations of Applebaum-Hebert will, no doubt, be far-reaching, and 1 am sure that Members of Parliament on all sides of the House will want to have the opportunity of expressing their points of view on those recommendations before the Government takes its final position.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER CANCEL PLANNED INTERVIEWS
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, the Minister says he has changed the plans he had on October 14 when he knew that Applebaum-Hebert was to report on October 16. He then said he would report on November 15. May I ask him whether other proposals in the earlier documents have also been changed? To wit, will he tell the House today he does not plan, as he indicated in the October 14 document, to give interviews on his broadcast strategy six
Oral Questions
weeks in advance of the publication of the Applebaum-Hebert report? Will he indicate to the House today that his proposal to Cabinet to spend $100,000 on audio-visual materials "to build a constituency of support for federal proposals" will not be proceeded with? Will he commit himself to not conducting the interviews he proposed to conduct with selected journalists and selected media in advance of the report being made public? Will he today say that the process is important, and abandon this plan to blatantly manipulate the media and the Canadian public?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, obviously the process is important, and when the Government comes to terms with its recommendations for broadcasting strategy, it will want to lay those recommendations before Parliament for due consideration. As to communication plans, as I indicated before, there is no final decision by Cabinet on these matters. Obviously, from time to time, the Minister of Communications, as do other Ministers, does give speeches outlining his vision of how he sees things evolving. I will continue to do so and will be pleased to brief an obviously out of touch Tory caucus on the subject, at their convenience.


TAXATION OF CABLE COMPANIES
John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, I did not use the phrase "communications plan", but it happens to be the title of Appendix C to the Minister's proposal.
The Minister is considering rejecting certain portions of what he earlier proposed to Cabinet. May I ask him, Madam Speaker, a question about the six and five program of which the Government is so proud? The Minister in August proposed an 8 per cent tax on cable companies. In October he proposed a six per cent tax on cable companies, which would put the cable subscriber revenues above the six and five program. May I ask the Minister this question: in a time of restraint why does he propose to increase taxes on Canadians? Why does he propose to use those revenues through a Government-administered program to create Canadian programming? Will he now abandon that proposal and understand that the best way to create Canadian content and Canadian television programming is greater tax incentives for the Canadian private sector which can do a better job, in any event?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, obviously, as far as this Minister is concerned, my position on the six and five program is quite clear. I can think of the Bell Canada rate regulations which were brought into effect in late summer, in the course of limiting increases by cable companies of the rates charged to their clients. Where the Hon. Member is absolutely right is that on this side of the House we are indeed most interested in seeing the private sector participate fully in setting up a viable, dynamic, aggressive Canadian program production industry.

November 2, 1982
Oral Questions


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of State for Multicul-turalism. In view of the news report in today's Toronto Star that the Government of Quebec keeps secret files on ethnic leaders and groups in the Province of Quebec, will the Minister advise whether he is aware of this, and will he condemn out of hand this very reprehensible practice?


Hon. Jim Fleming (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Madam Speaker, I have just become aware through that newspaper report of this apparent collection of confidential information regarding ethnic leaders in Quebec. Of course I condemn such activity. The federal Government would not do anything like this.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Sydney Clark Fleming: I checked to ensure that there is no such list of ethnic leaders or any compilation of material on their backgrounds or political interests.


Marcel Prud'homme: Ten o'clock.


PIPELINES
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It concerns the proposed water pipeline from Lake Diefenbaker to the Buffalo Pound pumping station. On October 27 the Prime Minister, in response to a question from my colleague, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain, stated in the House that the federal Government would be anxious to discuss the pipeline with the Province of Saskatchewan if the Province considers the pipeline a priority. This past weekend one of his Ministers met with the Minister of Finance for Saskatchewan. Can the Prime Minister tell the House if the pipeline from Lake Diefenbaker was discussed, if the Saskatchewan Government considers the pipeline a priority, and if we can expect an announcement soon that the project will proceed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I imagine the Hon. Member is referring to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I do know he had very successful meetings with five of his counterparts in the Provinces. As a matter of fact he gave a general report this morning to a committee of Cabinet, indicating a very welcome willingness on the part of those Provinces to join with the federal Government in implementing certain joint projects. He did not give any details that would permit me to answer that particular question right now. I will refer .he matter to the
Minister of Employment and Immigration and take notice for him on his behalf.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE OF EMPLOYMENT
Simon Leendert de Jong: Madam Speaker, it is somewhat dismaying, and in fact the people of Regina are becoming somewhat angry with the procrastinations of both the federal Government and the provincial Government on this issue. Regina and Moose Jaw desperately need good, clean safe water. There is an obvious need for it. In this particular project, both business and the unions are willing to co-operate. The company is willing to sell the steel at cost. The City of Regina is committed to the project. Over 600 jobs will be created in the manufacturing of the pipe. Some 570 new jobs will be created in laying the pipe-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Does the Hon. Member have a question or does he have other figures to give us?


Simon Leendert de Jong: My question is very simple. Can the Prime Minister give any assurance to those workers in Regina that there will be some prospect of employment before Christmas?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I just answered the question of the Hon. Member in so far as that particular project is concerned. I told him that many projects had been discussed with five different Provinces and I do not have the answer to that. I undertook to take notice of the question. It seems passing strange that the Hon. Member would make such a case for urgent action in an important provincial capital that does not have clean water when an NDP government held sway in that province for the past eight years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MINES AND MINING
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Mines. Twice in the last two days the Minister of State for Mines has made reference to the task force report on mining communities, of which she released the executive summary and recommendations at a press conference yesterday to which she did not invite Opposition spokesmen in the mining areas. As it is quite probable that the report of the task force on mining communities makes specific reference to the mining industry of northern Quebec, and as it would probably offer much constructive advice in addition to the final recommendations on how the Government might help restore hope for those disappointed people in Schefferville, Quebec, is the Minister now prepared to release the entire report so that all Members of Parliament might study it, deliberate upon the findings of the task force that visited northern Quebec, and determine if in
November 2, 1982

fact the federal Government is fulfilling its duty to meet the serious crisis developing in that area?


Judith A. Erola: Yes, Madam Speaker, the entire report will be released shortly.


ASSISTANCE FOR SCHEFFERVILLE MINERS
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, I suggest that as the Minister has extracted from that report she should table it today, and I hope she will do so. The Minister earlier referred to the positive and very helpful initiatives that the Iron Ore Company is taking to relieve the desperation to be experienced by the several hundred residents of Schefferville who will have to relocate and find alternate employment as a result of the closing of their mine. Indeed, the President of the Iron Ore Company, Mr. Brian Mulroney, has been courteous enough to provide the Leader of this Party and other Members of this House with a detailed outline of the proposals that they are making to minimize the burden on their employees. The interesting thing about this documentation-


Madam Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member will please ask his question right away.


Thomas Edward Siddon: This statement makes specific requests of the federal Government-


Madam Speaker:: Order. I have to ask the Hon. Member to put his question right away.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Will the Minister respond to these specific requests advanced by the Iron Ore Company for federal assistance to the ailing mine workers of Schefferville, Quebec?


Judith A. Erola: Madam Speaker, obviously the Hon. Member was not listening when I first responded to a question in this House. The answer is yes, every federal program will be made available to those workers in the Schefferville area. In fact that area has already been designated an ILAP area, so there are extra measures available to them.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In June of this year the Minister said that he was giving very active consideration to the recommendation made by the United Veterans Organization which would ensure that veterans' pension increases would reflect the greater of the CPI or the average increase given to the five lowest categories of civil servants. When is the Minister going to present the
Oral Questions
necessary legislative changes to Section 58 of the Pension Act so that veterans will be spared the task of going cap-in-hand to the Governement for their annual increases?


Hon. W. Bennett Campbell (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I have never considered the question of the veterans' association approaching my Ministry or the Government as cap in hand. As I indicated in June, we are reviewing the recommendation that has been put forward. I might suggest to the Hon. Member that, as a result of the very responsive action by this Government in maintaining the true cost of living adjustments for veterans' pensions over the next couple of years, in fact not only will veterans' pensions keep in line with the five categories of the Public Service but in some cases will surpass them, as is the situation in some cases at the moment. I can also indicate that we still have that matter under consideration and, just as soon as a decision is made, I will be happy to advise him.


INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION
A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam Speaker, has the Minister had any discussions with the Government House Leader as to when he can fit this veterans' legislation into our schedule for this year? It would be appropriate if we dealt with it this year. It is not a contentious issue. All that is required is one speaker from each Party. Has the Minister had any discussions with the Government House Leader?


W. Bennett Campbell: The answer is no, Madam Speaker.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Bud Bradley (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for Canada Post Corporation. The Minister is aware that the definition of "letter" and its amendments has been referred to the Governor in Council for deliberation. He is also aware that some 300 briefs were presented by Canadian business organizations opposed to that definition, and which still oppose it even with the amendments.
In light of the Prime Minister's call for trust and co-operation, is the Minister prepared to trust those 300 business organizations, and is he willing to co-operate with the two Parties on this side of the House, deny that definition, and refer the whole issue to a Committee of all Parties of the House?
20286

November 2, 1982
Oral Questions


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the matter is now being considered by Cabinet.


REQUEST FOR MINISTER'S RESIGNATION
T.A. Bud Bradley: Madam Speaker, we on this side are used to getting the answer that the Minister would refer the whole matter to the President of the Corporation for his consideration. I am surprised that we did not get that this time as well.
Surely the Minister is aware of the tremendous cost burden being borne by corporations, small business, municipalities and individuals because of this definition, which definition will cause more bankruptcies and loss of jobs. I fail to see why the Minister cannot refer this matter to a committee, or what he has to lose by doing so.
If the Minister wants to refer to the President of the Corporation, Madam Speaker, I ask whether he is prepared to put his resignation on a piece of paper and refer that to the President of the Corporation for his consideration?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I am surprised at the rhetoric being displayed by the hon. critic for the Canada Post Corporation. If he had read the Act, he would realize that all regulations must first be made public through publication in the Canada Gazette, to give the public an opportunity to react to the proposals within sixty days following publication. After representations by the public, the Corporation may amend its proposal before the end of the 60-day period. That is what happened, and now everything has been submitted to cabinet, where the proposal must be either accepted or rejected. This procedure was agreed to unanimously by all members of this House, and since the official critic of the Progressive Conservative Party at the time was strongly in favour of the procedure, I am surprised that the party has now changed its mind. The procedure followed by the Canada Post Corporation is entirely in accordance with the legislation passed by this Parliament.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the lower prices for beef cattle this year at fall sales, can the Minister say what action he plans to take in light of the United States ban on Canadian meat imports?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, we knew that the U.S. would cut off imports when we reached 121.1 million pounds, and we reached that quicker than we thought. We discussed it with the Canada Meat Packers Council and the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. It is because of the heavy imports from Australia and other Oceanic sources that they were going to trigger their meat import law, but through negotiations we were able to raise the limit from 101 million pounds to 121 million pounds.
It will affect some packing firms in Canada, but live cattle are still free to go into the United States. The restriction is on carcass meat and broken beef.


FISHERIES
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans I would like to direct my question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. A report entitled "Turning the Tide", into the west coast fishing industry by Dr. Peter Pearse, has proposed that the fishing fleet be reduced by 50 per cent. A reduction of that nature would throw 5,000 fishermen out of work and affect many thousands of others in the industry.
Is it the intention of this Government to create another rationalized industry such as the mining, forest and manufacturing industries, and will the Prime Minister give some guarantee that in order to rationalize this industry we are not again placing the blame on the fishing community itself?


Mr. Brian Tobin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, I want to assure the Hon. Member that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Government of Canada take very seriously their responsibility to rationalize the fishing industry on both the West Coast and the East Coast. As the Hon. Member knows, a major report on both coasts is now before the Government and currently under consideration. I want to assure the Hon. Member, who is very much interested in the fishery on both coasts, as I know from many conversations with him, that before any action resulting in restructuring is taken, as the Hon. Member says-perhaps too dramatic a word at this time-there will be consultation with the Hon. Member, with the public, and this kind of action would have to result in legislation in this House of Commons.
I would just say the Minister is available-


Mr. Crosbie:: Where?


Brian Vincent Tobin: -to discuss with Hon. Members opposite the report on both coasts.
November 2, 1982


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Edward Allan Miller: Madam Speaker, again to the Prime Minister, the office of Minister of Fisheries and Oceans indicated he would be in the House yesterday and today to answer questions. He has not been available in the last two days.
If the recommendations in this report were implemented it would mean the loss of 5,000 jobs in the fishing industry, and perhaps 20,000 or 30,000 associated jobs considering the associated manufacturing, ship repair, shore work, and the well-being of coastal communities such as Alert Bay, Tofino, Bamfield, and Prince Rupert. Is that the kind of proposal we are going to get on the East Coast as well, which would indicate this Government is not concerned with jobs or with coastal communities and the lifestyle they have enjoyed?
Mr. Brian Tobin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans): Madam Speaker, I want to assure all Hon. Members opposite that this Government is concerned with preserving the fishery, the way of life and the cultural aspects of the fishery on both the East and the West Coast. I further want to tell the Hon. Member that, rather than a negative attitude, he should remember that to do nothing at this time on the West Coast or the East Coast, that simply to sit back and debate forever with the resulting inaction because of partisan politics on this issue, would be a disaster for our people on both coasts. We intend to act responsibly, Madam Speaker, and we intend to listen, even to the Hon. Member opposite.


INDUSTRY
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. As Statistics Canada has just reported that industrial production in Canada has declined by 13 per cent between June, 1981, and August, 1982, by far the most disastrous decline of any of the 16 principal industrialized countries of the world, would the Prime Minister and his Government now at long last give serious consideration to introducing tax incentives to be paid in direct proportion to increases in productivity and research and development, to lower costs and thereby lower selling prices, and improve quality and design?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member realizes in his ardent search for methods to increase our productivity that tax incentives would mean once again increasing the budget deficit, and that of course is a policy contrary to that adopted by his Party. That is why, at this stage, I would not comment on such a suggestion which involves a fiscal decision properly dealt with in the budget.
However, I would remind the Hon. Member that by adopting the six and five policy the Government has taken a very
Petitions
large step, supported I would think by a great majority of Canadians, to decrease our cost structure and therefore make ourselves more productive and therefore more competitive with OECD countries and others.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
George Harris Hees: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Does the Prime Minister not realize that such a program, enabling Canadians to sell a far greater volume of goods and thereby employ a far greater number of people, would do three things? First, it would cut down greatly on unemployment insurance payments; second, more people would be working and paying income tax and, third, cutting down costs would make more profits to tax. This would be a plus for the Government and not a minus.
In light of the Prime Minister's cavalier attitude toward this question of increasing productivity, I would ask him, in view of the fact that the only suggestion he put forward for saving the country was to trust each other, if he believes that Canadians will trust someone who fought a whole election campaign against wage and price controls, remember-"zap ... you're frozen"-and right after the election brought in those same price and wage controls.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is making a good case, of course, for increasing the deficit in the hope that eventually-


George Harris Hees: No, this is-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am dealing with the Hon. Member's question. He wants to reduce taxes in certain areas and I am telling him that this would mean increasing the deficit. He will recall the 1979 election campaign, when we heard a great deal about the stimulative deficit. I am sure that is what the Hon. Member has in mind. He would like the Government to consider increasing the deficit even more in the hope that-
Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member shakes his head "no".


George Harris Hees: What I said was that you would reduce the deficit by reducing the number of unemployed, thereby increasing taxes.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would like to have the Hon. Member explain how you can cut taxes and not increase the deficit. When he does that I will be prepared to deal with the question.


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

November 2, 1982
Privilege-Mr. Siddon
of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Monday, November 1, 1982, and finds that the petitions meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


PRIVILEGE
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, after the Question Period yesterday I gave notice that I would wish to raise a question of privilege today under the provisions of Standing Order 17, arising out of an answer given to a question I put to the Minister of State (Mines) (Mrs. Erola) at that time.
The question to which I would draw your attention is recorded at page 20232 of Hansard. In reviewing the transcript of the Hon. Minister's response, I think there are two aspects that demand your examination. I should like to lay those out as succintly and briefly as I can.
The first point relates to the response the hon. lady gave to the question whether she was prepared to support the request for subsidy or stock-piling initiatives in order to keep the Inco mine operating. In her reply the Minister stated as follows:
Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Hon. Member was not present this morning when the Task Force on Mining Communities made its report.
Further along in her reply the Minister also stated as follows:
If the Hon. Member had been present this morning he would have known that we were discussing job creation projects-
The implication of those two statements is that I, as a Member of this House, should have been made aware of a meeting at which she was present; indeed, a meeting which the Hon. Minister called of her own volition apparently on Monday morning, about which none of the offices of Opposition spokesmen were made aware. No notice was sent to my office. It was not a meeting that was widely advertised. The implication is-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Will the Hon. Member tell me what his question of privilege is? I have read his notice very carefully and I see nothing in it that would lead me to feel that he has a question of privilege. He has to tell me right away exactly what constitutes the question of privilege. If it is that he objects to what the Hon. Minister has said, as he knows, that is not a question of privilege. A lot of things are said in the House to which Hon. Members object, but they are not questions of privilege.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, I beg your indulgence for a moment. There are two aspects to the question of privilege. I will summarize the first aspect immediately.
The point is the implication in the Minister's reply that I, as an Opposition spokesman in the area of mines, was negligent in not being aware of, or present at, a certain meeting that she called. That implication of negligence reflects adversely on the exercise of my duties and responsibilities in the service of my constituents. In fact, Madam Speaker, it is typical of the way she has been responding to questions in the House. I feel that the Hon. Minister means well, but far too often she is wont to give a flippant and specious response to try to put down the questioner without dealing with the question.
I appreciate that this aspect may not be acceptable to you and I will accept your ruling.
I want to move to the second point in my question of privilege. This relates to the Minister's reference to the Task Force on Mining Communities having made its report. In fact, Madam Speaker, as I probed the Minister earlier during Question Period today, it makes one wonder why there was no report released yesterday but only the executive summary of such a report and a list of recommendations. The important question of privilege is whether the Minister has misled the House into believing that in fact the report was presented, from which she either cited or excerpted certain content in order to support her argument.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I am afraid I must interrupt the Hon. Member because I can see that he is going into an argumentation about the satisfaction he has about an answer, the manner in which the Hon. Minister answered him and the kind of implications that were possibly included in the Minister's answer. He might have been insulted or aggrieved by it, but that does not constitute a question of privilege. A question of privilege has to do with the Hon. Member being absolutely unable to perform his functions as a Member as a result of some action that might have taken place. I am afraid that the Hon. Member does not have a question of privilege.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker-[DOT]


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member does not have a question of privilege. I have heard the two points.


Thomas Edward Siddon: You have not heard the second point.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, on that question of privilege, I am the mining critic for the New Democratic Party and I feel that my privilege has been breached as well. If the committee structure is going to work efficiently and properly, we must be notified that these meetings are going to take place.


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry. That could be a grievance and the Hon. Member is probably right in expressing it, but he cannot do so under the guise of a question of privilege.
November 2, 1982



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
TABLING OF REPORT "CONTEMPT OF COURT: L'OUTRAGE AU TRIBUNAL"
Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Madam Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 41(2) I wish to lay on the Table of the House a copy in both official languages of the Law Reform Commission Report entitled "Contempt of Court: L'Outrage au Tribunal".


PETITIONS
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, I would like to present a petition on behalf of residents of Ontario, many of whom reside in my constituency of Bruce-Grey.
At a time when Canadians face serious economic distress, inflation runs rampant and governments' share of the gross national product is approximately 45 per cent-higher than at any time since World War II-it is inappropriate for additional taxation of several billions of dollars to be imposed. Notwithstanding the Minister of Finance's recent deferral and in response to his stated desire for further assessment with possible future imposition, on behalf of Canadian businessmen and consumers this petition requests the Government to cancel the proposal to shift the federal sales tax from the manufacturing to the wholesale level.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, I have the privilege today of presenting to the House a petition signed by nearly 2,000 constituents who are so concerned about the state of the Canadian economy that they are asking Parliament to urge the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) to ask the Governor General for the dissolution of Parliament in order that a general election may be held.



POINT OF ORDER


Madam Speaker:: Introduction of Bills.


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, under this item of Routine Proceedings may I ask the Government House Leader whether he is prepared to table now the back-to-work legislation which the Prime Minister has just finished telling us
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
is ready. Would he table it now so that Members on this side of the House will have an opportunity to see what it contains? Indeed, the Prime Minister has already partially told us what it contains and this raises the question of whether there is an obligation to table that legislation now.
In any event, we do not want to deal with notice. We would like to see the legislation, and for our part we give the Government whatever consent is necessary to enable it to table the legislation immediately. We are certain that in the same spirit of co-operation the New Democratic Party will also consent to that process.


Mr. Deans:: Madam Speaker, I do not think the Government needs consent to do it, but if it wants to table the legislation, I would like to see it.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I wish to inform the House that we do not intend to table a bill before giving notice. However, the Hon. Member's suggestion seems quite reasonable. I intend to have a meeting with the House leaders within the next few hours, when we could consider the request for tabling the legislation in advance. However, I do not intend to table the bill before giving notice, and notice has not yet been given.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, it would appear that the only House leader not agreeing to the immediate tabling of this vital legislation is the Government House Leader. We need no meetings to agree to the immediate tabling of this very urgent and vital legislation: he has that agreement now. Obviously he has it from the NDP House Leader, so why can he not table it now? The Prime Minister says that it is ready.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, draft legislation arising from the last budgets was tabled and submitted to the two House leaders in order to simplify negotiations, and this has had no positive effects whatsoever. In the circumstances, a few hours more or less ... I informed the Hon. Member that we wish to respect the practice in this House of giving prior notice and subsequently discussing with the House leaders whether there is a case for tabling legislation in advance. I informed him that his suggestion was quite sensible. I am prepared to consider it, and I intend to meet with the House leaders later today. If the Hon. Member is saying that he is not interested in having a meeting, that is something else again, but as far as I am concerned, I shall be inviting him to a meeting later today, some time within the next few hours.

November 2, 1982



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26

Madam Speaker:: I have notice of a request for a debate under Standing Order 26 from the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer).



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Charles James Mayer: Madam Speaker, I seek leave to move the adjournment of the House under the provisions of Standing Order 26, seconded by the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight), to debate a specific and important matter which I believe all Canadians would agree requires immediate consideration, namely, the work stoppage at the Port of Vancouver and at other ports on the west coast.
Since October 19 this work stoppage has had, and continues to have, a serious and negative effect on the total Canadian economy; it is not simply isolated to the west coast. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) said some six days ago that he intended to see that the ports on the west coast were operating today. We now know that the Government-or at least it appears so-does not intend to introduce legislation today. Thus the strike or the work stoppage will continue. Last Friday the Finance Minister said that he would move quickly to see that the work stoppage is concluded.
This truly is a national emergency. Our national institution is Parliament. I urge you, Madam Speaker, to recognize that it is a national emergency and that Parliament be allowed to address this very important issue. I separate Parliament and the Government, in that we be allowed under the provisions of Standing Order 26 to use the parliamentary system to attempt to convince the Government that it should accept its responsibility to all Canadians to ensure that this very unfortunate and foolish work stoppage on the west coast ceases. Both parties, labour and management, are purported to have said that they would accept back-to-work legislation.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, if you find this application for a debate acceptable, I would be very pleased to move the appropriate motion at the appropriate time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Of course, the House will recall that I had a similar request on Thursday, October 28, and that at that time I came to the conclusion that in spite of the obvious importance of the impact of this particular situation on the country, I could not allow an emergency debate under Standing Order 26 because there was an opportunity to discuss this question under the different proceedings taking place in the House.
Those circumstances have not changed. As a matter of fact, they are quite similar. This afternoon we will be discussing the borrowing Bill, and Hon. Members know that yesterday they could have discussed the question in the course of the day reserved for the Opposition. Also there will be on next Friday another supply day set aside so that the Opposition may take the opportunity to discuss that particular question. We all know that some legislation is impending.
Therefore, I cannot escape the conclusion that there was an opportunity yesterday and that there will be an opportunity tomorrow and this afternoon to discuss this particular matter. I remind Hon. Members that the Chair is concerned with the urgency of the debate, not at all with the substance of the matter or the urgency of a settlement in the matter. Only the urgency of the debate concerns the Chair. Obviously Hon. Members will be able to debate the question. I am sorry to say that under the circumstances I cannot allow an emergency debate on this very important matter today.


