1978-11-15

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
FOURTH SESSION-THIRTIETH PARLIAMENT 27 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada Available from Canadian Government Publishing Centre, Supply and Services Canada, Hull, Quebec, Canada K1A 0S9
80067-1 Vi
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, November 15, 1978


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, there are some cabinet ministers whose departure from Ottawa would not exactly depress us, but there are one or two exceptions. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House calls on the Minister of Veterans Affairs, before he considers leaving this place, to add to the good job he has done on behalf of veterans by introducing legislation to provide prorata pensions for widows of disabled veterans, in any case where the veteran's pension was below 48 per cent, and also by introducing legislation to amend and update the War Veterans Allowance Act, it being clear that this House would co-operate with the minister in enacting such legislation without delay, and certainly before he leaves.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for debate would require unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE MEDIA
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity involving the principle of news manipulation and control.
In view of the concern of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) about whether he sits down or stands up at his semi-occasional news conferences, keeping in mind the parliamentary press gallery's official request today that the Prime Minister return to his practice of weekly news conferences, hosted by a member of the press gallery executive and in the National Press gallery theatre, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn):
That this House requests the Prime Minister to show his professed respect for the media and for freedom of information by moving his news conferences back to the renovated Lester Pearson press theatre, where he will not be open to the charge of news manipulation.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion, pursuant to Standing Order 43, would require unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with a matter of pressing necessity, that is the general economic climate in the country.
Considering that the closing of the Cadbury plant in Montreal will entail the loss of 500 jobs in Quebec.
Considering that the main cause of that closing is the fact that the company in Montreal has used its capital to open another manufacture in Ontario rather than to modernize the one which has been operating for 60 years, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise):
That the government seriously consider forcing large manufactures to reinvest each year at least 15 per cent of their profits for research and modernization of their facilities to avoid repetition of such disasters.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.

November 15, 1978


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Since the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) has received many telegrams and representations from student associations about the disastrous effects that Bill C-14 will have on graduates seeking permanent employment and students seeking summer jobs during this period of unprecedented youth unemployment, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn), under the provisions of Standing Order 43:
That this House calls upon the Minister of Employment and Immigration to introduce amendments to remove from Bill C-14 the harmful changes in the eligibility requirement and benefit rate, along the lines of students' concerns.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43, such a motion could be presented for debate at this time only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mrs. Jean E. Pigott (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43 I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity concerning the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
In light of the fact that recent police investigations in several centres across Canada suggest inadequate accounting procedures and very questionable management decisions, and in light of the fact that the present Ministry of State for Urban Affairs lacks the necessary leadership, policies and co-ordinating programs to ensure the proper disposition of $1.3 billion, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway):
That this House directs the Minister of State for Urban Affairs to refer the last annual report of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs in order to examine and make recommendations to the minister in an effort to restore taxpayer confidence in CMHC and the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion, pursuant to Standing Order 43, requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


FINANCE
Mr. Richard Janelle (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion on an urgent matter of national importance.
Considering the extremely serious unemployment situation in Canada, the high number of job seekers and the deterioration of the purchasing power of Canadians, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That the House urge the Minister of Finance who will introduce a new budget on November 16 to include in his budget the principle of annual guaranteed income payable on a universal basis to all Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. It is somewhat similar to an earlier one, but I think there are some differences.
Since the Department of Public Works has spent taxpayers' dollars to remodel the press conference room at the National Press building which the Prime Minister does not want to use because he must sit to answer questions there, I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That this House urge the Prime Minister to use the press conference room refurbished at public expense and that he not worry about his public image since most Canadians are already convinced that he is sitting down on the job anyway.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
November 15, 1978



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. While I realize that he has three jobs and that his deputy minister has just returned from a six months' vacation, in light of the ongoing RCMP investigations can the minister assure the House of his confidence in his deputy minister and those who are managing the affairs of his ministry?


Hon. Andr6 Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like the hon. member to be more specific about the investigations she is talking about. I am not aware of many investigations. I am aware of one in Hamilton.
I indicated in the House previously that I thought it was very unfair on the part of the hon. member to try to generalize and create doubt in the public mind on the basis of one specific investigation which is taking place with the full support of the CMHC administration. I think the hon. member ought to be more specific when suggesting a series of inquiries. If there are others, she should let me know what she is talking about.


