1983-03-24

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that Bill C-139, to amend the statute law relating to income tax (No. 2), be read the third time and do pass.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commence my remarks on third reading of Bill C-139, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act, by looking at some general principles underlying the Government's approach to the income tax system. The Government wrote the amendments with the basic premise in mind that the Canadian tax system is better with lower rates and with tax levied on a broader base. The desired result of lowering taxes by spreading the load over a wider base is reflected in a number of benefits to be enjoyed by the average taxpayer once the amendments are passed, hopefully as quickly as possible.
For instance, the Bill will bring into law the lower personal income tax rates proposed in the November, 1981 budget for the 1982 taxation year. These reduce the tax in many income brackets and represent a significant total saving of $ 1 billion a year for an estimated 5.8 million Canadians. Thus the general approach.
To benefit one-earner families in low and middle-income brackets, the federal tax reduction has been revised to a flat $200 per taxpayer, plus up to $200 for a dependent spouse as was proposed, again, in the November, 1981 budget. When the new system is in place, it will result in a tax saving of $200 per taxpayer with dependent spouses and incomes of up to $20,000.
Of course, there is more good news for taxpayers with children whose healthy appetites and ability to grow out of clothing are a constant reminder to parents of necessary budgetary considerations for both national and household budget preparation. The refundable Child Tax Credit is increased in this legislation by $50 to $343 a year per child effective for the 1982 tax year. The Government is conscious of the fact that some of the taxation proposals contained in the November, 1981 and June, 1982 budgets would create hardship on the average Canadian during current difficult economic times. That was the reason motivating the Government not to proceed with some of the proposals in the earlier budget. I
would quickly refer to the initial proposal to tax benefits received by employees whose employers contribute to health and dental plans. Had it been enacted, the cost to taxpayers would have been an estimated $100 million. We have indicated that we would not proceed with that proposal.
Small business, one of the cornerstones of our society, will gain a number of incentives in the Bill, signalling the Government's appreciation of the difficult challenges facing small business, particularly at this time in light of the world-wide recession. Let me give a few examples of some of the sections in the amendments before us. Provisions for the Small Business Bond program which encourages assistance to small firms in financial difficulty are extended to the end of 1983. The program had been designed to expire at the end of 1982; it is now extended for a year. It reduces interest rates by 6 per cent to 7 per cent through the provision of a tax exemption to lenders.
The limit on annual income qualifying for the low small-business tax rate is increased to $200,000 from $150,000. The total accumulated income that can qualify is raised to $1 million from the present amount in the legislation of $750,000. The tax rate of 12.5 per cent on dividends paid by small business corporations will apply only to income generated in years commencing after December 31, 1982. This, we believe, and other changes, will simplify the tax while it will address concerns expressed by small business groups and Members of the House of Commons who, for example, participated in the hearings of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Businessmen generally, Mr. Speaker, will benefit from a number of changes proposed in this legislation. For example, the rules governing taxation of work in progress for professionals was modified to exempt certain categories after study by the Committee, including doctors, dentists, lawyers, accountants, veterinarians, chiropractors; and, in addition, the Minister of Finance (Mr, Lalonde) has indicated the Government's intention to add to that category notaries for the Province of Quebec.
Interest expenses incurred for productive purposes will not be restricted. Reserves will continue to be permitted within specific time limits on the instalment sale of assets. This proposal will specifically benefit farmers and small-businessmen.
A new system of forward-averaging was introduced which simplifies the averaging process and eliminates payment of
24098

March 24, 1983
Income Tax
commissions. Exemption of small business to the corporate surtax is continued, and the surtax rate of 1983 is reduced to 2.5 per cent. The taxable benefit for an employee with a company car will be 2 per cent of the cost of the car or two-thirds of leasing costs. This is a reduction from the original proposal in the 1981 budget presented to the House.
As the Minister of Finance told the House of Commons in speaking to the Bill, it is of great importance not only because of the many positive changes it proposes in the tax system but also because its passage will end the uncertainty that lingers on through this process of consultation since this legislation was first introduced. He added that the Bill also provides an important example of the mechanism of consultation in shaping a tax system that works better for all of us. Indeed, the Minister carried on that process in the first months of this year in preparation for the upcoming budget and met with a wide variety of Canadians representing a particular interest in the community right across the country.
The time span covered by the process, that is from the original introduction of the 1981 amendments to date, reflects the degree of intensive and comprehensive consultation that was followed. Department of Finance officials met directly with a wide range of individuals and organizations who had advice to give on tax issues. In addition, Members of the House of Commons and the Senate gave consideration on both a formal and informal basis to many of the issues before they were finally brought forward in Bill C-139.
The Finance Committee of the House worked through the summer. It reported in the early fall. The Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce also held hearings on the original Ways and Means motion which signalled the contents of the Bill. Members individually and through their Party representatives held meetings across the country and solicited input to the original proposals.
The Lortie Commission, comprised of private sector individuals, made recommendations on the matter of inflation and the taxation of personal investment income. Several other groups of outside tax experts and members of the business community were appointed to examine important tax proposals. I submit that the proof that this consultation was for real is in the legislation which we have before us. Indeed, we solicited and received much advice and the proof of the pudding that we listened to the advice are the amendments before us which have taken that advice into account.
As I indicated earlier, the basic premise of the Bill is that the Canadian tax system is better with lower rates of tax levied over a broader base. In order to broaden the base, we decided to apply a principle that supposedly has been the cornerstone of the income tax system. It is that the purpose of income tax in Canada is to tax income.
However, we all know that there are certain segments of the economy where this framework has not been applied or has not been applied as strenuously or diligently as it should have been. There were certain tax advantages enjoyed by some Canadians investing in various financial instruments, such as
guaranteed investment certificates, term deposits, bonds, deferred annuities and certain contracts of life insurance.
Therefore, in November, 1981 and again in June, 1982 the Government signalled its intention of taking a new direction in the matter of taxation by broadening the tax base but, at the same time, lowering tax rates. In tightening the system, it became apparent that as we eliminated tax advantages in some areas, the purchase of life insurance purely as an investment instrument for tax deferral purposes was becoming increasingly attractive, particularly to those Canadians who had a good background of disposable income available for those investment purposes. The Government was then faced with the task of preventing unfair advantage being taken of the situation without losing sight of the fact, of course, that most Canadians who buy life insurance as protection for their dependants should not be penalized in the process of the adjustment that we had recommended.
As an indication of the Government's success in approaching this difficult aspect of balancing the interests of taxpayers and those in the life insurance industry in particular, I would like to refer to an article in the December 18 issue of The Financial Post of which the headline states: "Life Industry Comes Out on the Bright Side". The report begins:
For whole life policy holders, life agents and life companies, Ottawa's package of Income Tax Act amendments last week was well worth the wait-all sides seem to have scored little victories.
This was done, I might add, after lengthy and productive consultation with the life insurance industry and I would like to highlight the results, if I may.
The most important point to keep in mind at the outset is that the legislation does not affect any policies purchased before December 2, 1982. The vast majority of policies purchased after that date will not be taxed on accumulating income on a regular basis. This is the result of the amendment that defines an exempt category which people in the industry indicate will exempt the broad base, up to 90 per cent, of anticipated business in the industry.
The policies exempted from tax are essentially those paid for by premiums over 20 years or more. This was a major concession on the part of the Government. There is an income buildup in policies exempted as there is in other policies, but by saying that this income will never be taxed if the policy is held until death, the Government is providing an important incentive for the purchase of life insurance protection. The life insurance industry has played an important leadership role both in Canada and in many other countries. It is in recognition of this very important role which the life insurance industry has played that the Government has moved to that exemption.
I would like to say a few words about this issue of complexity and the time it has taken for this legislation to be processed through the House of Commons and its committees in the normal legislative process. Some Hon. Members argue that the
March 24, 1983

legislation is too complex and that the amount of time for consideration is inadequate. There is no doubt but that the amendments are voluminous. There is no doubt but that they are difficult to understand. However, as I have already indicated, the amendments have been examined by Members of Parliament, they have been examined by Senators in committee, and they have been extensively examined by the public for the last 16 months.
Since the introduction of the Bill on December 7, 1982 this House has heard over 99 Hon. Members speaking during second reading stage alone.


Mr. Smith:: Filibuster! Shame!


Paul James Cosgrove: We are now moving to third stage consideration of the Bill. At second stage there were 99 Hon. Members of this House who spoke on the legislation.


Mr. Malone:: How many for the Liberal Party?


Paul James Cosgrove: Seventy-four of the Hon. Members who spoke were from the Official Opposition.


Arnold John Malone: How many?


Paul James Cosgrove: Seventeen were from the NDP.


Mr. Thacker:: You don't care. That's your trouble.


Paul James Cosgrove: I would argue, in reason, that there has been ample time, ample opportunity and ample debate, no matter the complexity and the length of the amendments which are before the House.


Mr. Young:: You must be joking, Paul.


Paul James Cosgrove: Why, then, do we need passage of this legislation? Why does the Government urge quick consideration and a final disposition of the legislation? The Canadian taxpayer and the Canadian economy, I submit, are waiting for the tax refunds, refunds which will total S6.5 billion and which are important to the Canadian economy at this time.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Where are you going to get the money?


Paul James Cosgrove: Those refunds will be enjoyed by some 11 million Canadian taxpayers. That will be a significant contribution to the movement of goods, the purchase of goods and the manufacture of goods in the Canadian economy.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Why did you take it off them in the first place?


Paul James Cosgrove: In addition, we in this House all know that Canadian businessmen have requested an end to the uncertainty, the process which began 16 months ago-


Blaine Allen Thacker: Eighteen.


Paul James Cosgrove: -with the introduction of these amendments to the income tax legislation.
Almost every business group which made submissions to the Minister of Finance in the last two months, as he began his
Income Tax
consultative process in preparation of his next budget, indicated their wish that this House conclude disposition of these amendments to the Act as quickly as possible. Private sector entrepreneurs have asked for and need passage of this legislation to plan their actions, their investments in Canadian industry, investments which we know will create jobs.
Finally, we need passage of this legislation in order to move this House to consider new legislation, new business. The budget is being prepared by the Minister who is awaiting disposition of this Bill.


Blaine Allen Thacker: It will be a dandy.


Paul James Cosgrove: Other legislation is before the House, including the request for interim borrowing authority pending production of the next budget, pending consideration by the House and by the public of the budget with which the Minister is now engaged.
We want to get on with this new work and with the task of preparing a foundation for recovery. We have many signals indicating the start of that recovery. We feel that it is important that we now assist that process of recovery. We believe that the business to which the House should address itself is that new business which will look to the future. We cannot allow the promise and the promising signs which are now apparent in the economy to slip from our fingers.
Some Members of Parliament have argued that the process, the complexity of this legislation by itself, creates delay and uncertainty. I would argue that this is simply a rationalization. Uncertainty, I argue, is created when legislation is stalled or when it is forced to stand in limbo through deliberate delaying tactics and political point scoring. The shame is that it is not Hon. Members who suffer as a result of that game playing, it is the ordinary Canadian and the ordinary taxpayer. It is the unemployed person in Canada, and there are too many of them, many of whom are awaiting return of refunds which cannot be made until this legislation is passed.
There has been ample time for debate and examination, in my submission. There is a real urgency to the passage of this legislation. I urge all Members of the House to get on with the task at hand and move this legislation as speedily as it can to a vote.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, this Income Tax Act we have before us represents the most major change in our income tax system since 1971. It brings with it a philosophical change in how we determine income. The previous tax Acts treated income as income when received. When you earn the income, when you have the income in your hands, you pay the tax. Now a new philosophy has been brought forward. We tax income when we impute income to you; not when you earn it, not when you have it in your pocket

March 24, 1983
Income Tax
to pay the tax, but when we impute that you have it in your pocket to pay the tax.
Secondly, we used to encourage people to save. We encouraged them to save for their old age, to save for their business, to save for expansion and to save for creativity. We now discourage saving. We discourage Registered Retirement Savings Plans, we discourage deferred profit-sharing plans and we discourage saving through life insurance. We wipe out the possibility of saving by buying an annuity.
This is an Income Tax Act that has a philosophy of grab, of take-get it as quickly as you can no matter how you get it and no matter what damage you do in getting it. We used to have an Income Tax Act that encouraged the formation of capital. We now have an Income Tax Act that discourages the formation of capital. We used to have an Income Tax Act that encouraged people to invest in shares in companies. We now have an Income Tax Act that adds another burden of taxation if a dividend is paid from a company.
This is an anti-productive Income Tax Act. It is an antientrepreneurial Income Tax Act. It is an Income Tax Act that is anti-saving. The Minister said that 74 Members of the Opposition spoke at second reading. Let me tell him that 65 Members of the Official Opposition travelled across Canada and held public hearings for three weeks in their vacation period in the winter of 1982. They took their own time and spent their own money and held those public hearings, and they heard from the people of Canada what they thought about this Government and its tax system. To say that 74 spoke and that that somehow is wrong, when 65 of them used their own time, their own weeks off to hear public evidence, is to indicate that this Government really wants to hear no input.
The fact is that this Act had but five days in Committee of the Whole House. It was not as if the Committee was not moving along quickly. Indeed the Committee covered over 75 pages of this monstrous statute. The Government stonewalled any reasonable opposition or any reasonable amendment. Indeed, it did not even make the amendment necessary to look after notaries in Clause 16 of the Bill, because it wanted to ram the Bill through. Even though the Government promised in this House to include the notaries, it did not get around to it because it wanted to force a vote. Even though it was told that this Clause had to be amended to include the notaries, it did not do that.
I want to tell the Minister that we will be moving in the Senate of Canada an amendment to Clause 16 of this Bill to include not only notaries public from the Province of Quebec, but notaries public from all across Canada. If our amendment should pass, they will be treated as a profession and included in Clause 16. We say to the Government that with its promises now made in this House, it had better support that amendment in the Senate of Canada. Since the Government would not make the amendment, we will make the amendment.
This Government used closure to ram the Bill through Committee of the Whole. It refused to listen. 1 want to tell Members of another Government that did listen. In 1979 the
Government was faced with the obligation of putting through uncompleted parts of the Chretien budget. It was not a Progressive Conservative budget, yet the Liberal opposition debated it in Committee of the Whole for five days. We did not bring in closure, we let them talk. We let them debate the Bill properly and it passed through Committee of the Whole with due consideration.
This Bill, the most massive change to the Income Tax Act in well over a decade, a complete change in philosophical approach, is rammed through by closure. The Government even made the mistake of not putting in its technical amendments to a number of Sections, making it a perfect piece of legislation for the courts of this country.
Let us talk about the great representation made to the people of Canada that they cannot receive their income tax refunds unless this Bill goes through. That is the most shoddy representation to be made in this Parliament for some considerable period of time. What is an income tax refund? It is money that this Government took out of somebody's pocket improperly. The money was taken through its deduction system, the forced payment system under the Income Tax Act. This money was taken from people who are now unemployed, people who need the money now, but the Government will not give it back. It was taken when we had a weak economy, when people were going out of business because they could not organize enough sales. It was taken improperly from the purchasing power of Canadians, yet the Government will not pay it back. The Government does not want to obey the law.
Let me read from Section 152 of the Income Tax Act. I quote:
The Minister shall, with all due dispatch, examine a taxpayer's return of income for a taxation year, assess the tax for the year, the interest and penalties, if any, payable and determine
(a) the amount of refund, if any, to which the taxpayer may be entitled by
virtue of sections-
The Government has determined the refund, but does not want to give it back. It says it cannot give it back because the statute has not passed. What drivel, what deceit, what misrepresentation of the truth.
The Government says it can demand the collection of tax from people on weasly Ways and Means motions, but it cannot pay refunds even though the statute requires them to be paid. Even though the Government took more than it was entitled to, it says it cannot now give some of it back because this statute is not passed. There is not one Clause in this Bill before us that has anything whatsoever to do with refunds to anyone.
Some people would say that the Minister is a fraud. I would not say that because it would be unparliamentary. Some people would say that the Minister acts with wilful deceit. I am not saying that because it would be unparliamentary. Some people say the Minister acts like a thief. I would not say that because it would be unparliamentary. However, I would think it.
We cannot trust the Ministers of this Government to follow the law. With ample money in the till, they use Governor
March 24, 1983

General's warrants to borrow money on the street when they know they are not entitled to do it except in emergency situations. Even though the Income Tax Act demands that the Government pay refunds to those who have been overtaxed, it does not do it. It does not obey the law because it believes it is above the law.


David P. Smith: Wrong.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The Parliamentary Secretary says wrong, but he still acts as if he is above the law.


David P. Smith: Why don't you go to court?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: A lot of good that would do with the Government paying all of the costs; fight City Hall if you will, take them to court. Perhaps someone should take them to the real court, the court of public opinion in an election. That is the court case we will win. It is the court case that will determine that the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) and the Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Smith) will not be in this House again.
In the few minutes left to me, I want briefly to go over some of the issues that we were not able to deal with in Committee of the Whole because the Government brought in closure. First, let me deal with small business. If any Bill has done incalculable damage to the small business community, it is the Bill before us. It gutted the small Business Development Bond concept and left us with a bank bail-out bond. In a challenge to the Minister, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) said: "Please show me where a bank has advanced fresh funds for one of these bail-out bonds. Give me one example." The Minister could not give an example of fresh funds being advanced on even one of these banker bail-out bonds. He said it may result in a saving of 6, 7 or 8 per cent in interest. With the interest factors today, a person would be lucky to save 4 or 5 per cent.
Let us deal with the 12.5 per cent special tax on dividends. A company that has paid corporate tax will be further taxed on the distribution of profits to its shareholders. That is double taxation. It is taxation that applies years after when the company is to be wound up or when there is to be a takeover or change in direction or management. It discourages small businesses more than anything. On top of the 12.5 per cent tax, it eliminated the possibility of a small business reaffirming or recreating its cumulative deduction account. As soon as a small business has earned the maximum $1 million in profit and paid tax on it, it is automatically deemed a large business. No matter what dividends it has paid out in its history, it is automatically a large business. There are some businesses- the Minister knows this but will not admit it-that remain small businesses, profitable but small, which will be that way forever-small stores, garages, small construction companies. We have had evidence of this before the Committee. To treat one small business differently from another just because over its history it has earned $1 million in income is to be totally unfair and anti-productive.
Income Tax
As for the question of indexing, we had in our Income Tax Act the principle that if there was inflation we would not tax that inflation. We now have the six and five principle brought into this Bill. I say to you, sir, that that principle is not necessary. Inflation is already dropping dramatically and there is no need to change the principle of indexing. We would not oppose the six and five principle on taxation the way it was, in the sense of increasing the income to Government. We believe that if you are going to do that, you do it by amending the Income Tax Act, by increasing the rates of taxation; but to attack the principle of indexing, as this Bill does, is to take away the fairness which our Income Tax Act had, a fairness that was recognized almost throughout the world. We should have had an opportunity to debate that principle here in the House, but we have not had that opportunity.
Perhaps one of the meanest things this Bill does it to destroy the possibility of an employer lending to an employee money for the purpose of buying a home or for some short-term help. The present Act has a de minimis rule of $500 in it. If I want to lend an employee of mine $500 to pay for, perhaps, an airline ticket to fly to another part of the country to attend a funeral, and even if I am going to take it back out of his or her pay over a period of time, whether I charge interest on it or not, that loan is income and the instant that employee receives that loan he is subject to income tax on it. Housing loans have become income. If a housing loan is made it has to have an interest rate imputed to it at the imputed interest factor determined under the Act, even though these housing loans have been shown in every bit of evidence which we have ever heard, either in the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs or in our own committees travelling across the country, to have been used to increase the productivity of businesses, mines, farms, stores, and companies of every nature. A housing loan is deemed to be an improper employee benefit.
The Minister also boasts about averaging. In the Income Tax Act we have right now-which we will not have soon-is the most fair system of averaging there could be. It applies to the little people of the country. If a fellow had a good year and his income went up from $5,000 to $15,000 all of a sudden, he got general averaging. The new system of averaging only helps the fat cats, the Government's friends. Only if you are in a tax bracket where you pay the 50 per cent rate, 34 per cent federally plus the full provincial rate, is forward averaging good to you. Otherwise, you must pay your tax at the 50 per cent rate if you want the averaging at all. So it is only the wealthy, the big wage earners, who can take advantage of forward averaging. The others are hurt. They are harmed. Young persons just out of school and starting a new career are harmed. A senior citizen who happens to sell his cottage in one year and must bring into income a capital gain in that year is harmed. The person who gets a bonus from his employer for an especially well done job in one year is harmed. An artist who manages to sell more paintings than ever before in one year, but not enough to get him into the 50 per cent bracket by a

March 24, 1983
Income Tax
long shot, is harmed. The Government harms the little people. It does the big people the big favours.
With respect to capital gains reserves, it harms the little people again. The man who wants to sell his summer resort, unless he can get himself conventional financing usually has to take back the paper on that resort himself. Yet he has to bring into income, as if it was all cash, the gain on capital made from this sale with respect to lands and buildings within a five-year period and within a three-year period with respect to the inventory and goodwill. To expect a person who has not received the money to pay the tax is wrong. It is harmful to the economy of the country and is anti-savings and anti-entrepreneurial.
1 see my time is almost up. I would have liked to be able to carry on the debate with respect to soft costs, where a manufacturer who wants to increase the size of his plant, to put an addition on his building, must capitalize all of the interest and account for all of the interest on borrowed money during the course of that plant expansion, and he must add that interest and architects' fees, and the like, to his capital cost. We can increase his expenses for creating that addition to his plant by 20 per cent and 25 per cent quite easily that way. That is, apparently, fairness. That is the way we want to build a country.
That type of erosion, as has been pointed out, is in this Bill, and it has been pointed out by many people. Yet this Government refuses to listen. There is no reason for that refusal to listen if it wanted to help Canada grow. And while our airlines are losing money, we have a special tax on aviation fuel applicable only to our airlines. We have a special tax to make it more difficult for our steel companies to process iron ore.
I could go on and on, sir. This Bill should have received further and fuller consideration. Most of the Sections in this Bill are wrong. They are anti-entrepreneurial. They are anti-Canada. I say to you, sir, that the people of Canada will be the judge in that great court case of which my friend talked. The people of Canada will be offered a taxation system which will have some decency, some simplicity, which will be readable and which will abolish almost every one of the changes in Bill C-139. We make that pledge to the people of Canada today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Questions, answers, comments.