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. 3,970 to 4,025 inclusive and 4,314.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Dorchester Penitentiary, Dorchester and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
(a) Number of full-time psychologists as of
December 31-	1976-3
1977-	3
1978-	2
1979-	3
1980-	3
*	(i) The minimum educational requirement for a psychologist hired through the Public Service Commission is a master's degree in psychology from a recognized university.
*	(ii) Previous work experience in the Federal Government:
1976-	#1 Psychologist with the CSC since October, 1974 #2 Psychologist with the CSC since July, 1975
Parole Officer from November, 1970 to July, 1975 #3 Psychologist with the CSC from August, 1969
1977-	#1 same as 1976 #2 same as 1976
#3 A new psychologist with no previous work experience in the federal government was hired in January, 1977.
November 2, 1982

1978-	#1 same as 1976
#2 Psychologist with the CSC since January, 1977.
1979-	same as 1978
1980-	#1 same as 1976
#2 same as 1978
#3 Psychologist with CSC since March, 1980
Psychologist with Transport Canada from June, 1978 to March, 1980
Psychologist with the CSC from July, 1975 to June, 1978 Parole Officer from November, 1970 to July, 1975
(iii) 1976-517,884-25,566
1977-	$ 19,288-27,573
1978-	520,156-28,814
1979-	521,168-30,975
1980-	523,510-33,608
(b)	Nil.
*Information provided is for previous work experience in the Federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the Federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Pie IX Centre, Montreal and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?

Question No. 3,972-Mr. Lawrence:
For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Benoit XV Centre, Montreal and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned: (a) and (b) There were no full-time or part-time psychologists employed at the following Centres: Benoit XV Centre, Pie IX Centre, Community and contract psychological services were provided to Community Correctional Centre inmates as required.
(i), (ii) and (iii) Not applicable.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Cowansville Institution, Cowansville and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
(a) Number of full-time psychologists as of
December 31 -	1976-2
1977-	2
1978-	2
1979-	2
1980-	3
Order Paper Questions
*	(i) The minimum educational requirement for a psychologist hired through the Public Service Commission is a master's degree in psychology from a recognized university.
*	(ii) Previous work experience in the Federal Government:
1976-	Two psychologists with no previous work experience in the Federal Government were hired in March, 1975
1977-	same as 1976
1978-	same as 1976
1979-	#1 Psychologist with the CSC since March, 1975
#2 A new psychologist with no previous work experience in the Federal Government was hired in September, 1979
1980-	same as 1979
(iii) 1976-517,884-25,566
1977-	519,288-27,573
1978-	520,156-28,814
1979-	521,168-30,975
1980-	523,510-33,608
(b) Nil.
"Information provided is for previous work experience in the Federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the Federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Sherbrooke Centre, Montreal and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?

Question No. 3,975-Mr. Lawrence:
For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Martineau Centre, Montreal and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?

Question No. 3,976-Mr. Lawrence:
For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Ogilvie Centre, Montreal and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned: (a) and (b) There were no full-time or part-time psychologists employed at the following Centres: Martineau Centre, Ogilvie Centre, Sherbrooke Centre. Community and contract psychological services were provided to Community Correctional Centre inmates as required.
(i), (ii) and (iii) Not applicable.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Federal Training Centre, Laval and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?

November 2, 1982
Order Paper Questions


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
(a) Number of full-time psychologists as of
December 31-	1976-3
1977-	3
1978-	2
1979-	2
1980-	2
*	(i) The minimum educational requirement for a psychologist hired through the Public Service Commission is a master's degree in psychology from a recognized university.
*	(ii) Previous work experience in the Federal Government:
1976-	#1 Psychologist with the CSC since August, 1975 #2 Psychologist with the CSC since July, 1975 #3 Psychologist with the CSC since May, 1975
1977-	same as 1976
1978-	#1 Psychologist with the CSC since August, 1975
#2 A new psychologist with no previous work experience in the Federal Government was hired in May, 1978
1979-	#1 Psychologist with the CSC since May, 1978 #2 Psychologist with the CSC since January, 1975
1980-	#1 Psychologist with the CSC since January, 1979 #2 Psychologist with the CSC since November, 1980
Parole Officer from February 1979 to November, 1980
(iii) 1976-$ 17,884-25,566
1977-	$19,288-27,573
1978-	$20,156-28,814
1979-	$21,168-30,975
1980-	$23,510-33,608
(b)	Nil.
"Information provided is for previous work experience in the Federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the Federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Leclerc Institution, Laval and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
(a) Number of full-time psychologists as of
December 31-	1976-1
1977-	2
1978-	2
1979-	2
1980-	2
* (i) The minimum educational requirement for a psychologist hired through the Public Service Commission is a master's degree in psychology from a recognized university.
* (ii) Previous work experience in the Federal Government:
1976-	Psychologist with the CSC since January, 1975
1977-	#1 Same as 1976
#2 Psychologist with the CSC since February, 1977
Classification Officer from November 1975 to February, 1977
1978-	#1 Psychologist with the CSC since May, 1975
#2same as #2 in 1977
1979-	same as 1978
1980-	#1 Psychologist with the CSC since February, 1977
Classification Officer from November 1975 to February, 1977
#2 A new psychologist with no previous work experience in the Federal Government was hired in February, 1980
(iii) 1976-$ 17,884-25,566
1977-	$19,288-27,573
1978-	$20,156-28,814
1979-	$21,168-30,975
1980-	$23,510-33,608
(b) Nil.
"Information provided is for previous work experience in the Federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the Federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Archambault Institution, Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
(a) Number of full-time psychologists as of
December 31-	1976-2
1977-	3
1978-	3
1979-	3
1980-	3
* (i) The minimum educational requirement for a psychologist hired through the Public Service Commission is a master's degree in psychology from a recognized university.
" (ii) Previous work experience in the Federal Government:
1976-	Two psychologists with no previous work experience in the Federal Government were hired in May, 1975
1977-	#1 Psychologist with the CSC since May, 1975
#2 Two new psychologists with no previous experience in the Federal Government were hired in April and June, 1977
1978-	same as 1977
1979-	same as 1977
1980-	#1 Psychologist with the CSC since April, 1977 #2 Psychologist with the CSC since June, 1977
November 2, 1982

#3 A new psychologist with no previous work experience in the Federal Government was hired in November 1980
(iii)	1976-$17,884-25,566
1977-	$19,288-27,573
1978-	$20,156-28,814
1979-	$21,168-30,975
1980-	$23,510-33,608
(b) Nil.
Information provided is for previous work experience in the Federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the Federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Correctional Development Centre, Laval and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
(a) Number of full-time psychologists as of
December 31-	1976-1
1977-	1
1978-	2
1979-	2
1980-	2
*	(i) The minimum educational requirement for a psychologist hired through the Public Service Commission is a master's degree in psychology from a recognized university.
*	(ii) Previous work experience in the Federal Government:
1976-	A new psychologist with no previous work experience in the Federal Government was hired in June, 1976
1977-	same as 1976
1978-	#1 Psychologist with the CSC since June, 1976
#2 A new psychologist with no previous work experience in the Federal Government was hired in January, 1978
1979-	same as 1978
1980-	same as 1978
(iii) 1976-$ 17,884-25,566
1977-	$ 19,288-27,573
1978-	$20,156-28,814
1979-	$21,168-30,975
1980-	$23,510-33,608
(b) Nil.
Information provided is for previous work experience in the Federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the Federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the
Order Paper Questions
disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Regional Reception Centre, Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
(a) Number of full-time psychologists as of
December 31,1976 to December 31 -	1980-2
*	(i) The minimum educational requirement for a psychologist hired through the Public Service Commission is a master's degree in psychology from a recognized university.
*	(ii) Previous work experience in the federal Government:
1976-	#1 Psychologist with the CSC since May, 1975 #2 Psychologist with the CSC since June, 1975
1977-	same as 1976
1978-	same as 1976
1979-	#1 Psychologist with the CSC since May, 1975
#2 A new psychologist with no previous work experience in the Federal Government was hired in January, 1979
1980-	#1 Psychologist with the CSC since January, 1979
#2 A new psychologist with no previous work experience in the Federal Government was hired in January, 1980
(iii)	1976-$ 17,884-25,566
1977_$ 19,288-27,573
1978-	$20,156-28,814
1979-	$21,168-30,975
1980-	$23,510-33,608
(b) Nil.
Information provided is for previous work experience in the Federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the Federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Portsmouth Centre, Kingston and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?

Question No. 3,983-Mr. Lawrence:
For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Keele Street Centre, Toronto and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?

Question No. 3,984-Mr. Lawrence:
For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Montgomery Centre, Toronto and, in each case.

November 2, 1982
Order Paper Questions
what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned: (a) and (b) There were no full-time or part-time psychologists employed at the following Centres: Keele Street Centre, Montgomery Centre, Portsmouth Centre. Community and contract psychological services were provided to Community Correctional Centre inmates as required.
(i), (ii) and (iii) Not applicable.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Frontenac Institution farm, Kingston and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned: (a) and (b) If the inmate population of a minimum security institution was not large enough, psychological services were provided by the nearest major institution. Warkworth Institution most often provided these services to the inmates of Beaver Creek. However, inmates were returned to the institutions from which they were transferred to receive psychological services if these were not available at Warkworth.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Bath Institution, Bath and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned: (a) and (b) If the inmate population of a minimum security institution was not large enough, psychological services were provided by the nearest major institution. Millhaven Institution provided these services to the inmates of Bath Institution.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Pittsburg Institution farm, Joyceville and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In	so	far as theCorrectional	Service	of Canada	is concerned:	(a)	and (b) If
the inmate population of the minimum security institution was not large enough, psychological services were provided by the nearest major institution. Joyceville institution provided these services to the inmates of Pittsburg.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Frontenac Institution farm, Kingston and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In	so	far as theCorrectional	Service	of Canada	is concerned:	(a)	and (b) If
the inmate population of a minimum security institution was
not large enough, psychological services were provided by the nearest major institution. Collins Bay Institution provided these services to the inmates of Frontenac Institution.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Warkworth Institution, Campbellford and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
(a)	Number of full-time psychologists as of
December 31 -	1976-4
1977-	4
1978-	3
1979-	2
1980-	2
*	(i) The minimum educational requirement for a psychologist hired through the Public Service Commission is a master's degree in psychology from a recognized university.
*	(ii) Previous work experience in the Federal Government:
1976	#1 Psychologist with the CSC since March, 1975 #2 Psychologist with the CSC since November, 1971 #3 Psychologist with the CSC since October, 1972 #4 Psychologist with the CSC since September, 1975
1977	#1 same as 1976 #2 same as 1976 #3 same as 1976
#4 A new psychologist with no previous work experience in the Federal Government was hired in September, 1977
1978	#1 same as 1976 #2 same as 1976
#3 Psychologist with the CSC since September, 1977
1979	# 1 same as 1976
#2same as #3 in 1978
1980	same as 1979
(iii)	1976-$17,884-25,566
1977-	$19,288-27,573
1978-	$20,156-28,814
1979-	$21,168-30,975
1980-	$23,510-33,608
(b)	Nil.
^Information provided is for previous work experience in the Federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the Federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Joyceville Institution, Joyceville and, in each case,
November 2, 1982

what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
(a) Number of full-time psychologists as of
December 31-	1976-1
1977-	3
1978-	3
1979-	3
1980-	3
*	(i) The minimum educational requirement for a psychologist hired through the Public Service Commission is a master's degree in psychology from a recognized university.
*	(ii) Previous work experience in the Federal Government:
1976-	Psychologist with the CSC since September, 1972
1977-	#1 same as 1976
#2 Psychologist with the CSC since September, 1974 #3 Psychologist with the CSC since September, 1973
1978-	Same as 1977
1979-	Same as 1977
1980-	Same as 1977
(iii) 1976-$ 17,884-25,566 1977__$ 19,288-27,573
1978-	$20,156-28,814
1979-	$21,168-30,975
1980-	$23,510-33,608
(b) Nil.
*	Information provided is for previous work experience in the Federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the Federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Collins Bay Institution, Kingston and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience
in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
(a) Number of full-time psychologists as of
December 31-	1976-3
1977-	3
1978-	2
1979-	2
1980-	2
*	(i) The minimum educational requirement for a psychologist hired through the Public Service Commission is a master's degree in psychology from a recognized university.
Order Paper Questions
*	(ii) Previous work experience in the Federal Government:
1976-	#1 Psychologist with the CSC since April, 1974 #2 Psychologist with the CSC since October, 1973 #3 Psychologist with the CSC since February, 1972
1977-	same as 1976
1978-	#1 Psychologist with the CSC since July, 1978
Living Unit specialist from 1975 to 1978 Psychologist with the CSC from 1972 to 1975 #2 Psychologist with the CSC since June, 1978
1979-	same as 1978
1980-	same as 1978
(iii)	1976-$17,884-25,566
1977_$ 19,288-27,573
1978-	$20,156-28,814
1979-	$21,168-30,975
1980-	$23,510-33,608
(b) Nil.
'Information provided is for previous work experience in the Federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the Federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Millhaven Institution, Bath and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
(a) Number of full-time psychologists as of
December 31-	1976-4
1977-	3
1978-	4
1979-	3
1980-	2
*	(i) The minimum educational requirement for a psychologist hired through the Public Service Commission is a master's degree in psychology from a recognized university.
*	(ii) Previous work experience in the Federal Government:
1976-	#1 Psychologist with the CSC since July, 1972
#2 Psychologist with the CSC since October, 1972 #3 Psychologist with the CSC since October, 1973 #4 Psychologist with the CSC since February, 1976
1977-	#i Psychologist with the CSC since July, 1972
#2 Psychologist with the CSC since October, 1972 #3 Psychologist with the CSC since February, 1976
1978-	#1 Psychologist with the CSC since July, 1972
#2 Psychologist with the CSC since February, 1976 #3 Psychologist with the CSC since October, 1972 #4 A new psychologist with no previous work experience in the Federal Government was hired in August, 1978

November 2, 1982
Order Paper Questions
1979-	#1 Psychologist with the CSC since August, 1978 #2 Psychologist with the CSC since February, 1976
#3 A new psychologist with no previous work experience in the Federal Government was hired in April, 1979
1980-	# 1 Psychologist with the CSC since August, 1978 #2 Psychologist with the CSC since April, 1974
(iii)	1976-$17,884-25,566
1977-	519,288-27,573
1978-	520,156-28,814
1979-	521,168-30,975
1980-	523,510-33,608
(b) Nil.
information provided is for previous work experience in the Federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the Federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Fluman Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Prison For Women, Kingston and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
(a)	Number of full-time psychologists as of
December 31 -	1976- 1
1977-	1
1978-	1
1979-	1
1980-	1
*	(i) The minimum educational requirement for a psychologist hired through the Public Service Commission is a master's degree in psychology from a recognized university.
*	(ii) Previous work experience in the Federal Government:
1976-1979	Psychologist with the CSC since May, 1974
1980	Psychologist with the CSC since July, 1976
(iii)	1976-$17,884-25,566
1977-	$19,288-27,573
1978-	$20,156-28,814
1979-	$21,168-30,975
1980-	$23,510-33,608
(b)	Nil.
*	Information provided is for previous work experience in the Federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the Federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the
disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Regional Psychiatric Centre, Kingston and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
(a) Number of full-time psychologists as of
December 31-	1976-4
1977-	5
1978-	5
1979-	5
1980-	5
*	(i) The minimum educational requirement for a psychologist hired through the Public Service Commission is a master's degree in psychology from a recognized university.
*	(ii) Previous work experience in the Federal Government:
1976-	All four psychologists were hired in 1976 and none had any previous work experience in the Federal Government.
1977-	#1 Psychologist with the CSC since August, 1976 #2 Psychologist with the CSC since September, 1976 #3 Psychologist with the CSC since September, 1976 #4 Psychologist with the CSC since September, 1976
#5 A new psychologist with no previous work experience in the Federal Government was hired in January, 1977
1978-	# 1 same as # 1 in 1977 #2same as #2 in 1977 #3 same as #3 in 1977
#4 Psychologist with the CSC since January, 1977 #5 A new psychologist with no previous work experience in the Federal Government was hired in May, 1978
1979-	same as 1978
1980-	same as 1978
(iii) 1976-517,884-25,566
1977-	$ 19,288-27,573
1978-	520,156-28,814
1979-	521,168-30,975
1980-	523,510-33,608
(b) Nil.
information provided is for previous work experience in the Federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the Federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Regional Reception Centre, Kingston and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?
November 2, 1982


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
(a) Number of full-time psychologists as of
December 31-	1976-3
1977-	3
1978-	3
1979-	1
1980-	2
*	(i) The minimum educational requirement for a psychologist hired through the Public Service Commission is a master's degree in psychology from a recognized university.
*	(ii) Previous work experience in the Federal Government:
1976-	#1 Psychologist with the CSC since September, 1974
#2 Psychologist with the CSC since July, 1975
#3 Psychologist with the CSC since July, 1975
1977-	same as 1976
1978-	same as 1976
1979-	Full-time psychologist with the CSC since May, 1976
Part-time psychologist with the CSC from November, 1974 to
May, 1976
1980-	#1 Full-time psychologist with the CSC since May, 1976
Part-time psychologist with the CSC from November, 1974 to May, 1976
#2 Psychologist with the CSC since September, 1977
(iii) 1976-517,884-25,566
1977-	519,288-27,573
1978-	520,156-28,814
1979-	521,168-30,975
1980-	523,510-33,608
(b) For the year 1976, there was one part-time psychologist employed through the Public Service Commission. For the years 1977, 1978, 1979 and 1980: Nil
*	(i) The educational requirement is the same as that of a full-time psychologist.
(ii)	The person was employed as a part-time psychologist with the CSC since November, 1974 and had no previous work experience in the Federal Government.
(iii)	A part-time psychologist with the CSC was paid an hourly rate of $9.14 for work performed.
*Information provided is for previous work experience in the Federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the Federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Robson Centre, Vancouver and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?
Order Paper Questions 
Question No. 3,997-Mr. Lawrence:
For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Pandora Centre, Victoria and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned: (a) and (b) There were no full-time or part-time psychologists employed at the following Centres: Pandora Centre, Robson Centre. Community and contract psychological services were provided to Community Correctional Centre inmates as required.
(i), (ii) and (iii) Not applicable.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Elbow Lake forestry camp, Harrison Mills and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned: (a) and (b) If the inmate population of a minimum security institution was not large enough, psychological services were provided by the nearest major institution. Mountain Institution most often provided these services to the inmates of Elbow Lake. However, outside psychologists were utilized when Mountain Institution was not able to meet the demand.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Ferndale Institution, Mission and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned: (a) and (b) If the inmate population of a minimum security institution was not large enough, psychological services were provided by the nearest major institution. Up to December 31, 1976 these services were provided to the inmates of Ferndale by Matsqui Institution and after that date, these services were provided by Mission Institution.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Matsqui Trailer Unit and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as The
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned: (a) and (b) If the inmate population of a minimum security institution was not large enough, psychological services were provided by the nearest major institution. Matsqui Institution or the Regional Psychiatric Centre provided these services to the inmates of the Matsqui Trailer Unit.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Mission Institution, Mission and, in each case.

November 2, 1982
Order Paper Questions
what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned: Mission Institution opened in 1977.
(a) Number of full-time psychologists as of
December 31 -	1977- 1
1978-	1
1979-	1
1980-	1
*	(i) The minimum educational requirement for a psychologist hired through the Public Service Commission is a master's degree in psychology from a recognized university.
*	(ii) Previous work experience in the Federal Government:
1977-	Psychologist with the CSC since April, 1977
1978-	Psychologist with the CSC since April, 1978
1979-	same as 1978
1980-	same as 1978
(iii)	1977-$19,288-27,573
1978-	$20,156-28,814
1979-	$21,168-30,975
1980-	$23,510-33,608
(b) Nil.
'Information provided is for previous work experience in the Federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the Federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the William Head Institution, Victoria and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned: (a) and (b) Psychological services for the inmate population of William Head Institution were provided by either Matsqui Institution or the Pacific Regional Psychiatric Centre.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Mountain Institution, Agassiz and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
(a) Number of full-time psychologists as of December 31, 1976 to December 31, 1980-1.
*	(i) The minimum educational requirement for a psychologist hired through the Public Service Commission is a master's degree in psychology from a recognized university.
*	(ii) Previous work experience in the Federal Government: Psychologist with the CSC since 1959
(iii)	1976-$17,884-25,566
1977-	$19,288-27,573
1978-	$20,156-28,814
1979-	$21,168-30,975
1980-	$23,510-33,608
(b) Nil.
'Information provided is for previous work experience in the Federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the Federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Matsqui Institution, Abbotsford and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
(a) Number of full-time psychologists as of
December 31 -	1976-3
1977-	3
1978-	3
1979-	3
1980-	3
*	(i) The minimum educational requirement for a psychologist hired through the Public Service Commission is a master's degree in psychology from a recognized university.
*	(ii) Previous work experience in the Federal Government:
#1 Psychologist with the CSC since March, 1969 #2 Psychologist with the CSC since January, 1975
Administrative trainee with the Department of Communications from June, 1974 to January, 1975 #3 Psychologist with the CSC since November, 1965
(iii)	1976-$17,884-25,566
1977-	$ 19,288-25,573
1978-	$20,156-28,814
1979-	$21,168-30,975
1980-	$23,510-33,608
(b) Nil.
'Information provided is for previous work experience in the Federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience
November 2, 1982

outside the Federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Kent Institution, Agassiz and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned: Kent Institution opened in 1979.
(a)	Number of full-time psychologists as of December 31- 1979-1, 1980-1.
*	(i) The minimum educational requirement for a psychologist hired through the Public Service Commission is a master's degree in psychology from a recognized university.
*	(ii) Previous work experience in the Federal Government: Psychologist with the CSC since April, 1979
(iii)	1979-$21,168-30,975
1980-$23,510-33,608
(b)	Nil.
*	Information provided is for previous work experience in the Federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the Federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Regional Psychiatric Centre, Abbotsford and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
(a) Number of full-time psychologists as of December 31, 1976 to December 31, 1980-3.
*	(i) The minimum educational requirement for a psychologist hired through the Public Service Commission is a master's degree in psychology from a recognized university.
*	(ii) Previous work experience in the federal Government:
Order Paper Questions
1976-	#1 Psychologist with the CSC since December, 1970 #2 Psychologist with the CSC since July, 1976
#3 Psychologist with the CSC since July, 1976
1977-	same as 1976
1978-	#1 Psychologist with the CSC since December, 1970 #2 Psychologist with the CSC since January, 1978
Director, Official Languages, Public Service Commission from September, 1976 to January, 1978 Acting Director, Official Languages, Public Service Commission from January, 1976 to September, 1976 #3 Psychologist with the CSC since October, 1978
1979-	same as 1978
1980-	same as 1978
(iii) 1976-517,884-25,566
1977-	$19,288-27,573
1978-	520,156-28,814
1979-	521,168-30,975
1980-	523,510-33,608
(b) Nil.
* Information provided is for previous work experience in the Federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the Federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Carlton Centre, Halifax and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned: (a) and (b) There are no full-time or part-time psychologists employed at the above-mentioned Centre. Community and contract psychological services were provided to Community Correctional Centre inmates as required.
(i), (ii) and (iii) Not applicable.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Shulie Lake Camp, Parrsboro and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
(a) and (b) If the inmate population of a minimum security institution was not large enough, psychological services were provided by the nearest major institution. Springhill Institution provided these services to Shulie Lake Camp.