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: Again, the minister does not answer the questions put to him.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: That's right.


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: If the minister wants a recital, I can give him a recital.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: If that is what the minister wants, why does he not ask for the cabinet file compiled by Mr. Basford where he lists all the 11 luxury hotels under section 6(1)? Why does he not talk about 150 Sandford Place in Hamilton? We could talk about Vancouver-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a supplementary question, would she put it forthwith.


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: Mr. Speaker, the minister did ask for a recital.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: The document which I held up the other day was signed by the minister. He thought it was public. It says in this document that housing and community service programs also offer a major avenue for federal flexibility in the constitutional debate. Can the minister assure this House that shelter for Canadians is not being used as a bargaining tool at constitutional talks?


Mr. Ouellet:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is citing only part of a document in a very partisan way. The total document
Oral Questions
would clearly indicate the excellent policies of this government. I ask the hon. member to table the document.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: Mr. Speaker, I realize that I have been here only a few months, but I thought it was the minister who should table documents, not me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: I would gladly offer the document, which is signed by the minister, for tabling.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Selkirk.


INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE TO STUDY URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. There has been a record number of AHOP defaults and walkaways this year: the rate is four times that for conventional CMHC mortgages.
My question is in relation to the pending disaster regarding AHOP housing. Can the minister tell the House why his deputy minister ignored a cabinet order signed on July 17, 1973, which would have established a senior interdepartmental committee on urban affairs? That committee produced only one report, and the minister is aware of it. Can the minister tell the House why his department head ignored that cabinet order which would have established this committee on an ongoing basis?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I think such a committee has been meeting. I do not know what the hon. member is talking about. I think he is totally out of court when he alleges in this House that the deputy minister ignores cabinet directives.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, I am not making suggestions regarding the deputy minister. I suggest that the minister has ignored his responsibilities. Can the minister produce any committee report other than the one which was produced in 1975? If this committee has been meeting as it should have been doing, and if it has produced annual reports, can the minister produce the reports since 1975?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, a number of studies are taking place within Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in order to improve our housing programs. A number of officials from various departments are working together in order to improve the rate of production of housing for low income people who want to have better accommodation in Canada.
The hon. member is talking about some activities which are taking place. There has, indeed, been a series of meetings in order to improve our programs and to facilitate better production of housing. These meetings involve federal and provincial

November 15, 1978
Oral Questions
governments and their purpose is to provide more housing at low cost for low income people and senior citizens.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, the minister is obviously confused. I am not talking about any study but the one authorized in the legislation of 1970. I have here a confidential cabinet report dated July 17, 1973, and I am showing it to the minister. I am talking only about the senior interdepartmental committee on urban affairs. Has that committee met? If so, would the minister table its reports since 1975?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I think we ought to live for the future and not for the past.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


André Ouellet: The hon. member is referring to a document which goes back to 1973. I would like to remind all members of this House, particularly those in the New Democratic Party who are so noisy today, that the production of housing reached record levels in the years 1975, 1976 and 1977. We have one of the best records of production in housing for Canadians, a record that cannot be matched by many countries in the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Broadbent:: With a past like this government's, I can understand why the minister is talking about the future.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Tomorrow, as the minister might know, an important book by Leo Heaps, entitled "Operation Morning Light" will be published. This book deals with the crash of the Soviet satellite, Cosmos 954, in the north of Canada last year.
Considering that Mr. Heaps, in this book, contends that there are certain facts pertaining to potential dangerous health and ecological effects of the radiation produced by this crash which have not been revealed to the public, can the minister tell the House if the study done by the research laboratory of AECL at Pinawa, Manitoba, has been completed; and, if so, why has it not yet been made public?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very pleased to look into this question to find out the status of that study. In the meantime, may I reassure the hon. member and the House that the information and advice I have received from AECB which assisted in the clean-up and identification of radioactiv-

ity in the north, was that there was no threat to Canadians or to the environment.