Paul James Cosgrove: When this Bill was brought into the Committee of the Whole for Clause by Clause examination, Mr. Speaker, I indicated at the outset that it was the Government's intention to add to the category of doctors, dentists, lawyers, accountants, veterinarians and chiropractors the category of notaries public so that that profession would also be exempt from the rules governing the taxation of work in progress.
The Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), representing, I take it, the Official Opposition, refused to permit the introduction of the amendment at that time. Subsequently, on four different occasions which are recorded
in Hansard, two of them on the last day on which the Committee deliberated, I again specifically requested the consent of the Hon. Member to introduce an amendment to include notaries in the exemption, but again was refused.
Following the Hon. Member's comments this morning, I should like to ask him what happened in the interval between the Committee hearings and today. What has changed the view of the Official Opposition so that it is now in favour of the amendment? Does it have anything to do with the fact that it is involved in a leadership compaign and is attempting to enlarge support across the public among the category of notaries? Is that why it is supporting the Government's proposed amendment?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, you have never heard such a stupid and ridiculous question as that. If the Minister would pay attention he would realize that the Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) and I raised the question of notaries in December, 1982 and that has been confirmed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde).
The Minister should also know that on three occasions while we were dealing with Clauses 3 and 16, I specifically pointed out the problem to him. He was so interested in keeping his ears shut and getting the Bill through that he refused to listen to any amendment, any suggestion or any alteration to the Bill.
The next day we advised his boss. Having read the Bill, his boss took him behind the curtain and thrashed him. Then he came pleading across the floor of the House and asked us to let him put it in. I said that we would look at it when we got to Clause 125. He was so interested in closing the House of Commons down that we never got to Clause 125, Mr. Speaker.
Next he asked me in the House if we would allow it to be dealt with after closure had been imposed. I said that if he wanted to open the Bill and drop closure we could deal with his amendment, but that if we were having closure that move would be improper and we would allow Parliament to deal with it.
The Minister was delighted. He thought the only House of Parliament was this House. He forgot there is another House, the red chamber at the other end of this building. The other night I said to him, and I say it again now, that the amendments will be introduced by this Party in Parliament-in the Senate of Canada, and his Party can vote for them there or not vote for them there.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is with no great pleasure that 1 rise to discuss this Bill today. So far it has not been handled in a way that could please anyone. The use of closure at Committee of the Whole stage has made it impossible to effect the kinds of amendments ands changes that the Bill needs. We had prepared a great number of amendments in an attempt to improve the Bill or make it more acceptable. Since we went through Clause by Clause consideration in Committee of the Whole as is the custom, we never got to any of the Clauses that we proposed to improve or amend.
March 24, 1983

This is a massive Bill with some 134 Clauses, indicating, in almost every case, changes to the income tax laws of the country. It is several hundred pages long. We had what amounted to a few hours of debate on Clause by Clause consideration. It is very difficult to be pleased with the process or feel that there was an opportunity for Members to take part in formulating the tax policy of the country in such circumstances.
In addition to closure at two stages of debate on the Bill, we have watched the Government attempt to put outside pressure on Members of the House. Taxpayers who prepaid their taxes or overpaid their taxes were held as hostage. The Government threatened to withhold their refunds until such time as the House passed the Bill. I do not think there is any precedent for that, Mr. Speaker. There have been similar circumstances before but the rebates went out before the relevant Bill was passed. This year the Government says that will no longer be possible and that until the Bill receives Royal Assent, no rebates will be paid.
The Bill has brought about a number of basic changes to our tax system. I think the change that we most object to in principle is the one which we perceive to be a move away from the principle of progressive taxation. That is supposed to be the principle that this country follows although evidence of that is not always clear. It is the principle that is espoused on election platforms and in speeches on taxation policy.
We perceive progressive taxation to be the most fair and equitable because it follows the "ability to pay" principle. There is plenty of evidence to indicate that people who have higher incomes use more Government services and subsidies than people on lower incomes. There is another reason for a progressive style of taxation. Not only does it comply with the ability to pay increasing tax rates, but it also fits in with the calls on the public purse made by the various income levels.
I would remind those who may doubt that statement that it is generally people on higher incomes who use the subsidies that go to the airlines and the airports. People on low incomes do not travel by air so much and do not use the kind of subsidies that are available in that area.
We could probably cite many more instances but what I want to do today is to spend some time discussing the proposals for change that we would have made by way of amendment to the Bill had we had the opportunity.
The first change about which I want to talk concerns the provision in the Bill for a new system of forward averaging. We are proposing an amendment that offers the same sort of averaging, previously known as general averaging. It would react to a decline rather than an increase in income, in a sense it would be a mirror image of the old averaging formula. Our proposal is unlike the forward averaging proposal offered by the Government, in that it would be automatic and would require no designation of income above a certain threshold or payment of tax at a higher level in order to participate in the averaging process. Our forward averaging would be useful to retiring farmers or someone with a large sum of extraordinary income. We are adding automatic averaging to the existing
Income Tax
provision of the Bill, for example, for a taxpayer who might have suffered a drop in salary for 1982. The cost of the proposal to the general revenue of the country would probably be somewhat less than the $2.6 billion which the Government expects to save by dropping general averaging over the next four years, assuming that the economy recovers or at least does not worsen in the meantime.
Our measure is progressive in the very best sense of the word because it reduces income tax for someone who was laid off or had a bad year. It is not as elitist as the existing forward averaging provision because it is automatic. Under our automatic averaging proposal, for example, with a fairly average income earner who earned incomes in the last five years of $17,000 in 1978, $19,000 in 1979, then $22,000, up to $25,000 in the following year, and suddenly a bad year of $16,000, the tax without the averaging provision for 1982 would be $2,610. With the averaging provision, his tax payable would work out to $2,404 or a saving of $206. We argue that that rebate of $206 during a year when income has dropped would be most welcome and would assist in evening out uneven incomes.
I might point out that farmers still have a five-year averaging provision, but we think that in these hard economic times when people are earning good incomes one year, then are laid off or their incomes are drastically reduced, an averaging provision such as the one we propose would make sense and be equitable to Canadians. The tax system has been and is continuing to work less to the benefit of ordinary individuals in the country.
Returning to the equity position, in the 1950s federal and provincial income tax worked out at almost 50 per cent paid by individuals and 50 per cent by corporations. I will take a shortcut rather than presenting all the figures. When we reached 1980, federal income taxes combined in that year fell 76.6 per cent on individuals and 23.3 per cent on corporations. There has not been a diminution of control or influence by corporations in that period of time. Almost any study at which we look, even without spending much time on analysis, indicates that the corporate sector was gaining far more control over the economy during that 30-year period. The amount of taxes they are being asked to pay by way of provincial and federal income taxes is proportionately down from what it was in 1950. I just wanted to put those facts on the record.
I would like to spend a few moments discussing some of the amendments we propose affecting small businesses, and farmers in particular. As we all know, the Bill does away with the income averaging annuity contract, restricted reserves and also halves the capital cost allowance for the first year of purchase of new machines. It proposes to do nothing to alleviate the burden of capital gains tax on retiring farmers. Despite that being one of the few planks in the current Liberal Government's platform back in the 1980 election campaign, there has still been no attempt to address that particular promise. I remind Hon. Member opposite that the promise was to change valuation day to the end of 1974 from the end of 1971. This

March 24, 1983
Income Tax
period is quite useful because in those three years land values increased at a very rapid rate.
Our proposal is slightly different. We think it provides some equity among taxpayers at all levels. We are proposing that there be a special exemption for farmers from the first $100,000 of capital gains tax. We argue that this is equitable because farmers generally do not have residences which can be classed as being free from capital gains tax, unlike most other individuals in society who own homes and can accumulate capital gains from the time they were purchased to the time of their sale for their old age. If they want to retire into apartments or retirement homes, they can pocket all the capital gains which accrue. But most farmers live on their farms and the problem is that the market value of their farms usually does not vary-sometimes not one iota-whether or not there is a house on the land. What is being sold is the productive assets-the land and to some extent the buildings, if it is a factory-type operation. The house itself has very little value in the transaction, so there is no real accrued capital gain which can be set aside for farmers. We are proposing a $100,000 tax exemption from capital gains in recognition of the fact that houses on farms are usually of very little value on the market.


An Hon. Member:: They are exempt anyway.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I hear my hon. friend. I admitted that before I began my dissertation. Had he been listening, he would have known that I was pointing out that even though the houses are exempt, they are of very little market value when the land is sold. Those who live in Ottawa should check land values and asking prices in the Ottawa area. They will realize that once they get 20 miles or 30 miles out of Ottawa, parcels of 100 acres, whether or not there is a good house on them or no house, are worth very much the same amount of money. An exemption would give similar recognition to farm homes as given to houses in towns or cities.
From the time the first budget was presented and for the last year and a half, we have argued that the income averaging annuity contract should be reinstated. This provision allowed farmers to spread their taxes over a few years rather than having to pay a large lump sum up front to Revenue Canada as required under the Bill.
When the then Minister of Finance presented the initial taxation proposals, we had a number of individuals who were caught in the position of having sold their land, property or business on a five or ten-year repayment plan. They were caught in the position of having received a downpayment which they had put into a retirement home, but the sudden change in tax law forced them to sell that home and borrow money in order to put the money up front required by the changes proposed in this Bill, leaving them with nothing on which to live for a couple of years. However, some of that inequity was corrected in subsequent announcements.
It is still, we think, a necessary condition of the taxation law of this country, since it is so complex already, to leave the
income averaging annuity provision alone for those people who want to use it as a way of spreading income over subsequent years. We proposed an amendment to reinstate that provision.
In addition, we proposed amendments which would have reinstated the old reserve provisions. The former reserve provisions were popular in cases when a retiring farmer was selling to a person in a community, allowing cash up front. It helped the young person, and it helped the farmer spread out capital gains over a number of years.
These provisions have been drastically trimmed. Young people now must go to a bank or a trust company for more money because the person selling out has to have most of his cash up front. This forces buyers to go to lending institutions instead of dealing on a one-to-one basis with the farmer or the businessman and it is commercializing the transfer of property and assets from one generation to another to an extent that has not been common in Canada.
We were also proposing an amendment which would have restored the full capital cost allowance in the year of purchase. As you know, Mr. Speaker, that has now been cut to half in the first year of purchase. I suppose in an ideal world the proposal the Government made might have been sensible in so far as it would discourage unwise spending, which has got some farmers and some businessmen into trouble, I do admit. However, we are not in the kind of economy where everything is going well. People, including businessmen and farmers, are not spending very much money. This provision further inhibits the ability of farmers and small-business people to buy equipment, which, in turn, hurts the manufacturing industries.
While I am on this matter and before I conclude, I would like to point out that the farm machinery dealers across Canada have made very able presentations to Members of the House and to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). They have pointed out that an investment tax credit, which now exists on new equipment, should be extended to used equipment and be restricted to the difference paid between the value of the purchased piece of equipment and the piece of equipment being traded in. These people have pointed out that there are tax benefits to the Government. Also it would provide some equity in terms of selling machinery and in terms of people who must, for financial reasons, buy used equipment.
I notice that my allotted time has come to an end and I will not be able to finish speaking about all the amendments we were proposing. May I say, however, that I regret the Clause by Clause stage did not progress through the House so that these very useful amendments could have been made in the proper fashion.


Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chileotin):: Mr. Speaker, when I rose to speak to this Bill on February 21, I drew the attention of the House to the inequity of the present tax structure as it applies to those in the agricultural sector. In particular, Section 31 of the current Income Tax Act appears to have the potential of financially wiping out hundreds of thousands of farmers and ranchers across the country. Since I raised this issue on February 21, I have learned that Revenue
March 24, 1983

Canada has targeted its auditors at those engaging in agriculture, particularly those whom they regard as suspicious. Under this blitz, known as Project L, auditors are fanning out across the nation and assessing some farms up to four years in back taxes. In my riding alone over 300 ranchers and families have been audited since the end of January and many of them will have to sell out.
This procedure is a direct assault on the Canadian agricultural sector and the family farm. This callous Government is vigorously enforcing an unjust and an ill-defined piece of legislation in order to fill its empty treasury, while at the same time kicking a good portion of the agricultural community when it is down.
Let me briefly outline how this situation arose. In 1952 the Government amended the Income Tax Act so that three classes of farmers were established for tax purposes. These were full-time farmers, part-time farmers and hobby farmers. Full-time farmers can write off 100 per cent of their losses. For part-time farmers, the amount they can write off is limited to $5,000 a year. Hobby farmers cannot write off any losses against income, which is fair enough, I grant you that, Mr. Speaker.
Nevertheless, this section of the Income Tax Act has not been amended since it was introduced in 1952. The $5,000 a year deduction allowed to part-time farmers has not been updated to reflect inflationary increases in the cost of production over the past 30 years. If this item had been indexed, Statistics Canada estimates the deduction would be worth at least $20,000 a year. This, however, is only part of the problem with Section 31 of the Act.
According to Mr. Doug Eckel, a chartered accountant who was interviewed on March 13 on CBC's "Country Calendar", the wording of Section 31 is so ambiguous that only the original draftsman of the Bill could be certain of its meaning. He said that it is impossible accurately to interpret the intent of Section 31 and that it should be cleaned up, or better yet dropped entirely from the Income Tax Act. This poorly drafted legislation has allowed Revenue Canada to determine arbitrarily into which of the three categories a farmer falls.
As an example of just how arbitrary this ruling can be, I discovered when I returned to my riding last week that Revenue Canada's auditors are now using a figure of 100 beef cows to determine if a rancher is ranching on a full-time or on a part-time basis. In other words, if a rancher has less than 100 cows, he faces being reclassified as a part-time rancher, regardless of any other factors. According to Statistics Canada, the average size of a Canadian beef cow herd is 30.8 cows. It takes over three Statistics Canada renchers to make one Revenue Canada rancher. Clearly Revenue Canada's determination of what constitutes a full-time rancher is at odds with the Canadian reality as reflected by the Statistics Canada figures.
Originally, the intent of Section 31 was to prevent people from using a farm as a tax dodge. However, because of the ambiguous wording, Section 31 is now being used against quite legitimate full-time farmers. What has really complicated an
Income Tax
already impossible situation has been that, because of the recession, farmers have been forced to find employment off their ranches and farms to help cover the cost of operating. There are now about 125,000 farmers in Canada who have off-farm jobs. For a variety of reasons, this often results in the farmer making more from his off-farm job than from this agricultural operation. At this point, Revenue Canada reclassifies him as a part-time farmer in spite of the fact that his other occupation is merely an attempt to keep his operation solvent. This is grossly unfair and leads to a "heads the tax man wins, tails the farmer loses" proposition.
If a farmer takes a job off the farm to help pay his bills, he will then be regarded as a part-time operator who is only eligible for $5,000 a year deductions. As well, some farmers are finding that they are being reduced from the second category to the hobby farm classification, which is even worse. In many cases, the only option left is to sell out to pay the tax bill. That is an alternative that is readily endorsed by the tax auditors. If a farmer has the audacity to suggest to the auditors that he would like to take the issue further and appeal it, the auditors tell him that it will cost too much and would be cheaper just to pay the tax bill and forget it. That is the kind of advice farmers are receiving from Revenue Canada.
To an individual who regards himself as a farmer or rancher, this is a disastrous blow which is akin to drought, disease and fire all wrapped into one. It is just as dramatic as a prison sentence for a born and bred farmer to be forced to sever connections with the land and move into town.
One of the greatest problems faced by farmers when dealing with Revenue Canada auditors is that very few auditors even have a basic understanding of agriculture. Revenue Canada does not hire or train auditors who have specific expertise in agriculture. It is possible for an auditor to be auditing a manufacturing company one day, a local pharmacy on another day and a ranch the day after. As a result, most auditors are unqualified to pass judgment on the viability of agricultural operations.
One of my constituents graphically described this lack of knowledge of Revenue Canada auditors in very telling terms. Auditors came to his ranch during the spring thaw to look at its operation and the books. The owner happened to look out of the window and saw one unfortunate auditor trying to pick her way through ankle deep mud wearing high-heeled shoes. He said that he almost felt sorry for her. The auditors did not even look at the owner's books but simply looked around the yard adjacent to the house. My constituent volunteered to take the two auditors on a thorough tour of the ranch. However, they declined.
A neighbour of this constituent said that he had observed the auditors earlier in the day driving slowly past the ranch attempting to view the property from the main road. How could people possibly assess an agricultural operation without being provided with a thorough tour of the premises by the

March 24, 1983
Income Tax
rancher? Etow could they be expected to comprehend how a ranch was operated when they did not even know enough to wear the proper footwear during spring breakup?
This ignorance extends beyond the technical details of running a farm operation. Revenue Canada assumes that if a person has a full-time job, he or she would obviously not be putting in many hours on the farm. I suggest that this is a reflection of typical bureaucratic mentality where an individual works for eight hours or less a day and then goes home. A farmer or rancher who is trying to keep his head above water does not have that luxury. Ele will put in his first eight hours in the off-farm job and then often put in a further eight hours or more on his farm. Weekends and holidays are also spent improving the farm so that the off-farm job will eventually not be necessary. The farmer's spouse and children also put in long hours to make the ranch viable.
I would like to cite a quotation from the March 9, 100 Mile House Free Press that illustrates the problem:
Farming and ranching is just not everybody's idea of a good time anymore. With few vacations, hard work, crazy interest rates, hypersensitive market conditions, bizarre weather trends, livestock disease, increasing government intervention, and now-the auditors-some are wondering just how much more they can stand, economically and personally.
Such is the case with Terry and Ann Trip, Canim Lake farmers who have just been officially told by Revenue Canada that their operation is no longer considered a farm and that they will have to pay backtaxes for the years 1978, 1979, 1980 and 1981. The Trips, who have been developing their 266 acres of land since 1974, may be required to pay as much as $12,000 and the only way to do that will be to sell the spread they call home.
For the Trips it all started with a phone call on Feb. 10 from Revenue Canada officials who said they would be in the area from Feb. 13 to 25 and would be dropping by to audit the couple's farm books. There were a few missed and postponed appointments, but finally two ... young men arrived on Feb. 21.
After a brief walk around the place, rather desolate at that time of year, they perused the books, checking totals and correlating bills with entries. They also examined the Trips' personal expense account to make sure everything had been kept above board.
Ann Trip said the men were surprised to see her books in good order. The auditors checked back to 1978, but didn't bother to go through 1982 figures, which Terry feels is a shame ...
The auditors were part of an eight-person team which centered itself in Williams Lake and made forays into surrounding agricultural territory. They appeared to select their targets at random.
These auditors show a surprising lack of knowledge of agriculture. One auditor did not even know that a cow usually only has one calf per year. Another said that there was no viable agricultural enterprise in my riding. 1 will have you know, Mr. Speaker, that we have some of the largest and most successful ranches in North America in my riding. These people are so ignorant that I would really like to go out there and personally strangle them.
Lest one thinks that this kind of hardship as a result of Section 31 of the Income Tax Act is a recent phenomenon, I would like to read part of a letter sent from the then Minister of National Revenue, the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), to the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose). The letter dated June 2, 1972 says:
As a result of representations received from you and several other Members, 1 have reviewed departmental policy relating to the disallowance of certain losses claimed by 'part-time farmers'. As you are aware, the Department has been disallowing losses in cases where farming operations have had no reasonable expectation of profit. Such ground for disallowance are valid under the provisions
of the Income Tax Act. However, I recognize that in a number of instances, the application of this policy has created hardship inasmuch as some taxpayers, whose deductions of farm losses had previously not been questioned, were later faced with an assessment of tax involving a disallowance of more than one year's losses.
I have, therefore, directed that a review be made of each case that has been referred to my attention. If, following the review, it is concluded that the departmental policy has been correctly applied to a taxpayer, I have asked that the disallowance of losses be limited to the most current of years under review. This basis of assessment will be continued in all subsequent applications of the departmental policy relating to losses claimed by part-time farmers so that only the loss for the one year is disallowed.
In 1972, the then Minister of National Revenue acknowledged that assessing farmers for more than one year's back taxes would create considerable hardship. It is creating much more hardship at this particular time. Furthermore, I repeat that he stated: "This basis of assessment will be continued in all subsequent applications of the departmental policy relating to losses claimed by part-time farmers so that only the loss for the one year is disallowed."
Clearly, the present Minister of Revenue is reneging on a promise made by his predecessor, the current President of the Treasury Board. Revenue Canada's Project L not only reneges on the assurance given by the present President of the Treasury Board, but goes against the spirit of his written statement to the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody.
Some of my constituents have been assessed for as many as four years in back taxes. This is inexcusable. I am surprised that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has not publicly risen to the defence of these vulnerable and unprotected farmers and ranchers. The farmers of this country are used to the Minister of Agriculture misrepresenting his position by pretending to be the farmers' friend. He is a hypocrite and a deceiver. He misleads the agricultural community by passing himself off as an ally. Now we know why he wears his green hat: he pulls it down over his ears so he cannot hear and over his eyes so he cannot see. Unfortunately, his mouth keeps working as he travels back and forth across the country on his mobile manure spreader.
A good example of his deception occurred just the other day when he was on CTV blaming the Tories for dragging their feet on Bill C-653, which is a Bill presented by the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Ferguson). That Bill seeks to provide a simple and inexpensive procedure for farmers to rearrange their affairs when cash flow becomes insufficient to meet current obligations as they become due. The Minister said it was us who were dragging our feet. That was a lie. If that was a lie, then the Minister is a liar.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I think it would be preferable, for the record, that I recognize some Hon. Member who takes objection to the language. I will then rule on it.


Mr. Ferguson:: Mr. Speaker, if we look at the exchange between House Leaders a week ago last Tuesday, I think it is very evident from Hansard that the House Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Lewis) asked for additional time to consult with his caucus before coming forward with a decision
March 24, 1983

as to whether to give this Bill speedy passage on second reading and reference to committee. Therefore, in that context, I object to the word used and would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: First, let me say that I sometimes wonder if it is the responsibility of the Chair to intervene when unparliamentary language is used or whether the Chair perhaps ought to wait until there is an objection made. For that reason, I tolerated the word "hypocrite", which is unparliamentary. However, I think that when we are concerned with an accusation that an Hon. Member is a liar and has lied, we must become attentive. Therefore, the procedure which I would follow is to now ask the Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway) if he would be so gracious as to withdraw those words.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: I withdraw the fact that he may be a liar, but I think he is a hypocrite.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order. Again, if the Hon. Member asks me to do so, I will check the authorities on the subject, but I think the Hon. Member can rely on my recollection, which is to the effect that the word "hypocrite" is not acceptable either. Perhaps I will again prevail upon his graciousness and ask him to withdraw that word.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: Well, he is hypocritical, Mr. Speaker. I mean, we all know that.


Mr. Daudlin:: I rise on a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member recognizes that the practice in this House is that if, in fact, the Chair has ruled that a particular phrase or word is unparliamentary, it is not a matter of explanation or a matter of trying to slide around the word but, rather, a matter of exercising some graciousness in withdrawing the word. The Chair has given some indication that, in fact, the word "hypocrite", or the phrase "to be a hypocrite", is unacceptable and unparliamentary. I would ask that the Hon. Member withdraw the words, as is expected of any Hon. Member in the House. If he tries to find something else which is within parliamentary practice and procedure, that is fine. However, I think that the proper procedure is to withdraw the remark, and I would ask, through Your Honour, that that be done.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I do not think there is anything further that I can add for the edification of Hon. Members. It seems to me that when I indicated to the Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin that some words were not acceptable, he evidenced his willingness to stay within the acceptable language limitations under our procedures. I do not want to pursue the point too often. The Hon. Member has now found a third word, "hypocritical". Again, I say that if he insists I will review the authorities on the subject and determine whether or not that is also unparliamentary. However, if
Income Tax
he wishes he may rely on my recollection that it is unparliamentary, in which case I would have to ask him to withdraw it.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: What kind of a Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker, would allow people to lose their farms, and not even make any-


An Hon. Member:: Throw him out!


Mr. Ouellet:: I rise on a point of order. I think it is very clear that the Hon. Member has only one thing to say. He can either say "I withdraw the word", or he can tell us that he will not withdraw the word. It is not necessary for him to start to make a long speech to qualify another Hon. Member of the House.
I appreciate the fact that it might be painful for the Hon. Member, but I think that in all courtesy and for the good order of the House of Commons he should just very clearly and simply say that the word has surpassed his thinking and he should withdraw the word and continue his speech. However, I think clearly he has only one choice offered to him, which is to withdraw his remark. If he does not, the circumstance will become more difficult. We do not think, for the good order of the House, there should be situations where Hon. Members are impolitely qualifying other Members in the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin will have realized that I am attempting to provide every opportunity, in the most pleasant fashion possible, for this matter to come to an end. However, the Chair reaches a position, particularly if some Hon. Members ask that the rules be observed, where my responsibility becomes, in effect, to enforce the rules.
I listened to the Hon. Member's speech and it is quite notable that he feels very strongly about some of the subject matters which he was raising. Sometimes these expressions slip out in the anger of the moment, and my hope is that they are withdrawn after a brief period of consideration. Therefore, I would invite the Hon. Member, if he would be so kind, to withdraw the expression "hypocritical" as well.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: Mr. Speaker, I do not at all mind withdrawing the word "liar". However, I did not realize that "hypocrite" or "hypocritical" was unparliamentary language. I know I should have read Beauchesne to find out. However, I do think the Minister of Agriculture is a hypocrite, and I will not withdraw that word.