November 2, 1982
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Springhill Institution, Springhill and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
(a) Number of full-time psychologists as of
December 31-	1976-2
1977-	3
1978-	3
1979-	3
1980-	3
*	(i) The minimum educational requirement for a psychologist hired through the Public Service Commission is a master's degree in psychology from a recognized university.
*	(ii) Previous work experience in the Federal Government:
1976-	#1 Psychologist with the CSC since May, 1969 #2 Psychologist with the CSC since October, 1970
On educational leave from September, 1967 to May, 1970 Classification Officer with the CSC from November, 1965 to September, 1967
1977-	#1 same as 1976 #2 same as 1976
#3 A new psychologist with no previous work experience in the federal Government was hired in September, 1977
1978-	same as 1977
1979-	same as 1977
1980-	same as 1977
(iii)	1976-$17,884-25,566
1977-	$19,288-27,573
1978-	$20,156-28,814
1979-	$21,168-30,975
1980-	$23,510-33,608
(b) Nil.
* Information provided is for previous work experience in the Federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the Federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Parrtown Centre, Saint John and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned: (a) and (b) There are no full-time or part-time psychologists employed at the above-mentioned Centre. Community and contract psychological services were provided to Community Correctional Centre inmates as required.
(i), (ii) and (iii) Not applicable.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Westmorland Institution farm, Dorchester and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
Years 1976 to September, 1980: Until September, 1980, psychological services were provided by Dorchester Penitentiary because the inmate population of Westmorland Institution was not large enough to warrant a full-time psychologist.
As of December 31,1980
(a)	Number of full-time psychologists: One
*	(i) The minimum educational requirement for a psychologist hired through the Public Service Commission is a master's degree in psychology from a recognized university.
*	(ii) Previous work experience with the federal Government: Psychologist with the CSC since May, 1970. On educational leave from September, 1967 to May, 1970. Classification Officer with the CSC from November, 1965 to September, 1967.
(iii) $23,510-$33,608
(b)	Nil.
information provided is for previous work experience in the Federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the Federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Osborne Centre, Winnipeg and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned: (a) and (b) There are no full-time or part-time psychologists employed at the above-mentioned Centre. Community and contract psychological services were provided to Community Correctional Centre inmates as required.
(i), (ii) and (iii) Not applicable.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Rockwood Institution farm, Stony Mountain and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?
November 2, 1982


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
(a) and (b) If the inmate population of a minimum security institution was not large enough, psychological services were provided by the nearest major institution. Stony Mountain Institution provided these services to the inmates of Rockwood Institution.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Stony Mountain Institution, Stony Mountain and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
(a) Number of full-time psychologists as of
December 31-	1976-3
1977-	3
1978-	2
1979-	2
1980-	2
*	(i) The minimum educational requirement for a psychologist hired through the Public Service Commission is a master's degree in psychology from a recognized university.
*	(ii) Previous work experience in the Federal Government:
1976-	# 1 Psychologist with the CSC since August, 1970 #2 Psychologist with the CSC since July, 1970 #3 Psychologist with the CSC since May, 1976
1977-	same as 1976
1978-	#1 Psychologist with the CSC since August, 1970 #2 Psychologist with the CSC since July, 1970
1979-	same as 1978
1980-	same as 1978
(iii)	1976-$17,884-25,566
1977-	$19,288-27,573
1978-	$20,156-28,814
1979-	$21,168-30,975
1980-	$23.510-33,608
(b) Nil.
"information provided is for previous work experience in the Federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the Federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Oskana Centre, Regina and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?
Order Paper Questions


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned: (a) and (b) There are no full-time or part-time psychologists employed at the above-mentioned Centre. Community and contract psychological services were provided to Community Correctional Centre inmates as required.
(i), (ii) and (iii) Not applicable.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Saskatchewan Institution farm, Prince Albert and. in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
(a) and (b) In the inmate population of a minimum security institution was not large enough, psychological services were provided by the nearest major institution. Saskatchewan Penitentiary provided these services to the inmates of the Saskatchewan Farm Annex.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Saskatchewan Penitentiary, Prince Albert and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
(a) Number of full-time psychologists as of
December 31 -	1976- 1
1977-	2
1978-	2
1979-	3
1980-	3
*	(i) The minimum educational requirement for a psychologist hired through the Public Service Commission is a master's degree in psychology from a recognized university.
*	(ii) Previous work experience in the Federal Government:
1976-	Psychologist with the CSC since May, 1975
On educational leave from September, 1973 to May, 1975 Psychologist with the CSC from May, 1971 to September,
1977-	#1 Psychologist with the CSC since May, 1977
#2 Psychologist with the CSC since December, 1977
1978-	#1 Psychologist with the CSC since December, 1977
#2 A new psychologist with no previous work experience in the federal Government was hired in July, 1978
1979-	# 1 Psychologist with the CSC since December, 1977 #2 Psychologist with the CSC since July, 1978
#3 A new psychologist with no previous work experience in the federal Government was hired in November, 1979
1980-	# 1 Psychologist with the CSC since December, 1977 #2 Psychologist with the CSC since July, 1978
#3 Psychologist with the CSC since November, 1979
(iii)	1976-$17,884-25,566
1977-	$19,288-25,573
1978-	$20,156-28,814
1979-	$21,168-30,975
1980-	$23,510-33,608

November 2, 1982
Order Paper Questions
(b) Nil.
'Information provided is for previous work experience in the Federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the Federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Regional Psychiatric Centre, Saskatoon and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
The Regional Psychiatric Centre opened in 1978. However, one psychologist was recruited in 1977 prior to the official opening.
(a) Number of full-time psychologists as of
December 31-	1977-1
1978-	1
1979-	3
1980-	2
*	(i) The minimum educational requirement for a psychologist hired through the Public Service Commission is a master's degree in psychology from a recognized university.
*	(ii) Previous work experience in the Federal Government:
1977-	Psychologist with the CSC since May, 1976
1978-	same as 1977
1979-	#1 Psychologist with the CSC since May, 1976 #2 Psychologist with the CSC since October, 1979 #3 Psychologist with the CSC since October, 1979
Parole Officer from May, 1976 to October, 1979
1980-	#1 Psychologist with the CSC since May, 1976 #2 Psychologist with the CSC since October, 1979
(iii)	1977-$19,288-27,573
1978-	$20,156-28,814
1979-	$21,168-30,975
1980-	$23,510-33,608
(b) Nil.
'Information provided is for previous work experience in the Federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the Federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the
disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Altadore Centre, Calgary and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?

Question No. 4,020-Mr. Lawrence:
For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Portal House, Calgary and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?

Question No. 4,021-Mr. Lawrence:
For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Grierson Centre, Edmonton and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned: (a) and (b) There were no full-time or part-time psychologists employed at the following Centres: Altadore Centre, Grierson Centre, Portal House. Community and contract psychological services were provided to Community Correctional Centre inmates as required.
(i), (ii) and (iii) Not applicable.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Drumheller Trailer Unit and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
(a) and (b) If the inmate population of a minimum security institution was not large enough, psychological services were provided by the nearest major institution. Drumheller Institution provided these services to the inmates of the Drumheller Trailer Unit.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Bowden Institution, Innisfail and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
(a) Number of full-time psychologists as of
December 31-	1976-1
1977-	1
1978-	1
1979-	1
1980-	1
* (i) The minimum educational requirement for a psychologist hired through the Public Service Commission is a master's degree in psychology from a recognized university.
November 2, 1982

* (ii) Previous work experience in the Federal Government:
1976-	A new psychologist with no previous work experience in the Federal Government was hired in November, 1976
1977-	Psychologist with the CSC since November, 1976
1978-	Psychologist with the CSC since May, 1977
1979-	same as 1978
1980-	same as 1978
(iii)	1976-$ 17,884-25,566
1977-	$19,288-27,573
1978-	$20,156-28,814
1979-	$21,168-30,975
1980-	$23,510-33,608
(b) Nil.
*	Information provided is for previous work experience in the Federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the Federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Drumheller Institution, Drumheller and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
(a) Number of full-time psychologists as of
December 31-	1976-1
1977-	2
1978-	1
1979-	1
1980-	1 *
*	(i) The minimum educational requirement for a psychologist hired through the Public Service Commission is a master's degree in psychology from a recognized university.
*	(ii) Previous work experience in the Federal Government:
1976-	Psychologist with the CSC since September, 1973
1977-	Two new psychologists with no previous work experience in the
federal Government were hired in January and May, 1977
1978-	Psychologist with the CSC since January, 1977
1979-	same as 1978
1980-	Psychologist with the CSC since September, 1980 On educational leave from 1978 to 1980 Classification Officer with the CSC from 1976 to 1978
(iii)	1976-$17,884-25,566
1977-	519,288-27,573
1978-	$20,156-28,814
1979-	521,168-30,975
1980-	523,510-33,608
Order Paper Questions
(b) Nil.
'Information provided is for previous work experience in the Federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the Federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at the Edmonton institution, Edmonton and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience in Canada and abroad (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned: Edmonton Institution opened in 1978.
(a) As of December 31-number of	1978	1979	1980full-time psychologists	2	2	2*	(i) The minimum educational requirement for a psychologist hired through the Public Service Commission is a master's degree in psychology from a recognized university.*	(ii) Previous work experience in the Federal Government:
#1 Psychologist with the CSC since November, 1976 #2 Psychologist with the CSC since May, 1977
(iii)	1978-$20,156-28,814
1979-	$21,168-30,975
1980-	$23,510-33,608
(b)	Nil.
'Information provided is for previous work experience in the Federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the Federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Neil: 1.	Did the Department of the Secretary of State discontinue distribution of the card "O Canada Our National Anthem" because it showed the name of the former rather than the present Secretary of State of Canada and, if so, how many copies remain in stock?
2.	What disposition will be made of the copies and, if they are to be destroyed, what will be the cost of such destruction to the taxpayer?


Hon. Serge Joyal (Secretary of State):: 1. The Department of the Secretary of State continued to distribute copies of the card entitled "O Canada-Our National Anthem", showing the name of the former minister, for a period of six months following the change of Ministers. This caused some confusion

November 2, 1982
Order Paper Questions
for the general public and resulted in subsequent requests for the card being directed to the office of the Honourable Francis Fox, Minister of Communications.
2. In March, 1982, the remaining stock of 146,590 cards was transferred to the Department of Communications, for use in responding to enquiries directed there.


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


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam Speaker, 1 should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look into a question which I placed on the Order Paper a year ago. The question reads:
Did the (a) Minister of Supply and Services (b) Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (c) Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development take a Jetstar flight to Winnipeg for the official opening of General Aluminum Forgings Incorporated-
It seems that a year is ample time in which to research a question such as this one. I would appreciate it if the Parliamentary Secreatry would check into it.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I would be happy to look into that matter on behalf of the Hon. Member.


Mr. MacKay:: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he could check the reason for the delay in answering question No. 3,750, which I placed on the Order Paper on February 9, 1982, concerning the Canadian practice of hiring local staff at our embassies in Communist countries. To date I have received no answer. Given the seriousness of the matter for national security and for the wellbeing of visitors at our embassies in eastern Europe, I was wondering why the Government is not more forthcoming.
At the same time I would also like to know the reason for the delay in answering question No. 4,178 which has been on the Order Paper since March 25, 1982, concerning the RCMP policy for paid informers.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I would be happy to look into both these matters on behalf of the Hon. Member.
[ Translation]


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, October 29, consideration of the motion of Mr. Cosgrove (for the Minister of Finance) that Bill C-128, to provide supplementary borrowing authority (No. 2), be read the second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole.
Mr. John Evans (Ottawa Centre):: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to resume the debate on the borrowing authority Bill which was introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) at the time of the presentation of his financial statement. Just prior to ending my remarks on Friday, I was indicating that there was a definite procedure and process being followed by the Government in the discussion by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) with the people on television, moving to the financial statement of the Minister of Finance to set the stage, give the people the facts and put the information before them.
That would then be followed, of course, by a Speech from the Throne which would set the general policy thrust of the Government over the coming session of Parliament. That would be followed, as the Minister of Finance has already indicated, by a budget very early on in the new year to set forward specific policies implementing the policy thrust set out in the Speech from the Throne.
When I concluded those remarks last Friday I then proceeded to analyse some ideas that were placed before this House during this period of debate on the borrowing authority bill. Specifically, I was very interested in the comments put forward by the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent). Apart from the issues put forward by the Minister of Finance in his financial statement, they are really the only concrete alternative proposals put forward by the Opposition Parties concerning other policy prescriptions which could be followed by Government and which might provide some relief and respite for the Canadian people. I had intended to discuss these points very briefly in an objective way, trying to be nonpartisan in analysing what it was the Leader of the New Democratic Party had put forward. I had intended to look at these from the perspective of their potential to resolve the problems facing the country today.
I will do that now in two ways. First is the proposal that the Government should introduce new job creation to the extent of $2.2 billion, to be financed by raising the taxes of the so-called rich, and also by cutting expenditures in other areas, if I am not mistaken. Some of those areas were laid out by the Leader of the New Democratic Party.
November 2, 1982

In my reading of tax policy and the financial figures over the last several years, the amount of money that it was indicated would be available from a tax on the rich was, I believe, $1.1 billion, if all people earning over $40,000 per year were subjected to a 5 per cent surtax. As the Minister of Finance has pointed out, my analysis of the figures indicates that those figures are quite high. I would think that an order of magnitude of half of that is what is possible, although I would like to see the figures before I make a final judgment.


Nelson Andrew Riis: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is rising not from his seat and, therefore, cannot be recognized.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the Hon. Member changed his seat?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, six months ago I moved to this seat.
My point of order concerns a point which the Hon. Member was making involving a surtax which the New Democratic Party has suggested be placed on individual income earners receiving in excess of $40,000. We suggested that a 2 per cent surtax to be placed on those making $40,000 to $50,000 annually be graduated upwards so that people making $200,000 plus would be paying 9 per cent additional tax. Perhaps the Hon. Member in his calculations has not allowed for this graduated increase and that is why his figures differ somewhat from my leader's.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) for the clarification he has just made. I will factor the information into my calculations. Moving up the income scale, the number of people affected obviously declines dramatically as income rises. If, in fact, that balancing of 2 per cent on $40,000 to $50,000, increasing to 9 per cent, is correct, I would expect that rather than increasing the volume of revenue it would actually decrease the volume of revenue. However, I will check into that and talk to the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap on that point.
Some analysis has been made to the effect that if the Government were to tax every dime of income over $30,000 in this country, in any one year it would amount to somewhere in the range of $400 per man, woman and child. If we are talking about taxing the rich to solve all our problems that, I am afraid, is illusory. I am afraid that kind of policy would cut off incentive and entrepreneurship completely, which would mean that the revenue expected probably could not be realized.
More importantly, even if you impose a 100 per cent surtax on everything over $30,000, the amount you would get is about $400 per man, woman and child. Therefore, there is not that much revenue to be had, contrary to the point put forward and
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
what some would have us believe about the vast wealth, in terms of income flow in any one year, of those who are termed to be rich.
Another interesting point that was raised by the Leader of the New Democratic Party concerned a new kind of industrial policy which would be put forward. This concept is quite new for the New Democratic Party; certain firms chosen to be the industries of the future-I think that is putting it fairly- would receive tax breaks. In other words, those firms would pay a lower tax rate than the general corporate citizens in our country and all of those who are not considered to be industries of the future or industries that generate long-term, good jobs for Canadians would be subject to the equivalent of a surtax. Their tax would rise. The rate would go from 36 per cent federal to 46 per cent or 48 per cent federal, and if you factor in both federal and provincial taxes, a tax rate of about 62 per cent or 63 per cent would result on all of those corporations not deemed to be industries of the future; that is not worthly of encouragement.
I can guarantee that many of those firms that we are talking about as those that might not be the big firms or the potential firms of the future are indeed the high labour content firms. They are the pulp and paper firms, the footwear firms, the textile firms, perhaps firms in the automobile industry and firms in some other industries which have a very high labour-to-capital ratio.
The Leader of the New Democratic Party is saying that his party would increase taxes on firms with a very high labour content. As a result of having a high labour content in a country with high wage rates relative to some underdeveloped countries, these firms would be on the decline in Canada. The number of capital intensive firms would be on the rise in Canada and the number of labour intensive firms would tend to be on the decline because of competition from low labour cost firms in low labour cost countries. Therefore, increasing the tax rate on those firms which now employ a large number of people would simply speed up the process of their demise. This would result in a great many people being thrown out of work in order to encourage another group of firms that would probably be more capital intensive in nature. Perhaps not, but at least they would be more capital intensive than the firms being penalized by the higher tax rate. That to me indicates an interesting change of strategy from the point of view of what has traditionally been the position of the New Democratic Party.
There is another point on this particular topic that I would like to discuss. In the past this Party, our Government, has been criticized very strongly for introducing what the Hon. Member for Oshawa has called loopholes, which are nothing more than tax incentives to encourage firms to invest and create jobs in the traditional sense. I think Hon. Members from the Conservative Party are agreeing, nodding their heads, smiling and looking for more.

November 2, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority


Mr. Kempling:: They are laughing.


John Leslie Evans: The point is that the appropriateness of providing selective incentives has been a contentious issue among Members in the House of different Parties. Personally, I do not like selective incentives. I think that it is more appropriate to have lower tax rates than selective incentives. However, we are not discussing that argument at this point.
Let us consider the incentive issue. The New Democratic Party has traditionally been opposed to selective incentives which would reward firms. That has not been a traditional position, as far as I know. However, we now find that their position has changed. Objectively speaking, it appears that there has been a rather dramatic change in policy which effectively proposes that incentives will be given to the firms which have the greatest probability of success in the future.
Incentives given to innovative and creative firms seem to me like reverse welfare. Who will be paying the heavier taxes? It will be those firms on their way out and that do not have a great future. Who will benefit from these incentives? It will be the firms which do have a great future and which have an opportunity to make a great deal of money and generate a great deal of wealth. It seems to me that we are talking about taking form the poor to give to the rich at the corporate level. That is not a policy which has traditionally been held by the New Democratic Party.
Apparently what is being requested is a replacement of those tax incentives which have traditionally been accepted by the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party, when it was in power, by those types of tax incentives which now happen to be in favour with the New Democratic Party. There does not seem to be any great difference in policy or philosophy in this case. It is simply a matter of deciding which firms with the greatest future will be rewarded with tax incentives. That seems to be the thrust of their suggestion.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would it be appropriate to clarify a point which the Hon. Member has obviously misstated?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With respect to the Hon. Member, he will have an opportunity to participate in the debate. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre should be permitted to continue his speech.


John Leslie Evans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Frankly, if we were to change the rules of the House to allow interchanges such as this, I think it would be a great stride forward for Parliament. While I am giving a speech such as this, I could perhaps speak for 10 or 15 minutes and Hon. Members opposite could then ask questions and I would have an obligation to answer those questions. I would be much more careful about what I said, as more Members in the House would be. It would lead to a much more illuminating debate for those watching on television, or reading-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the Hon. Member, the procedures of the House and the procedures of Committee of the Whole do allow for that kind of exchange. The Hon. Member must realize that perhaps at a later stage of this bill there will be a Committee of the Whole.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I really was not asking you a question, but I am glad that you decided to enter the debate in any event.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


John Leslie Evans: There is no disrespect intended, Mr. Speaker.
I believe that it is beneficial to debate what is being proposed by other Members in the House of Commons. The Hon. Member for Oshawa, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, put forward some proposals. I have given my reaction to those proposals and I hope that other Members will feel free to give their reaction also, just as they feel free to comment on the proposals and decisions made by the Minister of Finance in his recent financial statement. I hope that some Members of the Conservative Party will introduce some positive proposals that can be analysed and debated in the House in this same manner.
Before I discuss some points which I think are important about the statement by the Minister of Finance, I must first give credit to the previous Minister of Finance, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. MacEachen), for the changes which he brought about in the green paper on the budgetary process. He has made this process more open and has provided for consultation on economic policies to a much greater extent than has ever taken place before. This greater consultation has been taking place during his tenure and is being continued very successfully by the current Minister of Finance. I believe that the former Minister of Finance has done a great thing for Parliament and for Government by introducing a much more open process. I suggest that history will thank him for introducing those innovations in the budgetary process and for improving the consultative environment which we have seen taking place. That environment has dramatically improved in the last year, and in recent months in particular.
I was most pleased with the Minister of Finance's introductory remarks on page 3 of his statement which dealt with the basic principles of economic management which he indicated he intended to follow as Minister of Finance. When one reads and understands the six principles laid out by the Minister in his statement, I believe that Canadians and Members of Parliament will be able clearly to understand his intentions, his priorities and what we may expect from him in the future.
I acknowledge that we have a terrible unemployment problem in Canada. While we must give our utmost attention to this extremely serious dilemma, we must acknowledge that some progress is certainly being made on other fronts. For example, declining inflation surely must be a positive sign for the investment climate and for consumer confidence in this
November 2, 1982

country. The annualized year over year rate is 10.4 per cent, which is down considerably from what it was in earlier months. More importantly, when one considers inflation during the last three months, one sees that the annualized rate of inflation for the three-month period of July, August and September in Canada is 6.6 per cent. This downward trend has been continuing for some time now. It represents great progress and I believe it is reason for us to have some confidence that we have, in fact, finally got a grip on the inflation problem. I suggest we will see even greater progress in the future.
The fact that interest rates have dropped dramatically indicates that the market agrees with this assessment. In fact, interest rates have dropped for 11 consecutive weeks and we hope they will continue to drop in the coming weeks. That assessment of the market shows that Government action and market actions generally are in the process of bringing inflation under control in Canada. It must certainly be seen as a very positive sign.
However, that does not let us ignore the fact that we have a very serious unemployment problem and that we must deal with the fundamentals of that problem. Certainly we must make funds available for job creation in the short term in order to help those unemployed during this very difficult transition period. But the ultimate solution to the unemployment problem will result from improvements in the investment climate, the economic structure and world markets. It is fallacious and cruel to suggest to Canadians that Government action alone, whether Liberal, Conservative, NDP or Social Credit, could eradicate the unemployment problem by a simple wave of a magic wand. That will not happen. The unemployment problem will be with us for some time to come. Governments by themselves will not be able to solve the problem. This includes federal, provincial and municipal Governments.
The unemployment problem must be solved through a regeneration of growth and prosperity within the economy generally and a regeneration of growth and prosperity outside of Canada where the markets are for the vast resources that we mine and mill for sale elsewhere. The markets for the forest products industry, the mining industry and the pulp and paper industry are not primarily here in Canada. Those are export products. When our export markets are down, when other countries are not buying our goods, it makes absolutely no sense to follow the suggestion that we subsidize continued production and stockpile, building inventories that cost money. It costs money to produce, the money would have to be borrowed, and the interest charges on the borrowed money would certainly add to the cost burden of government which is shared and carried by the taxpayers. That kind of policy would mean vast stockpiling of produced goods that we could sell abroad, but when the markets do recover the people who were working at that point would not have to work because we would be able to sell from our vast inventories. Stockpiling large quantities of raw materials would simply mean that the kind of employment recovery which comes along with a general economic recovery
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
would not happen because we would have vast inventories from which we could sell to the market for years to come.
It does not seem to be a very innovative or realistic policy because all we would be doing would be easing some of the unemployment burden today and shifting it into the future. Certainly those people who are working in the mines in two or three years from now would have to contend with the existence of these huge inventories. It would be a very dangerous strategy to subsidize miners and forest workers to produce goods, for which there is no current market, in anticipation that such market would appear once again at some time in the future, as suggested by some Hon. Members. It is simply not a strategy which is realistic at this time.
I believe our unemployment problem will be long-term. We will have to contend with it, not so much by trying to keep people at work in existing jobs where there are rising questions as to the future viability of the industries for which they work, but rather, by looking further than that and considering new skills programs, such as that brought forward several months ago by the Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy).
We must ask ourselves, "Where is the future for employment in this country? How can we move people from industries where the future simply does not exist for Canada?" It may exist for some southeast Asian country which has very low labour costs, or for a South American country, but it certainly does not exist for a country such as Canada with relatively high labour costs. We must look to those industries and ask ourselves how we can help the people working in those industries to move to other industries which have a comparative advantage for Canada. That will not be done by Government alone. There will not be a situation where the Government can state: "These are the cities of the future; this is where we will put all the money". It does not seem that that proposition would be valid.
I am not being in any way derogatory of my colleagues in the House or my friends who work in the Public Service who have some great insight as to where the future lies. If the Government were to take on the role and responsibility of defining where the prosperous future lies, it would place great risks on the backs of the taxpayers. I think the marketplace has performed that function very well in the past.
Government should act as a catalytic agent to assist the market in moving people from where the jobs are declining to areas where they are increasing. I believe we can do this through labour, management and Government task forces which would give us a better view as to where our skills and training programs should be focused. We could do it that way, but I would be very reluctant to see the Government go it alone and try to define what the future will be. Those governments, whether they be federal, provincial, Canadian or foreign, which have tried that kind of approach in the past have generally wound up in a very dismal state within a few years. They have certainly picked some winners, but over time