John Edward Broadbent: My second question pertains very directly to what the minister has just touched upon in his answer. I hope he will consider his words with great care in answering the question, because it is most serious. Considering that only a small fraction-less than 4 per cent, I am informed-of enriched uranium 235 has so far been accounted for, can the minister assure the House that threats, both to human health and to the ecological system of the north, have been negligible?


Alastair William Gillespie: If the hon. member has new information which has not yet been made public, I will want to reserve my position. But I have told him of the advice which I have received, to the effect that there was no threat to the health and safety of Canadians.


John Edward Broadbent: I can tell the minister that the same officials did everything they could to stop the author from getting information which ought to have been made available to the public, and that is well documented in the book.
My final question to the minister is this: considering that the Great Slave Lake was covered with contaminated particles, and considering that the bones and marrow of caribou eaten by the native people are possibly dangerously contaminated, is the government now monitoring, and does it plan to continue to monitor in the future, the possible effects of fissionable by-products on the northern food chain as a whole?


Alastair William Gillespie: There have been a number of studies involved in this unfortunate and unhappy event. There was a very substantial clean-up throughout the winter snow period and a further clean-up during the non-snow period, particularly around the communities. So far as I know, that clean-up has been completed.
With respect to ongoing studies and monitoring of the effects, that work might well be undertaken by a number of different agencies and universities. I will want to inform myself on just what research is being done in that area at present.

[ Translation]


EMPLOYMENT
Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Could the minister specify whether the money saved through the regular budgetary cuts in the unemployment insurance program will be of some help through retraining or job creation programs, especially to the 500 newly unemployed people from Cadbury?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, officials of both the federal and provincial government met with company and union representatives as early as August in an attempt to sign a manpower assessment incentive agreement for that plant. In fact, the office staff signed an agreement, but the workers did not because both levels of government were endeavouring to convince Cadbury's in fact to stay where it was and did not wish to usurp the role of the unions which felt that it would just make it a little easier, shall we say, for Cadbury's to leave if it signed this particular agreement. The staff and personnel are available. The funds are available, be they for retraining, mobility grants or in whatever way they can be used to help in this unfortunate situation.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's Fast):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Since the minister, quite understandably, does not want us to live in the past-because obviously the past is catching up with the minister and the government-I should like to refer to a document which is more in the present. It was given to cabinet just a few months ago.
Reference is made in the document to the fact that there are 438,000 households in Canada where over 30 per cent of income is paid for shelter, a situation which might be helped considerably by our mortgage deductibility proposal.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: 
Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Alexander:: That is baloney.
Oral Questions


André Ouellet: It would be a measure which discriminates against renters.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is baloney as well.


André Ouellet: It would be a measure which discriminates against the elderly who have no mortgages. Also, it would be a measure which would have very serious impact on financial markets. Therefore, in the past at two specific conferences of ministers of housing I indicated the position of the Canadian government, that we reject that proposal.
I see that right behind the hon. member, the former mayor of Toronto is smiling. Not too long ago he indicated that he did not favour the position of the Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Obviously, the minister is protesting too much. In the view of the minister, the program was designed for the rich. It will help to alleviate some of the terrible burden a great many people in the country have to undergo because of high mortgage and high shelter costs, as was identified by the fact that 438,000 householders are paying more than 30 per cent of their income for housing. Will the minister now lay before the House the study by the Department of Urban Affairs which shows that the mortgage interest deductibility proposal in fact favours the majority of people in the country and in fact is feasible?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: As the Minister of Finance knows.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the hon. member that, indeed, a very substantial number of those who are paying more than 30 per cent of their income for rent are renters who will receive nothing from the scheme proposed by the Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, that is a misrepresentation of the facts, and the minister knows it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: The minister continues to misrepresent the situation. What action does the minister propose to take respecting the statement made by the vice-president for policy, Mr. Adamson, in Windsor last weekend, in which he literally dumped all over this proposal which the minister is now dumping all over, in view of the fact that this man is a public servant and unquestionably will be called upon to implement this proposal in a few months' time?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised by the attitude of the hon. member. I hope he is not giving the official position of his party by indicating that those who might not have the same opinion as they have will be shut up and will have no right to speak out. We on this side of the House
1148

Oral Questions
believe that, indeed, people have every right in this country to speak out and express a genuine point of view. I am surprised, and I am afraid that if the Conservative party takes over there will be less freedom of information and less freedom of speech.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. I would ask the hon. gentleman whether he can explain to the House why he signed a notice of intention to expropriate, without a public hearing, in respect of a property called Le Diplomate adjacent to Les Terrasses de la Chaudiere? The House will remember this was the same property that was the subject of correspondence between the developer and Mr. Juneau in which the developer suggested court action would be appropriate, although he did not wish to be involved in it.