An Hon. Member:: Throw him out! Chuck him out!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: There is a procedure in this event. I want to explain to the Hon. Member-


Mr. Fisher:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know the Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin. I have spent some time with him to be a man of some conviction. I would simply urge him, one last time, to remember that forceful arguments and evidence might be better than impoliteness or a lack of flexibility. If it is useful to Your Honour, I would appeal to my friend to use forceful arguments and evidence in the time remaining rather than to use words which will only reflect on him in the end.

March 24, 1983
Income Tax


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I have been checking Beauchesne. I find that on various occasions the word "hypocrite" or "hypocritical" has not been found to be out of order. However, the overriding principle stands, and it is the responsibility of the Chair to consider the mood of the House, to consider the expressions used and, to consider their context. I am of the opinion that when the Hon. Member calls another Hon. Member a liar or indicates that he believes that person has lied, and when he uses the word "hypocrite" or "hypocritical" in the same connection, then the responsibility of the Chair is to find that that is unparliamentary language. I so find.
Therefore, I will explain to the Hon. Member that tradition calls upon the Chair to extend to the Hon. Member every possible opportunity to consider whether he wishes to observe the requests of the Chair by withdrawing his remarks, in the sense of good order. If the Hon. Member refuses to accept the ruling of the Chair, then I have a further responsibility, and that becomes the business of naming the Hon. Member, with which I think he is familiar. The whole matter is an unpleasant task for the Chair, and I do not think really does much for the institution itself.
Therefore, I would ask the Hon. Member if he would be so kind, pursuant to the ruling of the Chair, to withdraw the remarks or the word, to which we have finally come to a conclusion, and that is either "hypocrite" or "hypocritical". If he would be so kind as to do that, we can get on with the business of the House.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: I respect what you are saying, Mr. Speaker, and I respect the argument of the Parliamentary Secretary. However, last week people came to my office in tears. I have written to the Minister of Agriculture. He has done nothing. As far as I am concerned, he is a hypocrite and you can do what you want with me.


Mr. Neil:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I appreciate the position of the Chair, but over the years there have certainly been unparliamentary expressions used in the House, and I think they are clearly spelled out in Beauchesne. My understanding is that the word "hypocrite" is not found in the list of unparliamentary terms set out in Beauchesne. I would submit that in the absence of the word being specifically spelled out in Beauchesne as unparliamentary, then while the word is not a particularly complimentary one, an Hon. Member is entitled to make use of that word.
[DOT] (U40)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for Essex-Kent on the same point of order.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: Mr. Speaker, I think we now find ourselves in a double difficulty. 1 think the Chair has in fact found, in the context and circumstances of the use first of the word "liar" and then as a substitute therefor the use of the words "hypocrite" and "hyprocrisy", that in the circumstances this constituted, in the Chair's opinion, a disorder and, as a consequence, a ruling was made of disorder and the request was made for withdrawal.
I think that it is too late, quite frankly, to make the argument that the word is, is not, should not have been so declared and, as a matter of fact, to do so constitutes a reflection on an Order of the Chair, which clearly is a disorder and unacceptable in this House.
As a consequence, I put to you, Mr. Speaker, the unfortunate circumstance that we either have to move forward with a withdrawal, which the Hon. Member unfortunately appears to prefer not to do-and again I call on him to do so-or otherwise we are left with the unfortunate provisions of the rule which you, Mr. Speaker, are called upon to make use of.
I did want to enter the debate purely to reflect on the fact that an Order of the Chair now exists, and as a consequence it would be a disorder, in my view, to reflect on that Order or that finding.


Mr. Fretz:: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, the Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway), withdrew the use of the word "liar", apologized to the Chair and said that he would withdraw that word. So really that does not enter into the debate at this time. He then used another word, "hypocrite" or "hypocritical", which the Hon. Member has found is not in Beauchesne. I submit that inasmuch as he apologized and withdrew the word "liar", the Hon. Member should be allowed to continue his speech.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, this has been called a long, complicated and confusing Bill. Just about everything possible has happened to it since the ideas were originally introduced in November of 1981. Perhaps it would be only appropriate if we end up our debate on third reading by having this kind of confrontation involving a Member and a Minister, neither of whom really has anything directly at stake in this Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: If I may sum up, the
Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) raised the issue as to whether or not the word "hypocrite" or "hypocritical" is to be found in the authorities. I think that in the actual words that he used, he indicated that the word is not found in Beauchesne. That is not correct; the word is to be found in discussions in Beauchesne as to what is parliamentary or not. I think I understood the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw to make the point that it is not to be found in Beauchesne as a prohibited word. More accurately, it used to be a prohibited word and seems to have shifted toward a situation where it is in some occasions, in any event, not a prohibited word.
It is the responsibility of the Chair-and this Hon. Members will find through any of the texts on the subject-whether the word used or in question is on a forbidden list or not on a forbidden list, to point out that what is essential to a ruling on the question of whether a word must be withdrawn is the context and the mood in which the language is used. That is a responsibility of the Chair. The fact that the word was used immediately contiguous to the accusation of lying is what has
March 24, 1983

brought me to the conclusion that the Eton. Member should be reminded that, despite his evident concern for the subject matter that he has been talking about, nonetheless debate is thought to be not improved by making use of words of that order.
I have gone on at some length hoping that perhaps the Hon. Member will change his mind and, as a courtesy to the rest of the House, withdraw the word "hypocrite" and I would invite him to do so. If he does not, then the procedure apparently is to name him. As I said, I do not find that a very pleasant situation. I had hoped that the Hon. Member, partly on behalf of the House and partly in courtesy to the Chair, would not bring me to that situation.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: Mr. Speaker, I really respect what you are saying, but I have literally hundreds of people in my riding who are being kicked off their farms. If I thought I could get Hon. Members on the other side to pay some attention to me, I would go along with this. But I have written to the Minister of Agriculture about this problem and have received two or three lines back; but nothing has happened. He is supposed to be the Minister of Agriculture. He is supposed to be behind the agricultural industry of this country, and a lot of these people are producers. The Act is screwed up, there is no doubt about it. It is not only happening in my riding but it is happening right across the country. As I said in my speech, 125,000 farmers are working off their farms to try to make supplementary income to pay these high costs that they are incurring, and now we are hitting them with back taxes.
Income Tax


Mr. Deans:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I as one Member would be delighted if that was the end of it. However, I am not at all sure now what has happened. The Member has left. Is he free to return at ten minutes to one? Is he free to return at two? I want to know exactly what has happened here.
I listened most carefully to what went on preceding his deciding to leave the House, but I must confess, Mr. Speaker, that his decision to leave the House was not his to make. The only decision open to the Member, and I am not happy to say it, was either to withdraw or not to withdraw the words that were considered by the Chair to be unparliamentary; beyond that there is no other decision to be made. I suggest that the action that has been taken, humane though it may have appeared to be, was quite inappropriate.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, seconded by Mr. Cosgrove, I move:
That the Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway) be suspended from the service of the House for the remainder of today's sitting.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The motion is in order. It is not debatable. I would ask the House if there is agreement to the motion put forward by the Minister? All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Mr. Cullen:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I understand that you have made a decision and asked the Hon. Member to withdraw. The only thing to be decided is either he withdraws or he does not. He is not entitled to make a speech.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In the time before I came to the Chair, I have seen in several instances the practice of Mr. Speaker Jerome wherein he gave the Hon. Member in question every opportunity to consider his remarks. I have been doing that, and if I thought that a further appeal to the Hon. Member would work, I would do that again.
It is appropriate, I think, at this point to ask the Hon. Member if he would rise and withdraw the word "hypocrite", failing which I will take the necessary procedures.
Mr. Greenaway, I have to name you for disregarding the authority of the Chair. Under Standing Order 30, I will now ask you to withdraw from the House.
And Mr. Greenaway having withdrawn:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I see the Minister is on his feet. I would like to contain these matters. I cannot, and obviously will not, disregard the Minister or any other person who may wish to put a motion, but as far as the Chair is concerned I would think the issue has now been resolved. If there is a feeling that matters should proceed further, that is in the hands of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In that case, call in the members.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly I would ask the Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway) to withdraw from the House.
And Mr. Greenaway having withdrawn:


Mr. Prud'homme:: Madam Speaker, I think it is only fair to point out that when four Members, two on the Opposition side and two on the Government side, hurried back to vote as they were supposed to, they were prevented from doing so because they arrived just as the vote was being held. However, I would like to have our presence recorded. These Members are: the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday), the Hon. Member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence), the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) and the Hon. Member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Laniel).


Madam Speaker:: Order! Names of Members present have been recorded and I do not think it is necessary to raise the matter again.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Henri Tousignant (Temiscamingue):: Madam Speaker, we are all aware of the high rate of unemployment in Canada. Perhaps that is why there are so many candidates for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party. Maybe we should ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) to have this new position of Leader of the Opposition and Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party included in the Canada Employment Commission's job bank, so that more people could apply for the job-


Madam Speaker:: Order, order!

I cannot hear what the Hon. Member is saying.

The Hon. Member for Temiscamingue has the floor.


Henri Tousignant: Madam Speaker, this is very important. This new job should be posted with the job bank so that more Canadians could apply for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party. At the same time, however, some indication should be given that it is a high risk job with a high rejection rate, and that at some time in the future, applicants will have to express their views on certain questions. Running for the leadership is all very well, but they are going to be asked what their position is on missile testing, the Crow Rate, Petro-Canada, and so forth. So in that case, Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member's time has expired.
* *
*



NATIONAL REVENUE


Hon. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Madam Speaker, in the interior of British Columbia Revenue Canada is currently
March 24, 1983

auditing hundreds of farmers and ranchers to determine if they should be assessed back taxes. Central to the determination of whether or not back taxes are owing is the Section 31 classification of an agricultural operation as, first, full-time farming, second, part-time farming or, third, hobby farming.
Because of the current recession, many full-time farmers have been forced to seek employment off the farm in order to meet high costs. In some cases, income off the farm has far exceeded on-farm income, as prices for livestock, especially cattle, have been depressed. Revenue Canada auditors are presently reclassifying these operations as part-time, thereby limiting the losses a farmer can deduct to $5,000 a year. They are also moving farmers who were in the second class into the hobby farm class where no losses are deductible. In many cases, four years' back taxes are being assessed.
This situation is clearly inequitable. The farmer or rancher who has tried to adjust to the recession by establishing an alternate source of income in an attempt to remain solvent, is suddenly hit with taxes he can ill-afford. Many will be forced to sell out to pay this unexpected tax levy. The federal Government is unfairly profiting from the devastation wrought upon those in the agricultural sector by the recession.
Information provided by those who have already been audited indicates that Revenue Canada has no clear guidelines by which the three classes of farmers can clearly be delineated.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.

[Translation}



REQUEST THAT SUBSIDIES FOR KATIMAVIK PROGRAM BE INCREASED IN NEXT BUDGET

Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: Madam Speaker, yesterday, several Hon. Members had the opportunity of meeting the young people who were taking part in the Katima-vik program, I believe that we should ensure that when the next budget is brought down, substantial amounts are added to the funding for the Katimavik program which has done so much for young people and which deserves the unqualified support of the House of Commons. I would appreciate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) considering this possibility. In addition, during International Youth Year in 1985, it would perhaps be a good idea to have public hearings where young people would appear before the House of Commons to air their views. What youth is should be defined by young people for young people. I think it would be very interesting if here in the House, we could take a close look at their aspirations, because as was said earlier by the Hon. Member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Tousignant), we must consider what we are going to do about job creation, especially since within the Progressive Conservative Party, there are already several people looking for a job.



THE LATE LEONARD NICHOLSON


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, Canada lost an outstanding citizen on Tuesday, when Leonard Nicholson, Commissioner of the RCMP between 1951 and 1959, died in hospital in Ottawa.
Canada can be grateful and proud to have had such a man in such a position of influence at such a critical time, in the aftermath of Gouzenko. New Brunswickers can be proud of a native son who played such a prominent role in this country, not only in the maintenance of law and order in this country but quite as importantly in respect for the law-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I have to remind the Hon. Member that statements at this time are not to be used for this kind of tribute to a person, no matter how worthy that person may be. If the Hon. Member does not have a statement on an issue which he feels is important, I am afraid I will have to declare him out of order.


Donald W. Munro: I do think it is important to pay tribute to a man who has been Commissioner-


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry. There are provisions whereby, in other places and other circumstances, this can be done. I sympathize with the Hon. Member, but I cannot allow it at this time.



CUSTOMS AND EXCISE


Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, on June 30, 1981, I moved a motion in this House. I want to repeat it because of correspondence that I have received lately.
In view of the fact that Canadians travelling abroad on returning home after prolonged vacations are permitted $150 worth of duty-free purchases per person if a person has been out of the country for seven days, and in view of the fact that this amount has been badly eroded by inflation over the last decade and barely covers vacation expenses in most cases, 1 had moved, seconded by the Hon. Member for Erie (Mr. Fretz), that the Government give serious consideration to increasing the duty-free purchasing abroad to $250 per person if a person has been away for seven days or longer.
Since most Canadian foreign travel is to our neighbour, the United States of America, and since Canada has a very favourable balance of accounts with the United States, I ask that the Government give this matter serious consideration and bring forth such an adjustment in the next federal budget.

March 24, 1983
Oral Questions
Such reasonable considerations will serve to reduce the increasing tensions arising between our two nations.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, on March 24, today, I would like to pay tribute to Archbishop Oscar Romero who died three years ago, a victim of an assassination.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Joseph Ogle: I will speak to the question of justice that he died for. Archbishop Oscar Romero stood for the poor, the poor who have been calling out-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Unless the Hon. Member discusses an issue, I cannot allow him to continue. He must discuss an issue in these statements before the House.


Robert Joseph Ogle: I speak simply to the question of justice. In El Salvador, most of the people are poor. Most of the people do not have a voice. Once in a while in the history of mankind a person comes along whose voice begins to speak for the voiceless. Today I would like to join my voice with those who have gone before us speaking for those who do not have the power to speak for themselves.
Powerful nations, powerful Governments, and powerful armies sometimes come to a country and say they are speaking for the people. This is false. In tribute in this last minute, I would simply like to say that the person we are remembering today, said moments before he died-


Madam Speaker:: Order.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. According to a decision made by the U.S. Trade Commission on March 22, allegations made by the State of Maine Potato Council that Canadian potatoes are being sold on U.S. markets at prices lower than in Canada, thereby damaging the potato industry in Maine, are to be further investigated by the U.S. Department of Commerce. American potato growers have asked that penalizing duties be imposed against potato imports from Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. Is the Minister
aware of this situation, and what does he plan to do to protect potato growers in P.E.I. and New Brunswick from this type of harassment and uncertainty?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member knows the procedure that is followed in the United States of America. They followed that procedure by a split vote in their commission that investigated the charges that their producers made. They decided to go ahead with the inquiry. The study and inquiry will take place. If I understand correctly, it has to be completed by August 1. We have received representations from the potato producers through their official organ, the Canadian Horticultural Council. They have asked us to assist with regard to fees for solicitors, et cetera, which are estimated to cost $100,000. We are very much concerned about it. We feel it is a form of harassment and that is the procedure they will follow. I understand that hearings will be held in Charlottetown, Fredericton, and probably one other location during the coming weeks and months.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION
Melbourne Alexander Gass: Madam Speaker, the estimated value of the potato industry to P.E.I. and New Brunswick is $32 million. It is critical to the economy of both those Provinces. The farmers of P.E.I. and New Brunswick can get little assurance and relaxation from what the Minister has just said. I again ask the Minister what immediate steps he plans to take to create some certainty in the potato industry in P.E.I. and New Brunswick.


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that meetings have been held in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and the other eastern potato-producing provinces, Ontario and Quebec. Other meetings will take place next week. They have been talking about forming a better marketing system for potatoes for the past several years. They put forward seven papers on what kind of plan they want for marketing. If they had that plan at this time, they would not have to worry very much about what the United States or anybody else is doing.


IMPORTATION OF UNITED STATES POTATOES
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, I do not believe that the establishment of the organization proposed by the Minister will in fact change the world market price of potatoes, which he is suggesting it will do. Inasmuch as the basis of the decision is the fact that the State of Maine has stated that we have damaged their potato industry, can the Minister now tell this House what parts of the Canadian potato industry are being damaged by imports from the United States? Is he in the mood to take any comparable action against the movement of potatoes northward?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is talking about the potato indus-
March 24, 1983

try in British Columbia which is being affected in a very harsh economic fashion by cheap imports from the United States. British Columbia producers have lowered their price twice. Potato shippers in the United States have met that competition. We feel they are now dumping potatoes in Canada, and we have already started an investigation.


AMOUNT OF CROSS-BORDER TRADE IN POTATOES
Fred Alward McCain: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister what action he thinks should be taken with regard to potatoes which are coming into Canada, not only in British Columbia, but which will be and perhaps are now coming from all parts of the United States, as they come season by season to supply the Canadian potato market until such time as the Windsor area begins to produce potatoes in Canada.
The market movement of potatoes into Canada in the last ten years has shown that, pound for pound, we have imported more than we have exported. What case is the Minister prepared to present to show that this is in fact a seasonal exchange of product that they, in dollar terms, and usually in weight terms, have an advantage in their marketing in Canada versus our marketing in the United States? Will that bear no weight in their ultimate decision or in the presentation which the minister will make to the U.S. Government?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member knows full well what the voice for the potato producers of Canada has said at the annual meeting held recenty in Ottawa. I refer to the Canadian Horticultural Council. Their motion, in very simple terms says "You in the United States produce enough potatoes for yourself, we in Canada produce enough potatoes for ourself; you keep yours, and we will keep ours". That, in very plain terminology, is what it amounts to. That was the voice for the potato producers in Canada. We work very close with them in what they are suggesting.
I met with the western potato producers in Winnipeg. I met a delegation here when they were attending the Canadian Horticultural Council meeting. They are meeting today and tomorrow in the United States with potato producers from the northwestern United States. There will be representatives from all of Canada there to decide how to work out a better trading program among themselves.


POTATO INDUSTRY INQUIRY
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Since we had committed ourselves some three years ago to an inquiry into the potato industry in Canada, why has that not been done and why is it that our potato industry is now being investigated by Americans south of the border, who seem to want to investigate every aspect of Canadian economic activities these days? Why are we not investigating the Canadian potato industry here in Canada?
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member knows that there have been several hearings taking place in Canada about potato marketing. If the Hon. Member is suggesting a Royal Commission-and I heard applause from the other side, yet they always condemn these Royal Commissions-I do not believe a Royal Commission is appropriate, but there have been hearings and decisions have been made. The National Farm Products Marketing Council has held hearings on potato marketing, on how it should be helped. That is why they are recommending the kind of a marketing system which is wanted. It has been endorsed by Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and, Madam Speaker, is being endorsed by the western Provinces. The western Provinces say they are ready to move faster than the eastern Provinces on this very similar kind of condition.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Both he and the Secretary of State for External Affairs stated last week, and earlier this week, that the Cruise testing would be looked at in light of progress made at the Geneva talks, and also that declining to test the Cruise would not be a breach of any of our commitments. He said that the day before yesterday in the House. Last evening, at his dinner for U.S. Vice-President Bush, the Prime Minister not' only did not make any connection between testing and progress of the talks at Geneva but, even more seriously, he said that refusing to test would in fact be a breach of some of our commitments. Which of the Prime Minister's statements is the Canadian public to believe?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I repeat that when I said there would be no breach of any commitment, that is the only thing I could say, because there has been no commitment. I believe that has been made clear repeatedly in the House. The Hon. Member says I said last night that there had been a commitment. I should like to know where and how I said that. If she has any text, I would be happy to hear it from her.


CANADIAN COMMITMENT TO NATO
Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister clearly wants to have the public continue in a state of absolute and complete confusion on this subject. He said last night that we would not be in breach of any commitment if we tested the Cruise. What I am asking him is how does that square with him saying that we would be-I am sorry, he said that we would be in breach of our commitment-

March 24, 1983
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pauline Jewett: -if we tested the Cruise. How does that square with his earlier remark that we would not be. He is saying one thing one day-and he has me confused and he has everyone in the country confused about this. If the Prime Minister refers to a commitment to Europe, Madam Speaker, if that is the commitment he says we would be breaching if we decline to test the Cruise, will he explain to me why it is possible for Norway not to test or deploy nuclear weapons and still remain a member of the alliance, and for Belgium possibly to refuse to deploy nuclear weapons? Would the Prime Minister explain to me why Canada has no independent initiatives in the alliance?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that I did not say there was a commitment to Europe to test the Cruise. There was no commitment to the United States and there is none to Europe.
What I said last night it seems to me is reasonably clear, if the hon. lady looks at the transcript. I was saying that there was a two-track decision made by NATO in December, 1979, to which all the members of NATO, including Canada, subscribed. One of those two tracks was an undertaking to deploy in Europe, in certain countries-not necessarily every one of them, Norway or Belgium, but in certain countries-to deploy Euro-missiles. That was a commitment which Canada made with the others.
My argument last night was that those who oppose the Cruise testing in Canada are really asking us to renege on a NATO commitment made by the Europeans to their North American partners. That is the logic I was putting forth last night. It does not mean that there has been an agreement made. I told the House before that we want to make sure that both tracks are being pursued, in other words, that the negotiations with the Soviet Union are being pursued at the same time as we are preparing for the deployment of the Euro-missiles, and that our judgment of how the other track was proceeding would influence us in deciding whether we would go with the Cruise or not. Indeed, that other track is what we discussed very extensively with Vice-President Bush yesterday.


Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister has said we are doing this because Europe has asked us to do so. That is a direct quote from last night. Now he is saying that Europe has nothing to do with it, it is not their request. Indeed, it is a request from the United States for the air launch Cruise missile testing, from the B-52 bombers. That that is what the request is all about. I wish he would make that clear.


UNITED STATES POSITION
Pauline Jewett: My
final supplementary relates to the speech of President Reagan last night. Following on all the discussions about arms reductions with Vice-President Bush yesterday, we hear President
Reagan announce what can only be described as a frightening escalation of the nuclear arms race, an escalation which could well violate the rather fragile arms agreements we already have. I would like to ask the Prime Minister, particularly in light of the fact that the U.S. Congress has reduced the President's defence request from a 10 per cent increase to a 4 per cent increase, is there any inclination on his part, and the part of the Government, to stop doing exactly what President Reagan wants, and to take its lead from the U.S. Congress instead, or is the Canadian Government more susceptible to pressure from the White House than is the U.S. Congress itself?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, until now I respected the hon. lady's concern about this matter. I wonder if I will continue maintaining that respect after her interpretation of my speech last night. She misquoted and misstated what I had said in the first part of her question just now, and then she seems to have omitted completely anything else I might have said in that speech where I urged the Americans very strongly to try to return to a more flexible attitude in seeking progress in the INF talks.
I urged them to try to recoup the spirit which had existed for ten years, between 1962 and 1972 after the Cuban missile crisis, when there had been an immense amount of progress on anti-ballistic missile treaties, on hotline treaties, on nonproliferation treaties, on partial test-ban treaties, and on various confidence building measures. I said that that was a very productive period and we were worried that since, perhaps, ten years there has been nothing positive coming out, and particularly the fact that the United States has not ratified the second SALT II talks. These are things which worry us. Therefore, the whole thrust of my statement last night, it seemed to me, was to urge the United States on in the direction in which I thought the Hon. Member herself was interested. Now she seems to be more interested in trying to misinterpret my speech than in seeking progress in this matter.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATO DECISION IN 1979
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. It applies to his previous response where he was discussing the 1979 two-track decision taken at the NATO ministerial meeting. He seemed to imply-and this is what I would like clarification about-that the decision as to whether or not there would be testing of the Cruise guidance missile system in Canada was also taken at that time. I would like him to tell the House that it is his understanding that the decision which was taken in 1979 applied to the arms control talks and to the deployment of the Cruise and Pershing missiles in Europe only, and had nothing to do whatsoever with the testing of any guidance missile system here in Canada.
March 24, 1983


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That understanding is correct, Madam Speaker.