November 2, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
they have picked many more losers, and those losers have become a great portfolio which the taxpayers must drag along with them into the future. Quite frankly, I do not believe that is the way to go.
Members of Parliament are all very well intentioned and none of us has a corner on virtue or on a desire to help our constituents. Everyone is in the House because they want to help their constituents. They want to see the country grow, one which is better when they depart from public office than the one they inherited when they came into public office. I think all of us feel that way. To a large extent, I think we are doing ourselves a great disservice in the House from time to time because we carry on debate in a fashion which tends to be very partisan and rhetorical in an attempt to score political points. That kind of approach leads to an attitude on the part of our constituents that we are not behaving like adults. I do not believe there is one of us here who has not come back from the summer recess with the knowledge that constituents are asking, "What in the world are you doing in that House of Commons? You are not dealing with the serious problems that are crushing us. We want to see you behave in a diplomatic and statesmanlike fashion and come to grips with the problems in an objective way."
That is what we must do in this House of Commons. It is unrealistic and is misleading Canadians when they view Members who stand up in the House and say they have all the answers, and then provide a pie in the sky solution to the problems with which Canadians are grappling in their own lives, or build up hope that there is some kind of magic fairy godmother called Government which will come along and wave the magic wand and unemployment will disappear overnight.
Some Members say: "If only we were in power, Government would be so much more efficient and the problems would evaporate overnight". I do not mean that in a partisan sense. The fact is that no matter who is in power, the problems with us are real, fundamental and deeply rooted, and we will have to go through a period of very hard work as Parliamentarians and as a country in order to pull oursleves out of this situation.
That is precisely the message the Prime Minister was trying to deliver. He was not trying to put forward specific policy recommendations in his three evening speeches. He was trying to say that if we do not start to co-operate here in the House of Commons and, more generally, across the country, if we do not start to see some co-operation between Government and management, then we will not pull ourselves out of this situation. I would ask Hon. Members in the New Democratic Party, who probably have a much closer relationship with the labour movement than the other two major parties, to sit down with their colleagues at the leadership level of the labour movement to try to establish a more co-operative framework for discussion and dialogue.
We should try to develop the kind of national economic policy consensus whereby we can come together as Canadians, moving forward and taking the very hard, very real decisions which must be taken if we are to move into a period of rising
living standards in the future. We should do that co-operatively, without the kind of animosity, anger and vitriol which has characterized discussions between those three centres of power in our country in the past. I would ask that all Members of Parliament join together in the committees and in the House to see if we cannot come together in a more co-operative, nonpartisan environment to deal with the fundamental problems of this country on behalf of Canadians, as we were elected to do.


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, in listening to the words of the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans), I found that in some respects he tried to follow the same line as that taken by his leader, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), during his television speech some nights ago. He was trying to reassure the Canadian public that if we all work together, pull together, things will be better in the future. The one thing that most Members of Parliament found this summer in their constituencies-and if they do not admit it publicly, I suggest they do privately-is the one universal fact that most people realize that we are in a very serious economic situation, probably the worst recession since the Great Depression in the 1930s, and that there is no way, regardless of what political party is in power at this time, that we could have gotten out of the problem. In fact, Canada would not have escaped for a whole series of reasons, most of them well known to everyone.
However, what grates on most Canadians, certainly those in my constituency in southern Manitoba and, I suggest, in other constituencies as well, is the fact that the problem to an extent is of our own making through basically stupid Government policies over the last number of years, policies that have exacerbated the problem.
This is something, Mr. Speaker, that I do not think people are going to forget. It would be great if we could wipe the slate clean and say that it is all behind us now and we will march off in the sunset together to form a great nation. But people do not think that way and governments and countries do not work that way. I hope in my few short remarks I can demonstrate some of the problems that have brought us into this whole situation. There are some things very dear to many Canadian hearts, like the National Energy Program or the Foreign Investment Review Act. There has been a series of economic moves that have made us far worse off today than we were before.
Just how bad are things in Canada? We have a national unemployment rate that has reached a record 12.2 per cent which reflects the fact that 1,343,000 Canadians are out of work. In additon, 338,000 Canadians are working part-time because they cannot find full-time employment. The unemployment totals do not include the 96,000 people that are classified as discouraged workers, who have given up even looking for work because there are just no jobs available. I think we in the House of Commons are very fortunate to have jobs, although they may not all be that secure. Nevertheless, it is difficult for us to imagine the kind of frustration men and
November 2, 1982

women at all levels of the labour force feel who find themselves out of work, when they have nothing to get up for in the morning, to look forward to. They have to depend on the Government through unemployment insurance to buy necessities; and as we get closer to Christmas, you cannot turn a television on without advertisements to buy newer, better, bigger things. That kind of human misery is incalculable.
In 1981 there were over 8,000 business bankruptcies across the country. Bankruptcies in 1981 were 22 per cent higher than in 1980 and 43 per cent higher than in 1979. We can see the kind of acceleration that is taking place there and it is going to get worse. Rural ridings right across the country are in a critical situation. In my own rural riding in southern Manitoba the agricultural community, which is by far the largest group in my constituency and the largest part of the activity generated in Manitoba, was hit with interest rates which nobody could understand or deal with. That, Mr. Speaker, coupled with the fact that we have agricultural prices generally across the board that in real terms are almost at depression levels, has caused hardships of a kind that I have not seen in southern Manitoba in many, many years. Of course, the communities in the rural parts of Canada are there because agriculture is there. If agriculture suffers, the communities, and the small businessmen who provide the services, suffer even worse.
As an example, corn is grown in large quantities now in Manitoba, parts of Ontario and Quebec. Last year prices were in the neighbourhood of $3.30-$3.40 a bushel. Now the price is $2.10 a bushel. It usually takes $2.50 a bushel to get your investment back. That is the kind of loss that agriculture is facing, and that is reflected throughout the whole food industry. The situation is more serious than it has ever been. That is not necessarily the fault of the Government. It is the fault of a large, world-wide grain crop, certainly in the United States and North America, that has not moved to market at the present time and does not look as if it will in the future. This double slap in the face to this segment of the population, of course, is causing all kinds of problems.
In the second quarter of 1982, Canadian manufacturers were operating at only 68 per cent of total capacity. That means, Mr. Speaker, some 32 per cent of the capacity in this country is sitting idle because of the kind of economic recession which has taken place. No wonder we have over one million Canadians out of work.
The value of building permits, as most people know, were down substantially in July, 1982 by 38 per cent compared to July of 1981. If inflation is taken into account, building activity is down almost 50 per cent over last year. The purchasing power of the 1971 dollar is now 37 cents; consumers, particularly housewives, know that the purchasing power of the dollar is down.
Part of our very serious situation has been brought on because of other economic factors which have taken place around the world, generally overspending by all levels of government in other countries. But that is only a portion of the Canadian problem because we have the situation where we
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
find ourselves with a Liberal Government which has been almost continuously in power over the last decade and which has caused the problem to accelerate.
The Government is asking the country for permission to borrow another $4 billion. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) stated that total spending this year would be approximately $80 billion, $23.6 billion more than the Government will take in through revenues. He has even admitted that further borrowing authority may be required before the end of the fiscal year.
Let us translate that for ourselves as that is the only way that most Canadians can understand what is happening. It is very difficult to grasp the meaning of a figure as large as that. Eighty billion dollars is a lot of money. We know that if individually we spent more money than we took in, such as through our salary, we would all go broke. That is what appears to be happening. It appears that this country is going broke. We have a situation in which money is being borrowed to pay interest on money borrowed previously. Taken to its logical conclusion, it creates a frightening scenario.
In my opinion, there are at least four definite economic costs of continued deficit financing of the magnitude being pursued by the present Government. First, there is the ever growing interest burden. Interest on the debt this year will amount to $18 billion, the equivalent of about $700 for every man, woman and child in Canada or about $1,700 per taxpayer. That means that about one dollar in every three is being paid to the Government by taxpayers to service the national debt. For a family of four, that amounts to $2,800. That is what our national debt is costing us. It means there has been too much spending, too reckless spending, over a long period of time.
The second cost is a loss of fiscal flexibility. In the past, the Government had the option of undertaking costly and significant fiscal measures to spur the economy. Today there is no room to manoeuvre. We are locked in and can do very little. Literally all that can be done is what the Minister of Finance did the other night. It is the old shell game, moving the money around. It is trying to plug some small hole in the dike. I repeat, there is no room to manoeuvre. Unemployment, and the misery associated with it, will get worse in the coming winter.
The third cost is that productive private sector borrowing is crowded out and, consequently, interest rates rise. In the 1981 calendar year, federal Government borrowing accounted for about 44 per cent of the net new security issues placed in Canada. The figure this year will be higher. If there was less federal Government borrowing, there would be less demand for money and hence interest rates would be lower. Because of the tremendous demand created by federal Government borrowing in competition with other sectors, there is a tendency for interest rates possibly, but hopefully not, to start to rise again in the future. We have never had the magnitude of Government borrowing that we have at the present time.

November 2, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
The fourth cost is that of confidence. Possibly this is the toughest cost to overcome. The investment community do not trust a Government that continues to live so far beyond its means. They do not want to hold a currency that continues to be debased by excessive Government borrowing. As a consequence, the dollar has fallen, driving up the cost of living in Canada. Interest rates remain high as the Government attempts to support the dollar. Job-creating investment has gone elsewhere. Capital investment has gone elsewhere.
These are some of the economic costs of the deficit financing that Canadians are experiencing at the present time. In his recent economic statement, the Minister of Finance proposed to reallocate expenditures of $1.1 billion into several job-creating schemes, an exercise he called very difficult. If the Liberal Government had behaved in a financially responsible way for the last decade-and it has been in power almost continually in that period of time-there would be no need to borrow another $4 billion, no need to announce mere band-aid, job stimulation measures. That is not to say we would not be in a recession, that we would not be in trouble in terms of manufacturing or have the idle plant capacity I talked about, but we would not be in the present situation.
If wasteful Government spending had instead been used to encourage productivity, promote research and development and help place Canada on a more competitive footing with our foreign trading rivals, Canadians would not be suffering as much as they are today from the worst economic climate since the Great Depression. It is because of the billions of dollars wasted by this Government that the Liberals are here today in the House looking for more money. The money wasted could have been used to produce many stimulative and varied proposals. I would like to mention two or three in my remarks.
Early in the fall of 1981, the then Minister of Finance set an interest rate of 19.5 per cent on that year's offering of Canada Savings Bonds. To compound the mistake, he was obliged to offer the same rate to existing bond holders to prevent a wave of conversion from old bonds to new. Obviously the interest rate was very attractive. Soon after the offering was made, it became obvious that interest rates were declining and that the Government could easily have borrowed all it wanted at around 15 per cent.
This absurd blunder left Canadian taxpayers burdened with $25 billion in Savings Bonds debt at 19.5 per cent interest for a full year. The estimated cost of the interest alone was in the area of $4.9 billion. Because of a rash decision by the then Minister of Finance, at least $1 billion was wasted in paying inflationary and unnecessarily high interest rates.
In February, 1981 the federal Government purchased Petrofina for about $1.46 billion, or $120 per share. At the time of the purchase the shares were trading at about $90 per share. In other words, the federal Government paid between $365 million and $486 million more than was necessary.
To date spending by the federal Government on the metric conversion program exceeds some $65 million. Ever since metric conversion was first talked about, many people have felt it was a totally unnecessary expense. The Government has an advertising and information budget to get its programs across to the people of Canada in addition to the advertising being
done by the various Departments, which amounts to $235 million, the largest advertising budget in Canada. This money is used to promote its image. That is another expenditure which is considered needless. Nevertheless, some people will say it is only $235 million. The $235 millions all add up, Mr. Speaker, to a substantial amount of money.
It is no wonder that Canadians doubt the Prime Minister and question his sincerity when he goes on television three nights in a row to say, in effect, "Let us forget the past; let us join hands, pull together and move forward". They say: "Where were you the last few years? You have destroyed your credibility. We do not believe you any more." That element so important in politics, that which is probably everything in politics, the element called trust, is not there any more. When you do not have that element of trust it is very difficult to govern, to be a Prime Minister, to be in Opposition, or to be a politician at whatever level.
As to the indecisiveness we are seeing at the present time, I think that can be demonstrated in no better way than by the grain transportation shutdown on the west coast. Everyone in this House agreed that when that took place there should be a certain time limit allowed to see whether the parties could get together. But it has become more than apparent to everyone involved that the whole process was a charade. There have not been any real and meaningful negotiations probably for the last nine months. Why? Because both sides have the safety net of the House of Commons to solve the problem for them and they are going to use it.
As to being decisive, why have we waited so long to solve their problem if in fact we have to? In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, we should have dealt with the Bill last Friday afternoon. That was the absolute latest we should have allowed this strike to carry on. The weekend could have been used to get the workers back to work and grain and other very vital exports moving through the Port of Vancouver. Of course, that has not happened. Today is Tuesday and we are going to deal with it, hopefully, on Wednesday. We have not seen the Bill yet, although it may be and probably is drafted and ready to be presented.
It is that kind of indecision which, once again, breeds distrust. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot go on television and ask for the trust of the Canadian people and at the same time be so indecisive and, as an Hon. Member said, break your word on bringing in legislation which affects a very large segment of this country. In fact, this situation is blocking the only major export we have at the present time, the only product where we can compete with anyone anywhere in the world, that of grain and oil seeds moving out of this country.
To conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, the economic recovery will come, but unfortunately I think it is going to be very weak. It is going to have only a very moderate impact on our current fiscal and financial problems and that is going to
November 2, 1982

be too bad. In my opinion, broadly speaking there has to be a meaningful effort by Government-and by that I mean all of us here-to regain the confidence of the Canadian people which we have lost over the last number of years. Until we can do that, we are really going to be just shooting in the dark in terms of any policies we put forth in this House. Because, ultimately, the people have to believe that yes, the politicians are being sincere and honest in what they are trying to do. Until that happens, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that anything the Prime Minister, his cabinet or Government does will be met with the same kind of skepticism that the Prime Minister's speech was met with the other night.
Trust has to be built up and quickly. There have to be some dramatic moves in order to do that, coupled with-and unfortunately this will not take place, in my opinion, for 12 to 18 months-a strong and agressive economic recovery around the world with Canada moving in step with that recovery. The unfortunate reality we are faced with right now is that we as a Government are going to muddle around for the next 12 to 18 months, until the middle of 1984, before things start to get on track. It is going to be tough on Canadians, tough on workers and on business. It will be very tough on politicians and our institutions at all levels. But, Mr. Speaker, if we all work together, possibly we can overcome some of this.
I can say one thing. I know people certainly in my part of the country are looking very longingly at starting to overcome some of these problems at the next federal election. There is no way that the Liberal Party will govern this country again through the middle part of the 1980s. The trust is gone and it will not come back that quickly.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) would entertain a question. He mentioned in his remarks something about getting the workers in the port of Vancouver back to work. I wonder if he would change that comment in view of the fact that it is a lock-out, not a strike, and also that the workers have been ready to go back to work. Indeed, I am not sure the public realizes, in particular that part of the public from his part of Canada, that the employers themselves have not made arrangements to have the grain shipments continue, which the union was willing to do.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I will make the required change. It is a lock-out. The unfortunate problem is that when we do have a lock-out, as we have at the present time in Vancouver, we have a tendency to view it as if the workers were going out on strike and management is, in effect, sitting back with clean hands. Of course, that is not the case.
I will not argue the question of who is to blame in this particular instance because I think that is pointless. However, I would say that as long as Parliament acts as a safety net for both parties to this dispute to fall back into, we are not going to have any kind of meaningful bargaining in the future. So I think we have to come to some kind of decision about whether or not we are going to make some of these areas possibly essential services and do what we have to do to ensure that the
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
stoppage does not continue. In my opinion there has to be a decision made somewhere, Mr. Speaker, otherwise we will find Parliament continuing to be the arbitrator for these disputes. If we could afford the luxury it would be great to leave the whole thing alone until the parties settle their own problems; but Canada cannot afford that luxury. I do not know whether we will get to that at this point in time. I doubt it, because we never do.
Certainly it would not be a bad idea for some body, if not a parliamentary group then some other group in the country, to take a hard look at whether the movement of commodities going through a port like Vancouver-commodities that literally cannot be held up regardless of whether that be by Government, management or labour-should be designated as an essential service to this country that ought not to be interfered with, and whether binding arbitration, back-to-work legislation or some other action is necessary.
[ Translation]


Mr. Remi Bujold (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to participate in the debate today, particularly in view of the present economic situation in Canada. Since last Wednesday we have heard many comments, much criticism and many suggestions, both in this House and throughout the country, but all in all, the general impression we have received was one of favourable reaction to last week's financial statement by the Minister of Finance. I think all Canadians have understood, and one would wish that was also the case in the House, that the present recession affecting Canada and many other countries-in fact, I could even say most countries cannot be blamed entirely on this government's administration. We all know that the economic problems besetting France, the United States, Great Britain, West Germany and even Japan are also affecting our country. The fact that the American steel industry had to cut production by 40 per cent last year, which was now led to the closing down of the town of Scheffer-ville, as announced today, cannot be blamed solely on the Canadian government. Our steel producers had to go along with what was happening in the United States. However, realizing that the situation was becoming extremely difficult for these people, the government had already taken action well before this shutdown by designating the region, and today, once more, the Minister of Employment and Immigration has taken decisive action and delegated as of this afternoon a number of officials to this particular area in Quebec, to meet with company management and with company employees and see what should be done to deal as quickly as possible with the problems facing these employees in Northwestern Quebec.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, the economy is expected to improve in the months to come, and in any case some time next year. Last week, the Conference Board of Canada announced that our gross national product is on the rise, that

November 2, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
inflation is expected to go down and has already started to do so and that interest rates are dropping. So of course, all this will have its effect on the country. Granted, the situation is not a pleasant one, and of course we would prefer inflation and interest rates to go down more rapidly, but still, the government had already anticipated the situation and injected $1.4 billion in direct job creation. These projects, including community development programs, are already in place and in January and February, 60,000 jobs will be created in Canada under these programs.
You know, I was listening in the House, yesterday and again today, during question period and during the debate when a number of members were explaining that people in various parts of the country had specific problems. Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind you that $ 1.4 billion was injected into the Canadian economy to provide jobs for a large number of workers, part of those funds going to two provinces that have been more severely affected than others, namely Ontario and British Columbia. Last year, for instance, Ontario received $16 million for these job creation programs. However, because of the difficult economic situation, this year funding was increased to $29.5 million, or twice the amount invested last year. And in British Columbia, where last year only $6 million were injected into these programs, this year the department and the Government of Canada are providing $15,5 million to fund these programs. Thus, the government had anticipated the situation and set aside substantial amounts for these provinces, especially in areas where a high unemployment rate was expected as a result of factory shutdowns and where many people would need help. Mr. Speaker, Quebec has also had its share of job creation programs, because we are aware that this province has one of the highest unemployment rates in Canada. Last year, we put $48 million into job creation programs and this year that amount was raised to $72.5 million.
In addition, the Department of Employment and Immigration set aside $41 million for very urgent cases, because we anticipated that some regions, without necessarily knowing which ones, would be faced with very pressing problems. That is why the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) asked his officials in June and July of this year to find out where the number of shutdowns would be highest and where people would be most likely to exhaust their unemployment insurance benefits. The report was published a month ago, and we have started allocating the $41 million fund throughout Canada so that workers who, in another four to five weeks, may be faced with the choice of going on welfare or looking for another job will be able to take advantage of these measures. The department is in the final stages of allocating the funds on the basis of the information it has been given. In the Province of Quebec alone, the department has allocated $9.4 million of the $41 million fund to meet specific needs in certain regions.
In October, I was in Quebec City with some of my colleagues when the present Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres) announced that $1.3 million would be going to that city alone to meet its needs, in addition to the $2.8 million which the same region had received in July. The same applies to the Eastern Townships, which this past summer probably experienced more shutdowns than anywhere else in Quebec, had the largest increase in people drawing unemployment insurance benefits and the largest number of people who in the months to come would exhaust their unemployment benefits. Last week, I was pleased to announce that $2.3 million will be allocated to these ridings in addition to funds already announced in connection with training programs. Mr. Speaker, I think we can say that these funds were available because the government was aware of the situation and had taken steps to provide for the difficult months ahead.
Once more, we have to live within this world economic environment, even if we are not entirely responsible for the economic problems now facing the world, including Canada. Canadians must realize that major changes are going on in the job world. Workers in certain industries will have to look to other career choices as a result of the technological changes occurring in this country today. To respond to these major developments, in July of last year the government passed the National Training Act. This legislation will help many workers to switch occupations and acquire the skills they need to cope with the major changes we are facing today.
Later on I hope to elaborate on this training program, Mr. Speaker. In any case, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) also announced other measures aimed at meeting specific needs. I am thinking here of the funds injected into the construction industry, where many jobs will be available during this period, and also of the funds made available to Canadian National and to a western railway company. All this, however, is an immediate response to present needs. Departmental and government projections also anticipated that this winter would be a very difficult one, and that we would have to be able to respond quickly to the needs that will become apparent during this period. I feel that the $500 million announced for job creation is a very concrete response by the government to these needs.
The fact remains, Mr. Speaker, that the federal government alone cannot solve all the world's problems or Canada's. As part of the consultations he has been conducting, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) is in New Brunswick this afternoon to meet with his provincial counterpart. Yesterday he was in Halifax. Last week, the minister went out West, to Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and also to Quebec City, to discuss with the provincial governments how the provinces and municipal governments could join the federal government in an effort to expand funding for job creation.
November 2, 1982