PROPOSALS TO AID GENEVA TALKS ON DISARMAMENT
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. On Monday the Secretary of State for External Affairs, commenting on the forthcoming visit of Vice-President Bush, said that the Canadian Government would be putting its views forward on various proposals with respect to the Geneva negotiations.
May 1 ask the Prime Minister what proposals the Canadian Government advanced with Vice-President Bush yesterday that would make a significant contribution to solving the dilemma of the Geneva negotiations, so that true progress can be made on mutual balanced and verifiable nuclear disarmament in the world?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, essentially the Ministers and I made two proposals. They were both stated publicly in my toast to Vice-President Bush last night. I summed up the second proposal in my answer to the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway-


Pauline Jewett: I have a new riding now.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Vancouver-New Westminster-


An Hon. Member:: That is close.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Somewhere in British Columbia, Madam Speaker-the other side of the mountains that those people do not climb enough.


Madam Speaker:: It is New Westminster-Coquitlam. I have some sympathy with the Right Hon. Prime Minister.


Mr. Beatty:: I don't.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The thrust of the proposals has to do with something I said in the House the day before yesterday in answer to a member of the Opposition, to wit, that we thought the zero-zero option was the ideal option, one which would certainly be better if there were no Euro-missiles at all in Europe, but that we were not certain it was a realizeable goal, and that we were urging the United States to look at compromise or intermediate solutions. That is the essence of the message we gave to Vice-President Bush.


INDUSTRY
Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Madam Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. He will not be surprised to know that I want to raise with him the issue of the Maislin trucking bailout, a company that has
Oral Questions
been the beneficiary of $34 million of taxpayers' money that was pledged against its indebtedness.
Last summer the Minister's predecessor, in response to questions from Members of the Opposition and, indeed, from Government backbenchers, said on August 30 that if people came forward with applications and made their case on the merits, they would certainly be considered. Last week, on March 18, the Minister said, as reported at page 23908 of Hansard:
As funds were limited at that time we made the decision not to proceed with service sector applications.
Am I correct in understanding that the only service industry, trucking or otherwise, that will be the beneficiary of government largesse will be Maislin Trucking, under the Enterprise Development Program?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, to my knowledge that is the only company under the ED Program, but there could be some, for example, in the tourist industry under different programs. I will get back to the Hon. Member with a specific response to his question.


MAISLIN COMPANY APPLICATION
William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, I hope I do not accuse the Minister's predecessor wrongly, but he referred to the merits of the application. As the Minister well knows, dozens of applications have come to his Department from service industries, including the trucking industry and others, under the Enterprise Development Progam. No matter what the legitimate merits of the applications are from these service industries, are we to understand that the only successful applicant over the last year has been Maislin Trucking?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, my predecessor, in an effort to assist a number of companies that came before the Government at the time, made a very sincere effort to look at those applications. Unfortunately, there was also a substantial increase in demand from companies in the manufacturing and processing sectors which the program was originally designed to assist. Because of the fiscal restraint that we were under, plus the increased number of applications subsequent to my predecessor's willingness to consider service sector applications it was decided that it was more appropriate to handle the manufacturing and processing applications first. They obviously had the priority as the program was designed for these sectors.


CRITERIA FOR ELIGIBILITY
William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, just so that we can be absolutely clear, may I ask the Minister whether the only service industry that would qualify with any optimism, or

March 24, 1983
Oral Questions
that would apply with any optimism for a government handout or a government pledge of $34 million, or even a lesser amount, is a service industry that would fit these qualifications: one so mismanaged that the Government insisted on a new chief executive officer; one in such a precarious financial position that government officials advised against any government involvement; the majority of whose employees are in the United States and are not citizens of Canada; and one that is a friend of the Liberal Party? Is that the bottom line for service industries in this country to apply to the Government for aid?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, I get the impression from the questions coming from the Official Opposition in the past two weeks that they are looking forward to having the Maislin Corporation go under. As a fellow Member of Parliament I find that attitude unacceptable, and regret that the concern for the jobs at stake is not taken more seriously by Hon. Members. I expect a little more from them in this regard.


NUMBER OF JOBS PROVIDED BY MAISLIN
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, I too have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. We all have trucking companies in our constituencies and they all need help, but only one got help. That is the point.
Earlier this week the Minister advised the House that, like a lot of other trucking companies, Maislin is experiencing financial difficulty. But Maislin was the only trucking company to get assistance, presumably on the basis of the number of jobs that would save. Can the Minister confirm or deny to the House that, of the 2,000 jobs mentioned in his predecessor's press release of July 31, only 800 remain in Canada?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, I will check that question and get back to the Hon. Member with the specific number of jobs involved.


FINANCIAL POSITION OF MAISLIN
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, earlier this week the Leader of the Opposition asked the Minister to inform himself about the financial stability of Maislin, and then inform the House. Media reports indicate that Maislin has been making monthly and quarterly statements to the Minister's Department. Can he tell the House what the financial situation of Maislin is in regard to profits or losses in the last quarter, from October 1 to December 31, 1982, so that the House, and the taxpayers of Canada who have bailed out Maislin, may know what the situation actually is?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is a chartered accountant, a profession for which I have a great deal of respect. As such,
he knows that Maislin must publish an annual statement according to the law of this country. When that statement is issued, everyone in Canada will be able to see the financial figures.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER REPORT ON DISCUSSIONS WITH MAISLIN
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, in an article in today's Financial Post a government source is quoted as saying:
We re talking to the company almost every day and see them about twice a month-
If that is the case, surely the Minister can inform the House whether the company is suffering continued losses. Can he not go that far and inform the House of the health or non-health of the taxpayers' $34 million investment in the company?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, as the Leader of the Official Opposition knows, Maislin is a public corporation. Their shares are traded on the stock exchange and as such they will be making their corporate financial statements public, as required by law. With his years of experience, the Hon. Member knows that. I do not think it is either appropriate or responsible for me, as a Minister of the Crown, to make those corporate financial statements public when it is provided under the law, under the Canada Corporations Act, I believe, that the company must do so.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I am not asking the Minister to make financial statements available now. I am following up on the line of questioning of yesterday and today. Surely the Minister has to take a sufficient interest in the taxpayers' $34 million to keep himself informed of the stability of the company? All he is doing by that kind of answer is stonewalling.


INQUIRY RESPECTING LOSSES
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, the Financial Post article goes on to say:
There is no lack of acknowledgment by government spokesmen that close tabs are being kept on the company-
If that is the case, why will the Minister not inform us of the extent of the losses of this company on a month-by-month basis? I suggest that he knows what those losses are and he is not informing the taxpayers who put up $34 million to bail out the company.


Edward C. Lumley: As I
said to the Hon. Member the other day, Madam Speaker, we treat this case very seriously because of the Government guarantees and also because of the job creation element. I also think my responses should be much more responsible than that, since we have a public corporation whose shares are traded on the stock exchange. It would be irresponsible to
March 24, 1983

respond specifically to every single question regarding the financial capability of this particular corporation. I do not think that is in the best interests of the future of the company or the stability of the jobs in the Corporation, or the indirect jobs created by the company.


BANKS AND BANKING
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. He will recall, and I am sure be aware of the fact, that there are still significant numbers of people who took out mortgages during the very high interest rate period and who are locked in for a year, two years or sometimes even longer, with interest rates in excess of 19 per cent. Given that the banks have recently announced that they are making a substantial recovery with regard to their profits, is it not reasonable for the Government to approach them and ask whether they would consider reducing the very high levels of interest rates being charged to those few Canadians who are locked in, in order that they not be put in such a financial bind?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, obviously any borrower can renegotiate with the lender arrangements made under a particular loan agreement. Obviously in these arrangements there are generally penalties to be incurred if the loans are called or reimbursed before the expiry date.
In my discussions with the Canadian Bankers' Association, I have already drawn attention to the fact that it should show a great deal of responsibility in that regard, take into account the particular situation of individuals and try to accommodate individual situations. I would be very happy to pass the further representations of the Hon. Member on to the Canadian Bankers' Association and the banking community generally.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT INTERVENE TO ASSIST HOME OWNERS
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. The Minister of Finance indicated that people are able to renegotiate downward the level of interest they pay. He knows full well that the penalties charged, generally speaking, are far beyond the ability of the majority of citizens in terms of capital outlay at the moment.
We still have substantial unemployment and many people with mortgage interest rates they simply cannot afford, well in excess of 19 per cent. Surely it is not too much to ask of the Government, having made representation and having been rebuffed, that it take action to say to the banks, since they have made a substantial recovery during this first quarter and
Oral Questions
the substantial recovery they have made is clearly one they expect to continue, that they must now deal with people locked in to very high interest rates over which the people themselves have no control, and over which the Government exercised absolutely no control at the time?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I have heard the Hon. Member's representations and indeed I will bring them to the attention of Canadian bankers.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Last night when he was dining with the VicePresident of the United States, the President of the United States made a statement indicating that its Government would proceed toward developing a satellite anti-ballistic missile laser system, much against the outer space treaty which we signed in 1967, and very much opposed to Parliament's Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence which unanimously opposes such an idea. Would the Prime Minister review the statement of the President and convey to the United States Government the concern of Parliament about this very dangerously destabilizing proposal?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I must admit that I have not heard or read the statement of the President. I understand the Department of External Affairs is discussing it with the Minister. I expect to enter the discussion at some point. Therefore, I would not want to comment beyond saying that we will study it very seriously.
1 get from the question the concern about anti-ballistic missiles. I agree that that was a very important part of SALT I, but my understanding is that this is something for a great distance in the future and will not affect present negotiations for nuclear arms limitation and reduction. That is the aspect of it about which I am satisfied, that it will not affect present negotiations. The Hon. Member raises a real concern. I will undertake to look into it.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Atlantic fish processing companies are now operating on three-month quota allocations that are due to expire at the end of March, which is just about seven days from now. In view of the uncertainty this action is creating among fishermen and the processors who are unable to reopen closed plants,

March 24, 1983
Oral Questions
resulting in continued unemployment, when will the Minister extend the long-term enterprise allocations these companies need to become economically viable?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, I would like to say to the Hon. Member that it was at the request of the different Atlantic Ministers of Fisheries that the decision was taken at the end of last year not to renew the enterprise allocations, pending the solving of the restructuring question. For a temporary period of time what has been decided is to prolong for three months, or a little more than that, enterprise allocations, until the new configuration of the industry is decided upon, whereby afterwards we will be able to discuss the enterprise allocations program.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I thank the Hon. Minister for that reply. I hope he will make the next three-month allocation known very shortly.


GOVERNMENT MARKETING POLICIES
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. The main unresolved question following the tabling of the Kirby report concerns the four recommendations in the marketing section, numbered 34, 35, 36 and 37. Since these recommendations, if implemented, will give massive power and control to the federal Government over the fishing industry, a threat which is causing considerable apprehension throughout the entire industry, when can it expect a final decision from the Minister with regard to the Government's marketing policies?


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, I say to the Hon. Member that we do not have the same interpretation of the Kirby recommendations on marketing. I would even tell him that we invited the Government of Nova Scotia to give us its official point of view. I also have some ideas that I shared with them. On the question of marketing, not only do we have the structure one can think of, but more fundamentally the question we must ask ourselves is: in view of the increased supply which we will have between now and 1987, how will we together expand the fishing market?
If Canada and the United States would consume one pound more per year per capita, it would amount to over 300 million pounds. We are a way down compared with Europe, on fishing consumption. We must expand the market, otherwise it might be wiser to leave the fish in the water than to depress prices, as we might have downside pressure for the next few years. There are many initiatives upon which the Government will be embarking, as I have announced, after its decision on the Kirby report.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Could the Minister give any indication as to the status of a request for funding assistance under the federal Urban Transportation Assistance Program for the proposed mainline CN rail grade separation in Ernestown Township. It is my understanding that Urban Transportation Assistance Program funds are currently fully committed in Ontario. Considering the extreme importance this arterial road project will have, for local industrial development, has the Minister discussed with his Cabinet colleage, the Minister of Finance, the level of funding in the upcoming budget for UTAP?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, it is either one of two things. Either this project has already been approved by the Government of Ontario, my Department and by the CTC and, if that is so, I will check and inform my hon. friend. If it is a new program, then I will have to tell the Hon. Member-and he seems to know-that Ontario has used all its funds in the UTA Program which ends in 1984. With respect to the future, I have a paper before cabinet now, which has not yet been studied, having to do with the creation of what I call the "son of UTAP". The decision as to whether it will be born or not is still to be made.


REQUEST THAT PRIORITY BE ASSIGNED TO PROJECT
William John Vankoughnet: Madam Speaker, again my question is for the Minister of Transport. It is my understanding that this program has been approved by the Ontario Government and that it is funding from the federal Government that is holding it up. Will the Minister make this a priority in the upcoming budget for the next fiscal year?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, sometimes the Government of Ontario approves a program under UTAP for which there is no money in the bank. That, of course, is not a real approval. But again, I will check on the Hon. Member's case. If it is a matter of there being no funds available, then I am sorry but my hon. friend will have to count on the Government of Ontario to carry the program alone, or he will have to wait to see if we will have the "son of UTAP".


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: My question, Madam Speaker, is for the Minister of Employment and
March 24, 1983

Immigration. Today, students from his own university, the University of Winnipeg, and students from the University of Manitoba, are demonstrating in front of the Canadian Forces Recruiting Base to protest what they consider to be a waste of federal funds for military summer jobs because they feel these jobs are unrelated to their education. They propose that the funds should go into career internship and community development, fields which are related to their own areas of education. Would the Minister give some very serious consideration to the protests from his own university?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, we have spent a good deal of time meeting with students over the past week and, in fact, over the past several months. I have also had a number of conversations with members of our own caucus concerning the various ways in which we can try to assist young people get employment. There is no question this is one of the most serious issues facing the country and that we will try to provide support for them in a way that we can.
We have inaugurated certain pilot projects, as the Hon. Member may know, in those two universities to provide work-study programs which enable the students to attend school and at the same time get job experience. There is no lack of different, useful proposals. The question is what packaging or balancing of options will most effectively help young people during this very difficult recessionary period.


REQUEST THAT STUDENT LOAN PROGRAM BE EXPANDED
David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, the President of the University of Winnipeg Student's Association has predicted that unemployment for university students in Winnipeg, and I am sure the same is true in every other university city and town, will be over 25 per cent this summer. This means, despite everything that has been done by the federal and provincial Governments, that not enough has been done. Will the Minister indicate whether the Government is giving any consideration to more new programs that will cut down that very serious rate of unemployment, because many of those students will not earn the money to go back to school next September? Will he discuss with his colleague, the Secretary of State, the possibility that the student loan program will be expanded so that these students can get some loans this fall in order to go back to school?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member should know that just a few weeks back we announced the addition of $50 million for the summer employment program, an increase in funds of some 40 per cent. We hope that will provide some leadership and direction for other provincial Governments and people in the private sector to employ students during this period.
This summer we will also be opening some 400 offices across Canada. They will provide direct placement services for
Oral Questions
upwards of 200,000 or 300,000 young people during this period. We are trying to make an effort to assist students. But we recognize at the same time that young people in the job market will be going through a particularly strenuous period and, as I have said before, their is a matter of very active discussion and concern among members of our own caucus as to how we can best help students over the next year and a half.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. This week the Commissioner of Official Languages tabled his annual report, in which he highlighted continuing violations of the Official Languages Act. He cited several flagrant examples, such as those of Air Canada in Timmins, and Petro-Canada in Quebec. These Crown Corporations are not giving adequate services to the official language minority. Since the problem appears to be with the enforcement of the Act in the various Departments and agencies, will the Prime Minister consider designating a Minister with sufficient power to enforce the legislation in all Departments and agencies in order to avoid a continuation of this type of violation?
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I will certainly take notice of the question, because we are concerned with the facts as stated by the Commissioner of Official Languages. I will inquire into the best ways of ensuring that all Departments are more zealous in applying the requirements of the Official Languages Act. I have not had time to consider whether I should again consider designating a special Minister, or whether I should use some other mechanism to ensure that, but I will look into the matter very seriously.


HARBOURS
Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, if 1 may. Last week there was a report in the paper that the Government had put up some $9 million for a chain of marinas along the St. Lawrence from Baie Comeau to Quebec City. Could the Minister confirm that particular report?


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, that question should be asked of the Minister of Tourism or the Minister of State for External Relations. It is not an activity of my Department.

March 24, 1983
Oral Questions


APPLICATION FROM SIDNEY, B.C.
Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, since the Department over which the Minister presides has within it a branch of small craft harbours from which funds of this sort normally come, I wonder why the Minister is backing away from it. He should know that for a number of years from Sidney, British Columbia, there has been a request to his Department for much less money than this for a breakwater to provide one marina in Sidney, B.C. Why has the Minister abandoned his responsibility and turned it over to some other authority?


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend is confusing two issues. For the regular program of the small craft harbours, cabinet has instructed me to consult with the different participants to get their views on the level of expenditure for that program.
As for the other program, which is not at all related to my Department and which is not costing my Department one cent, it is administered by my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and DREE, and relates to the tricentennial anniversary of the discovery of Canada by Jacques Cartier, which is an international event. This is why it is funded by another budget, not from the budget of my Department.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Jennifer Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, if I could get his attention. He is aware of my concern because I have telephoned his office on a number of occasions and I wrote a letter to him last December 23. My concern is with respect to the drain programs under the Eastern Ontario Subsidiary Agreement, an agreement which the Conservative Government introduced in 1979. This was an attempt to bring a resolution to the problem we had with the ARDA Program. Would the Minister give a commitment that the $2 million for the drain program under the Eastern Ontario Subsidiary Agreement will be provided so that these drain projects for the farmers can commence?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, as the Member of Parliament who worked for four years almost all by myself in preparing that sub-agreement with the Province of Ontario, I am very familiar with the programs, and I also know of the Hon. Member's interest in this specific aspect of the agreement.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Edward C. Lumley: Unfortunately, the provincial Minister of Agriculture has written an erroneous letter to all municipalities in eastern Ontario indicating that the federal Government was not forthcoming with their share of the funds for drainage. Once the Minister checked with his officials, he discovered that it was at the Province's request that we held back the funds for all individual drains because of the Province's desire to finance three major drains. I have since received apologies from the Government of Ontario for that letter that was erronerously sent out under the Minister's signature.
I have since decided that we will approve all the individual drains until such time as the funds have been depleted. However, the three major drains that were proposed, and for which the Province originally asked to hold back the funds, will probably not have the cost-sharing because it is expected that all the funds will be needed for the individual farmers' drains in the counties of eastern Ontario under the agreement.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Wednesday, March 23, 1983 meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



POINT OF ORDER


Madam Speaker:: I would like to rule on the point of order which was raised in the House yesterday by the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) relating to the motion moved by the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) on the question of privilege which was ruled upon and proceeded with by the House.
The Hon. Member for Simcoe North referred to citations from Beauchesne's Fifth Edition and the Nineteenth Edition of Erskine May. He asserted that the Hon. Member for Lincoln, at the time he presented his motion, should have made available to the Table certain newspaper articles which were documents relating to the complaint which led to his raising of the question of privilege.
The citations which the Hon. Member offered to the Chair were very interesting and they did deal with the case before us. However, I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that at Westminster, as here, there is a certain discretion allowed the Chair in these matters. I, too, will quote from Erskine May, which states as follows:
Where complaint was made of a series of articles in several newspapers, the Speaker said that if he called upon the Clerk to read all the articles, he should be trifling with the House, and that he should therefore take leave to depart from the ordinary course.
March 24, 1983

That indicates that there is a discretion, and in some cases it is even thought advisable to do away with that practice. It seems to me that the Hon. Member is raising his point of order a bit too late. Perhaps it might have been dealt with differently if it had been raised at the time the motion was put.
Of course, the purpose of having these documents read is to give the Speaker and the House enough information upon which to make a decision. Clearly, I did have enough information. I do not say that it would not have been valuable to have more information, but I did have enough to make that decision and I ruled. The House subsequently gave its decision to send the matter to the Committee.
I wish to refer the Hon. Member to a case in our own House from January 24, 1975, concerning the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) when he raised a similar question of privilege. The Hon. Member did not then quote passages from the newspaper articles in his statement to the House. His motion at page 7937 of Hansard of July 23, 1975, only mentions "articles contained in the July 24, July 25 and in subsequent editions of the Montreal Gazette".
Furthermore, the Chair must emphasize that it is not the articles mentioned by the Hon. Member for Lincoln that have been sent to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, but the entire matter; that is, the specific question of privilege.
Finally, while the Chair took this point of order very seriously, the Chair would like to point out that the point of order should have been raised before the House pronounced itself. Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 237, is quite clear on this:
A point of order against procedure must be raised promptly and before the question has passed to a stage at which the objection would be out of place.
However, it is a very good reminder to the House if Members, from time to time, would point this out to the Chair. It also reminds the Chair of how proceedings can be dealt with more completely. 1 am grateful to the Hon. Member for having raised the matter.
Therefore, I must say that the matter is properly now before the Committee and, of course, ought not to be discussed any further.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, this being Thursday, I would ask the Government House Leader if he could give us the House some idea as to the course of business for the balance of this week and next week.


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, today we will debate a motion very soon and there is an understanding that after the vote is taken on that motion, questions to dispose of third reading of Bill C-139 will be put and we will dispose of third reading this afternoon.
Business of the House
There is also an understanding that tomorrow we will give final approval to all remaining stages of two Bills: first, Bill C-130 dealing with international financial institutions; and second, Bill C-144 with relation to the Small Businesses Loans Act.

As far as the business of the House for next week is concerned, Madam Speaker, and assuming that the motion to limit debate on Bill C-143 is adopted, on Monday we shall consider and complete the report stage of Bill C-143, the Borrowing Authority Bill, and Tuesday we shall continue the debate on the same Bill, the third reading stage this time, which we shall be completing at the end of the day, so that we shall have two votes on Bill C-143, one vote at 5.45 p.m. on Monday and another at 5.45 p.m. on Tuesday.
Wednesday is the day designated for Private Members' Business, and as provided under the new Standing Orders, we shall adjourn for Easter at 6 p.m. on Wednesday and return to the House on April 11,1983.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I have two matters which I wish to raise with the Government House Leader. The first and easiest matter concerns a question with regard to the Standing Committee on Labour. I have been informed that the Committee has not yet had its organizing meeting. There are matters that I think Members from this corner of the House, at least, would like to see considered by the Committee. Would the Government House Leader perhaps bring the matter to the attention of the appropriate persons and have some action taken in that regard?
The second matter concerns Bill C-141, an Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act. I understand that the Minister of Justice has agreed, after prolonged negotiations, to take out of Clause 14, Subclause (2) a clause that many people found offensive. With that in mind, and since it now appears to deal with the dispute that had arisen both in the House of Commons and out, is it possible for the Government House Leader to tell the House when Bill C-141 might be called and disposed of in order that those people most affected by it can have the benefit of the law protecting them?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, with respect to the Hon. Member's first question, 1 will inquire about the organization of the Committee on Labour. It is news to me but I will look into the matter.
In relation to the second point raised by the Hon. Member concerning Bill C-141, it is correct that there have been negotiations among the three Parties. There was an amendment moved by the Official Opposition deleting Subclause (2) of Clause 14 of Bill C-141. We are in agreement with that amendment and we are also willing to call that Bill next week, most likely next Tuesday during the lunch hour between one o'clock and two o'clock, as negotiated between the House Leaders and provided that all recorded divisions, if any, are deferred until the end of that day.

March 24, 1983
Business of the House
As the Eton. Member well knows, this matter has been raised and discussed. It seems that if all Parties can agree to it at the beginning of next week, it will likely be called next Tuesday between one o'clock and two o'clock.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Government House Leader for his answer and advise him that we are looking into Bill C-141. The House will know that we put down the amendment that was asked for by the association because of our concern with respect to that amendment. I will be getting back to the Government House Leader with respect to the appropriate day and how we will handle it.
The Government House Leader may have overlooked one thing. Would he give the House some idea whether or not it is the intention of the Government to prorogue immediately after we return? What is the Government's plan of action?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I am a bit surprised by the question since my hon. colleague knows the list of Bills that have to be dealt with. 1 wrote to him in January. The fact that we are disposing of some legislation at this time, in this semester of the year, does not mean that we are satisfied with the progress being made. There are other Bills at report stage concerning which we would like to vote before we consider proroguing. We will hold a meeting next week, after which time I will be in a better position to indicate what the business of the House will be when we come back.


Paul Edmund McRae: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Government House Leader. Some time ago there was a discussion in the House concerning a debate on disarmament. There had also been some requests for a debate on affairs in Latin America, particularly in Central America, El Salvador, which I think is very much related. I wonder if there has been any consideration to each of the Parties giving up one of their Opposition days after the recess, and perhaps the Government could do the same, so that we could have a debate on this general area.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member speaks in terms of the Government giving one day. I think it is well known, or it should be well known, that after we come back, in between April 11 and June 30 there will be 57 sitting days, out of which we will have to allot 13 days and subtract 12 Wednesdays dealing with Private Members' Business. It is most likely we will have a budget and will have to subtract six additional days for a debate on the budget. Therefore, I think it is very difficult, with only 26 days left for Government business-


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: He was ready for that one!


Yvon Pinard: -to talk in terms of devoting one day to anything other than business to be dealt with by the Government. My colleague is also speaking of an additional eight days for a Speech from the Throne, if any. That would mean that we would have only 18 days in which to deal with Government business from now until June.
That is the reality. If we want to prove that the experimental parliamentary reform is working, we must demonstrate that this institution is more productive and efficient. I call on the goodwill of my colleagues on both sides-


Mr. Epp:: You've got our goodwill.


Yvon Pinard: -to make it very evident that parliamentary reform should stay. Therefore, the message is well given and, I hope, well taken.
However, in so far as debate on the subject raised by the Hon. Member is concerned, certainly with 13 Opposition days the Opposition will have a good opportunity to raise the matter. If it will make it easier, I will consider allotting two days in a row for the Opposition very shortly, when we come back, so that it might consider dealing with this matter very shortly after Easter.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I can assure the Government House Leader that the goodwill of the Opposition is always here, but it does not extend to granting one of our Opposition days to an Hon. Member of his Party.


Ian Deans: It is not a matter of granting anything to the Hon. Member who raised the question. The issue which he raises is important. It is an issue, in fact, which I myself raised with the Government House Leader privately some weeks ago.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: I find it interesting that the Conservatives are not eager to discuss it. However, that is not a problem. If we can accommodate having a reasonable debate on important matters such as this, we will consider it very seriously.


Mr. Anguish:: Madam Speaker, I would like to propose somewhat of a compromise to the President of the Prive Council. As he will likely know, because I have communicated with him, my Private Members' Bill is entitled "An Act to declare Canada a nuclear weapons free zone". I would like to ask the Government House Leader whether or not, in view of the fact that next Wednesday is a Private Members' day, if my Private Members' Bill could be moved up into the-


Some Hon. Members:: No, no!


Douglas Keith Anguish: -place which is designated for another Member of the NDP, who has agreed to a change so that we may discuss my Private Members' Bill. I think it is of some urgency. In fact, not only does it involve a global emergency, but it is also of concern within this House.
We know that a young person by the name of Karen Harrison has been fasting in the galleries for quite some time. She says that she will not break her fast until there is a commitment for debate on this matter within the House of Commons. Will the Government House Leader give consideration to seeking consent from his Party to debate my Private Members' Bill on Wednesday instead of that of the other NDP Member? This is a very important matter.
March 24, 1983


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, that is a matter relating to the Private Members' hour. The Government does not interfere with the Private Members' hour. What Government Members might do individually is something that we could discuss. In the event that the Hon. Member does know of another Hon. Member who is prepared to yield his position, he would need unanimous consent of the House. Hon. Members of this side may be disposed to agree. 1 could not speak for the other side. However, I would be prepared to discuss it with him privately.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Madam Speaker, I am seeking unanimous consent so that we may enter into debate on my Private Members' Bill.


Mr. Stevens:: No.


Douglas Keith Anguish: I did, in fact, consult with an Hon. Member who is willing to yield so that this Bill may come up on Wednesday-Mark-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: A rose between two thorns.


Douglas Keith Anguish: -and I would like to seek unanimous consent of the House that this Bill be introduced on Wednesday.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I think it would be appropriate for the Hon. Member to seek that consent on Wednesday. Traditionally, Hon. Members on this side of the House have not objected when one Hon. Member was prepared to yield his spot in Private Members' hour to another Hon. Member. I suspect that that would be the case in so far as this side of the House is concerned, However, the Government does not interfere with Private Members' hour, and that is the sort of motion which would be appropriately made next Wednesday during Private Members' hour.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I would like to support the position taken by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council. We on this side take the same position with respect to Private Members' Business. It is something which is private to the Hon. Member who brings forward a Bill. We feel that the sequence of Bills should be respected. However, I agree that if the Hon. Member wants to make that request next Wednesday, then that is the time to do it. It is the business of Private Members, not of the Government or the Official Opposition.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I substantially agree with the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary and by the Government House Leader. However, so that an orderly debate can take place, it seems reasonable to inform Hon.
Point of Order-Mr. McCain
Members of our desire to seek that unanimous consent on Wednesday next-


Walter David Baker: You've done it.


Ian Deans: We have not yet done it and we are now doing it. At any rate, it would be our desire to substitute the legislation standing in the name of the Hon. Member for The Batt-lefords-Meadow Lake for that which stands in the name of the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody for debate during Private Members' hour on Wednesday next. I do not want anyone rising next Wednesday and saying: "If only you had given us notice, we might have considered it".


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Well, the answer will be no.


Ian Deans: Oh, the Hon. Member here, "Mouthy," says the answer will be no. That tells us something about the attitude of the Conservatives.


Walter David Baker: I rise on a point of order. I heard the Government House Leader and the House Leader for the Opposition say that it was no business of the leadership of the Parties, that it was Private Members' Business. I have now heard the House Leader for the New Democratic Party intervene in the debate and make it his business. I suggest that if the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody is here, it is his business because it is his Bill. He is not here now. Therefore, we appreciate the notice, but I do not think we could ever say that consent had been given until it had been appropriately requested by the Hon. Member.


POINT OF ORDER
Fred Alward McCain: Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I am not permitted to debate any answers which Ministers may give to questions, no matter how little they comprehend the problem mentioned in the question. However, I do wish to say that the lack of comprehension of the international potato trade, as it relates to eastern Canada-


Madam Speaker:: Order. That is not a point of order, and the Hon. Member is debating.


Fred Alward McCain: Madam Speaker, if I were permitted to debate I would use perfectly parliamentary language which would make earlier criticisms appear grossly complimentary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan).

March 24, 1983
24124_____________________________________
Introduction of Bills



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, under Standing Order 46(2) 1 am pleased to table in the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canada Pension Plan Advisory Committee on disability benefits.

[ Translation]


PETITIONS
Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Rosemont):: Madam Speaker, I am speaking on behalf of sixty-four residents of the Gabrielle Sagard Home on 3001 Everett Street. These senior citizens respectfully ask the Canada Post Corporation to instal a post box near or in the home, which would be more convenient for them.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of pleasure today to present to the House of Commons a petition signed by the residents of Canoe Narrows, Cole Bay and Jans Bay in the Province of Saskatchewan, in the Battlefords-Meadow Lake constituency, opposing and testing or proposed testing of the Cruise missile in Canada. These communities border on the Primrose Lake air weapons range.
The petitioners would like their petition brought to the particular attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen).



NATIONAL CAPITAL ACT


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-677, an Act to amend the National Capital Act.
He said: Madam Speaker, at present every Province in Canada has a representative on the National Capital Commission, but the Northwest Territories and Yukon are not represented unless a person from one of those two Territories
happens to be appointed as a member at large, as was the case, for instance, with the late Paul Kaeser of Fort Smith who served so ably for so many years.
My Bill would right this wrong by increasing the number of Commission members to provide for the mandatory appointment of one member from the Northwest Territories and one member from the Yukon.


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

Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I move:
That, in relation to Bill C-143, An Act to provide supplementary borrowing authority, one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of each of the report stage and the third reading of the Bill; and
That fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government business on those days, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question then necessary in order to dispose of the stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
He said: Madam Speaker, on March 8 when I addressed second reading of Bill C-143, An Act to provide supplementary borrowing authority, I described the Bill as a measure required by the Government for prudent financial housekeeping. 1 might add that since debate began on this Bill more than a month ago, we have spent more than 33 hours, involving nine days, to take the matter to this stage. This total includes an aggregate of close to 24 hours of debate in this House, and a further ten hours before the House Standing Committee on Finance.
Again as I pointed out at that time, the interim borrowing authority we are seeking is normally a routine procedure which gives the Government economic leverage in the marketplace. Without this authorization, the borrowing activities of the Government would be constrained in the early months of the new fiscal year, which is traditionally a period in which the Government usually faces heavy cash requirements stemming, for example, from payment of income tax refunds and from other seasonal factors.
What we have attempted to point out during this protracted debate on this matter is that if borrowing powers are limited during this crucial time, the Government would be precluded from the prudent planning of its debt program and would not be able to take advantage of developing market situations. This would be costly not only to the Government, but could impact upon provincial Governments in their borrowing activities and could impact also upon the private sector in the market, and therefore be disruptive in the capital market generally.
I would remind Hon. Members that in the tabling of the Main Estimates more than a month ago, the President of the
March 24, 1983

Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) did give ample indication of how the money under discussion would be spent. 1 would remind Hon. Members as well that almost two-thirds of those budgetary estimates are slated for statutory expenditures based on continuing authority given by Acts of the current and previous Parliaments which determine the basis whereby individuals, businesses, provincial and other Governments in Canada become entitled to receive federal funds.
The Main Estimates show in great detail the wide variety of programs being carried on by the Government of Canada in meeting its responsibilities of assisting Canadians in a very difficult time. We know that the signs are that this has been a struggle that seems to be paying off, that there is an improvement in the economy, but it is a struggle against a world-wide and very, very difficult recession.
The Estimates reflect a 21 per cent rise in cash payments under the Established Programs Financing Act whereby the federal Government contributes to such things as financing of hospital insurance, medicare, extended health care and postsecondary education. They indicate a $2.9 billion allocation to Unemployment Insurance, as we anticipate a slow recovery in employment prospects during our gradual recovery from the recession. The Estimates show a further 21 per cent increase in federal contributions under the Canada Assistance Plan. This plan provides, for example, for a 50 per cent payment by the federal Government of eligible costs of provincial and municipal expenditures for assistance payments, welfare services and health programs. In addition, we cover one-half of the cost of child support services such as foster care, daycare and a broad array of other family and social support services used by Canadians on an ongoing basis.
If Members opposite are still wondering how the money will be spent, I would mention that the Main Estimates also spell out a number of new initiatives undertaken by the Government, including this Small Business Investment Grant Program and the New Employment Expansion Development Plan called the NEED Program, which was touched upon by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) today.
I want to touch upon another criticism that has been raised by Hon. Members in the discussion of this legislation before the House. I am talking about a claim made that the expenditures of the Government, as witnessed by the documents tabled by the President of the Treasury Board, or the funds sought in this legislation, reflect that the Government is not managing or controlling expenditures.
I would remind Hon. Members that the policy and expenditure management system was put in place in 1979 following receipt of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Financial Management and Accountability, the Lambert Commission. That system is in place and is functioning. It was adopted by the Official Opposition when in Government. As Hon. Members are aware, this is a program where spending is
Time Allocation
broken into ten expenditure categories, with Cabinet committees taking responsibility for expenditure management within an envelope system.
Each envelope is provided with a separate policy reserve which functions as a bank account in which unallocated funds are kept. Cabinet committees can add to their policy reserves by cancelling or cutting down on existing programs. Ministers have to vie, argue and debate for the prudent expenditure of funds. Priorities must be struck, and for any expenditure from those funds there is a check and balance.
There are other controls as well. All budgetary appropriations of funds must be approved by Parliament, and the Government supplies very detailed information in the form of Estimates. For example, I have been before the Finance Committee to report on and account for the Department of Insurance which falls under my responsibility, as every other Minister does for the expenditures of his Department.
Parliament must authorize all taxation and borrowing activity by the Government. Within the Government, the Treasury Board rigorously examines all requests for spending authority by Government Departments and agencies. It is constantly on the lookout for inefficiency or impropriety and screens the submission it receives very carefully. I do not think I have to remind Hon. Members of the office of Comptroller-General and the role that he plays in the scheme of things in terms of official management of expenditures of Government.
The Auditor General examines the Government's financial statements very carefully and reports to Parliament on his findings. We were saddened this week with the sudden and unexpected demise of Mr. Macdonnell who took such leadership in this area. He performs a watch-dog function which helps provide further assurance that Government will function according to Parliament's dictates and as efficiently as possible.
Finally, the Government announced in 1975 that henceforth it would endeavour to hold the trend growth in its expenditures to no more than the trend growth in the economy. Over the period from 1975 to 1980, the Government was successful in meeting this objective. In 1981 expenditures rose more rapidly, no doubt a reflection of high interest rates and the consequent effects on public debt charges.
In conclusion, I urge Hon. Members to give speedy disposition to Bill C-143 to permit the Government to meet the real needs of Canadians which I have expressed. We hope this will be done in a most expeditious manner reflecting the efficiency which I detailed in my comments.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in joining in this debate, I do so with real sorrow. I feel that while the Government has the right to use closure which it is now proposing that the House accept, this is not the time to be using closure on such an important matter as the borrowing requirements of the Government.
I say I rise somewhat in sorrow because, having listened to the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Cosgrove), it is abundantly clear to me that he, and presumably his Cabinet colleagues, have just lost control of the situation. He attempted

March 24, 1983
Time Allocation
to justify the use of closure today on the basis that it is inevitable spending, that somehow they have done their best. To be specific, he said that we put a spending policy in place in 1979 and he feels that things have not been too bad since that scheme was put in place.
Let us not forget the facts. Since this Government took office in February, 1980, just after the 1979 approach that he referred to, Government spending has increased by 68 per cent compared to an increase in the Consumer Price Index of 37 per cent and nominal Gross National Product growth of only 33 per cent.
There can be absolutely no doubt that the public of Canada want and are entitled to a fair debate concerning the Government's borrowing needs, yet we are being denied that. The Minister of State made the comment that after all, Parliament has had 24 hours to debate this matter. I am not too sure whether his arithmetic is correct, but if we divide 24 into $19 billion, we find that he is talking about $800 million per unit. The inference seems to be that after having talked that length of time, let us get on with it.
The Minister is totally ignoring that while there may have been a debate for several hours or days, and I doubt whether it was that long a debate, the fact is that in committee we were denied answers to question after question concerning why the Government needed not only these new funds, but what it had done with some of the funds it has already borrowed. The whole purpose of this forum, this talking House, if you like, this House of Parliament, is that we can debate and hopefully arrive at some consensus as to where suitable changes can be made.
We felt that if the Government needed the $5 billion it was asking for in the current fiscal year, perhaps it should have that authorization. However, we felt there was no need, without understanding more fully what it was going to use the $14 billion for next year, to give it that authority carte blanche. That is our position. To simply say that we have made our point, that somehow or other we have had enough days of debate and the Government is going to bring in closure to get on with it, takes away from Parliament one of its most sacred rights, control, not only of spending, but of borrowing that the Government proposes to do in the name of the people.
The only thing of real substance to which we are entitled in the House is to control Government spending and borrowing. Day in and day out we do not see true democracy in the sense of representative Government but, rather, an elected dictatorship, a dictatorship that goes to the country when they think they can get re-elected on trumped-up issues, so-called charisma. It is an attempt to hoodwink the Canadian public so that they can get back in control and run the country down further and further.
That is why I hope that for once Members will vote the way their conscience tells them to vote on this issue. I hope they will say on this particular point to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and the Minister of State for Finance that Parliament should be allowed more time, and that, hopefully, some amendments can
be agreed to. I say that because it is most dreadful to look at this Government's handling of our economy.
Let me put this on the record: Looking at the public accounts data for the fiscal year ending 1982-83, we find in the November, 1981 budget the budgetary deficit as a percent of the Gross National Product would be minus 2.8 per cent. That is partly what we are talking of today, Mr. Speaker, this borrowing need, the Government's financial requirement for budgetary deficit. They told us at that time it would be minus 2.8 per cent. In the budget of June, 1982, it was up to minus 5.4 per cent of our GNP. In the financial statement of October, 1982, it was at minus 6.7 per cent of our GNP. And in the update of February, 1983, it had arrived at minus 7.8 per cent of our GNP. Yet we are told that, regardless of how it has misled this House and the public with respect to the current Fiscal year, the Government would like us to sign a blank cheque for another $14 billion to get it through, we are told, until about the summer. The Government is not sure how far this money will take it into next year, but it would like to have it in hand.
The Minister of State for Finance asks how we dare delay passage of this Bill because it may impede the Government's borrowing, taking it for granted that the Government has some right to go out and borrow, and taking it for granted that there should be no questioning of the expenditures which have led us into the malaise which I partly indicated from reading the Government's own figures. But we are now at the point, Mr. Speaker, where one tax dollar in four is used to pay interest on this Government's debt alone. It is phenomenal. If you would like to look at it another way, we are at the point where for every dollar of revenue which the Government now has, it is spending $1.50. One-third, roughly, of the total expenditures at the federal Government level today is being borrowed to pay for it. That is totally wrong.
I have certainly heard Government Members say, "Well, this is what Keynesianism is all about". They believe that somehow if you are in a wrong economic time or in a slump, you should be willing to go into a comparatively larger deficit in order to bring yourself out. But let us look at the facts, Mr. Speaker. If a bigger deficit was going to help, you would think we would have one of the most booming economies in the world. The fact is that in the November, 1981 forecast, the 1982-83 deficit was said to be $10 billion. In June they said it would be $19 billion. In October they said it would be $23 billion, and then finally it was $27 billion. In short, this Government has allowed, in one fiscal year alone, its spending to go from an estimated $10 billion in the red to $27 billion, and what is now touted possibly a $30 billion shortfall.
I mention these things, Mr. Speaker, because I believe when Hon. Members are asked to muzzle Parliament concerning the Bill which is before us, they really must ask themselves why. Why has the Government led us into such a high deficit position? Certainly, our socialists to the left like to talk about these short-term deficits. They, of course, have been one of the
March 24, 1983

supporters of these big deficits which we are now living with. But the fact is that if it is looked upon by the Government, or the socialists, as short-term, we must bear in mind that this federal Government has not balanced its books since 1970, and as the projections indicate, they will be adding another $140 billion in deficits over the next five years.
Since the Liberals have been in power since 1970, the deficit is certainly not a short-term problem. To have a deficit which has added to our net debt in this country some $120 billion in 18 years is a disgrace, and it is certainly the best evidence which we could offer to the Canadian public of the total incompetence and mismanagement of this Government.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I found the comments of the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) interesting, but passing strange. I found it strange that he should rise and claim that the opportunity for debate was about to be muzzled, when not half an hour ago, when we suggested that on a day next week we would like to have a particular matter debated rather than another, it was he, the Hon. Member for York-Peel, who said, "Absolutely not. You will have no unanimous consent from me to allow that debate to take place". If an Hon. Member had not been thrown out of the House today for saying someone was a hypocrite, there is no telling what words I might have uttered.
In any event, I would like to deal with the problem before us today, that the Government has mismanaged the finances of Canada. The Government has failed to provide the kind of direction in terms of the investment of the finances of Canadians, whether it be finances currently available through taxation and other means, or whether it be finances resulting from borrowing. The Government has failed to establish the proper priorities. Unlike the Hon. Member for York-Peel, who is somewhat myopic about these things and seems to have a serious case of tunnel vision, I do not believe that borrowing in itself is necessarily a bad thing. I am sure that every single Hon. Member of the House of Commons probably has at some time in his life gone to a financial institution and borrowed money. The majority will likely have taken on a mortgage at some point in order to purchase a home, and they have probably been in the process of paying it off over many years. The interesting thing about that is that that kind of borrowing, I would suggest, is appropriate. However, that is not the purpose for which this Government borrows. The Government does not borrow for those kinds of reasons. It has borrowed because its income has fallen off dramatically and, among the many reasons, there is substantial unemployment in the land, which has reduced the tax paid into the coffers of the Government of Canada. Unemployment has reduced the purchasing power of a significantly large number of consumers, and the reduction of that purchasing power has resulted in a decrease in the manufacturing of consumer products in this country. That decrease has resulted in a decrease of the profitability of a large number of small, medium and large companies, and that has resulted again in a reduction in the taxes payable to the Government of Canada. The end result of that has been that
Time Allocation
while the Government's commitments remain not only substantial but grow daily as a result of the high unemployment in the land, its revenues have dropped off dramatically.
If the Government were to come to us and say, "We have in mind a large number of investments which would be undertaken on behalf of the taxpayers of this country." For example, "We intend to rebuild the port facilities, both inland and on the coast. We intend to take a hand building homes at a price that people can afford. We intend to embark upon a program to ensure that the farming community will replace obsolete farm implements and equipment." If the Government would come forward with programs to join with the automobile industry and the Provinces in order to stimulate the capacity of that industry to meet competition and provide a better standard of vehicle at a competitive price for the Canadian public, and that for this purpose, among others, it was going to have to borrow money; if it said it was going to have a complete East-West pipeline built more rapidly than was anticipated so that we could be absolutely self-sufficient in energy in the not too distant future; if it were to say it was going to embark upon a railway redevelopment program for the movement of freight and passengers and to meet the requirements of the next generation; if it came to this House of Commons and said it needed to borrow against future earnings in order to undertake all these things, I think it would find sympathy and support for its request.
I know that, having studied these matters Mr. Speaker, you would undoubtedly agree that a major housing program would put two or three hundred thousand people, now unemployed, back to work during this calendar year. The cost of such a program would be recovered because of the taxes paid by workers and unemployment insurance not paid. The benefits would flow to the community through additional purchasing. The money invested in those homes would be recoverable through mortgage-term payments and rents.
If you were to look beyond that, as I know you have, Mr. Speaker, you would appreciate that if we were to put money in place to encourage the farming community to replace obsolete and inadequate equipment, not only would we be in a better position in the years ahead to meet our commitment to this country's need for food, but to meet our export commitment as well. In addition, people would be put to work at Massey-Ferguson, International Harvester and all the other plants. They would be taken off the unemployment rolls and put on the taxpayer rolls, and would be made a vibrant part of the community. This would instill confidence in the nation.
If we were to engage in the development of the East-West pipeline we could put hundreds if not thousands of steel workers, who are currently unemployed in Saskatchewan and eastern Canada, back to work.
If we were to look at those kinds of programs, if we had a Bill before us to facilitate the borrowing necessary to undertake them, and if we were to measure those undertakings against what it costs now to keep people unemployed, it would be worth what it would cost to have those projects under way

March 24, 1983
Time Allocation
now so that when the recession ends we could get back to building Canada. If we could see that prospect, then the Government would have no trouble; it would not need to move time allocation. We would agree to pass the legislation because the benefits would be both long and short-term. The reason we are so reluctant to hand over the money that the Government is seeking is that it has not provided the justification that we are asking for. We know that its commitment is of little substance. We know that it does not intend to go ahead with projects that will make Canada a better place in the future and make it easier for people to earn a living here.
This not a blind opposition because Hon. Members opposite happen to form the Government and are a bunch of useless Liberals. The Hon. Member for York-Peel's view is so narrow that he cannot see that in any normal business practice, which he constantly refers to, it is quite common to borrow against future needs.
Last night I noticed an announcement that the Steel Company of Canada is issuing new stock options in order to raise working capital, and that other companies are doing likewise.