We also appealed to the private sector, because it would be asking the impossible to expect a simple level of government to cope with what is expected to be a difficult period. In carrying out these consultations, we hope that all concerned will pull together and work towards the same goals. If we manage to inject another $500 million or more in job creation, people everywhere at the local level will benefit from this funding and be able to obtain the financial resources they need to get through the difficult winter months. Mr. Speaker, these consultations are absolutely necessary, and our colleagues opposite would do well to co-operate with this government and make constructive suggestions to help us focus all job creation programs on the same goal, which is to provide jobs for as many Canadians as possible. When people need jobs, we must set aside all political partisanship.
Mr. Speaker, I have been discussing the need for jobs, and I know what I am talking about. In my area, the unemployment rate goes up to 60 per cent during the winter. People come to my office looking for jobs, and job creation programs are going to help us to provide many families with the financial resources they need to get through this period. Our consultations are therefore absolutely necessary. It is very reassuring to see that the Government of Quebec has changed its approach in this respect and seems to be willing to set aside the political bias which has governed its actions since it came to power, and to respond to the needs of Quebeckers. Last week's meeting in Quebec City was extremely productive, and last Friday, officials at both government levels were looking at job creation programs and at the possibility of reaching an agreement or providing ways of finding jobs for the people who need them.
It is obvious that the municipalities will play an enormous part in this debate. Moreover, we have asked the co-operation of the various agencies, and once again, it is to be hoped that the Quebec Government will allow them, in consultation with the Provincial and Federal Governments, to see if it is possible to find some way to create jobs. Of course, the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in his talks on television last week appealed to all Canadians because we need their understanding and co-operation.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, some people tell us that the economic problems of Canada are the responsibility of this government. I gave a few examples of this a while ago. It is obviously impossible to attempt to solve all the economic problems in the world by finding solutions to our economic problems in Canada. We want now to deal with a major problem, namely job creation. The Federal Government has made a clear and determined commitment in this regard, as have most Provincial Governments, and the purpose of the consultations now going on and started last week is precisely to obtain the co-operation of as many people as possible, of all levels of Government and the private sector so that everyone in Canada will show the same commitment and create jobs for Canadians this winter.
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
Mr. Speaker, these consultations did not come about only last week. I believe that there have been other examples. This past year, most Provinces have signed agreements with the Federal Government in many areas. There is for instance work sharing, through which we were able to save tens of thousands of jobs throughout the country. Once more, the workers themselves showed the Canadian people that they were willing to share when faced with hardships. In various plants and industries, all kinds of people have accepted to work shorter hours and shorter days to enable their colleagues, their fellow workers, to keep their jobs. We have benefited from this experience because we have reinforced these various programs within our Department and tried to use them to meet present needs, and we shall certainly continue to do so.
In Quebec for instance, as of October 26, the Work Sharing Program had benefited 1,179 companies and 47,480 employees and avoided the lay-off of 21,900 Quebec workers. This is a clear example of co-operation, and I believe it is concrete evidence that people are able to understand and help each other when facing hardships. Mr. Speaker, I believe that we can multiply these examples of co-operation and consultation throughout the country. Last week, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) gave another example of consultation by appointing economists to a special group with whom he will consult so as to make decisions which are realistic and which will enable us to meet our present needs. Mr. Speaker, I would like to note at this time another important aspect of the present situation as well as the extremely important role played by many workers throughout the country.
Naturally, in my capacity as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration, I have visited a great many employment centres throughout Canada in the past twelve months and I have met thousands of workers. We often hear members say in the House that they have people coming to their office to tell them about their employment problems and other difficulties. Mr. Speaker, it must be understood that all the people who work in our employment centres in Canada are on the job five days a week, and quite often on Saturdays and Sundays as well, because they are asked to work overtime to handle the large number of applications filed with our centres in the past year. Mr. Speaker, those people are on the front line, yet when we call on the various centres across Canada we never hear them complain and say to us that they simply cannot do everything we ask them to do. Mr. Speaker, they perform their work like professionals, rapidly and with outstanding efficiency.
I have met them, Mr. Speaker, and I have told many of them that they deserve our admiration for performing their duties right where the action is every day. That explains why this government agreed last summer to hire 1,200 additional employees to help the centres cope with the flood of applications. Needless to say, those employees have ready access to

November 2, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
the information facilities of the Department so that they can keep applicants well informed, and they are doing their best. Of course, Mr. Speaker, there is the odd delay here and there, but our employees are not necessarily responsible for that and more often than not the computers cannot keep up with the applications. There may have been human errors now and then, but it must be said that most of those people are doing an outstanding job.
Another thing worth mentioning, Mr. Speaker, is that our current unemployment insurance program is actually an economic cushion, something which we did not have in Canada during the notorious depression of the thirties, for instance. Last week, in this House, we heard the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) state that he had considerably increased unemployment insurance premiums, justifiably because our unemployment insurance scheme managed by employers and employees should be self-financed. The Government of Canada had to decide whether premiums would be substantially increased or whether it would make up the deficit, but since this is a self-financed scheme, as 1 said, the Government has chosen a middle-of-the-road course and granted an increase which will allow the unemployment insurance fund to continue to provide employment through the various above-mentioned programs so that employers and employees will not be seized by the throat and unable to pay.
Once again, the Government has taken the right direction. It has increased the premiums while making sure that employees and employers will be in a position to pay their share, and taking the necessary steps to allow the UI fund to continue to pay benefits because we should not forget, Mr. Speaker, that unemployment insurance is an insurance, that those who pay contributions are entitled to draw benefits and that as many Canadians as possible should benefit from it. Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, this fund has also enabled us as in the case of the work sharing program mentioned earlier to set up other programs which have been implemented during the past year. There are programs, for instance, established under Section 38 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, where unemployed workers can draw additional unemployment insurance benefits while doing work for the benefit of the community.
Under agreements covering the forestry industry which have been signed in British Columbia, Ontario, the Maritimes and Quebec, many forestry workers have been able to remain physically active and continue to work in the same sector. These agreements will also enable them to return quickly to the labour market as soon as the economy recovers. The federal government has approved $220 million for this program for the year 1982-1983. Mr. Speaker, in my area, in Eastern Quebec where forestry and fisheries are the main industries, we have signed similar agreements with thirteen non-profit enterprises, and at the same time we were also able to deal with a major problem, namely the spruce budworm epidemic. Thus we shall be able to safeguard our forests,
enable workers to go on working in their own field and help their families to get through the winter.
These programs have all been very well received by the workers. These are some of the possibilities we shall be looking into under our new job creation program. We shall be considering ways of improving or adapting the programs to make them more responsive to the real situation. These are some of the things we shall try to do in the weeks to come.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could say a few more words about our occupational training program to which I was referring earlier in my speech. This program is of course extremely important, as we are going to invest $1 billion in it this year alone. As I said before, we are going to help many workers in Canada acquire additional skills and help them retrain for jobs available in highly specialized occupations where, unfortunately, there is a shortage of manpower at the present time.
Mr. Speaker, this program offers tremendous potential, since we have established across the country a system for projecting occupations in Canada. We are also going to designate occupations of national importance across the country. The co-operation I referred to earlier already exists within the framework of this legislation. And as for co-operation by all parties in the House, we have tangible proof that such co-operation is possible, because we received it when this legislation was passed. All parties in the House accepted the legislation; all Canadian provinces accepted it, and just last week, the Minister of Employment and Immigration signed an agreement with the Government of Quebec, under which during the next three years, $735 million will be invested in training people in Quebec, a province that is experiencing unprecedented highs in unemployment and where technological changes have been particularly marked. We shall therefore be in a position to train large numbers of people, and especially youth, so as to be able to meet the needs of the future, to respond to technological change and to help these people become integrated in the labour market, something which is very important, especially for young people across Canada.
However, I think, Mr. Speaker, that in addition to this skill projection system and to the skill designation program which we will undertake in co-operation with the provinces, we should add a third element to that training. Now, the Skills Growth Fund is a special $108 million fund covering a two-year period which will allow us to modernize facilities to be used for occupational training. In many cases, Mr Speaker, the courses we give are unfortunately 20 years or over behind the times and do not lead to a sure or permanent job. However that Skills Growth Fund will allow us in all parts of the country, and once again in co-operation with all provincial governments, to meet immediate and future needs.
November 2, 1982

It is obvious that this is an important change in the Occupational Training Act. Once more allow me, Mr. Speaker, to refer to my own province of Quebec where we have seen during the past year strong opposition to this so-called federal intrusion in a provincial jurisdiction. Again, our government did not see fit to refute such charges. We officials from both levels of government were allowed to negotiate and conclude an agreement. We realize after a year of negotiations what the provincial government was saying a year earlier. They signed the agreement in order to get the funds that were available to them and that were required to meet the needs of the very large Quebec labour force. This is perhaps the reason why, Mr. Speaker, I said earlier, that a new era of co-operation seems to be forthcoming in Quebec. And this is perhaps why the Quebec Minister of Manpower and Security has stated that he had just signed a treaty with the federal government. We do hope that the provincial government has indeed signed a treaty. We also hope that they will give up their political option which is out of place under the present economic circumstances and that they will truly co-operate with the federal government in trying to meet immediate needs. This can be seen in this training act and I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that in the negotiations now underway with this province in order to reach agreements about job creation, their representatives will show the same spirit of co-operation and will work in the best interests of those who elected them to the Quebec National Assembly. And, together with the federal government, they will finally succeed in creating jobs so terribly needed in the winter months. That just shows, Mr. Speaker, that the federal government has really taken the matter in hands, and that it is willing to negotiate with all available partners in an effort to find solutions.
If I may be allowed, Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention another measure announced yesterday by the federal government, to protect our Canadian workers and to make sure that most available jobs in this country will go to them. The minister announced yesterday that he was setting new immigration quotas throughout the country. Of course, these new levels do not mean that Canada will be closing its door to the world. We shall continue to accept immigrants for humanitarian reasons and adhere to the family reunion concept, both at the basis of our immigration policy. That being said, Mr. Speaker, we must nevertheless face up to the situation and realize that a large number of unemployed Canadians might otherwise have a job. That is the reason why we have lowered our immigration levels and tightened regulations concerning application for work permits in Canada. That is also why we are urging all Canadian employers who want to hire people to check first whether, somewhere in Canada, there are workers available for jobs open to all Canadians. Once again, Mr. Speaker, that is a concrete example of what our government does in the present situation to find work for as many Canadians as possible. We intend to keep this up and to maintain an open line to reach all groups, all individuals and all others who
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
may have constructive suggestions for finding as many jobs as possible.
If we urge all provincial and municipal governments as well as all Canadian employers to support our endeavor to find jobs, I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that at the end of this year we will realize that the funds we have set aside last week have enabled us to create 120,000 or 150,000 jobs instead of the
60,000	we had expected in the first place. We must join forces and put aside all political considerations. Now that the Quebec government has indicated-indicated, I repeat-that it is prepared to go along, it would be difficult not to expect all parties in the House and all other governments in Canada to jump on the bandwagon.
I am convinced that the initiative we took in that area last week is worthy of consideration by each and every Canadian. I am convinced as well that, once the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) has completed his consultation process, the Canadian government will be in a position to announce a series of programs designed to contend with the current situation and to help those people who will be facing hardships this winter, thus making it a lot easier for a great many Canadians.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that this week we are hearing a lot about cooperation, goodwill and moderation, but earlier this year, a month or so ago, it was all confrontation and the law-nothing remotely identifiable with what the hon. member for Bonaven-ture-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bujold) is talking about today. So much so indeed that he would never have made that speech last year, not in that spirit, and yet the conditions then were the same. Only the blind and the incompetent could not foresee the economic conditions which were facing Canada a year ago at the time of the famous budget of the former finance minister. He was telling us that the deficit would amount to about $10 billion, that the gross national product would decline slightly, and that inflation was just about under control or, if not completely so, that its rate of increase was dropping. It was the budget of an incompetent man or of sheer dishonesty. Never before have Canadians been taken for such a ride. And the scenario was practically the same in June, except that the $10 billion deficit was revised upward to something like $19 billion. What were the economists and the Department of Finance doing? Were they not aware of the plight of our best industries in Western Canada, especially the oil industry which was being torpedoed and ransacked by this government under the National Energy Policy, and then overtaxed, as though the only milk cow in the country were the oil industry? I should like you, hon. members from Quebec and Ontario who supported your party's platform during the 1980 election campaign, and who had been outraged by our proposed 18 cents tax on a gallon of gas-only four and a half cents a litre which would barely pay for a cupful of gas now- to consider the cost of a litre of gas today and the way it is

November 2, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
shared. That is what we got, thanks to the great liberal policy! It is because of this great policy that according to Estimates No. 3, we are faced not with a $19 billion, but with a $23.5 billion deficit, for the past 12 months. Mr. Speaker, are there nincompoops around here?


Mrs. Hervieux-Payette:: There are none on this side!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The dear lady, I know, has always the right answer, but as far as the Canadian economy is concerned, she would not know how to get out of a turnstile. No, Mr. Speaker. I clearly recall the time the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) went on TV some 14 years ago to talk to the Canadian people. What about? About ways to freeze inflation around the 6 or 7 per cent level.
"We have wrestled inflation to the ground", we heard in 1969 after the efforts announced in the late summer of 1968, as I recall. The Government have been wrestling with themselves, not with inflation. We have seen inflation go up and up as time went on. Thanks to the efforts of other Ministers and the spirit of the speech of the Hon. Member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bujold) which I have just heard, the purpose of the Government is to take more and more funds and spread them further and further as though the Government were hooked onto or piped into an ever growing money tree. The Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) is a classic example, advocating programs which take money from here to spend there. Spend, spend is all the Hon. lady wants to do, not knowing, of course, that a dollar does not come out of the end of a fountain pen. That dollar must be produced by industry, but not industry which is overladen with taxes.
Hon. Members talk of the last budget exercise. Does Your Honour know that there is a hefty tax increase included in it? Of course, Hon. Members on the Government side will not tell their supporters that reducing the cap on the inflation factor in determining taxable income means a hefty tax increase. The Government will then come along and cap the indexing of inflation faced by old age pensioners and other pensioners such as public servants. They will face double taxation.
As a result of the budgetary statement of June 28, the elderly people of Canada will be hit by a double tax whammy. First of all, inflation will artificially boost their incomes so that many will be in a higher tax bracket. I do not care whether this bracket is in the lower level, the middle level or possibly in the higher level; there will be a tax increase. Then their old age pensions will be reduced or confined by the six and five formula even though we are experiencing 11 per cent inflation at the present time. Wait until Hon. Members from across the way start explaining that fact to their old age citizens! Then we will see whether their speeches are quite as laudatory of the Government's financial policies.
During the summer recess I spent five or six weeks hearing representations from industries, individuals and professional
associations on the budgetary proposals of November 12, 1981. Some of the tax provisions were thrown out of the window by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). Others were modified. However, there will be an increase in taxes on corporations and individuals this year amounting to $1.6 billion. Next year that will rise to $2.2 billion. Those are the tax changes which were proposed by the last Finance Minister. That is a residual effect of his stay in office.
In the statement last Wednesday we heard that another $1.1 billion will be taken out of the pockets of employees and employers through an additional levy for the unemployment insurance fund. Unemployment insurance, Mr. Speaker, has to be the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the Canadian public. There is no longer an insurance program. There is a giant welfare and transfer of revenues fund. To the extent that there is a deficit, the taxpayers of Canada must pay. Where does most of the income tax come from? Distribute that to the areas of greatest unemployment. The fund itself has been deformed from an insurance program. One should simply read the speeches of the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) when he was Minister of Labour back in 1971, before the majority of Hon. Members opposite had even heard of the House of Commons or been elected. That former Minister, who is now a Government front bencher, merely stated that making the program universal would lay the cornerstone of a guaranteed annual income scheme for Canadians.
This was the first level, unemployment insurance. We have seen over the years how bits have been added. Actuarially, it does not make sense. There have been deficits chargeable by law to the Government of Canada because the deficit exceeds a certain figure. I had to laugh the other day when the Minister of Finance said, my goodness, isn't the Government of Canada generous to the people of Canada, the unemployed, because it is providing 60 per cent of the additional benefits that are going to be paid out of the unemployment insurance fund; all the increases shall not come out of the pockets of contributing employees and their employers. But the law says the Government of Canada must do precisely that. It has to meet the deficit and should be meeting the entire deficit. Part of it is fobbed off on employees and employers. For the rest of it we, the taxpayers of Canada, lose a little more hide and give a little more blood to the financial bloodsucker which this administration has become.
As for the Canadian economy, Mr. Speaker, I don't know how many times it has been repeated that it is now a world recession that is responsible for the problems in Canada. That is public deception. Of course, many of our markets have declined because there have been declines in other economies, but not that much. The United States, faced with the problem of inflation, has dealt with it through interest rates in order to protect the U.S. dollar. The U.S. dollar, however, under the Bretton Woods Agreement Act, is the reserve standard for the
November 2, 1982

International Monetary Fund. Therefore, what are strictly domestic requirements in the United States involving the protection of the U.S. dollar immediately become prime factors affecting world-wide economies. We have seen this all over the world, in Britain and here in Canada although whether it should have been quite so severe in Canada is open to question. I am not going to make myself an instant expert and say the Bank of Canada were right or wrong, but it is possibly a bit of both. That is a matter of judgment.
Let us look at France-and the NDP should look at France. That famous experiment in socialist thinking and socialist spending out of economic stagnation has been the biggest bust since the last Halloween balloon. There is no magical formula. But there are so many ways of damning your economy. Here in Canada the National Energy Program has affected not only the entire west, but the auto and machine industry of Ontario. An ongoing western petroleum industry requires between
30,000	and 40,000 automobiles or trucks per year, most of them coming out of Ontario. The volume of that is now reduced to 25 per cent, maybe even less.
Steel pipe? The whole bit and business has been knocked on the head by these incompetents across the way, and one might also say it was maliciously inspired, because they envied the success of the three western Provinces having petroleum and natural gas. They could not stand it. Unfortunately, the people of Ontario got hit by some degree of jealousy as well. That is not the way to build this country, by knocking down another part of it. But that is what was done.
All those famous projects in the Province of Quebec which were greeted with open arms are not going ahead. The pipelines are not going to be built. They are going to close refineries. That is what is happening. It was blind fools that went tinkering. Then what did they do? They shuffled the Minister, and lo and behold, no longer was the administration responsible. The mandarins who put together the pieces of paper, creating the schemes, which in theory should have worked, disappeared to their just rewards. So we are left with a legacy of thousands upon thousands of unemployed, including formerly highly paid people, productive people, and political unrest. One section of the country is bitterly alienated towards the rest for that reason. The Government Members strain their shoulders patting themselves on the back for the success of their policies. We will be paying $2.50 for a gallon of gasoline over a two year period. That is success?
We have then the famous organization known as FIR A, the "Herb Gray spooks". I know that other countries have screening agencies, but it takes a hearty soul armed with millions and millions of dollars to fight off the attacks on Canadians wanting to invest in the United States. The pot is not entirely black, but at least it is not formalized. In FIRA as presently constituted, it is not the Agency itself that is responsible. Every decision that has been put through the Agency is only a recommendation to a Cabinet committee presided over by the former Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who dillydallied and imposed his own prejudices and views on each application. When you inquired as to an application which had been filed nine months before to cover a sale that had been
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
agreed to and made economic sense, the Minister would not tell you anything. He would not even tell the company that was going to be bought because it was not a participant to the application. His interpretations were nothing but stupid bureaucracy. I have never seen such incompetence in my life.
That is what is chasing foreign investment. It is that image of months and months of dilly-dallying, the automatic, unofficial views that were expressed, such as: "You should change it this way; perhaps if you change it that way, we suggest you reapply but under modified terms". This sort of thing went on and on. That is why we find our friends and trading partners objecting to what is happening to foreign investment of that nature coming into Canada.
Certainly we can take a look, but do not tell us it is going to take a year. Some Provinces putting together a project of development take two years to clear all the agencies, come what may, merely to fit the ego of a lot of bureaucrats and over-swollen Government ranks. If we want to reduce public expenditure, each level of Government, including the Government of Canada, the provincial Governments and the municipal Governments should set a target of first reducing personnel by 10 per cent. I do not mean the lower paid clerks; there are far more semi-employed directors and directors-general in the Public Service of Canada. That is a ridiculous cost.
Right here in our own shop we have fatuous legislation on the books which at the present time is causing the redistribution commissions to increase the number of Members of this House by, I think, 28. We do not have a place to seat them. When one looks at what it costs per Member for staff and other facilities, one sees how silly we can be. We can stand a 10 per cent reduction of Members in this place.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Volunteers?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You come with me and I will go. Money is wasted at all Government levels through overblown personnel. In the Government of Canada, four people cannot work without there being a supervisor, who may then have a secretary. I have heard from our own Members of this House that because they have a staff of three in their office, they feel compelled to suggest to the Management and Members' Services Committee that there should be an administrative assistant to oversee the work of the other three. That sort of stuff just breeds. It is like mould, it grows visually.
Honestly, Mr. Speaker, I have had the proposition put to me by Hon. Members that we should increase our staff by a fourth person, to be designated as an office manager or administrative assistant to make things run. The wiring in this building will have to be brought up to date. A lot of work has been done. Imagine lodging another 28 Members. I suppose they will be lodged in the gallery. Will another building be bought for $30 million in order to house them and the people who will be with them? This is how Topsy grew. Talk about
20318

November 2, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
controlling expenditures. We could show an example without diminishing the quality of service that can be given. We can certainly improve on the time for debate and the time for Members to participate in debate, but not administration.
It is a good thing that Bill C-128 has a sunset clause and that any moneys unexpended on March 31 next will die. However, there is a joker in this deck. Between the $23.6 billion and the $19 billion borrowing authority achieved by this limited Bill, there will have to be another borrowing authority Bill before March 31. That one will preserve the unexpended portion for the following year. It is always there. It is part of the atmosphere of sleight-of-hand, covering up and putting things off.
The people of Canada do not realize just how bad are the finances of the Government of Canada. Most of that is the responsibility of this administration which did not care a tinker's dam. It spent and spent and spent. A lot of it has been built up in the past ten years. The $10 of expenditure that was authorized ten years ago is now over $20 due to inflation and to Ministers bringing in programs, getting them accepted and then saying; "Where is the money? I must have the money." Instead of saying that only so much money was available for a particular program, the reverse was always the case. The net result is that the Government of Canada goes careening from ditch to ditch with wide open throttle, not knowing how much gasoline is in the tank. It does not know whether it has control of the car and hopes to blazes it will not run into somebody going the other way, because it sure does not know who is on the road.


Mr. Robert Bockstael (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the supplementary borrowing authority Bill, Bill C-128, which complements and restores Bill C-125 of July 22 last to the original borrowing amount requested at that time. A world-wide recesion has lowered the demands of other countries for Canadian products such as those drawn from our forests, mines and other industries. International oil prices, which were forecast to climb astronomically, underwent a downturn, which adversely affected our own exploration activities. Uncontrollable circumstances like these, coupled with many other similar factors, caused a weakness in our economy and a short-fall in our estimated revenues.
Simply put, the Government of Canada requires this borrowing authority to give it the financial ability to maintain all the programs that the Canadian people expect to retain as part of their own economic outlook and standard of living. I am pleased that Opposition Members have agreed to limit this debate to three days. Lengthy debate on this Bill would have been damaging to those thousand of Canadians most directly affected by the recession. To those thousands of Canadians, the economic statement recently presented by the Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) has given much to hope for
in the coming months. It was a clear indication of the Government's concern for them and the situation they find themselves in as a result of the recession.
In the past few months we have been constantly pressed by the Opposition to bring in programs to help the unemployed and all of those unable to cope with the recession. Although short on solutions, they have demanded action to assist those out of work. They oppose six and five. They generally clamour for an increase in unemployment insurance benefits. They suggest expenditures be increased and taxes reduced. Some might even suggest that the Government should not be obsessed and mesmerized by the huge deficit. They say, spend more, stimulate the economy, and the next day they contradict themselves by deploring the size of the deficit, the rate of inflation, and demand the Government cut back on expenditures.
The present recession has put a tremendous strain on all governments of the western world. Accustomed to prosperity and growth, these countries must now enforce rigid economic policies in an attempt to move out of the recession.