Mr. Kempling:: Because it lost $97 million.


Ian Deans: What the Hon. Member for York-Peel is arguing against is normal business practice. What is wrong with what we are being asked to do is that we do not have a clear indication that the money will be used to develop the country and create the infrastructure that is necessary if we are to achieve the greatness that is our destiny.
I suggest to the Government that it should seriously consider a change in attitude toward the House of Commons and the future of the company.


Mr. Jean Lapierre (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be taking part in today's debate on the Borrowing Authority Bill and I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to address a matter that has my special interest, namely, the situation of young people in Canada. Ever since I became a Member of this House, Mr. Speaker, I have felt that because of my age, I had a duty to tell our elected representatives, to tell all our colleagues in the House what Canada's young people think and what their concerns are, and to try to be a catalyst, as it were, that would have some effect on the decision-making process.
Mr. Speaker, during these few years, I have had an opportunity, within our existing structures, to propose a series of projects that would to some extent meet the needs of Canada's young people, and the first one on my list is of course the creation of a youth bureau. I am a little disappointed, because we have been discussing the matter for months, for several years even, while our colleagues in the National Assembly have already taken action in this respect, perhaps because they had heard about our ideas or perhaps because their system works faster than ours.
Mr. Speaker, I think that as a Government, we shall very soon have to take a comprehensive view of the problems of young people. Band-aid programs are not going to help. How are we going to respond to the expectations of 600,000 young Canadians who will be looking for jobs this year in June, who will lose any illusions they had about society and the opportunities it was expected to offer, who will realize that their guidance counsellors have misled them and that in the final instance, society is telling them: Listen, you don't have any experience, so why not wait for a while. Wait until the labour market can provide alternatives. Wait until the economy gets back on steam. Meanwhile, however, these young men and women are more or less trapped. They are not entitled to unemployment insurance because as students, they cannot earn unemployment insurance stamps, and so the only alternative they have, unless their families can support them, is to go on welfare.
Or become a Member of Parliament, as my friend Mr. Maltais would say. In Quebec today, there are 75,000 young people who have to live on $140 per month. You know, Mr. Speaker, on $140 per month, you would be a lot thinner, and I think all Hon. Members would be hard-pressed to make ends meet.
Mr. Speaker, with a youth bureau, we would be able to develop a youth policy, once and for all. In 1970, the then Secretary of State, Gerard Pelletier, ordered a committee to prepare a study which was called "It's your turn", and that study has been shelved by the Department of the Secretary of State since 1970. Although I hope it will not take until 1985 before we start looking at the problems of young people, I do hope that 1985 will mark the culmination of a series of successful activities. I am counting on the support of my colleagues on this side of the House, youth being a subject that is very rarely discussed in the House, except by the Liberal caucus.
Our colleagues opposite talk about young people only when their Young Progressive Conservative delegates are in the gallery. Our friends opposite are only concerned about youth when they can make electoral gains, because they know it is not their traditional constituency.
Mr. Speaker, I urgently ask the House to reflect on this subject and to take action. In the weeks to come, we shall have the Speech from the Throne. We shall also have, at least I hope so, the budget the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) has promised us. I am convinced it will be possible to instil some innovative thinking in the Throne Speech, and I know that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy), the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne), the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal) and many others have submitted a series of proposals to the Minister of Finance that are aimed at easing the strain for these young Canadians who have been disappointed by economic realities.
March 24, 1983

Mr. Speaker, I know this is not a time for extraordinary expenditures, but I am sure that within the Government . .. More than a year ago, an inventory was made of Federal youth programs. I am sure very few young Canadians are aware that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the Canadian International Development Agency, the Department of Agriculture, and so forth, have programs that are aimed specifically at young people. The intentory lists eighty-seven programs. Just imagine all the funds earmarked for those programs which could easily be redirected to meet the priorities of the Government and young Canadians.
I would not, however, want to make the same mistake as our provincial friends did, which is to impose programs from the top. I believe that before defining new programs, we should benefit from the experience of those people who would be prepared to work with us and advise us, and this would include groups of young people and others with a lively interest in the problems of young people, who could give us their advice. I am convinced that if the Government and all Hon. Members were to designate a committee of the House that would address itself specifically to the problems of young people and invite them to appear before the committee across Canada, we could certainly redistribute funds to a series of programs that would respond to their priorities.
Mr. Speaker, our education system is experiencing very serious problems, because the dreams of tomorrow have become a nightmare and because after 18, 19, 20 or 21 years of formal schooling, people are unable to obtain jobs. Last week, I was told that 67 per cent of the students who passed their bar examinations were unemployed this year.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Manicouagan has a great sense of humour. I am told that thousands of university graduates who thought they would be able to repay their loans and bursaries, make a career and perhaps get married and have a normal family life, are unemployed and living in poverty.
Mr. Speaker, there is another set of programs relating to physical fitness and amateur sport, and 1 had the privilege of serving as Parliamentary Secretary in that field. 1 finally realized that those programs are only helping the sports elite and that a guy from St-Joachim who wants to learn to play soccer or has a local team cannot apply to the Canadian Government for assistance unless he is outstanding. People talk about the search for excellence, and that bothers me. Today, hundreds of thousands of Canadians need help and they have to get it from their Government, whether it is for recreation, employment or education, and you would think there was no open door policy and no central office for receiving the requests of these young Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I hope we shall very soon be addressing the youth problem in a comprehensive way and that we will avoid taking hasty measures to resolve temporary problems in band-
Time Allocation
aid fashion. I am sure that if all the Members of this House used their imagination, we would be able to find solutions without having to ask taxpayers for more money. Many programs are not sufficiently known, and that is unfortunate. There is tremendous potential within the Federal Government itself. I hope that there will be some restructuring so that young Canadians who had confidence in their Government and still do will not be disappointed.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that our young people will be heard as well. If they are not, our programs will smack of authoritarianism. I think we should avoid the paternalistic or "maternalis-tic" approach that others have taken. From what young people have been saying across the country recently, it is clear they want to be consulted and to be part of the new economic order. I believe this is a challenge that all of us have a duty to meet, and I urgently ask the House to accept some of our suggestions and to address itself to the problems at the top of our priority list.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) who went on in his usual way and said, "It is all right to borrow; after all, everybody else does". I could not help but think of the man who was falling out of the airplane and said, "It's all right, it is not the fall that hurts, it is the impact with the earth; that is the part that hurts". We are at the moment of impact and we are hurting. We are hurting because of the direction in which this Liberal Government and previous Liberal Governments have taken us.
Also I listened with some interest to the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) who said that great things would happen for the young of the country. I too entered the House at what I consider to be a relatively young age; I was in my twenties. I remember fighting the campaign of 1957 and I remember a comment C. D. Howe used. After all, I used it in the 1957 campaign. He said, "What's a million?"


Paul James Cosgrove: He did not.


Ian Deans: No, he did not.


Stanley James Korchinski: It was nothing, it was nothing. But at that time we could not quite comprehend what was a million. It was beyond our power of comprehension because we were dealing, if anything, in terms of thousands of dollars at best. Today we are dealing in terms of billions.
1 would like to make a demonstration to the House. I have a few dollar bills in my hand. If I started counting one per second-one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine and ten-I would count $60 in one minute, $3,600 in one hour, $86,400 in one day and $31,536,000 in one year. To count $1 billion it would take me 31.7 years. That is all of my adult life, day in and day out, 24 hours a day for 365 days. That is $1 billion. To count $19 billion would require 602 years. That is
24130

March 24, 1983
Time Allocation
even more than Abraham's lifetime. We would have to get some of his "begats" to keep counting.


Paul James Cosgrove: Why don't you ask your teenagers for their computers?


Stanley James Korchinski: In order to count to $90 billion, which this Government is going to spend, would require 2,853 years. Methuselah, it was said, lived for 965 years. It would take three of his lifetime to count out the $90 billion which this Government is going to spend this year.
Let us look at it another way. Assuming every one of these pieces of paper was $10 billion-and remember that the Government has committed us to $90 billion in expenditures this year-out of that $90 billion we have to set aside two notes, worth $10 billion each, just to service the debt, which is interest on money borrowed.
We are borrowing the equivalent of $30 billion, so we set aside another three of these pieces of paper, and what do we have left? We have $40 billion. That is all we can afford to spend on ourselves today.
What brought us to this situation? I was interested in the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Shefford. He commented on the youth and how he was concerned about them. Let me tell you about my concerns, and let me tell you about my grandparents. When my grandparents came to this country they did not ask the Government for anything except for a chance to work. They did not ask another taxpayer to help them. They tried to stay off the welfare rolls. They were quite prepared to pay their way.
But what has happened in the intervening years with a Liberal Government in power? No matter what we have heard, the Liberal Government has taken us down the road that has led us to where we are today.


Jean-C. Lapierre: What about John Diefenbaker?


Stanley James Korchinski: I will tell you about John Diefenbaker. I have a few things that I can tell you about John Diefenbaker. In John Diefenbaker's time inflation was under 2 per cent. What do we have now? I can tell you a few more things about John Diefenbaker. I have all the facts here if you give me enough time.
My grandparents came to this country. They were quite prepared to pay their way. But what is happening here today? The Hon. Member says he is concerned about the youth. But who will pay for this borrowing? The youth who are coming onstream are going to be paying. The Hon. Member points to himself. But you are also going to have to point to every young boy or girl in diapers today. They are the ones who are going to have to pay for this. It was all right for any grandparents to pay their way. It is all right for any grandchildren to pay their way, but heaven forbid that the present generation should pay its way.
What is wrong with this society? I have watched what has happened. The last year we had a surplus was in 1969-1970. What happened after that? We have been in a steady decline with deficit after deficit after deficit. From 1958 to 1964 inflation was below 2 per cent. What happened in the 1970s? Hon. Members will remember that Mr. Turner was the Minister of Finance in 1972. Do you remember what happened, Mr. Speaker? He got into an argument with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) because the country was going downhill. Perhaps Mr. Turner knew about it, but he did not stay to fight. He took off into the wild yonder. He left the country to the mercy of the Prime Minister whose only objective was to get elected and throw money at the people telling them that deficits are no problem.
Are deficits no problem? I have already told Hon. Members that in 1969-1970 we had a surplus of $493 million. But in 1970 to 1971 there was a deficit of $372 million. But 1972 the deficit had risen to $702 million. By 1975 John Turner realized the deficit would reach $1.7 billion and he said, "This is enough. I am getting out. I cannot take the responsibility."
Then along came Macdonald, and he said "I will fix it. I will take over." He was given a lot of credit for a lot of intelligence. And so now he has been appointed to solve all our problems. Mr. Macdonald took over as minister of Finance in 1975 and left office in 1977. In two years the deficit jumped from $1.7 billion to $6.2 billion. Now he is going to take three years to tell us what is wrong. I can tell you in two minutes what is wrong. All you have to do is to look at where we are going and where we have been. The only thing the Government has said all along is, "We have to get elected." In 1972 the Liberals ran around the country and said the Conservatives did not have anybody to lead the country. They said to compare Minister for Minister, the Liberals ridiculed the Conservatives. Yes, they ridiculed us.


An Hon. Member:: No.


Stanley James Korchinski: I have fought every campaign since 1957 and I know the stories and how we were ridiculed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Harquail):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) but his time has expired.


An Hon. Member:: Let him carry on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Harquail):: First, I would like to deal with the matter as to whether or not there is unanimous consent in order to allow the Hon. Member to continue. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Harquail):: The Hon. Member for Mackenzie has the agreement of the House to continue for a brief period.
March 24, 1983


Stanley James Korchinski: Unfortunately brief, Mr. Speaker, because I have so many notes here I could go on for an hour pointing out inadequacies.


Arnold John Malone: Carry on. It's a good speech.


Ian Deans: Hear, hear!


Stanley James Korchinski: What this country needs is someone with a business-like approach for once. When the Conservatives were in office they projected and indicated that the deficit in 19791980 had dropped from $12 billion to $11 billion.


An Hon. Member:: Really?


Stanley James Korchinski: Yes. We had just a few months. But our projections were that the deficit would go down.
If you look at the graph you will see that as the projections for the deficit go up, so do interest rates. Compare the deficit of $700 million in Mr. Turner's day, which kept on rising, and the interest rates that went all the way up to 21 per cent. When Mr. Turner was here the deficit was $700 million and the interest rate was 6 per cent.
Now let us look at bankruptcies. We have seen 30,000 bankruptcies listed. That situation corresponds and relates to the amount of money the Government spends. Let me remind Hon. Members that the Auditor General told us the Government had lost control of spending.
The cause of the problems that we have today is not the fault of just one Minister; it is the Liberal attitude over the years that has brought this country to its knees. Canada is listed as twenty-fourth of the 24 industrialized countries. How can the Government tell us today that the depression we are in is the fault of the rest of the world? We have heard that statement day in and day out from the Liberals. Successive Liberal Governments, no matter which one is thrown out of office, will continue in the same way. We need a change of Government, a change in attitude, and to make a new start for the sake not only of young Canadians but of all Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 1 think the Hon. Member may be rising in relation to the ten-minute question and answer period which applies in some instances but does not apply now. However, if the Hon. Member is rising on a point of order to request consent of the House for a brief and single exchange, that would be in the hands of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


André Maltais: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the point just raised by the Hon. Member. He said that the Liberal Party is responsible for all our deficits, but I should like to point out to him that the Iron Ore Company at Scheff-erville, in my own riding, was headed by a Conservative who had to close down the whole town, but I do not think the president of the company was at fault if the town closed down, it was because of the economic situation. I would be very
Time Allocation
grateful if the Hon. Member would suggest a solution which would make it possible to reopen the iron mines in Northern Quebec and recall all the workers who were laid off because the town of Schefferville was forced to close down.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, 1 have already indicated that it is the fault of the Liberal Government and not the management of the Iron Ore Company or the management of other companies. People in this country have operated businesses for many years, and it is not through lack of experience that bankruptcies are occurring. The Hon. Member cited one example. I have cited 30,000 bankruptcies. Surely 30,000 company managers cannot all be at fault when there were only several thousand bankruptcies a few years ago. The Hon. Member cannot isolate one case.
I am suggesting that the attitude in this country must be changed because it was the Prime Minister who travelled throughout the country to tell young people that they did not have to work. He said, "You can sit there and gaze at the stars or enjoy the flowers." It was the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) who, in 1972, advocated higher unemployment insurance saying, "You do not have to work." He is still being penalized for that by sitting on the side benches. He knew how to quell the imminent revolt since the people were restless, as they should have been. Instead of providing jobs and developing beneficial policies, the Government emerged with a handout. As a result of those handouts, employers today are being asked to pay some $12 per week, and employees are being asked to pay some $8 per week. That is because the Government is $3 billion in the hole. In other words, the Government could not afford it. Whom is it trying to fool? It cannot fool these people because they will have to pay for it.
[ Translation]


André Maltais: Mr. Speaker, I wish the Hon. Member would explain why the Progressive Conservative Party last winter was against awarding the New York contract to Bombardier, and was first to denounce the agreement signed by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Lumley) which created jobs for young people in Quebec in the field of new technology. The Progressive Conservative Party does not agree, but we on this side of the House have made concerted efforts to create jobs, and yet the Opposition Party objected to the kind of financing required to create jobs. I would like to know what Members opposite would do to create jobs, because we on this side used our imagination and managed to land a major contract with the private sector.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, surely the Hon. Member must realize that pouring money into a firm in New York will affect the employment in New York and not in Canada. I do not mind spending money in Canada, but when we were enjoying prosperous years, the Government was pouring out

March 24, 1983
Adjournment Motion
the money. Now that it might be the time to spend money, the Government has already spent it during the period when there was prosperity and there was no need for it other than the fact that the Prime Minister was preoccupied with the Constitution and unconcerned about the economy. He decided to pour the money out to these people as long as the Liberals would get elected. That was their main objective.
What sort of jobs were created by PetroCan, for example? Not one extra job was created as a result of the money that is being fleeced from the people who use gasoline in Canada. What was the advantage of that action?
Was the Government in a hurry to listen to the NDP? The NDP is wondering why they are so far down in the Gallup Polls. The reason is that the Liberals were taking their policies to heart and implementing them.
The people are not stupid. They know why they do not have jobs. For instance, one of our Members was evicted today because he rose to protest the fact that Revenue Canada is rearranging the furniture and setting up an entirely new set of rules and breaking the backs of those people who toil on the land, in order to generate some revenue for the stupidities and mistakes made by the Liberals.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The House will recognize that other Hon. Members are seeking the floor. The decision is normally made by unanimous consent. If there is unanimous consent and Hon. Members want to continue, I will recognize the Parliamentary Secretary again. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following Bills: Bill C-145, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1983; and Bill C-146, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1984.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the
questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain)-summer work program; the Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche)-Nuclear Armaments- Canadian position on Geneva arms control talks.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Cosgrove:
That, in relation to Bill C-143, an Act to provide supplementary borrowing authority, one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of each of the report stage and the third reading of the Bill; and
That 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government business on those days, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question then necessary in order to dispose of the stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that my remarks in this debate will be of a more positive nature. Of course I respect the right of the Hon. Member who just spoke to dissent in any way he wishes. I believe, however, that in times of difficulty we must not turn our backs on those who are in need. If I understand the Hon. Member's suggestion to be that we should not have that amount of money invested in Unemployment Insurance, I must disagree. If he is suggesting that we should not be using medicare to take care of the people in Canada who are ill, then I must disagree. If we are not going to live up to our commitments to see that our elderly in Canada are taken care of during hard times, then I cannot agree with the Hon. Member's views as he stated them.
This afternoon I would like to address myself, in the short time that I have, to some of the more positive steps that are being taken with the money that the Government is borrowing. I refer generally to the NEED Program and more specifically, to my riding of Welland which is in the Niagara Peninsula.
My riding is basically made up of heavy industry where there is the steel industry and a great number of people who work in the automobile industry. As a result of the decrease in the purchase of cars, the steel industry, automobile industry and other suppliers in the area have slowed down. For that reason there was very high unemployment in the Niagara Peninsula, the St. Catharines region and specifically my Welland riding.
The Government has addressed itself to this problem in two ways. The first way is through the NEED Program. I would point out to Hon. Members that since the NEED Program went into effect, and indeed since December 21, 1983, we in Welland have been the fortunate recipients of moneys to put
March 24, 1983

our people who are exhaustees-those who have run out of Unemployment Insurance benefits-back to work so that they and their families could live normal lives.
Let me refer to the time between December 21 and March 4 when there were 1,785 work weeks created for the people in my riding. In real dollars, this amounted to some $754 thousand without which many families would have gone on welfare. Without this assistance, the savings of many would have been eaten up before they even went on to welfare. These are proud people. If what is being suggested is that the people of Canada do not want to work, then I surely disagree. I do not accept that as a premise. I do not agree that the Government is totally at fault. It goes without saying that we must accept our responsibilities. However, I believe that other segments of our society must also accept their responsibilities.
Rather than shouting at one another back and forth across the floor, there should surely be some constructive proposals. I compliment the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) who suggested that we do need moneys to stimulate the economy moderately. I do not think that the Government has all the solutions and I do not think that unions are all to blame, nor are businessmen. I think that if we put our heads together, we should be able to come up with some solutions.
In the NEED Program, of the $754,000, some $278,000 was for municipal works. Since March 4, another $226,000 has been allocated for municipal works and the non-profit sector, which was at $393,000 on March 4, has also been increased.
I would like to direct the attention of the House to a very exciting project which has been going on in the Welland riding for a year and a half. I hope that some of the moneys being borrowed will be used to further this particular project. I refer, of course, to the Welland Canal Parkway, which is a development project for the city. About a year and a half ago, the Welland Canal Advisory Group was formed to advise City Council and the federal Government, after having held extensive public hearings to determine exactly how these Canal lands should be developed. The Canal was rerouted some 20 years ago, I believe. One part which we now call the old Welland Canal, is approximately eight and a half miles long.


Arnold John Malone: What does that have to do with borrowing $19 billion?


Gilbert Parent: This is ideal for tourism. The Hon. Member asks, "What does this have to do with the borrowing authority?"


Arnold John Malone: Nineteen billion dollars!


Gilbert Parent: I am specifically referring to some of the moneys which are to be borrowed and which I hope will be invested in this particular area.
Time Allocation


Arnold John Malone: I hope not one penny goes there.


Gilbert Parent: The Hon. Member said he hopes that no moneys will be going into my area. I guess I would prefer, of course, to have another area where the unemployment was not quite as high. I would gladly trade his unemployment for mine over here.


Mr. Andre:: It's tough to find those kinds in Canada.


Gilbert Parent: Hon. Members opposite go on shouting at us, not permitting us to say what we have to say here, saying that only they have the right solution. I would like to hear some of their solutions, besides simply bad-mouthing the Government.


Mr. Mitges:: You are the Government. You are supposed to have all the solutions.


Gilbert Parent: We are the Government and we do take responsibility. May I direct my comments to the Welland Canal project in the hopes that the Government will consider, in its borrowings, allocating some of the money to the project to help create jobs. After extensive deliberations, a group headed by Mr. Willard Wright, in conjunction with Mayor Stranges and the City Council, decided that this is where we should make some investments of the talents of our people. To this end, we believe that it not only beautifies the city of Welland-


Arnold John Malone: So what?


Gilbert Parent: -but it will also be a tourist attraction which, in itself, will-


Donald W. Munro: It's irrelevant.


Gilbert Parent: -create jobs. We are some 15 miles from Niagara Falls. We believe that if people who do come into the area will only stay a little longer and come down into the Welland Canal Parkway, this will help to create jobs.
Last year we had a water skiing school. The development has brought in a great number of tourists as well as people interested in sports.


Arnold John Malone: So what?


Gilbert Parent: What does this mean to our people, restaurateurs, people with small shops and small businessmen? It means that they are able to continue operating under adverse conditions. It means that they still have a chance to do as well as people in other parts of the country.

Admittedly, Mr. Speaker, the unemployment rate in our region would very likely be a lot higher than it is now had we not received assistance from the Federal Government in those cases. In my opinion, all Hon. Members ought to know that we share that responsibility, it is not ours alone on this side, and we urge our colleagues opposite to make constructive suggestions so that we might do even more for all Canadians throughout the country. I sincerely ask them to give some

March 24, 1983
Time Allocation
thought to those who do not have as many opportunities as they have and to see to it that we too remain in good economic health in order to help the people in our riding and our region.

I think that these moneys that are to be borrowed will be beneficial to the people of Canada. I accept the responsibility of being in the Government and having taken part in the decisions which were made over the years.
The Hon. Member who spoke previously said that we were so preoccupied with the Constitution that we never had time for anything else. I respectfully suggest to Your Honour and to all Hon. Members that, notwithstanding the great seriousness of the economic position in which we find ourselves-indeed, in which the whole world finds itself-there is one bright light which has shone in the time we have spent here in the last three years. I, for one, consider the process involving the writing and the passage of the Constitution to be one of the more important processes in which I have taken part as a Member of Parliament.
I would hope that the present Government would indeed go ahead with its borrowing and help those people in Canada who are in need of its help at this time.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I rise today because we have before us a closure motion involving the borrowing of $19 billion. The Government is now borrowing money by closure and spending money by closure. The Hon. Member for Welland (Mr. Parent), who spoke just before me, referred to the beautification of cities. He spoke about parkways becoming pretty and about jobs associated with programs such as the summer work program. We must bear in mind that fact that $19 billion, the sum which is being requested in this borrowing authority Bill, is as much as the total budget for the country when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) first became Prime Minister. That debt, in one lump sum of borrowing, is an inexcusable expense, not just to us but also to tomorrow's children. Our future, our tomorrow, has become indebted. Children yet unborn will incur a debt of such magnitude that they will hardly be able to escape. They will bear an extraordinary burden.
In effect, the Canada summer works program is one which all Members of Parliament should stand to oppose, irrespective of the good work it may do in their community, such as the moving of grass, the pruning of trees, the fixing of golf courses, the painting of graveyards, the fixing up of the halls. That is an absolute waste of money. This country needs an engine, and the Government has killed the main engine of this country's economy. It has killed the oil industry.
The Government, with its former Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and his new National Energy Program, drove rig after rig out of Alberta and Saskatchewan. I believe that many persons did not even know what we were talking about when we spoke of moving an oil rig out. They thought that maybe a truck left with a derrick on it. Consider some 16 to 20 big, long liner trucks, with compressors, costing $500,000 a move to go from Alberta into the United States. We lost half of our drilling capacity within just a short period after that
program was announced. Government killed the engine of society.
It has been said, "Well, that is Alberta. Who cares? What does it matter if Alberta is killed?" I bring to Your Honour's attention the fact that one tar sands plant, in 25 years of production, promotes $108 billion in direct spending in the Province of Ontario. It does that in steel; it does that in transportation equipment; it does that in its spin-off of manufacturing. And the Government killed the engine. What is the Government's response? How do we justify borrowing $19 billion?
The Hon. Member for Welland stands up and says the Welland Canal Parkway might get some more money out of this borrowing. He is hoping that if we borrow more money his community of Welland will look prettier. Who cares if it looks prettier? What this country needs is to get the engine of this country working so that the people in every community will have the capacity to make their communities look prettier and to do that out of their own initiative, not out of borrowed money. We are in the position today in which every time we pay a tax dollar, 25 cents goes to pay the interest on our foreign debt. Out of every four dollars, we have to pay a dollar for nothing, for nothing except to pay for interest, and that, Sir, is not worth making communities pretty. We have to have more capacity than that to develop our country.
We are in a situation today in which the only reason we are surviving is because we are an educated nation that is resource rich. Our per capita debt is seven times greater than that of Latin America. If you look at Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela-any one of those 22 nations in the southern hemisphere or the Latin American block, including Brazil, a Portuguese-speaking country-you will find Sir, that we no longer may use loosely the expression that we are a "banana republic". Our debt is sevent times greater per capita than that of Latin America and, countries such as Mexico, with a population many times larger than that of Canada, which have an accumulated debt of only $80 billion. Here we are with a debt of $140 billion to divide among 24 million people.
We should be ashamed. Debt upon debt upon debt, borrowing upon borrowing; virtually every few months this Government is back asking to borrow more money. Now they are borrowing more money, and $14 billion of the $19 billion that they are borrowing are to be spent at some future time, in a new fiscal year, for which there is not a budget. What is a budget? A budget is a plan for how you are going to spend your money. They are asking us, under the threat of closure, to authorize $14 billion, and they have not even outlined to the people of Canada why they need it or how they are going to spend it. Then they became hostile and upset and they burn with indignation and say that we are holding up the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, why was this House of Commons started in the first place? It started because at the time of the Magna Carta, more than 700 years ago, the subjects of the time, when
March 24, 1983

the king was all-powerful, did not like the fact that he wanted to build a new castle and tax the already over-burdened subjects one more time. They rebelled against him. They gave him a choice, and the choice was that he was to be stripped of power and power was to come to the common people, and if it did not, he would lose his head. Being a wise king, he chose the former. We had common people with power, and that is why we are a House of Commons, because we are a place of common people. This is no longer a House of Commons and it is no longer a Parliament of power because the power is not among its individual Members who represent their constituencies; it is among those 30-some people who sit in the Cabinet. By closure they borrow, and by closure they spend. They do it by closure. They strip from the people of Canada their base of power, and now they want some $19 billion without a budget, without a plan, without a reason or a rationale. They are simply saying to us that they want some more money because the Cabinet believes that they have a way for spending more money. That, Mr. Speaker, takes us from the role of citizen to the role of subject. It is not now what the Parliament and its representatives believe is right, it is what that Cabinet thinks is right; it is the king again. It is back to King Charles I- whatever he wants. This Cabinet believes that they have this almighty power to dream whatever they want to, whether it is fixing up the pretty flowers in Welland or any other community, just to borrow more money, the justification for $19 billion. What a terrible excuse the Hon. Member for Welland has put before us today for the borrowing of some $19 billion!
The Auditor General, just a few years ago, was telling us that this Government had lost control of the public purse and, more recently, the Auditory General is telling us that not only do we need to be concerned about the waste and the overexpenditure of Government, but that there is a whole subGovernment starting, and a sub-Government that is not accountable, he said as he pointed his finger at Crown corporations. There are some 480 Crown corporations wholly or partially owned by the federal Government. There are 274 Crown corporations wholly owned by the federal Government. With a record like that, obviously, with those Crown corporations not accountable to our Public Accounts, not coming before Committee and not standing the test or the scrutiny, naturally this Parliament remember that the reason it was formed was for the control of the purse-has lost that power, and that fact is stripping power from the citizens of this country. That is where power should be, in the House of Commons, for common people. Instead, what we have is a Cabinet that borrows under closure and spends under closure, assuming unto itself all rights and all privileges.
Mr. Speaker, that defies our history; it defies our rationale; it defies the purpose of this place and it defies, most of all, the individual Canadians from coast to coast and their Gob-given right to presume that in democracies they are powerful. In fact what has happened is that that group of some 30 persons on the other side has now made it so that our debt is seven times larger than the per capita debt of Latin America. We are
Time Allocation
strong today for only one reason and that is that we have resources of which any nation in the world would be jealous.
And so, Mr. Speaker, they sell out tomorrow; they mortgage children yet unborn; they put a debt on them for the purpose of existing to make Welland pretty today.
If we started to build the engines of this economy-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, order. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his time has expired.


Mr. Jack Masters (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, 1 might well start with the beautification of Welland, why we would be concerned with the beautification of Welland, and why this Government should be concerned with summer employment plans that will have young people out cutting grass, painting and fixing things up.
I think that the previous speaker, while he spoke about a Canada from coast to coast, seemed to concentrate on one area of the land, without thinking in the broad perspective of what Canada is all about.
First of all, it is a young country, still growing, and, as a growing country, it has required a lot of extraordinary investments. More important, I believe that we need the money that we are asking for today and we have to put some time allocation on the debate because it is necessary to have that money flowing, for very good reasons, as soon as possible.
I think Canada is what it is today because we have learned, in our peculiarly Canadian way, that somehow we can find ways for each region of the country to help out other regions, recognizing that it is the totality of the land, working together, and the interaction that has come out of necessity between Governments and the private sector, that have brought us to the stage at which we are today. When I look around, I do not think that we have done all that badly by any standard.
To go back to the employment program, which I am anxious to see re-started in northwestern Ontario this summer and in all parts of the land, the previous speaker spoke about the engine that fueled the economy and said that we have killed it. What really fuels a country is people. The Hon. Member made reference to how well educated we are. I cannot find fault with a plan that creates an opportunity to beautify the land, something which has an aesthetic value, a morale-building quality, and a pragmatic value. This is particularly so as one of our prime industries is tourism. In order to have a tourist industry, you must have an attractive package for the tourist to view.
I cannot see anything wrong with a program of giving some kind of assistance to young people who will be returning to their studies in the fall. They will be those well-educated people of whom the Hon. Member spoke. They will in fact give even greater impetus to the future of our country because they are better educated.
I hope that their education will include learning about the area in which they live, whether it be Alberta or southwestern

March 24, 1983
Time Allocation
Ontario. The charge is sometimes made that that education is lacking in this country. I regret to say it is sometimes lacking in this House. I repeat, education must include a recognition of the regions of this country.
Much has been made about the National Energy Program. It has been said that it caused the death of that very important industry and, to quote the previous speaker, the country does not give a damn. We must remember that the oil industry grew up in this country because the people of Canada supported and promoted it. People seem to quickly forget the large tax advantages given to that industry. I do not regret that because this did help to build the industry. We sometimes neglect to see that most of what is going on in that industry, which is depressed world-wide, which includes our friends to the South who are having immense difficulties, is the result of the National Energy Program, because Petro-Canada is taking a lead role in this area.
We are in the position of having to ask to borrow a great deal more money. Along with every other Member in this House, I regret the necessity of a deficit, of not having enough money in the bank to do all the work at this time. I believe that, by and large, the money spent by the Government over the last few years has been done in a reasonable and equitable fashion across this land in order to accomplish a number of things. It has helped those Members of our society who are neglected to enjoy a fair and reasonable share of the wealth of this land. We have tried to help our senior citizens who did not have the opportunity to build a pension plan or the wherewithal to take them through their twilight years. We tried to use some of the resources to help people with medicare and other programs of that nature. It is expensive. Had we not taken those actions, the hardships in this land would be far more severe than they now are. I refer to the Unemployment Insurance plan. The Government and the people of Canada are in the difficult position of having declining revenues at a time when we need to carry on this very necessary service. This necessary growing deficit position has been created for a brief period of time.
I believe that some of the programs for which this money will be used will hasten our extraction from our present difficult position. That money will flow into such programs as the NEED Program which assits those whose benefits have run out, the summer employment program, and other programs of that nature. In addition, it is tremendously important because it will help provide the infractructure to enable us to continue to grow more quickly in the future. The dollars that we provide through such programs as the NEED Program, meagre as they may seem at times, create a spin-off. If a dozen people are employed on a project in downtown Nipigon make purchases to complete their work, it will create a spin-off effect for that business community. The number of dollars may seem small because so often we deal in such large sums of money. However, to a small community, these supposedly small sounding amounts are big dollars. They make the difference between success and failure.
I would love it if we were in a position of not having to borrow more money. However, I support the idea of having these funds on hand to meet current obligations so that we can continue carrying out programs that assist the economy. As the economy grows, we can then concentrate on reducing the deficit.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister responsible for this Bill referred to the great number of Members of Parliament who had spoken on the Bill. I had the privilege of speaking before. I now want to say a few words on closure or time allocation, the more gentlemanly term which means the same thing.
Those of us in Opposition are well aware that this is a bad Bill. If some of those on the other side would think on a purely non-partisan basis, they would raise their eyebrows about a Bill which demands of this House $19 billion. We have demonstrated that a borrowing Bill of this size and nature is clearly unprecedented, either in Canada or elsewhere in the parliamentary world. We have shown time after time that it is a bad Bill, one that promises to mortgage the future of Canadians to a greater extent than either we, or indeed most certainly they, are aware.
The list goes on. These are all bad things. We all realize that, and once again that must include Members of the back benches across the aside. After all, they should think seriously about the matter and consider it objectively.
Being a bad Bill does not make it an anomaly among Bills put forward by this Government. Anything but! Certainly it being a bad Bill is not enough to get me on my feet so often. There is more. This Bill goes right to the heart of what we Members of Parliament are here for. It strikes right at the roots of the parliamentary system and the principles upon which it is based.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) mentioned earlier that in 1649 a king was executed. It was the only time in my memory that such a thing has been done by due process of law in the history of our monarchy. Why was this terrible thing done? It was because the King, Charles I, had been the loser in a struggle over who was to control access to the public purse. It took a civil war to establish that henceforth in the parliamentary system, Parliament, and Parliament alone, would have the authority to allot moneys which came from the pockets, the livelihood, the sweat of the body and the fruit of the brains of the taxpaying public. What is more, this was not to be a token control, to be voted at the whim of the executive, be that executive of Royal or of Cabinet form. Parliaments everywhere, until the introduction of this Bill, have jealously guarded the right to examine the purposes toward which it is being asked to vote public money.
Bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that I am not claiming this authority for the Official Opposition, nor for the Opposition as a whole. This is the authority, this is the right, this is the sovereign right of Parliament. And that places a very heavy
March 24, 1983

onus upon us all, but perhaps especially upon those Members of the Government who are not bound by the bonds of a Cabinet oath. I sympathize with those Hon. Members. I sympathize with them very much, because, having sat in this place with them for as long as I have, I know what a strain they must be under, as they ponder the relative weights of their twin responsibilities; to their Party and its long tradition of valuing the exercise of power above all else, and to the parliamentary and democratic system and what their support of this Bill will do to it.
Above all else, Mr. Speaker, we are establishing a parliamentary precedent with this Bill. If we pass it, we are saying that 300 years of parliamentary history-over 100 of them spent right here between these four walls-are for naught! We are saying that no longer does Parliament rule supreme, nor do the people, whose only legitimate representative we collectively are. We are saying that Charles I rides again in the persons of the Liberal Cabinet of the Member for Mount Royal, the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). More specifically, we are saying that we shall have to codify exactly the behaviour which we expect from our Governments in the future, because any Government that follows the precedents established by this one, will refuse to be controlled by any traditions, precedents or codes of behaviour which are not written down, preferably on stone. We are gathered here to authorize, or more accurately to rubberstamp, the purloining of more money from the public pocket than was paid for the entire operation of the federal Government, its activities, its programs, all that it did, a scant dozen years ago.
This is in the form, not of a budget but of the authority to borrow on the public markets, with no further questions asked, $19 billion, which will have to be repaid with high interest out of the public pocket, and most critically for the future of the system of Government we profess to espouse, with no indication whatsoever as to what purposes the funds are to be put. Mr. Speaker, I am not a dogmatist, nor am I dyed-in-the-wool reactionary who will fight against change purely for the purpose of maintaining the status quo of the good old days. That type of thinking surely has no place in these times of such fast-paced changes. But the record of this Government, this Cabinet, in matters of constitutional self-discipline is not encouraging.
This is the Government of a Prime Minister who, when asked how far he would go in suppressing human rights in response to a kidnapping in Quebec, replied, "Just watch me". This is the successor Government to one which, having been defeated in the House, decided it was all a joke and rewrote the "gentlemen's agreement" upon which such things had been based until that time. This is the Government for whom, more than any other, time allocation and closure have become a way of life. Seventeen times so far have they been applied during this session alone, and more to come. This is the Government whose Leader described Members of Parliament as "just nobodies when they are 50 yards away from Parliament Hill". Be that as it may, "nobodies" or not, we are the men and women who are charged by our electors with the protection of their purse. No one else has that authority. No one else has that responsibility. Regardless of our Party affiliations, if we
Time Allocation
support this Bill and allow it to pass, we are spitting in the eyes of those who sent us to this place.
Some of you, more particularly those who are trying desperately to ignore the constitutional implications of the Bill, will be trying to pretend that I am making a mountain out of a molehill. You will be trying to tell yourselves that all of this constitutional nonsense is just that, nonsense. Yet, no longer than a few hours ago, the division bells rang loud and long, calling us to vote on the heinous matter of a Member having used "unparliamentary language". That is a parliamentary no-no. Yet we all now what he meant, and his alteration of the words he used to say it really could not have mattered less. But we went through the song and dance of a vote. Is it not of much greater importance to protect the right of the taxpaying public and let them know why their money is being taken from them before the deed is done? I ask you, Parliamentarians on all sides of the House not to let this Bill pass.
There was a very sad announcement in this House that a former Auditor General, J. J. Macdonell, had passed away suddenly. He had been a great servant of the House. I believe it was mentioned earlier this afternoon, that he had pointed out forcefully that Parliament had lost control of the public purse. Whether this can be blamed on Cabinet or whether it can be blamed on the bureaucrats who are the ones bringing forth this legislation, we are still faced with being asked for a blank cheque for $19 billion, and we should say an emphatic no to this.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take part in this debate on the closure motion with respect to the borrowing authority of $19 billion which the Government has put before us to be approved. The Government is asking for this borrowing authority so that it can borrow money and possibly put us further into debt than we already are. The accumulated national debt by the end of this year will be somewhere in the area of $160 billion. I believe that is a sad state of affairs, and I can honestly say that I do not know that it is a political problem, to a large extent. I believe that could happen today under almost any Government in Canada, as sad as that may be.
It was mentioned in the debate a little earlier, Mr. Speaker, that the people of the country are really the most valuable resource of the country, and I agree with that. The people are the most valuable resource that we have, but it seems to me that they have less and less input into what is happening within this country through their representatives in Parliament. I do not put any blame on the Liberals or the Conservatives, necessarily, but I believe that we are rapidly coming to a point when many Canadians are losing faith in the institution of Parliament, and in having their vote really count for something when they send a Member of Parliament to represent them in the federal House of Commons, to speak on their behalf and to have a hand in dealing with the affairs of the country.
There seems to be a real lack of democracy within this institution when we have a majority Government elected, as we

March 24, 1983
Time Allocation
do now, because a majority Government in Canada can do anything it wants. It can change Saturday to Sunday, if it so wishes. It could call a dollar a metric tool. Anything can happen here because there is no check and balance beyond this House, as there should be, and that would be the upper House or the Senate of Canada. The reason that the Senate is not a check and balance to this Government is that by far the greatest number of Members in the Senate are appointed because of their partisan contributions to a political movement within this country. That is a sad state of affairs, Mr. Speaker. We should have an elected Senate. Perhaps that would ensure more democracy under a majority Government. I will have more to say about an elected Senate later.
First of all, I should like to point out that in this Chamber, Members of Parliament have little, if any, influence. Of course, we work on behalf of our constituents and assist them with pension or immigration problems and all the concerns that they have when dealing with the Government. People often approach their elected representatives for help with those problems and in many cases we are successful in helping them. But we have very little influence in this House, Mr. Speaker. In reality, we can do nothing this afternoon to stop this closure motion from passing, even if that were the will of most Members of Parliament.
The changes that have taken place over the years have a great deal to do with the media, I believe, and with the transportation system that we have built up in the country. For example, I would be surprised if there were more than two or three Members of Parliament in the House at the moment, listening to what I am saying.


Paul James Cosgrove: That is not right.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Keith Anguish: In the early days, things were much different. From the time of Confederation until World War II there was not a great media coverage of the country, nor was there rapid transportation such that Members could travel from the Atlantic to the Pacific in one day. Until World War II, if a Member of Parliament made a speech in this House, the other Members took a great deal of interest in it. In that way a Parliamentarian was able to deliver a message to Members from other parts of the country. They listened because they were concerned about the country. Now, with rapid communication and rapid transportation, Members do not have to really listen to each other. They can pick up the morning paper and read the report of a journalist from some other part of the country, or they can hop on an airplane and travel to any part of the country to witness an event at first hand.
That is a sad situation, Mr. Speaker, and it points out that in a way this institution has become archaic and that some of the systems with which we operate should be changed. I do not think it is just a matter of changing Governments-that one Government would be more efficient or administer the country
better than another; it is a matter of changing the systems under which we work.
One thing that would improve our systems and enhance democracy in this country would be an elected Senate. In the House of Commons we have representation through population, and that is fair. But in a country as large as this, it seems to me that there should be some regional representation as well so that areas with the majority of population cannot impose something on outlying parts of the country without some check and balance being in place. One way to achieve that would be to have an elected Senate with equal numbers of Senators from each Province and the Territories elected to serve in the Upper House. When legislation passes this House, particularly when there is a majority Government which may not have listened to opposing views, the Senate could examine it from a regional perspective and make any changes that might be necessary. If that were the case I do not think that today we would be arguing about whether the Government should be able to borrow money when it does not have a plan or does not tell us the plan or because, some would say, it is incompetent-I think if all that were set aside we could get on with running the country in a more democratic way.
Democracy seems to prevail only at election time. Between elections there is very little democracy in the country. That is a sad state of affairs for this institution and for the country. Democracy is a basic right. People must have some say in the systems that run the country, even in cases where they disagree.
Members of the New Democratic Party-and I was one of them-opposed the testing of the Cruise missile. When we spoke about that this afternoon in the House some Hon. Members said that they did not want to debate it in the House. I think that is wrong, Mr. Speaker. In a democracy we listen to everyone. People must have a forum in which to express their concern. As we have seen in other countries, when this is denied them, revolutionary forces spring up. I hope we never see that in Canada.
The ancient philosopher, Voltaire, said something to the effect that, "I may disagree profoundly with what you have to say but 1 will defend to the death your right to say it." We should keep that in mind, Mr. Speaker, and not criticize each other's motives in this House. We should listen to each other and try to make the country a better place to live and prosper. No country in the world has the potential of Canada. As a Member of Parliament, I would not want to be part of anything that would destroy that future for my children or their children.
We should get on with doing the job and look for new systems under which we can operate more effectively rather then apportioning blame. That is not actually the problem.


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) was probably practising a speech that he might have wanted to present in a mock parliament. He brought in the question of the Cruise and everything else except Bill C-143
March 24, 1983

which we are discussing this afternoon. I do not know where the Hon. Member gets his information. It seems to me that there is no higher court in which to exercise democracy than the House of Commons. He missed an excellent opportunity to do that during debate this afternoon.
The Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) also missed an opportunity to make some points and explain his position. He took ten minutes to speak of some beautification project. I do not know how that relates to what the Government is trying to do. Surely he could have taken a couple of minutes before coming into the Chamber to decide what he wanted to say about the Bill and the importance of borrowing these moneys at this time. Instead, he elected to spend the total time attacking the Hon. Member for Welland (Mr. Parent).
Had the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake been in the House when his Acting House Leader spoke, he would have heard him support the Government's request for borrowing. He took exception to the narrow view presented by the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens). As usual, the Acting House Leader for the NDP made an eloquent presentation. He certainly was that when he involved himself with what the Hon. Member for York-Peel had to say. In the course of his presentation he went on to say that there was a need for these funds. I support that view. I want to pick up on what the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) said when he, so effectively, established his position this afternoon. Right-thinking and positive-thinking Members mentioned the needs and what we will do with these funds. I see the Hon. Member from Carleton-


Walter David Baker: Nepean-Carleton.


Maurice James Harquail: I am sorry. I see the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), who is usually in his place, so attentively nodding in agreement with what I have to say this afternoon. It encourages me to go on and to talk about housing, the increase in housing construction which is creating jobs that we all said were needed in this country. Also we want to encourage and find dollars to support job-creation programs. We know that with the employment situation as it is in Canada we must carry on with the CDP, Community Development Projects, and with the NEED Program, particularly for the youth, the young people in the labour market today who are having difficulty finding job opportunities.
Also I support the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre). This afternoon he took the opportunity to make a contribution in the House dealing directly and specifically with the need for job opportunities and job creation for the youth of the country. I applaud his contribution and support him in everything he had to say. This is the type of concern that we on this side of the House share. It is why we support this measure at this time.
Turning to development, some mention was made of regions. We have regional concerns. We have the Minister of State for Economic Development (Mr. Johnston), and we have the
Time Allocation
Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Lumley) who also has responsibility for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. I place a great deal of importance on the programs which these Departments will administer.
I would like to name some of the projects we want to see completed and hopefully addressed out of these borrowings or funds. There are such items as the completion of the section of highway between Moncton and Campbellton in my own Province of New Brunswick. I would not want to miss the opportunity to stress that important project because of its significance to our region and its fundamental link to economic development. It is fundamental to us that our seaway ports, airports, pulp mills, infrastruture and various plants have the necessary transportation links to the communities.