Mr. Speaker, the level of support demanded from the Federal Government during a recession is considerable. No one can escape the present economic situation. Some will be even more at risk because of their particular situation. The Government will have to meet the requirements of those who are most affected by the recession. Canada has one of the best social systems in the world, whether it be our Unemployment Insurance Plan, our social welfare programs or our income security measures. This system was designed to protect Canadians during a recession as well as in more prosperous times. Our Government, and the Liberal Party in fact, has always given the priority in its ideology to our social institutions. The recent statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) reassured Canadians that the Government will protect them throughout the recession. The Unemployment Insurance Plan will remain intact. Moreover, the Government will respond to the appeals of thousands of Canadians now deprived of job opportunities. Maintaining a comprehensive Unemployment Insurance Plan and very generous social programs is a very difficult task, especially when the Government is committed to apply strict fiscal policies. When the Government itself must tighten its belt and keep the deficit at a reasonable level, how is it possible to maintain our Unemployment Insurance Plan and social programs? How can we create jobs for the victims of the recession and give support to the private sector without increasing the deficit even more? That is the dilemma now facing all Western countries. Some of them have chosen to cut their spending for social security programs. Canada has chosen differently. We have been able to find a solution which will not jeopardize those who are hardest hit by the recession. We shall also limit our spending so as to reduce the potential inflationary impact of the deficit on the national economy. This will be done on the basis of an equitable formula without our having to weaken our social institutions. The bill now under consideration is an integral
November 2, 1982

part of the economic and social formula which will put us back on the road to prosperity.

I would like to review our economic policy with a view to the West, Mr. Speaker. The federal Government is committed to securing Canadians' economic future, and to do so involves addressing the challenges and pursuing the opportunities for economic development which present themselves in the various regions of this country. I intend to focus on the opportunities and constraints facing the western provinces and comment on the federal Government's response to these.
A year ago, in November, 1981, the federal Government issued a major policy document entitled "Economic Development for Canada in the 1980s". That document discussed the challenges and strategic opportunities for the national and regional economies, and went on to outline the Government's policies and priorities for national economic development. While it was clearly stated that there were distinct problems and development issues to be addressed in every region, it was also pointed out that unique opportunities for economic growth and development could be identified in every region.
Since that policy document was issued, and even prior to that, the Government has taken action to identify and overcome the constraints to economic development which prevail in the western provinces, and aggressively to pursue those opportunities which exist in the west for economic growth in this decade and beyond. Last Wednesday, in the statement on the economic outlook by the Hon. Minister of Finance, the federal Government reconfirmed its commitment to economic development and renewal across Canada.
Aside from issuing the earlier mentioned document on economic development, this Government introduced a number of measures which, while general in application, would have some impact on the economy of the western provinces. For example, the special farm financial assistance program was reintroduced in an expanded form. This program, which was designed for those farmers who would be unable to stay in business if they had to borrow at the going interest rate, provided subsidized Farm Credit Corporation loans to farmers in distress. A fund of $50 million was set aside for this program.
In the June 28 budget the Government announced a number of new housing measures designed to create new jobs in the construction industry, to improve access to home ownership, to assist those facing mortgage renewal difficulties and to ensure the availability of rental accommodation. An intensive program for the construction of new rental units was introduced to provide an interest free loan of $7,500 or more per rental unit for 30,000 units allocated to tight market areas across the country. I am pleased to add the Minister's announcement on Wednesday to the effect that the $3,000 home ownership stimulation grant will be extended to the end of April, 1983 for new houses. This announcement was certainly welcomed by the western construction industry.
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
In order to direct federal policies and programs to the strategic opportunities for Canadian economic development, the Government identified five priority areas, namely, industrial development, resource development, transportation capacity, export promotion, and human resources. Under each of these headings objectives were identified and examples of initiatives under way or proposed were given. In many instances the western Provinces figures prominently as major contributors to Canada's economic future or as recipients of federal aid.
In terms of developing industry, the Government is committed to developing policies and programs to ensure, among other things, that innovation becomes a major factor in enhancing the competitiveness and productivity of Canadian industry.
The Government has committed itself to a major increase in the level of research and development activity in Canada and has established research and development targets for the public and private sectors. At the end of 1981 the federal Government had met, and indeed exceeded, the R and D expenditure target it had set for itself. More recent federal initiatives in this area of activity include new funding for the establishment of micro-electronic centres in Vancouver, Edmonton and Winnipeg.
In terms of developing natural resources, the federal Government agreed to undertake new initiatives in key resource based sectors, and the western Provinces, with their vast wealth of resources, will figure prominently in any policies and programs implemented in these areas.
The federal Government undertook to continue consultation with the Provinces concerning measures to enhance the longer-term performance of the forest-based industries and to continue to play a strong role in encouraging research and development in the mining industry.
I want to digress from the economic strategy in the eighties for a moment to reflect on a side issue, Mr. Speaker. We hear people say, with a great deal of hindsight, that the Canadian Government underestimated the severity of the current recession and did not adopt timely measures to turn it around.
In the area of rail transportation, we must recognize the fact that our railway system was not overburdened this year. Record grain movements were established, partly because our other commodities did not compete as strongly with grain movements as in prior years for cars, for track time on rail lines, for engines and for railway crews, at the same time that grain was being transported to ports.
Canadians do not want to rely on hindsight when our economy takes a turn for the better. We must be prepared to seize our opportunities. For this reason, I am sure that all parties are in agreement and acknowledge that the leading opportunity for Canadian economic renewal lies in the development of Canada's rich bounty of natural resources. However, capturing the benefits of a resource-based expansion will place heavy demands on the transportation system. Unless major investments are made in the near future, the capacity

November 2, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
constraints in the western transportation system will be evident by the mid-eighties.
Under economic development in the eighties, transportation was identified as a development priority. On February 8, 1982 the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) announced the Government of Canada's policy on western rail transportation. The statement recognized that the western Canadian economy is rapidly growing and diversifying, and will continue to do so throughout the 1980s. The resource sector is the source of much of this western growth, and western resources have been and will continue to be moved predominantly by rail. Consequently, the Government decided that a major initiative was required if the economic expansion under way was to continue, and that a comprehensive approach should be implemented to ensure that the west had adequate rail capacity.
The Minister of Transport appointed Dr. Clay Gilson of the University of Manitoba as the federal representative on western grain transportation, to lead discussions with western farm organizations and the railways on how the Government's policy statement should be translated into specific measures. After months of consultations with representatives of nine major western farm organizations and the two national railways, Dr. Gilson submitted his report on consultations and recommendations regarding western grain transportation to the Minister of Transport.
In August, the Minister announced that the Government would establish special task forces to continue and conclude work on the recommendations contained in the Gilson Report on western grain transportation.
Mr. Pepin also tabled in Parliament a Government policy response stating that the Government had decided to accept in principle the main thrust of the Gilson Report now, subject to later decisions about the financial considerations and the reports of the task forces concerning the implementation aspects of a central co-ordinating agency for grain transportation, a new freight rate structure and new legislation for grain transportation.
In addressing the issue of assuring the nation that the west had adequate rail capacity, the Government stressed the major potential benefits of this initiative for western Canada and the country as a whole, including large-scale railway investments, improvements in the grain transportation system, increased resource development and economic diversification.
To help achieve these benefits, the Government committed itself to contributing some $3.2 billion over the four-year period of 1982-83 through 1985-86 for western transportation needs and to the introduction of new transportation legislation. Such a statutory framework would incorporate a commitment by the Government to pay the Crow benefit in perpetuity and to demand performance and service guarantees from the railways in return for adequate compensation for current grain transportation losses.
Railway investments amounting to some $11.8 billion, in 1982 dollars, are planned over the decade to 1991 and will generate substantial economic activity, not only in the west but
in virtually every region of the country. In addition to major construction activity and sourcing of materials in the western provinces, the railways' requirements for steel rail, locomotives, rolling stock and electronic equipment will provide a major stimulus over the period, to the manufacturing sector, in all of Canada.
This brings us to the very recent announcement made by the Minister of Finance. As the Minister pointed out, the Government is earmarking up to $400 million more to provide some additional flexibility toward the satisfactory Crow rate resolution and to provide for initiatives such as the extension of special capital cost allowances which, if satisfactory arrangements can be made with the Minister of Transport, would speed up expansion and modernization of western rail capacity. As the Minister noted, the Government is determined to meet the challenge of railway capacity with its comprehensive approach to expand the western rail transportation system and to modernize the freight rate regime for grain.
Early action will ensure that railways will be in a position to increase rail capacity, as required, to move the substantially higher volumes of export commodities projected from the middle of the decade onward. Expansion of western rail capacity is critical to Canada's economic development in the 1980s. It will pave the way for marketing of additional coal, potash and sulphur resources as well as increased exports of grain. The over-all plan will also stimulate western agricultural development and facilitate economic diversification. As a result of direct railway and Government expenditures, it is estimated that some 400,000 person-years of employment will ultimately be generated across the country.
In addition to the commitment to expand the western rail transportation system and modernize the freight rate regime for grain, the federal Government has undertaken other initiatives in the transportation field which will help us promote our exports. The Government has committed $27 million to develop the infrastructure for a new grain terminal at Prince Rupert and another $4 million for the road access to it. To improve Canada's capacity to ship coal, particularly to new Pacific Rim markets, the capacity of the Roberts Bank terminal at Vancouver will be quadrupled, and new harbour and rail facilities will be constructed at Prince Rupert in connection with northeast British Columbia coal deposits. Legislation was recently passed providing for greater autonomy at the local level for National Harbours Board ports.
Returning to the development priorities and specifically the need to develop human resources, the Government is taking measures to identify the manpower needs of various industrial sectors and to direct strategies to match skills with these needs. Particular attention is being given to disadvantaged Canadians and, as was mentioned earlier, $345 million has been allocated in the period 1985-86 to support new economic development initiatives directed toward increased job opportunities for native peoples.
November 2, 1982

The federal Government's contribution to the economic development of western provinces arises not only from new programs and initiatives but also from existing and ongoing programs. For example, DREE expenditures during 1980-81 in the western region, including Yukon and the Northwest Territories, exceeded $200 million. Of this sum, approximately $72.6 million was for subsidiary agreements, $20.5 million for industrial incentives, $82.3 million for Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration Programs, and the remainder for activities such as special ARDA agreements under the Agricultural and Rural Development Act. Special ARDA agreements involve special programs to ensure that rural residents, particularly those of native descent, are able to benefit from rural development programs in terms of increased employment and income and better living conditions. Such agreements exist with Manitoba, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, the Northwest Territories and Yukon. They are administered in each area by a committee comprised of representatives of the provincial or territorial Government, the federal Government and native residents of the communities involved.
They also support the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration Program which was started years ago in drought areas to ensure that municipalities and other areas would have sufficient water supply. This Program is active, and there are agreements with the Province of Manitoba and other Provinces to make sure that they have adequate water facilities to supply the needs of their citizens.
Earlier this year the federal Government implemented a major policy and administrative reorganization, the main thrust of which was to provide a government-wide focus on regional development. A Cabinet Committee on Economic and Regional Development was established, as well as a new Ministry of State for Economic and Regional Development, the new Department of Regional Industrial Expansion and the regional fund to be used for special regional economic development initiatives. Federal economic development co-ordinators, the most senior economic development officials in each of the regions, have been named for all the Provinces, and work is under way to devise over-all economic strategies for each of the Provinces. Clearly, while the actors involved in regional development may change somewhat and certain aid delivery vehicles may be identified by a different name, the federal Government has reaffirmed, if not expanded upon, its commitment to balanced regional development.
As a final point it is worth noting that the Canadian Grain Commission recently reduced their proposed increases in maximum tariffs of 8 per cent to 10 per cent or higher, as well as the fees charged for services to the grain industry, to conform with the 6 per cent restraint policy for this year. Harnessing the resources of the Canadian economy is a national enterprise which includes but extends beyond the interests of particular regions or sectors. The Government of Canada must and has assumed a leadership role in the field of economic development, as evidenced by the recent transportation initiatives in the west and other activities across the
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
country. However, it has done so bearing in mind and being sensitive to the local context in which each Canadian works, lives and invests. This borrowing authority Bill is an integral part of the economic proposals that will set us off on the road to recovery. I urge all Members of the House to support Bill C-128.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Andre:: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening, at which time the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) will be recognized.
At 5.58 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: When the House rose at six o'clock, the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) had been recognized.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I want to take just a few moments this evening to contribute to this semi budget debate we are having. The point has been made that the economic statement delivered by the new Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) last Wednesday was much closer to a budget than many of the budgets we have had. Although I am not sure that is completely accurate. In a lot of ways it resembled an "unbudget" because most of the important statements in the document were undoing the provisions of the November 12, 1981 budget, which slowly and surely over the course of a year has been totally undone.
The Bill we are discussing is the borrowing authority Bill to give the Governor in Council the authority to borrow another $4 billion. That is an astronomical amount of money, except in comparison to this year's deficit, which is $23.6 billion. What an unbelievable state of affairs. We are asking future taxpayers to pay for one-third of our expenditures today, piling on top of existing debt another $23.6 billion in a deficit this year on a public accounts basis. I said a public accounts basis because on a national accounts basis, that is on a more accurate basis, the deficit is a lot higher than $23.6 billion. The picture is in fact a whole lot worse than the incredibly bad picture which the Minister of Finance gave us last Wednesday. This $23.6 billion is not the total deficit because the Government engages in book cooking, the kind of book cooking that would get a private company or an individual engaged in the same kind of exercise in trouble.
Is that a statement made by a partisan Member of the Opposition using hyperbole, Mr. Speaker? I would refer Hon. Members of the House to the Auditor General's Report. The public accounts were tabled last Friday. Carried in the public

November 2, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
accounts of Canada, the accounts of the Government of Canada, is $16 billion in non-existing assets. In other words, there is $16 billion of spending on assets which the Auditor General says do not exist. If a company did that, it would be delisted from the stock exchange. The executives and directors of such a company would be in great trouble with regulatory authorities. Lawsuits may be launched. There could be all manner of retribution levied against an organization that would have the audacity, the gall or the fraudulent intent to put forward accounts so obviously in error. Yet here we have the Government of Canada, our government, putting out a set of books which the Auditor General says are in error by $ 16 billion. The Government gets away with this because the amount of money is so colossal that no one can get his mind around it. It is almost beyond comprehension. It is as Adolf Hitler knew so well, that if the distortion is big enough, it just escapes people. There is no way they can handle it. That is what we have from this Government.
Not included in the horrendous deficit figure is Crown Corporation borrowing. Crown Corporations are, in the jargon, "Agents of Her Majesty", which means nothing more than that the debts of a Crown Corporation are the same as the direct debts of the Government. Whether it is the Minister of Finance who borrows money from the Government of Canada or Jack Horner who borrows on behalf of the CNR, the effect is the same. You and I are responsible for paying back the borrowings.
The borrowings of the Minister of Finance show up in the public accounts. Jack Horner's borrowings do not, nor do the borrowings of Bill Hopper or Nick Ebiger, nor do the borrowings of any one of these other people in this parallel civil service operating out there on their own who are indebting you and me and future generations.
None of the deficits being run up in these organizations, none of the borrowing, none of the spending show up in the accounts of Canada. Yet, in terms of their impact, they are every bit the same as if they were spent directly by the Government. That is why when the Minister lays out projections for spending and revenues this year, it is only a fool who takes what he lays before us at face value. They are most certainly not an accurate portrayal of what is happening.
I want to deal with one particular debt of a Crown Corporation of which we have become aware recently, interestingly enough on Saturday afternoon. Clearly it is amazing to observe this Government in operation and to see the gall and hypocrisy with which it operates. I believe it was Thursday evening when Senator Keith Davey was lecturing from a podium about how terrible the media in this country is. He said that the Government cannot trust the media to carry its message and that the media cannot be trusted. Two days later, we saw the most blatant example of how the Government manipulates news, manipulates the media and manipulates public opinion. When is the time to make an embarrassing announcement, Mr. Speaker? It is on Saturday afternoon when you know that most people have the weekend off and very few journalists are working. Is it not interesting that on the "Sunday Morning" CBC program Bill Hopper was
answering a bunch of creampuff questions from a CBC reporter. That program was in the can on Friday but, somehow, the announcement did not come out until Saturday. Yet there was Bill Hopper with all the perfect answers to the creampuff questions being put to him. There was not one single, reasonable or appropriate question asked by that reporter.
That shows skill, Mr. Speaker, and I admit that Bill Hopper is an amazingly effective politician, news manager, manipulator of public opinion. While he is not an oil man, he is all these other things, and very good at it. I have the bruises to prove it. But for goodness' sakes, do not insult my intelligence and the intelligence of all Canadians by turning Senator Keith Davey loose to say, "It is terrible that we cannot trust the media to take our fair and reasonable message around the country". What hypocricy!
On Saturday we were told that Petro-Canada was going to buy the downstream assets of BP Canada for $347.5 million. That is a colossal amount of money, given that not one job will be created out of that purchase or one barrel of oil added. Now we find out that that statement about the $347.5 million was false. In fact, the total purchase cost is closer to $600 million, as we discovered in today's Globe and Mail. Long after it is settled in everyone's mind that the purchase price is $350 million-that is the figure publicized and which is contained in most files-we find that the real figure is $600 million because, in addition to the $347.5 million for the steel and real estate, there is $180 million for inventory and a $70 million debt that Petro-Canada is picking up for BP. Therefore, the figure is $600 million and not $347 million. I offer you again one further example for the observation of the Auditor General that you cannot trust the Government because it lies about its figures. It is further evidence of why anyone who takes what is said by that group of people and their underlings at face value is a fool to accept it. It seldom bears any resemblance to the truth.
Petro-Canada is spending $600 million, and the Minister, Bill Hopper and Joel Bell say that it will not cost the taxpayers a cent. But the advertisement says, that Petro-Canada is ours. Therefore, if its assets are our assets, its debts are our debts. That $600 million is our debt in the same manner as the Minister of Finance's debts are our debts.
That $600 million is being spent to purchase existing, inplace assets without a single new job being created. In fact, jobs will be lost because throughout Quebec and parts of Ontario, Fina-which is now Petro-Canada-and BP were frequently competitors on the same corner. BP and Petro-Canada are next door neighbours in my neighbourhood in Ottawa. While there were previously two marketing departments, there will now be one marketing department because one of those service stations will close down. As a result, there will be fewer jobs if Petro-Canada rationalizes its employees.
The Government is spending $600 million of our money, decreasing the number of jobs and not gaining one extra piece
November 2, 1982

of hardware, real estate, barrell of oil or anything else for Canada. Of course, that $600 million does not form part of the $23.6 billion deficit. It is not included in the Government's figures. It is not covered by this borrowing authority Bill because, in this perverse system which we have, the Minister of Finance is required to have borrowing authority while Bill Hopper does not. This Parliament has the right to vote on the authority of the Minister of Finance to borrow money. Bill Hopper, Jack Horner and the other 400 Crown corporation presidents and chairmen can borrow what they desire. Canadians are obliged to pay it, but as the elected representatives of the people we do not have the right to say yea or nay. That is parliamentary democracy for you. It the Government has $600 million to spend, why did it not reduce the unemployment insurance premium entries? There is a $1.7 billion increase in premiums which will cost perhaps 60,000 jobs because it is making it more difficult for small and new businesses to hire new employees. Why did the Government not reduce that expenditure if it has $600 million to spend?
Why not reduce the taxes on gasoline and make a half baked attempt to honour the election promises that were made by the Liberal Party, those promises of "Vote Liberal and you will not have to pa^ high prices for gasoline." Do you remember those advertisements, Mr. Speaker? If the Government now has $600 million extra, why does it not reduce the taxes on gasoline and make a half hearted attempt to honour that election promise?
Why not spend the money on job creation if the Government does have $600 million to spend? Why does the Government not try something new and just not spend it?
If some of the geniuses who advise that pack over there feel that it is appropriate for Petro-Canada to spend another $600 million, let me suggest a way in which Petro-Canada could spend that money and, in fact, contribute something to Canada in the process. First, let us suppose that the Minister of Finance was correct when he said, in answer to questions I raised yesterday, that Petro-Canada was not going to borrow money in Canada but was going to borrow it offshore, even though Joel Bell, Vice-President of Finance, said they had not made that decision as yet. However, let us assume that the Minister of Finance was right and Petro-Canada will borrow the money offshore. Now, let us suppose that Petro-Canada took that $600 million and invested it in exploration for new oil in Canada. The rough industry average indicates that for every $50,000 of expenditure, one can expect oil production of a barrel of oil per day. Assuming that Petro-Canada is as good as the average oil company-which is a major concession because I do not believe that fact and the figures do not back it up-this means that Petro-Canada would be able to produce
12,000	barrels of oil per day from that expenditure of $600 million for exploration. We would produce 12,000 barrels of oil per day in Canada and eliminate the need to import that oil from Mexico, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. That would save us $220 million a year in foreign exchange. In other words, in two years and nine months we would be able to pay off the foreign source from which we borrowed the $600 million. We
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
would still have 12,000 barrels of oil in production and maintain the income of $220 million a year for the benefit of
Canada.
A rough rule of thumb in regard to capital expenditures is that for every $50,000 of capital expenditure there is a new job created. If the government spent that $600 million in Canada on capital expenditures, namely exploration and development, it would generate 12,000 jobs. Half of all the money spent in this country-that is, the gross national product-ends up in the Government coffers as taxes of one sort or another. Half of that amount goes to the federal Government and the other half goes to the Provinces and municipal Governments. Therefore, the total government revenue from that $600 million would be $300 million. The federal Government would receive $150 million. In addition, those 12,000 people would not be collecting unemployment insurance. There would be a saving of $120 million.
Let us consider this in summary. If, instead of buying an existing refinery and a bunch of existing service stations and contributing nothing new, in fact costing jobs to Canada, Petro-Canada had used that money for oil exploration here in Canada, the federal Government would receive $150 million in extra revenue. There would be a reduced call on unemployment insurance premiums of $120 million, meaning that the net expenditures of the Government and therefore the deficit would be reduced by $270 million, and provincial and municipal Governments would receive another $150 million. There would be a decrease in our current account deficit with the rest of the world of $220 million a year in today's dollars, with a resulting reduction of pressure on interest rates and the value of the dollar. There would be 12,000 Canadians employed rather than unemployed as the case is now. Therefore, instead of $600 million spent, with no benefit whatsoever to Canada, the Government could have spent it that way with some benefit to Canada.
What have we gained from this purchase, this increased indebtedness of $600 million? Will it help to create jobs? No. Will it help to fight inflation? No. Will it help old age pensioners? No. Will it help miners, forestry workers, fishermen or farmers? No, no, no and no. Why, then? Has the private sector failed us? Does the private sector not know how to peddle gasoline? Does anyone in this country have difficulty buying gasoline from a private operator? Is the private sector in this country so terrible in that it does not know how to run service stations that Big Brother must get into the business of running service stations and filling up our tanks? Is that why? Why, for goodness' sake, is the Government of Canada, with all its responsibilities and with all the problems facing this country, in the business of peddling gasoline? It makes one wonder. If the Government is interested in the Canagrex Bill, one can surely predict that it will soon be running McDonald's hamburger stands, because if it makes sense for Petro-Canada to pump gas, it makes sense for Canagrex to sell hamburgers.


Mr. Taylor:: It will be selling baloney, too.