Walter David Baker: Hear, hear!


Maurice James Harquail: I appreciate that support from the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton. Recently, in the Standing Committee on Transport I talked with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin). I asked him, as I did also the Premier of New Brunswick and the Minister responsible for transportation and highways in New Brunswick, to keep the promise they made 12 years ago and get on with the project.


Walter David Baker: Send him a copy of your speech.


Maurice James Harquail: I hope that will be done in due course. He sat with us in a public meeting with engineers, elected MLAs and all the other representatives. We all agreed. The Premier said that it was a provincial responsibility and that they would complete the highway between Moncton and Campbellton. I am sad to relate this afternoon that there are portions yet to be completed. I refer particularly to the portion between the airport at Charlo and the mining area at Belledune.
We are asked what is left to be done and why we need these moneys.


Neil Young: To finish your road.


Maurice James Harquail: Yes, but let me refer to a topic which is of interest to everyone, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Everyone has individual views about the Corporation, about its policies, about its budget allocation and the way it spends money. Would all Hon. Members not agree that in 1983 at least the Corporation should tackle the problem of the installation of adequate, modern television production facilities in the Province of new Brunswick? The Premier himself has appeared at least four or five times before the CRTC. Everyone has supported this case. We have all made presentations to the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox), to the CRTC, and we are still awaiting that allocation by the President of the CBC. Those are some of the items I wanted to put before the House this afternoon.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to correct the Hon. Member. He said that I supported the legislative proposals before the House. I did not.

March 24, 1983
Time Allocation


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The point is well taken.


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I am afraid we are engaging in debate at this time.


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, when you said that the point was well taken, I take it that I might respond to that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please.


Maurice James Harquail: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Douglas Keith Anguish: Sit down.


Maurice James Harquail: Behave yourself.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. I should remind Hon. Members that it is a Member's right and privilege under the Standing Orders to rise and have the record corrected if, as the case may be, he was misquoted or the facts were not as he laid them before the House. That is quite in order.
It being 5.25 o'clock p.m., the two hours provided for the consideration of the motion now before the House under the provisions of Standing Order 82 have expired. Accordingly, under the terms of the Standing Order, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put every question necessary to dispose of the motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Call in the Members.


Madam Speaker:: The motion is carried Motion (Mr. Cosgrove) agreed to.
Malepart
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Munro
(Hamilton East) Olivier Ostiguy Ouellet Parent Pelletier Pepin Peterson Pinard Prud'homme Regan Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Roberts Robinson
(Etobicoke- Lakeshore) Rompkey Rooney Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Simmons Smith Tardif Tessier Tobin Tousignant Trudeau Veillette Watson Weatherhead Whelan-121.
McKenzje McKnight McLean Mitchell (Mrs.)
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Neil
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nystrom
Oberle
Orlikow
Parker
Patterson
Roche
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Stevens Thacker Vankoughnet Wise Young Yurko-69.
March 24, 1983



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
Order Paper Questions
Messrs.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde: That Bill C-139, to amend the statute law relating to income tax (No. 2) be read the third time and do pass.
Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Madam Speaker:: Call in the Members. Can we dispense with the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 3,934, 3,935, 3,937, 3,938, 3,940 and 4,656.

March 24, 1983
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Lawrence: What is the name of the present (a) Director (b) Deputy Director of the Osborne Centre, Winnipeg and, in each case (a) for how long has he/she held the position (b) what position did he/she hold previously (c) what is his/her salary level (d) what formal education does he/she have?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: In so far
as the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
A.	There is no Director at Osborne Centre but there is a Superintendent, whose name is Jeff Christian, (a) Date of appointment to present position: March 10, 1980. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Area Manager, Yellowknife Parole Office, Yellowknife, N.W.T. (c) Salary range: $28,118 to $31,640. *(d) This position requires a university degree, preferably with specialization in sociology, psychology, social work, criminology or some other specialty relevant to the position, or to have passed the Public Service Commission Examination, "General Intelligence Test 310" and possess the experience qualifications for the position.
B.	There is no Deputy Director at Osborne Centre but one of the two Case Management Officers, Russell Muth, is presently designated by the Superintendent to act in his absence through a Commissioner's Directive issued in accordance with Section 29(3) of the Penitentiary Act. The responsibility may be rotated periodically in order to provide experience and training opportunities to both Case Management Officers.
(a) Date of appointment as Case Management Officer: May 15, 1981. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Counsellor at Osborne Centre, (c) Salary range: $24,892 to $27,998. *(d) Same as part A(d).
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: What is the name of the present (a) Director (b) Deputy Director of the Rockwood Institution Farm, Stony Mountain and, in each case (a) for how long has he/she held the position (b) what position did he/she hold previously (c) what is his/her salary level (d) what formal education does he/she have?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far
as the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
A. There is no Director at Rockwood Institution but there is a Superintendent, whose name is John Keane, (a) Date of appointment to present position: May 21, 1974. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Living Unit, Development Officer at Rockwood Institution, (c) Salary range: $30,567 to $34,090. *(d) The minimum educational requirements for this position are successful completion of secondary school or to have passed the Public Service Commission Examination 320 coupled with relevant experience.
B. There is no Deputy Director at Rockwood Institution but the Co-ordinator, Inmate Programs, Douglas Spiers, is presently designated by the Superintendent to act in his absence through a Commissioner's Directive issued in accordance with Section 29(3) of the Penitentiary Act. The responsibility may be rotated periodically in order to provide experience and training opportunities to two other officers.
(a) Date of appointment as Co-ordinator, Inmate Programs: April 6, 1981. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Area Manager, Thompson Parole Office, Thompson, Manitoba. (c) Salary range: $28,118 to $31,640. *(d) This position requires a university degree, preferably with specialization in sociology, psychology, social work, criminology or some other specialty relevant to the position, or to have passed the Public Service Commission Examination, "General Intelligence Test 310" and possess the experience qualifications for the position.
'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: What is the name of the present (a) Director (b) Deputy Director of the Oskana Centre, Regina and, in each case (a) for how long has he/she held the position (b) what position did he/she hold previously (c) what is his/her salary level (d) what formal education does he/she have?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far
as the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
A.	There is no Director at Oskana Centre but there is a Superintendent whose name is John Friel. (a) Date of appointment to present position: July 1, 1980. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Section Supervisor, National Parole Service, Prince Albert Parole Office, Prince Albert, Saskatchewan. (c) Salary range: $28,118 to $31,640. *(d) This position requires a university degree, preferably with specialization in sociology, psychology, social work, criminology or some other specialty relevant to the position, or to have passed the Public Service Commission Examination, "General Intelligence Test 310" and possess the experience qualifications for the position.
B.	There is no Deputy Director at Oskana Centre but the Case Management Officer, Brian Meier, is presently designated by the Superintendent to act in his absence through a Commissioner's Directive issued in accordance with Section 29(3) of the Penitentiary Act. The responsibility may be rotated periodically in order to provide experience and training opportunities to two other Case Management Officers.
(a) Date of appointment as Case Management Officer: December 3, 1979. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Counsellor at Oskana Centre, (c) Salary range: $24,892 to $27,998. *(d) Same as part A(d).
Information provided is for previous work experience in the federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regard-
March 24, 1983

ing 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: What is the name of the present (a) Director (b) Deputy Director of the Saskatchewan Farm Institution, Prince Albert and, in each case (a) for how long has he/she held the position (b) what position did he/she hold previously (c) what is his/her salary level (d) what formal education does he/she have?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far
as the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
A.	There is no Director at Saskatchewan Farm Institution but there is a Superintendent, whose name is Knutt Hemsted. (a) Date of appointment to present position: July 24, 1980. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Farm Manager at Saskatchewan Farm Institution, (c) Salary range: $32,112 to $36,212. *(d) The minimum educational requirements for this position are successful completion of secondary school or to have passed the Public Service Commission Examination 320 coupled with relevant experience.
B.	There is no Deputy Director at Saskatchewan Farm Institution but the Co-ordinator, Inmate Programs, Clifford Moore is presently designated by the Superintendent to act in his absence through a Commissioner's Directive issued in accordance with Section 29(3) of the Penitentiary Act. The responsibility may be rotated periodically in order to provide experience and training opportunities to two other officers.
(a) Date of appointment as Co-ordinator, Inmate Programs: February 15, 1978. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Classification Officer at Saskatchewan Penitentiary, Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, (c) Salary range: $28,118 to $31,640. *(d) This position requires a university degree, preferably with specialization in sociology, psychology, social work, criminology or some other specialty relevant to the position, or to have passed the Public Service Commission Examination, "General Intelligence Test 310" and possess the experience qualifications for the position.
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: What is the name of the present (a) Director (b) Deputy Director of the Regional Psychiatric Centre, Saskatoon and, in each case (a) for how long has he/she held the position (b) what position did he/she hold previously (c) what is his/her salary level (d) what formal education does he/she have?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far
as the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
A. The Acting Medical Director at the Regional Psychiatric Centre, Saskatoon is Dr. William Davis, (a) Date of appointment to present position: July 11, 1980. *(b) Position held
Order Paper Questions
prior to present appointment: Regional Manager, Medical and Health Care Services, Correctional Service Canada, Regional Headquarters, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, (c) Salary range: $50,688 to $57,404. *(d) This position requires eligibility for license to practice medicine in a Province or Territory in Canada.
B. There is no Deputy Director at the Regional Psychiatric Centre, Saskatoon but the Assistant Director, Security, Robert Allaby, is presently designated by the Acting Medical Director to act in his absence through a Commissioner's Directive issued in accordance with Section 29(3) of the Penitentiary Act. The responsibility may be rotated periodically in order to provide experience and training opportunities to two other officers.
(a) Date of appointment as Assistant Director, Security: April 28, 1980. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Regional Co-ordinator, Security Survey and Evaluation, Correctional Service of Canada, Regional Headquarters, Moncton, New Brunswick, (c) Salary range: $30,567 to $34,090. *(d) The minimum educational requirements for this position are successful completion of secondary school or to have passed the Public Service Commission Examination 320 coupled with relevant experience.
*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. Friesen: 1.	Which positions in the Department of the Solicitor General are filled through Order in Council?
2.	In 1982, by region, what were the names of the persons who held each of these positions?


David P. Smith: 1. and 2.
Position	Name	RegionDeputy Solicitor General Commissioner of Corrections in	F. Gibson	Ottawathe Canadian Penitentiary Ser-	vice	D. Yeomans	OttawaCorrectional Investigator in the	Office of the Correctional Investigator	R. Stewart	OttawaHead of the Security and Intel-	ligence Agency Commissioner of the Royal	T. D. Finn	OttawaCanadian Mounted Police	R. Simmonds	OttawaNational Parole Board	Chairman	W. Outerbridge	HeadquartersVice-Chairman	R. Labelle	Headquarters
March 24, 1983
Adjournment Debate
Members:
Temporary Members:
Miss M. Casey R. Evans
J.	Gilbert Miss K. Louis Col. A. Beaupre R. Beaupre Miss M. Benson Mrs. D. Betz P. Boulanger D. Chisholm G. Clermont M. Gallant R. R. Gillies Mrs. N. Harrison Mrs. E. Hobbs
J.	Hollies Mrs. S. Holt
K.	Howland R. Hutson T. Lamothe M. Lecorre M. Steinburg R. Richards
L.	F. Taylor P. Young
L.	Audet G. Bertrand R. Boucher Ms. A. Cools B. Hayden D. Hurley
J. Leblanc
M.	Maccagno Mrs. S. Mahcu Mrs. S. McAlpine F. McQuaid
J. Ready M. Roussel
L.	St-Cyr
M.	Tracz
Atlantic Region Headquarters Quebec Region Pacific Region Ontario Region Quebec Region Ontario Region Prairie Region Quebec Region Prairie Region Headquarters Atlantic Region Prairie Region Pacific Region Headquarters Headquarters Pacific Region Prairie Region Headquarters Headquarters Quebec Region Ontario Region Atlantic Region Ontario Region Headquarters
Ontario Region Quebec Region Pacific Region Ontario Region Prairie Region Atlantic Region Atlantic Region Prairie Region Quebec Region Pacific Region Atlantic Region Atlantic Region Quebec Region Ontario Region Prairie Region


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?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 45 deemed to have been moved.

Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, on March 15 1 addressed a question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) in respect to the make work programs which are in place for the various constituencies of Canada. I asked that question in this House because I
had received a letter on February 25 from the Minister advising me that the last date that applications for any of the Summer Works programs should be in was March 4. March 25 happened to be a Friday and the letter arrived in my office after I had left. I therefore did not learn of the closing date until the following Monday.
Mr. Speaker, in a constituency such as yours and mine, a great deal of the information is circulated via the weekly paper. There was no way at the time of that late announcement that 1 could advise the people of Carleton-Charlotte that the closing date for the summer works type of program would be March 4. 1 therefore asked the Minister, inasmuch as it was impossible for the constituents of Carleton-Charlotte to know of the closing date in time to get applications in, would he extend that date by two weeks.
1 then went to the trouble of asking of the weeklies and of organizations if they had had any notice of any kind as to when the closing date was for applications for this program. The answer was no, they had had no notification. I then called the officials of the Department, for my constituency, and was advised that there would be no extension after that date of March 4. This meant that many organizations had no way of knowing that the closing date was in fact March 4.
I repeated my question later in the House and again asked for an explanation. I was again advised that I should be the individual to advise the constituents of Carleton-Charlotte and all its organizations that the closing date was to be March 4. That was impossible. This has rendered a hardship to the constituents who might have applied, as well as to the various organizations that might have applied.
I think Hon. Members know that the various organizations promoting the interests of our native people have pretty good communication with the various Ministers, first through the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro), and then through their own information centres, as to when they can apply for the benefits of programs.
Last week an Indian Chief from New Brunswick was in my office. He stated that he had not been notified of the closing date, that he had not made an application and that he was advised by the officials of the Department of Employment and Immigration that there was no way that an application from his Band could be accepted for projects for summer work. In addition to that, and this is a side issue, he was advised that his budget was being sharply reduced by the Department of Indian Affairs. He stated that a combination of the two situations wreaked very serious hardship upon him, his Band and his officials.
I was not the only one who did not know. I took the opportunity on the first Tuesday in March to ask other Members if they knew of the closing date for applications for the summer employment programs. The answer was no in every instance.
I mentioned in my question, and I repeat it again, this Government has budgets known to be in the vicinity of $300
March 24, 1983

million for advertising. The cost of advertising through the various little pamphlets that come out far exceeds that item. I submit it is incumbent upon the Minister of Employment and Immigration in the future to properly advertise any program and the closing date for applications, giving not less than three weeks public notice of that closing date. This is in the best interest of the people we are trying to serve, particularly the student population of Canada which does not have a hope of getting in those applications to get the work they so badly need.
When this program was originally initiated, it allowed a Member of this House to appoint a ministerial advertising board-the name changed later-which gave geographic representation within a large constituency. It made it possible for the citizens, mayors, councillors, teachers, lawyers and other professional people in the constituency to give advice as to-


Jean-C. Lapierre: No problem.


Fred Alward McCain: Yes, there is. I could not do that. They advised how the moneys would be allocated. I was advised the Minister did not want that.
Something else that gives me difficulty is the geographic distribution of the money. First, I do not have advance copies of the applications. Consequently I get the notice on the day or maybe the day before I am to meet with the officials. Don't shake your head and don't criticize my truthfulness in this House. If you do, you criticize the truthfulness of my staff, and I will rise to their defence.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order.


Fred Alward McCain: Can I have another minute in view of the interruptions?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: There were no interruptions. I simply ask the Hon. Member to address his remarks to the Chair. I hope the record will not indicate that the Speaker was shaking his head; that is the way it sounded to me.


Fred Alward McCain: No, Mr. Speaker, I referred to the gentleman opposite.


Jean-C. Lapierre: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I am sorry, the Chair cannot entertain points of order during these proceedings.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, there is no way that I can properly represent my constituency without advance notice, so that my constituency can make proper representation to the staff of the Department, without the ministerial advisory board. Exactly the same situation exists in other large constituencies in Canada. I appeal to the Minister to advertise in weekly papers in rural Canada the beginning and closing dates of programs, giving at least three weeks' notice. Without ministerial advisory boards in the large constituencies, and
Adjournment Debate
without proper notice, all organizations in rural constituencies suffer from this lack of information.


Mr. Remi Bujold (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, in the few
minutes at my disposal, I shall try, to the best of my ability, to give some explanations to the Hon. Member in connection with his complaints about the advertising of the Summer Canada program. First of all, perhaps I may say that I too represent a rural constituency, and that the problems encountered by the Hon. Member in his own constituency are perhaps even greater in my own, considering its boundaries which include the Magdalen Islands, where communications are certainly a problem.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister announced the Summer Canada program in December. He made it clear that the program was available to students across Canada, that application forms would be available in all Canada Employment Centres and that starting in the middle of January, all Canada Employment Centres and their officers would be asked to promote the program in their respective areas.
The advertising campaign in our dailies and weeklies throughout the land started on February 14, and 1 think it was clearly indicated that the closing date for applications would be March 4. Following this advertising campaign, our officials visited most ridings to promote this program and show the students how to submit applications. It is true that the Hon. Member asked the Minister in the House for an extension of the application period, which was granted. The Minister later announced that applications would be accepted until March 14 from coast to coast. Moreover, all our officials and Canada Manpower Centers were advised that the closing date had been postponed and that they should make sure that all interested parties were made aware of that extension.
This question was asked in the House, Mr. Speaker, and was answered by the Minister, Mr. Speaker, precisely to make sure that Hon. Members would refer to Hansard and would read the announcement made by the Minister, so that in turn they could advise all those concerned. It was very difficult, in that ten day period, to return to the newspapers, especially the weeklies, and ask them to carry this announcement. That is why the Minister chose the House, a public forum, to inform Canadians that the closing date for submitting application had been postponed.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS-CANADIAN POSITION ON GENEVA ARMS CONTROL TALKS
Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, on Monday last I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) what proposals Canada would be putting forward when Vice-President Bush came to Ottawa,

March 24, 1983
Adjournment Debate
which he did yesterday, in connection with the Geneva negotiations on intermediate nuclear missiles. The Minister said that Canada would be putting forward some proposals. He was not specific.
When I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) today what those principles were he referred me to the speech he gave last night in which there was a suggestion that Canada would support something less than the famous zero option previously proposed by President Reagan. It seems clear that the zero option is not going to be accepted and that something new will come along. What is the change, Mr. Speaker? What would Canada propose to solve the terrible difficulty of avoiding the nuclear precipice that the arms race has hurtled us toward?
In his speech last night the Prime Minister further confused the issue by talking about the Cruise missile, this time suggesting the Government had an obligation to NATO. This is a change from the previous presentation of the issue in which it was presented in bilateral terms as a request from the United States. At one stage we heard that a request was made and, indeed, the former Secretary of State for External Affairs said a commitment had been made in principle. That was later denied by the Prime Minister and the present Secretary of State for External Affairs.
We do not know whether the Canadian Government has given serious consideration to testing the Cruise missile vehicle delivery system because, by the words of the three Ministers I have named, the Government has deliberately obfuscated the issue so that now the Canadian people have no clear idea of where we stand on the nuclear arms question.
There is a tremendous surge of public opinion in the country, of which, undoubtedly, the Government is aware. However, I think the Government is remiss in its duty to give leadership to the Canadian people on this extremely important question. It is also negligent in not taking an initiative as one of a group of nations forming part of NATO that wants to put pressure on the two super powers having 95 per cent of all nuclear technology and armaments between them. The rest of the world is being held hostage today to the never-ending arms race.
Last night the President of the United States gave a new version of Star Wars-that so far has been fiction-but now in the closing years of this century, we are going to be hurled into a form of outer space use of laser beams in a defensive capacity. That would only lead to an increase in armaments, when the central point of all of this is the negotiations now going on in Geneva, and what is being done to put pressure on both parties on behalf of humanity. That is the question I put to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and to the Prime Minister. But we do not get any answers.
There is total confusion on the issue of the Cruise. On the essential issue, I believe Canada should put forward initiatives that would be realistic, given the over-all premise that existing nuclear capabilities in the world are sufficient to ensure the
credibility of nuclear deterrents, and that nuclear modernization, beyond where we are now, could lead us to a new round in the strategic and nuclear arms race. In other words, if we are going to support a strategy of suffocation, then I believe we must be true to that.
If Canada wants to put forward some proposals, we should propose that the United States and the Soviet Union jointly announce a bilateral moratorium on the flight testing of all nuclear weapons' systems. Such a moratorium would remain in effect during the Geneva negotiations on nuclear arms reductions between the United States and the Soviet Union. That is an essential policy that would drive straight to the heart of the matter and stop all this fooling around about whether to test Cruise missiles and what our obligations are.
Our obligations are clear, Mr. Speaker. We have an obligation to participate in NATO but we also have an obligation to mankind and to the human condition. Today, as an important leading nation in the world we must make realistic proposals. I believe that at the United Nations Canada should support the proposals that have already been made.
The first proposal is an immediate halt by all nations to the testing, deployment and production of all nuclear weapons and delivery systems, pending major reductions in nuclear arsenals. The second is that there be negotiations aimed at achieving a world treaty for simultaneous, balanced, verifiable and enforceable arms reductions, eventually to the minimum level of police forces required for internal security. That was at the heart of the document produced by the First Special Session on Disarmament of the United Nations in 1978. That document contains a comprehensive program for disarmament in the world. Sadly, it has not been implemented because of a continued escalation of the arms race, rather than the nations of the world, Canada chief among them, banding together to force progress in negotiations in Geneva and, indeed, in all five sets of these ongoing complicated negotiations.
In his first report, the Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr. Perez de Cuellar, said, "We are perilously near to a new international anarchy". I believe the Canadian Government ought to be listening to that man and acting accordingly.
[ Translation]


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I am always very interested in the comments of the Hon. Member for Edmonton South, but I would like to put this discussion in the proper context.
In 1977, the Soviet Union deployed its first intermediate-range nuclear missiles, the SS-20s, which were equipped with three nuclear warheads and had a range of 5,000 kilometers, and by so doing threatened all Western European cities. At the request of the European Allies and my Hon. colleague mentioned earlier that this was a bilateral agreement but it was certainly at the request of our Western European Allies,
March 24, 1983

NATO decided in 1979, under the Government of my Hon. colleague, who is now trying to take the side of virtue and motherhood, to deploy new intermediate-range missiles to replace shorter-range missiles because of the threat posed by the SS-20s. At the same time, NATO suggested to the Soviet Union that mutual restrictions be negotiated on these missiles.
There is therefore nothing new about the theories of my hon. colleague. The visit of Vice-President Bush gave us an opportunity to discuss the progress which was accomplished in the negotiations now under way in Geneva. In 1979, the members of NATO had suggested the zero-zero option, which would consist in eliminating completely the entire class of intermediate-range missiles, both on the side of the Soviet Union and the United States. We are still convinced that this would be ideal since this type of missile would be completely eliminated. NATO never considered this solution impossible or inflexible. In consultation with the other members of NATO, we are now examining the feasibility of proposing a new approach to bring about a compromise agreement which would not be all virtue
Adjournment Debate
and motherhood, but which would at least allow the negotiations to proceed so that balance in this type of arms can be achieved at the lowest possible level. If NATO decides to take this new approach, we plan to keep in mind the ultimate objective of wiping out these missiles completely. We hope that there will eventually be a second agreement to this end. At the meeting between Mr. Bush and the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), we expressed the concerns of this Government and the people of Canada and the wish that the negotiations will now proceed more quickly. As this might involve greater flexibility, we are now consulting our allies in this regard and we hope that such flexibility can lead to profitable negotiations and the maintenance of world peace if possible so that we may never face a nuclear war.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 6.25 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, March 25, 1983