November 2, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority


Harvie Andre: Why, then, is Petro-Canada buying out these service stations? Why is the Government of Canada in the business of peddling gasoline? The reasons are twofold. The first one relates to political propaganda. The reason is the same reason that Goodyear has blimps. There are some Petro-Canada signs around with the Maple Leaf on them, and Goodyear has blimps with "Goodyear" printed on them. It is pure and simple propaganda the Government has in mind. Certainly, it will not result in cheaper gasoline. It is more expensive gasoline. We must pay for the Government's extravagances. However, the related reason is that it is very good for the employees of Petro-Canada. Petro-Canada has become a very large corporation. Its chief executive officer should have his own jet, should he not? Of course, big corporations have private jets. Bill Hopper has a nice new Canadair Challenger. It is so fast that he did not even have to move his family to Calgary. His officer is there, but he lives here. What the heck! He can come home to supper in one of these Canadair jets. It only costs $5,000 or $10,000 an hour to operate. That is peanuts to a high roller like Bill Hopper. He has his own executive jet. He is just having himself a whale of a time. The Marketing Vice-President of Petro-Canada now has, 1,600 more stations to run. What a thrill when he comes into his office in the morning and looks at a map with little pins all over it. He says, "Those are all mine. I run those. Those guys are all mine. I run them all". It is a real thrill for the employees of Petro-Canada. They are having a ball at our expense.
There is a second reason which is that the decision was made as a result of faulty business judgment. The refining and marketing of gasoline has been profitable for two out of the last 20 years. Those two years were 1978 and 1979. In 1978 Petro-Canada went out and bought an oil company, Pacific Petroleum, which happened to own a refinery and some service stations. Petro-Canada bought it at exactly the time when refining and marketing was profitable. Bill Hopper thought he had found the money pump, the money tree. He could not believe it! The refinery and service stations were as lucrative as all getout. The money was rolling in. He said, "Holy moly, have I got a way to finance my Canadair jet and the rest of my growth in the future." That is why Petro-Canada bought Fina. It thought it had found the money pump. It opened up the Fina station, cleaned it up, paved it, polished it up, put on new plastic and new signs. People came in to buy gas and Petro-Canada said, "We really have it. We could sell as much gas as we want. All we have to do is put up stations, put on signs with the Maple Leaf, and business rolls in".
The problem is that there is something in marketing called the "new station phenomenon". As one is driving down the street, suddenly before one's eyes there appears a brand new station with new fresh asphalt, the pumps are new and shining, the windows are clear and it looks nice, not like a dirty old service station, so one drives in. There is a tendency to do that. It does not make any difference how one's car operates, but somehow everything looks nice. However, in a month or two the station starts to get as dirty as the station of the guy a little
closer to home, so one stops there and goes back to one's old patterns, and that little blip in sales is just that, a blip in sales.
That is precisely what is happening to Petro-Canada in western Canada. It is being blamed, of course, on anti-Ottawa feelings out there and so forth. But in fact it is just that the stations out there are no longer new. That is all. When they were new, traffic came in. They are no longer new. Some of the Fina stations are now running into the same problem. So what we have here is an executive of a company who may believe, at least partially, that this was a good business decision. In fact, it was a lousy business decision because refining and marketing do not make money. Oh, they will get market shares initially. Oh, yes, when Petro-Canada spends $10,000 or $20,000 to renovate each station, that, by the way, is in addition to the $600 million 1 have discussed. When some tens of millions of dollars are spent to renovate all the stations, there will be a little blip in traffic, but it will not be enough to make the money to pay the interest on the loan. We, the taxpayers, will have to come up with more money again to keep that operation going.
1 have listened to some Hon. Members opposite defending this $4 billion in extra borrowing authority. In essence, they have been standing up and saying to the people of Canada, "Trust us, we have your futures in mind; we are doing good things. As trustees of your money, we are doing a good job". Only a fool would believe any of that tripe. Ed Clarke certainly does not believe it on his $200,000 sabbatical in Paris. Certainly, no one who knows anything about this Petro-Canada purchase will believe it. How can we end Canada's disastrous economic performance when we are twenty-third in productivity out of 23 OECD nations and when our standard of living is fourteenth as opposed to second as it was two years ago? We are going to end all that if, and only if, we return to honesty, decency and a modicum of intelligence about how we spend the taxpayers' money. If the new Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) had simply done some back-of-the-envelope calculations, he would have quickly realized that another $600 million just to change the logo on some gas pumps is not a good expenditure for Canada. If that money is available, spending it on exploration would employ
12,000	Canadians, would generate $270 million for the Treasury, and would provide Canadians with 12,000 barrels of oil a day which they would not have to import from other parts of the world. You do not have to be a genius to figure that out, Mr. Speaker, Apparently, no one over there has thought beyond how nice it would be to have a Maple Leaf service station in every constituency in the country, so it costs the taxpayer a few hundred million dollars. Who can understand those figures? Who knows how much $24 billion is? It is quite beyond the capabilities of anyone to grasp the significance of it, and because of that failing of the human mind, we keep getting ripped off by that crew over there. I hope soon, Mr. Speaker, those who sit over there who have a modicum of shame, or sense of responsibility, will recognize what is happening and join the rest of us to put an end to it.
November 2, 1982


Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Tonight I speak for my Party on Bill C-128 which is a Bill to borrow $4 billion. I remember when I was about six years old. It was in 1937, in the wintertime. That was the worst year of the Depression in Saskatchewan. One day my father and a neighbor drove in sleighs with teams of horses to a village about 15 miles away to get some relief straw. The straw was to be used to feed starving cattle. Neither my father nor the neighbor had a single nickel, dime or quarter to rub against each other, not a single coin. They had made this trip several times.
On the neighbor's farm they made their own butter, and each time the neighbor would take a pound of homemade butter with him when he went to the village and he would trade it to the man who ran the restaurant for two cups of coffee, worth five cents each. He would take lunch with him and would go to the little restaurant after loading the straw, eat his lunch, drink his coffee and go home. On that particular day he started off for the village in a blizzard. Taking the pound of butter, he went to the restaurant and asked for the trade. The man who ran the restaurant said the butter is only worth five cents today. The neighbor walked to the door and threw it out into the blizzard because he could not buy two cups of coffee. My father told me that story many times, and I remember the day it happened.
My father had one great fear in his life which could be expressed in a four-letter word, debt. He is dead now, God rest him, but if he knew that tonight I was speaking about a Bill that will put our country $4 billion more into debt, he would simply roll over in his grave, glad that he died.
I tell that story, because, to begin with, I do believe that we have come to a different time in history. I believe that the way to handle social and economic problems that was possible 20, 30, 40 years ago, even ten years ago, is not possible any more. Every one of the Hon. Members in this House of Commons has knocked on a lot of doors. That is part and parcel of what politicians have to do. I knocked on a lot of doors this summer in my constituency and also in other parts of Canada for other people as well. This is always a new experience because behind each door there is another person, another family, another story. I personally like to knock on doors, meet people and hear what they have to say, even when many times they tell me about most serious problems. This summer, though, I found there was a different response because people in Canada, not only in my constituency, have great difficulty in understanding what is going on. It is impossible to explain to a person who is out of work, or a family unit that has broken down because unemployment has become a new stress. It goes beyond the ordinary stresses with which a family can cope. The stress of unemployment is such that it comes as the last straw.
Many people address the question to me that I would like to speak about tonight. The question is: "What are you people doing in Parliament? Do you not realize how serious the problem is? We see you people on television calling each other names, standing up and shouting. You make a point or you do not, but what is that doing to help our problem?" I can explain
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
that the House of Commons is an old tradition which is set up with two sides far enough apart so they cannot hit each other with a sword. These things can be explained, but that does not say very much to a person who is unemployed or whose marriage is under some kind of stress, or a pensioner who is afraid his pension will be cut back, because those people have lost faith in those they believed were able to solve their problems.
I would like to speak a little about the credibility or believa-bility of myself and every other Member in this House of Commons. Since I came to Ottawa about three years ago 1 have not met anyone here who is not serious. I cannot honestly say I have met anyone in any of the three parties who is not serious. Anyone who gets elected to the House of Commons has to be serious. Why is it that once we get here we lose credibility? I would like to share my ideas as to what I think is happening. Credibility is very close to what we understand as the truth. For me, however, I would like to say, there is truth around me, in this room, in the people here, in the things I would like to know, the things that I can learn. I can learn this truth and it becomes part of me, is me, in the sense I can get that truth from my experience. The best way to get it is from a good teacher. I believe that political people have the responsibility to be good teachers. Political people have to understand the truth and, as far as possible, express that truth so that it becomes part and parcel of another person so that they understand the truth. The responsibility of understanding the truth today is a grave responsibility. It is not an easy responsibility. It is a difficult responsibility because the truth is so complicated.
On top of that, however, the truth has to be expressed in such a way that the other people will have no difficulty in believing it, because the person who gives the truth and who speaks the truth, whatever that happens to be, is credible so there is the reality of the truth and the reality of the credibility that I or whoever else is speaking must have.
I understand a teacher to be a person who is able somehow or other to clean off my mind or my intellect in such a way that I can see what is out there. An old teacher that I had when I was studying in the seminary, using an old scholastic idea, talked about the reality of the truth around me. It was as if there were a dirty window between me and the truth. A good teacher is able to clean the window in such a way that I suddenly see what is right, what is true.
Several weeks ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in a series of talks over television, indicated to the country what he understood and believed to be the truth. I have no reason to doubt that he was attempting to explain to us what he believed to be the truth. I would have to say in all honesty that I felt some of the points the Prime Minister was making were just as I saw them.
He spoke about the fact that Canada really has to be part and parcel of the modern world, that Canada can no longer

November 2, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
expect to have a special status just because it is Canada, that in the world of competition today we cannot expect to have preference just simply because you are Canada. That is the truth. However, as I visited and knocked on the doors of people, they did not believe it. The Prime Minister was not credible.
At a time like that, and this is my suggestion only, a person who has that kind of grave responsibility has to really think seriously about his or her future. In that very serious role as a national leader, if a person has lost credibility, what does he do? That is something the Prime Minister will have to think about seriously, because most Canadians feel he has lost credibility. That is too bad because when a person has lost credibility and is still speaking the reality or the truth, everybody suffers. They will finally say, "That is not true because you said it". It gets to the point where a person is, as I and everybody here is, being tested on his credibility all the time. That is the same as saying two and two are four and the person hearing it says it is not true. Why is it not true? "Because you said it". That is an extremely serious thing at this time in history.
I believe there is another way that truth comes. It is the way that truth has come in the tradition of the Judaic Christian background of which I come. It is the truth that comes through the voice of prophets. This is the more difficult kind of truth.
There are definitely fewer prophets than there are teachers. At a time like this, it is important to look at people around the world, here or wherever, who somehow are indicating to us truths. I am going to speak later about what I believe to be an extremely important truth that is never mentioned in the economic debates that we have in this House, the truth that one of the equations that is missing is the build-up of arms around the world and the taking away from people of the world the basic things to keep them alive. I will fill out that point as I go along.
A prophet is a person who is able to say the truth as it exists now. A prophet is one who is able, in the history of our Judaic Christian background, to speak the truth now. He is a very difficult person to have around because people know that is the truth and do not want to accept it.
There are certain qualities about the prophet, at least in the Judaic Christian religion, that make him or her special. The quality that is most important is for the prophet to be a person who is not seeking power. A prophet is a person who is on the side of the poor. A prophet is a person who, very probably, himself lives poorly.
There have been prophets in the political world. Sometimes different groups are more prone to think that they are prophets than others. I would say that in general my colleagues have a little bit of that problem at times, but it is proper to criticize ourselves in that respect because we do have within our Party that tradition.
I believe the founder of this Party, J. S. Woodsworth, was looked upon by the people in this Parliament as a prophet. I like to think that today, because he is here with us, the Hon.
Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has been respected in these chambers and across the land as a person who is in that category. He obviously did not come here to be powerful but came here to speak the truth about the situation that affected the poor.
I believe this House respects him. I think people looked upon the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre as a person who was speaking the truth with no intention of gaining power for himself. That is an important distinction that we have to be aware of today as I continue in my remarks.
Truth as it relates to people around us can come to us from our experience, from a good teacher or through the person who is a prophet.
I believe we are in times that are very different. I believe that right today Canada is in a world situation that has never really existed before. It is important that we all look at some of the factors that are bringing it about. Through the course of history there have been different sectors of society that have had a special powerful voice. I would say that sometimes it was the kings. The kings were the ones who spoke, and everybody said that is the truth. At other times I would say there were ecclesiastical societies. The priests or bishops would speak, and everybody would say that is the truth. During the last 25, 30 or 50 years the scientists would say certain things, and everybody would say that is the truth.
As we went through each of those different levels or sectors of history, it was difficult to see that all those groups had the truth. Today, however, I think the people who seem to be trying to tell us that they have the truth are basically the economists, yet we get so much different input, different facts and different stories from the group which call themselves economists. I realize that the science of economics is a very complicated science. I realize that if one looks at all the forces which go to make up the science of economics, no matter where it happens to be or who it happens to affect, it is a very complicated subject. To me the science of economics is not unlike the science of meteorology, the science of the weather. How does a person forecast the weather? Well, once in a while the weather person is able to take all the different components that make up weather such as wind, heat, ocean currents and others, and put them together in such a way that they can say that tomorrow it will be sunny with a chance of showers, or something like that. Quite often they are right. Then again, sometimes they are wrong. Economics, on the other hand, has to do with markets, production, interest rates, all these different forces which come together into what we call the economic situation at a given moment. One person will say interest rates go up because we have to stop inflation. It is interesting that I am talking on the very day that the Congressional elections are being held in the U.S. Interest rates go up when a President is elected in the United States, a President who is surrounded by millionnaire advisers, because it has never been a better time to be a millionnaire in the U.S. than in the last two years, and interest rates go down prior to an election. We have watched that happen just in the last two months.
November 2, 1982

In any event, when it comes to the whole question of the current economic picture, I believe there are two huge hurricanes which have not been taken account of in putting together this economic package. If I could go back to the notion of how weather is predicted and how economics are predicted, there are, as I said, two huge hurricane-type storms taking place within our particular economic weather picture, and they are not being taken seriously by most of the economists who are telling us which way to go. One of those storms is the linkage we now have with the developing world, a group of countries that not so very long ago were powerless to compete with North America, Europe and so on. This great economic storm centre is moving into our economic weather pattern, and it is not being taken seriously enough. Another huge economic storm centre, one which has been using up world resources at an unprecedented rate, is that of the armaments race. Yet, interestingly enough, when we come into the House of Commons rarely do we hear about those two factors which have such a great influence on things taking place in this country, and which in part are responsible for the man in North Batt-leford, Saskatchewan or Windsor, Ontario, having to pay 20 per cent interest to buy a house. It is because of these two factors in the economic world, and the influence they are having, that one economist told me last week, a man whom I greatly appreciate for his understanding, that he does not know what is happening. He does not know where we are going. That is a problem the world community must face. I think what is important is that we look seriously at these factors as something which will change the traditional way in which our economies have worked.
Now, Mr. Speaker, on the question of linkage between countries around the world, I would say we are in a situation not unlike the situation which took place in the Montreal forum ten years ago when the Russian national hockey team came to Canada to play the Canadian national hockey team. Canadians knew that Canada could beat the U.S.S.R. We would just go down and laugh at them as they lost. If anyone remembers the first game and the kind of feeling we had inside after the game ended, you knew that the simplistic idea that Canada was the best hockey country in the world was over. Now we can go back and make up new theories about why it happened, but the fact was that Canada's national hockey team had been beaten in Canada by another country's national hockey team. 1 can remember the shock that was felt by every Canadian that week as we struggled through that very interesting hockey series. What is happening now in our economic world in Canada is not unlike what we lived in, in the hockey world, prior to that game.
I do not believe, for instance, that the automobile industry in North America, which was so solidly implanted here, will ever be quite the same as it was before the Japanese became the world's automobile maker. The auto industry may blossom again here, but it will never really be the same. There has been an economic hurricane, Mr. Speaker, which has changed forever our way of looking at the economic picture. In the
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
report of the parliamentary task force on North-South relations, on which I worked a few years ago, there is a recommendation contained in the last section under trade which is extremely important for Canada today. We recommended that the Government launch immediately a major public inquiry into the industrial sectors which are likely to be at a long-term competitive disadvantage in relationship to developing countries, with a view to developing effective adjustment measures. These adjustment measures are hard to accept because it means that the old way is over and a new way has begun.
The other economic storm, the armaments race, costs $600 billion a year. We are talking about $4 billion here tonight, and that is an impossible number to imagine, but $600 billion is what the world is spending on arms today. The two major powers are, in a sense, causing their economies to break down because of this race. The armaments race itself will lead to nothing except the destruction of the world. As we face the reality of the economics of the family down the street, of friends or neighbours, I think it is important that we understand where a great part of the problem comes from. I am going to make a few points about the amount of money that is taken out of the common pool and put into this area. I am no economist, that is obvious to everybody, but I know a few rules about what makes some things work. I think one market rule is that if you are short of a commodity, the price goes up, so if you are short of money, the interest goes up; it costs more to get money when there is not a lot available, and it costs less when there is money available.
One of the areas where money is being sucked up, we might say, at an incredible rate without any responsibility for what is happening to it, is in the arms race. The Pentagon is the centre of the arms race on this side of the world, but the same would be true on the other side of the world. The War Department, the patron of nuclear war, is the most powerful institution in history. As I understand it, there has never been an institution with as much physical power as the Pentagon. It has been estimated that the Pentagon has $1.5 trillion in assets. That is more than the total of all corporation stocks on the New York Stock Exchange. That is a shocking statistic, Mr. Speaker. It has 3,970 installations, an average of 80 for every State in the Union; it owns 25,000,000 acres of land; controls 400 major bases and 300 lesser bases in nearly every country in the world; it has 350 bases bordering the U.S.S.R.; it has 1.5 million military personnel in 116 nations; it is the largest consumer of capital and technology in the world; more than 60 per cent of all research and development funds in the United States go to the Pentagon or to the military; and more than one-third of the engineering personnel and scientists graduating from the universities go to the military.
These funds, taken from the economies of the world today, flow right into the life of every person. This affects me, it affects you, Mr. Speaker, and it affects everyone else because it makes money hard to get. At the same time, it deprives us of development funds that could be used for the good of the world.

November 2, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
I spoke about teachers, I spoke about prophets and I spoke about truth in the world situation today as I see it, Mr. Speaker. I believe that, as the prophet would say, it is extremely important that somehow or other we Canadians convert; that we become converts; that we change what we are doing. I refer to change in our understanding of what is taking place. We must realize that we are part of a world drama, a part of changes that affect every place in the world. We must also realize that the way things were will not be the way they will be in the future. The things that in the past guaranteed a way of life will not be easy, or perhaps not even possible, in the future. I believe that is one area in which my conversion and that of everyone else has to take place.
Another conversion that is necessary is the realization that the war game does nothing except destroy the economic base of the world and the possibility of peace in the future.
I feel that bad as the situation is in many homes in Canada, bad as the situation is behind many of those doors at which we knocked in our ridings, bad as the situation is in every little town and village, we must be conscious of the fact that Canada is still in relatively good shape compared to the rest of the world.
It is difficult to say that to someone who is unemployed. I know it sounds cruel and cold to that person, but I speak from some experience. There are countries today that have 150 per cent inflation, or that have 60, 70, 80 per cent unemployment. There are countries that had hope for the future but a natural disaster has destroyed their crops. At the moment, there is a disastrous situation in India because of crop damage. This week the newspapers carried the story of disaster in Indonesia which has resulted in crop damage. I think it is important that we be very conscious that we live in a part of the world that is still blessed.
I realize that my riding of Saskatoon East is a special place. Saskatchewan has been fortunate compared to the rest of Canada because it has the lowest unemployment rate of any province. Nevertheless, I speak for those people who are unemployed; I speak for those people who are suffering from want, and in no way do I take away from the gravity of their difficulties but I think it is also important to realise that we are still among the fortunate few compared to the whole world picture.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I have been listening to the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) with some attention. The Bill before us is the borrowing authority. The Chair has some difficulty relating the Hon. Member's remarks to the Bill that is before the House.


Robert Joseph Ogle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; 1 am glad you brought this to my attention. The reason I was following this line of thought is that, as far as I know, for a government to ask for $4 billion on top of $23 billion is something that has not happened in this country before. I have not been here all my life but I feel that we are in different times now. I was trying to indicate that I believe there are certain quotients that are not being brought out which would indicate why there is this kind of debt. The Member who spoke before me talked about
the energy industry, about buying this or not buying that; I appreciate that is how part of the money is spent. I was trying to speak to the credibility of the House of Commons. Why has it allowed this kind of thing to take place? I do not think any of us came to this House with the idea of bankrupting the country. It is true tha has happened during the time the Party opposite has been in power, but I have not heard any better ideas from the Party to my right that wants to come to power. In this Party, we have proposed solutions. Even so, I do not think the whole question of why times are different now has been addressed.
Even though Your Honour may feel that my remarks are out of order, it is for the reasons I have mentioned that I believe them to be in order. I believe that it is necessary to look in directions that have not yet been examined seriously, to see why the country is going down the drain. I could point to different Members of the Government and blame them, but I do not know if that sort of thing helps. The people behind the doors we knock upon wonder why we have lost credibility.
I do not claim that my explanation is the only true one, Mr. Speaker. I spoke about truth at the beginning, but the reality and the truth is so complicated that even the specialists do not know what is going on. We must look for other explanations than the one that is generally given-that it is the other Party's fault. I do not think that is the kind of solution Canadians are looking for today. To return to the question of credibility-and I am not saying that I have credibility or that 1 have the truth-I believe it is important that the House of Commons and the people in it who were sent here from all over the country look at other reasons for what has happened. I do not believe that what I am saying is that far out of line. I really believe in what George Ignatieff, the former Canadian Ambassador to the United Nations, said in his letter this past week to The Globe and Mail in which he talked about things not unlike what I have just been speaking about. He talked about the fact that we have come to a time in which new problems have reached such a climactic stage that the old solutions are not working. But he gave a solution in his letter to that newspaper to which I would like to refer. In it he asked why Canada does not celebrate the thirty-seventh anniversary of our signature at the United Nations.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the Hon. Member, again the rule of relevance has to be brought to his attention. I have great difficulty in relating these remarks to the borrowing authority Bill.


An Hon. Member:: It has to do with the national debt.


Robert Joseph Ogle: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I think I could certainly address the Bill in the way that it is ordinarily addressed in the House of Commons. I would be glad to do that, but what I was trying to say-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Again I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but the time allotted to him has expired. He may
November 2, 1982

continue with unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


An Hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There does not appear to be unanimous consent.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to say that I listened to the remarks of the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) with a great degree of interest and with sincere attention because I think he was asking some agonizing questions, asking for answers. I must say that all of us who give this House the importance it deserves must ask ourselves questions at times. I was interested in his remarks about economists. Economists in this and every country have a very definite role to play and exert tremendous influence on the policies governments adopt. It is significant in the United States that two recent Pulitzer Prize winners in the field of economics were on the opposite side of the question-one opposing Reaganomics and the other supporting it.
I think the Hon. Member suggested that economics is a science. I would suggest that it is not; it is an opinion. The only time I am very optimistic about the future of the country is when all the economists of the Conference Board, the Economic Council of Canada, the small business community and the Department of Finance tell me that things are all doom and gloom. Inevitably things work out for the better.
In light of the remarks of the Hon. Member, I hesitate to refer to a newspaper which I was reading on the weekend. It was the Wall Street Journal, and I read it because, like most Canadians, I was interested in the outcome of the elections in the United States today. I am interested because those elections could have an impact on whether or not interest rates turn around and go up or continue downward. I clipped no less than half a dozen important articles for my economic knowledge of the future. The editorial in Monday's edition of the Wall Street Journal was headed, "Election Eve Economics". It was a long article, but I would like to read into the record perhaps just one paragraph which dealt with spending and was quite relevant. It read:
When Ronald Reagan took office 21 months ago, the overriding economic priority was bringing an end to the inflation that had been building for a decade or more. Inflation was a cancer eating away at the heart of the economy- rewarding recklessness, punishing thrift, destroying productive investment, allowing infrastructure to decay. This cycle was eroding the economy's productive capacity, giving us the new phenomenon of stagflation, combining the worlds of soaring prices and stagnant production. And as economic historians knew and ordinary citizens sensed, if the cycle were allowed to rage unchecked its end would be an all-consuming hyperinflation and/or a deadening crash. There simply was no choice but to curb inflation before it was too late.
That seemed to be the policy and philosophy of all industrialized nations over the last decade. It is one which I endorse and espouse. It reflects the priority the Government has placed on inflation over the last decade, particularly since 1975 when the Government made an intentional effort to reduce spending.
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
Those who are interested in statistics would know that we were successful.
The article in the Wall Street Journal stated the obvious when it went on to say:
We are now in a serious recession. This is the price of our success against inflation.
Clearly economists everywhere would want to ponder over that statement. The price of success in controlling inflation was to put the United States of America into a serious recession. It goes without saying that the price we are paying in Canada in our efforts to control and reduce inflation is that we too find ourselves in a deep recession.
It is food for thought that when the ten industrial nations of the world met in Versailles just a short period ago, they were faced with the recognition that unless they could get their act together and work collectively worldwide, inevitably one country after another would find itself in a recession. In retrospect it is tragic and sad that the United States and Great Britain insisted that they must continue on a tight monetary policy and a high interest rate policy to the detriment of their trading partners; in our case to our particular detriment because the Americans are our best friends and our biggest-


An Hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the Hon. Member, the interest rate policy-


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member has to address the rule of relevancy.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I heard an Hon. Member opposite say "nonsense" when I said that the Americans were our best friends. He may disagree with me and think that they are not, but that is another issue.
I would like to emphasize the distinction between recession and unemployment. There is a distinction. We tend to forget it. I will not read the whole editorial-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member is making some general observations on monetary and fiscal policies of other countries. Now, the relevance to the borrowing authority Bill before the House is a matter which I must call to the attention of the Hon. Member.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I thought it was obvious and self-evident to anyone listening that the borrowing Bill before us is a request by the Government to increase its deficit by approximately $4 million to be spent-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: It is $4 billion, not $4 million.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: -to improve or, to put it another way, to reflect the economic policy which I have just spent two minutes stating. I apologize for not stating the conclusion at the beginning and the beginning at the end. The fact remains

November 2, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
that in our fight against recession our high interest rates have resulted in a growth in our deficit. That deficit must be covered by borrowing, hence the reason for this debate.
We would not need that $4 billion if the policies dictated to us by our industrial partners and by ourselves, had not been so successful. That is according to the Wall Street Journal. Its success is reflected in the fact that we now have a recession almost world-wide. Because we have that recession, we have to borrow that $4 billion.
There is a distinction between a recession and unemployment. One of the things that worries and upsets me a little is when I find myself becoming engrossed in statistics evaluating recession, depression and prosperity statistically. There are no statistics that can graphically depict the anger, the frustration and the sorrow of a Canadian who is out of work through no fault of his or her own. That is why I was pleased when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) rose in his seat last week and in his statement of policy, his review of financial problems, clearly spelled out that he was not bowing to the temptation of freeing up more money by cutting back on certain social programs, which have been the cornerstone of Liberal policy. In his document he clearly stated that universality would continue to be the prevalent characteristic of the family allowance, of the old age pension and of UIC. Second, what went virtually unnoticed in the press, despite the clamour a month ago, was the mention or treatment, if you like, of the deficit.
You may recall, Mr. Speaker, the last time we were talking about the main borrowing bill many people, in good faith, expressed concern that the deficit somehow represented a catastrophe, a load that we could not bear, and that when it came time to borrowing money we would compete with private enterprise, driving up interest rates, making it impossible for free enterprise to expand. According to a columnist to whom I relate, Lester Thoreau, in the 25 years of research that he had done on that subject he had yet to find a single incident in the United States where that type of competition resulted either in government or private enterprise being denied the funds necessary. Despite the clamour in some quarters, the Minister has made it very clear that the deficit, increased as it is by approximately $5 billion, and undesirable as that may be, presents no particular problem. There is something else here that is important and significant. The Minister says that the financing of that $22 billion is less onerous now than the financing of the $17 billion last June because the borrowing last June had to be financed at 19 per cent. The borrowing for Canadians, incidentally is now at 12 per cent or 12.5 per cent, or whatever the new bond rate is. That represents a saving from last June of $900 million.


Mr. Friesen:: Who saved?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: That is almost $1 billion that has been freed up by virtue of the fact that interest rates have come down substantially in this country. This indicates that we are on the right track, despite the impact it has on unemployment. The recession is coming to an end. It is turning around. Interest
rates are dropping rapidly in the United States and in the right direction in this country.
On page 7 of the Minister's statement, he said:
Total outlays are now expected to be almost $80 billion, about $1.1 billion higher than projected in June. Interest charges are now forecast to be more than $900 million lower than in June.
This is despite the increased deficit. The Minister went on to say:
This has been more than offset, however, by major increases in the costs of statutory programs, such as the government share of unemployment insurance, the Canada Assistance Program, Equalization, and Railway Act payments, which are related in substantial part to the depressed levels of economic activity. The net increases in statutory program costs total some $1.5 billion.
This is a complex subject and it is easy to go down the wrong paths.
I want to say a few words, if I may, about unemployment insurance. As Lester Thoreau points out to us, the applications of economics is limited, if you like, by political reality. Can you always do what is right if politically it is not necessarily right? If the recession is on the wane, and I like to think it is, 1 have here some headlines or notations from the Wall Street Journal and The Globe and Mail-not on page 1, of course, but buried away. I found an interesting article by the oil industry which recorded that the oil industry indicates an upturn in its profits. I think that is fair. The hon. gentleman over there agrees, and he is an honourable man. We read that bank presidents are cautiously indicating some increase in the GNP. That is a headline in one of our papers. Another one which is nice and terse reads, "Inflation is coming down." I found one from this morning's newspaper which reported that the food industry predicts single figure inflation for the next decade in its industry. The New York Times reported that the stock market reflects to a great degree confidence in the future. The Wall Street Journal, on the appropriate page reported, "Commodity prices are firming up." One analyst wrote that the hard pressed automobile industry is showing signs of recovery. Then we find this comment: "Interest rates continue the downward trend". Here is one I like. It reads, "Economists are revising their predictions upwards".
I think it is obvious to all of us that the recession is coming to an end. It would be wrong of me or of anyone else to leave the mistaken impression that we do not have some very difficult months ahead of us. All of us are aware of the fact that, for the initial stage of any recovery, although industry is slow in normal times, it is slower still in recession times to rehire, to start a second shift, to expand and to spend. Therefore, unemployment lingers long after recovery begins. If this Government like other governments around the world is doing some real, deep thinking on where to spend its input to help private industry along the road, it may be said that that money should be going into high technology. That is where it should go if we are looking down the road to an increased GNP, a strong economic base to support our universal programs, our medicare, family allowance, pension plans, transfer payments and our free education.
November 2, 1982

Politically, however, there is a legitimate demand in the country for the creation of jobs. Governments rarely have the privilege or the funds to do both. I do not know which way the Government will proceed. I know that it is a political decision that is not easy to make. That is why the Wall Street Journal, when talking about the deficit and the need to finance it, asked what lessons we have learned from the recession. I think that it is a little too early for Canadians to begin determining what lessons should be learned since we are at least six months behind the United States, but I remember the lessons which we learned from the last Depression. I was young in those days but old enough to remember. In my home I had a particular job which I recall doing. It was to run down to the bank at noon on every Friday to change $5 into nickels and dimes. My mother would hand that out with a sandwich, apple or orange to some unfortunate person who would knock on the door and say "charite". I remember that expression from some cold nights when we would invite these people in to dine.
I am not proud of the fact that we would sometimes ride our bicycles to Val Cartier camp to see for ourselves the thousands, or five or ten thousand people living in tents because they were destitute and without any income. Their families were back home, split up and living with other relatives. If you think that I am exaggerating, read "The Ten Lost Years" or, better still, as I recall, the book review by the late Hugh Garner in Saturday Night when that magnificent book came out.
We learned lessons in that Depression and certain basic programs evolved from those lessons. Those people who read anything about Mackenzie King would see that the over-riding philosophy behind family allowance, as seen by Mackenzie King, was that it was a legitimate way of stimulating the economy. He realized the impact of a recession or a depression. Unemployment insurance, a concept that we stole from another Party, was brought under federal jurisdiction in 1943 or 1944. Old age pensions came in in the 1940s. Canadians learned the lesson that they did not want to have to go to war the next time in order to bring an end to a depression or a recession.
That is why I was somewhat upset last week when Members actually stood in the House of Commons and questioned the tremendous increase in unemployment insurance premiums. Thank God if you are one of the lucky ones that has a job and you are called upon to pay the maximum of $2 a week, which is what it is.
Some Hon. [Members: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: It is $2 a week. If you still resent your $2 a week, take some consolation from the fact that it is tax deductible and will probably cost you about $1.50 a week. That $1.50 a week means that the Government can continue to respect the integrity of unemployment insurance.


An Hon. Member:: You put a ceiling on it.
Supplementary Borrowing Authority


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I would like to get into specifics, if I may. There is a ceiling, but the hon. gentleman was wrong in his figures. If you are over that figure, you still pay at the $29,000 or $30,000 rate. If you are so unlucky to be out of work, you draw accordingly, as if your income was $30,000. Therefore, you pay over that ceiling in any event. Ninety seven point eight per cent of Canadians, including teachers, clergymen, the army and the Public Service, are covered by unemployment insurance-all new categories prior to 1972. No one gets a free ride.
The Hon. Member for Saskatoon East reminded us that it is important, when exercising our vocation as politicians, that we somehow do not harm those innocent people who are not here to defend themselves. I find it mind-boggling when I read newspaper reports about views expressed in the House reflecting the opinion of one business organization that 60,000 jobs in this country would somehow disappear because the work force was asked to donate $1.50 a week after taxes.
One questions the research of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) when he stands up in the House to suggest that unemployment insurance contributions, which are increased by a maximum $2 a week, will somehow put 60,000 Canadians out of work. The bulk of that money is coming from employees and their employers. It was self-appointed spokesmen for small business who are saying that it will bankrupt us. I can remember in 1972 when those same people complained to me as Minister of Manpower or Minister of Labour, when times were fairly buoyant, about how to keep their trained employees. They asked, "How do I keep my pressman whom I have trained for 13 years when he can go down the street and work for the same pay but with maternity or sickness benefits included, because I as a small businessman cannot afford to pay the cost of a private maternity plan or sickness and accident plan?" Private enterprise was not particularly anxious at that time to provide that type of coverage, and we therefore included it in unemployment insurance. We made the big industry divide that obligation as well as everyone else.
When we talk about unemployment insurance, we are talking about Canadians who are out of work through no fault of their own. They are out of work because our economic system and free enterprise system is not perfect and cannot always provide the number of jobs that are needed. That does not absolve those of us who believe in free entreprise or private enterprise of our moral obligation to the less fortunate. As someone said to me on the phone today, one of the reasons that we are not in a depression, but rather in a recession, is that, through the $8 billion we have redistributed to the economy through unemployment insurance, we have made it possible for many communities to remain prosperous, solvent and at least viable. One thing we have accomplished is to eliminate the violence that we might see in the streets of Canada if one million people were totally divorced or cut off from benefits were we to stand up in the House to say that we cannot afford $2 a week more for unemployment insurance benefits.

November 2, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
I apologize, Mr. Speaker, if I have tested your good will. In a few moments we will be called upon to give the Government permission to borrow $4 million or $5 million that it needs. I want to repeat that if that deficit were to be financed by printing money or by borrowing it from outside of the country we would have a worry because it would be inflationary and a strain on our exchange. That money is being borrowed in this country from Canadians-Canadians who will take some of the savings which they have put away for a rainy day into Canada Savings Bonds. The Government, in turn, will take that money and put it into the economy to provide some of the stimulus which we will need if we want our recession to fade behind us and if we want to recover soon.
These are difficult days. I suppose that under certain circumstances I, too, may be as insensitive as some of the people I have heard speak in the Elouse. I wonder and worry whether economists we hear on the radio and television and whose writing we read in the newspapers have perhaps not fallen into the trap of regarding people not as human beings but, rather, as cold-blooded statistics, failing to appreciate the sadness and despair of a person who is unemployed, perhaps for the first time in his life, at age 51. Unemployment is cutting right across traditional boundaries. It is no longer limited to youngsters between the ages of 18 and 24; it is no longer limited to blue collar workers or labourers. It is reaching into the managerial category. It is reaching into skilled labour. Wasted efforts could somehow be put to use in building homes, providing new growth, shelters and all the things we need in this great country of ours. We will be coming out of the recession. We will have a very difficult winter. It would be a little easier if we were to take the Prime Minister's message to heart and consider ourselves as our brother's keeper, as the Hon. Member from the NDP tried to point out to us. A little charity and understanding would go a long way over the next few months.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of speaking in the last three minutes allotted to the borrowing authority debate as to whether the Government will be allowed to borrow another $4 billion. I have been listening with some impatience to the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) who spoke with grandiose condescension about the days when he was a boy going to look at the labour camps and seeing the thousands of unemployed in Quebec. I want him to know that we were some of those people he was gawking at with his opulence. I do not appreciate the condescension that he displayed tonight at all, that grandiose, saccharine condescension he displayed when referring to the unemployed and impoverished of this land. He said that we learned some things during that Depression. We sure did. We learned that one saves for a rainy day. What has this Government taught us? It has taught us not to worry
about a rainy day because the Government will look after us on a rainy day and the taxpayers of the country will pay for it. That is why the government is asking to borrow $4 billion tonight. In the Depression we learned that hard times do not break us. They simply reveal what we have made of ourselves during the easy times. This man had the gall to say that the Government is doing everything for us. The government is borrowing $4 billion tonight, but the man from Lincoln says that we are saving S900 million because we did not borrow it all in June. He did not say why we saved $900 million. It was because the Tories refused to let the Government borrow $11 billion in June.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benno Friesen: We split that Bill and saved $4 billion of the borrowing authority for this session, and saved the Government $900 million. He did not mention that fact. These social scientists, these social engineers, want to be such humanitarians and democrats, but they are not saying that by borrowing another $4 billion we are mortgaging the futures of our children. They want to be democratic. How many of their grandchildren or great grandchildren have a choice in the debt we are imposing on them tonight?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 9.45 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 72A adopted on Thursday, July 22, 1982, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the Bill now before the House.
[ Translation]


Roderick Blaker: The vote is on the motion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Roderick Blaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Roderick Blaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Roderick Blaker: Call in the members.
And the division bells having been rung:


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the clock now reads 18 minutes past ten o'clock. The
November 2, 1982

question was put and the vote was called at 9.45 p.m. The Standing Order of the House of Commons says that there is to be a 15 minute bell. We have now gone almost a half hour past that time, and I think the question should be put forthwith.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: 1 appreciate the Hon. Member's remarks, but I want to remind Hon. Members that if 1 could not take the vote during the bell incident I cannot take it now.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: During the bell incident I waited until the Whips were in their seats and signalled to me that I could take the vote. I am still waiting for that.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, you will recall that, not too long ago, the Progressive Conservative Party decided, when the bells were supposed to ring-
Madam Speaker, I do not want to raise my voice because I have a sore throat, and if I am not allowed to speak, I shall take my time. You will recall that, not too long ago, when the bells were supposed to ring only for about 15 minutes, the Progressive Conservative Party decided to retire to another floor of this building and hold a caucus to decide how you should apply the rules. This evening, we did not have a caucus, neither on the third floor nor on the fourth floor, and we are here, but it is a long-standing practice that the Whip must take his seat before we can-
I thank the Hon. Members opposite. I never thought I was so popular, Madam Speaker, but we would certainly not want to delay the vote unduly, and if the members opposite would simply give me enough time to reply to the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), I believe that this would speed up the process and we could proceed with the vote within a reasonable period. The point 1 was making, Madam Speaker, is that we have a tradition with which you are familiar according to which the bells ring for about 15 minutes. The bells have now stopped ringing and I believe that the rules have therefore been complied with. The other tradition is that before proceeding with the vote, even if the bells are no longer ringing, the whips of both parties must take their seat. However, I note that the Whip of the Progressive Conservative Party is still standing, Madam Speaker-


An Hon. Member:: He has just sat down!


Yvon Pinard: Since the whip of the Progressive Conservative Party has just sat down, Madam Speaker, I shall ask our own whip to do the same, and we are ready for the vote to be taken.
Supplementary Borrowing Authority The House divided on the motion (Mr. Lalonde), which was agreed to on the following division.
(Division No. 258)
Allmand Appolloni (Mrs.) Axworthy Bachand Baker
(Gander-Twillingate)
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Begin (Miss)
Berger
Blais
Blaker
Bloomfield
Bockstael
Bossy
Breau
Bujold
Burghardt
Caccia
Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell
(Cardigan)
Chenier
Chretien
Collenette
Comtois
Corbin
Corriveau
Cosgrove
Cdte (Mrs.)
Cousineau
Cullen
Cyr
Daudlin Dawson De Bane de Corneille Demers Deniger Desmarais Dingwall Dion Dionne (Chicoutimi)
Dionne
(Northumberland-Miramichi) i Dubois
++YEAS
Messrs.
Duclos Dupras Duquet Eroia (Mrs.)
Ethier
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Francis
Frith
Garant
Gauthier
Gendron
Gimaiel
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Gray
Harquail
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette (Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Irwin
Isabelle
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.)
Lachance
Lajoie
Lalonde
Lamontagne
Landers
Lang
Laniel
Lapierre
Lapointe
(Charlevoix)
Lapointe
(Beauce)
LeBlanc
Leduc
Lefebvre
Loiselle
Lumley
MacBain
MacEachen
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Malepart
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Munro
(Hamilton East) Nicholson (Miss)
Olivier
Ouellet
Parent
Pelletier
Pepin
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Prud'homme
Regan
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Roberts Robinson
(Etobicoke- Lakeshore) Rompkey Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Simmons Smith Tardif Tessier Tousignant Trudeau Turner Veillette Watson Weatherhead Whelan Yanakis-138.
++NAYS
Messrs.
Althouse	Clarke	de JongAndre	(Vancouver Quadra)	Do mmBaker	Coates	Ellis(Nepean-Carleton)	Cook	ElzingaBeatty	Cooper	EppBenjamin	Corbett	FennellBlackburn	Cossitt (Mrs.)	ForrestallBlaikie	Crombie	FraserBlenkarn	Crosbie	FretzBosley	(St. John's West)	FriesenBradley	Crosby	FultonBroadbent	(Halifax West)	GambleCardiff	Crouse	GassClark	Darling	Gilchrist(Yellowhead)	Deans	Greenaway
November 2, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
Gurbin	MacDonald (Miss)	OrlikowGustafson	(Kingston and the Islands)	PaproskiHalliday	MacDougall	ParkerHamilton	MacKay	Patterson(Qu'Appelle-Moose	Malone	ReidMountain)	Manly	(St. CatharirHamilton	Mayer	Riis(Swift Current-Maple	Mazankowski	RobinsonCreek)	McCain	(Burnaby)Hargrave	McCuish	RocheHawkes	McDermid	RoseHecs	McDonald (Miss)	SargeantHnatyshyn	(Broadview-Greenwood)	SchellenbergerHovdebo	McKenzie	ScottHowie	McKinnon	(Hamilton-^Huntington	McKnight	ScottJarvis	McLean	(Victoria-HaJelinek	McMillan	ShieldsJewett (Miss)	Miller	SiddonKeeper	Mitchell (Mrs.)	SkeliyKempling	Mitges	StevensKilgour	Munro	StewartKing	(Esquimalt-Saanich)	TaylorKnowles	Murphy	ThackerKorchinski	Murta	ThomsonKristiansen	Neil	TowersKushner	Nickerson	VankoughnetLambert	Nielsen	WaddellLa Salle	Nowlan	WenmanLawrence	Nystrom	WilsonLewis	Oberle	WiseLewycky	Ogle	Wright Young-126.


Madam Speaker:: The motion is carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Francis in the chair.
Cyril Lloyd Francis: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-128, an Act to provide supplementary borrowing authority, No. 2.
Shall Clause 2 carry?


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, on a point of order concerning the business of the House. I announced last week that tomorrow we would undertake consideration of a bill arising from the last budget and providing for a reduction in interest rates for farmers. It will remain on the Orders of the Day while we wait for the consent of the opposition parties in connection with my proposal to begin tomorrow consideration of a special bill ordering the West coast longshoremen back to work. I delivered copies of the bill to the two House leaders and I hope that in due course we shall obtain their consent not only to introduce the said bill tomorrow but also, I hope, to discuss and pass it at all stages. Before obtaining that unanimous consent, I wish to confirm to the House that if we do not obtain it, the Orders of the Day will be as indicated last Thursday in reply to the usual question.


Mr. Lewis:: Madam Speaker, on behalf of our party, I am prepared to grant unanimous consent to the introduction of the Bill now so that it can be printed and distributed.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to have the special bill introduced at this point?


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, on behalf of my caucus, I would be prepared to give unanimous consent to having the Bill printed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 2 agreed to on division.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Shall Clause 3 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 3 agreed to on division.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Shall Clause 1 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1 agreed to on division.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
[ Translation]
Mr. Lalonde moved: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Erik Nielsen: That is not good enough.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I can assure my colleagues opposite that before noon tomorrow I will try to send copies of the Bill to the two Opposition spokesmen responsible for the business of the House. I will do my best to give them as many copies as possible to make it easier for them to consult their respective caucus. But we do intend to introduce the Bill immediately after the Question Period tomorrow but, for all practical purposes, that will not change anything.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, obviously the Government is asking for consent to introduce the Bill now. As far as the Official Opposition is concerned, it has now received that consent from us. The House leader for the New Democratic Party seems to be waffling and giving consent to having it printed only. Surely we can assume that they are consenting to having it introduced now because the normal consequence of introduction is that the Bill is printed. Can we not have their consent to have it introduced now?
November 2, 1982

Mir. Deans: Thank you, Madam Speaker, I was not asked for that consent by the Government House leader. If he would like to ask for that consent, I would be delighted to give it.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, we are prepared to introduce the Bill at any time, if only my colleagues across the aisle could agree with each other. In any event, even if we cannot reach an agreement this evening, desirable though it may be, I am saying that tomorrow morning I will make arrangements so that the parties opposite will have as many copies as required for consultation purposes and that, if we do have unanimous consent, we will be able to introduce the Bill, debate it and pass it at all stages tomorrow.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, now it seems to be the Government that is waffling. We have had unanimous consent from the House leader of the New Democratic Party, and unanimous consent from this Party, that the Bill be introduced now. Why does the Government not introduce it now?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I think that the Hon. Member opposite is making an excellent suggestion. If we obtain the consent of both sides of the House, there are no problems; I hope, however, that the NDP will be a little more straightforward and unequivocally declare that it is ready to accept the introduction of this bill tonight, but this is not what I have understood so far.
Business of the House


Ian Deans: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I thought that is what I said before. If the Government House leader wants unanimous consent to introduce the Bill now, I am prepared on behalf of my caucus to give that consent.


Madam Speaker:: Therefore, there is unanimous consent of the House for this special bill to be introduced now.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed!


WEST COAST PORTS OPERATIONS ACT, 1982 MEASURE PROVIDING FOR RESUMPTION OF LONGSHORING SERVICES AT WEST COAST PORTS
Yvon Pinard: for leave to introduce Bill C-137, to provide for the resumption and continuation of longshoring and related operations on the West coast of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Madam Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the second time?


Some Hon. Members:: Now.


Madam Speaker:: At the next sitting of the House.
It being past ten o'clock, the House stands adjourned pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 10.40 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, November 3, 1982