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, there is, in fact, a court action under way. My understanding is that there is a very genuine question as to whether a leasehold interest exists. The building that was under lease was, in fact, to a very large degree destroyed by fire a year and a half ago. There have been ongoing negotiations with the former lessor and apparently there were some complications. It was indicated to me that the most prudent way to deal with the case, if an interest did exist, was in fact to handle it through this expropriation procedure.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the minister would not think that a court of law would be the appropriate way to determine whether or not there was an interest. If there is no interest there to expropriate, perhaps the reason for holding out the expropriation procedure, particularly without public hearing, could just possibly be interpreted in the minister's mind-and perhaps he can put this to rest-as a device to help stop the probability of certain of his colleagues and himself appearing in a court of law to testify about the background of this whole affair.
I would ask him, as well, why there appears to be concern in respect of Le Diplomate when two other properties cheek by jowl do not appear to be the subject of the same concern.


J. Judd Buchanan: The answer to the first part of the question, Mr. Speaker, is absolutely not; and the answer to the second part is, this is the only one, in my understanding, that was involved in this fire situation.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, and it arises from certain comments he made at his press conference yesterday. The transcript of that press conference indicates that he said:
The cash requirements will be of 9 billion this year, 11 billion next year, probably a bit more the year after-
As the Prime Minister probably realizes, the Minister of Finance last informed us that the cash requirements for Canada this year will be $11.8 billion, and $9.7 billion next year. Would the Prime Minister clarify whether he has new information in respect of cash requirements of the nation, or did he make a mistake yesterday?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: As I said in relation to comments by other ministers, Mr. Speaker, the finance minister is right.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, let me ask a further question arising out of the Prime Minister's remarks yesterday. The Prime Minister stated, in respect of the deficit:
-it is not the size that is frightening. It is the rate of growth in the past two or three years and that is what we are trying to control, not the absolute size of the deficit but the fact that provincial, municipal and federal deficits in the past two years were growing at a very fast rate ... about 15 per cent-
Would the Prime Minister indicate whether he is aware that in the years he has referred to it was the federal deficit that almost tripled, from approximately $4 billion to something like $11 billion at the present time, while the aggregate municipal-provincial deficits actually declined? If he is aware of that, why is he trying to finger the provinces and the municipalities when his government is responsible for such a rising deficit in the country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member refers to the question as well as to the answer, he will see the context in which that explanation was put forward; to wit, that the size of the deficit in Canada-the over-all deficit at all levels of government-is not out of hand and not out of comparison with other countries which have higher debt proportionately.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I hear some "tsk, tsks" over there. If they read the press conference, they will see that, Mr. Speaker. It was the questioner himself who put these correct facts forward. The thrust of my answer-and that is why I said the minister's figure was correct-was that it is not the size of the deficit which is big, which is not untowardly big, but it is the rate of growth which was too fast.
As a result of the figures which the minister and the President of the Treasury Board put forward, the hon. member will see that the rate of growth has been reduced from something in the area of $11 billion this year to something in the area of $9.7 billion next year. It is the rate of growth we are acting upon, and not on the absolute size of the deficit

November 15, 1978

which, I repeat, in terms of the questioner himself, is not astonishingly high.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General.
With regard to the restricted firearms recall campaign undertaken by the Canadian government and more particularly by his department, could the minister tell the House and the Canadian public whether it is true that this campaign has had disappointing results in the province of Quebec? At the same time, could he indicate whether this campaign is having encouraging results in other parts of Canada?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for bringing to the attention of the House this program which, I suggest, should be promoted, and I urge all members to boost the publicity for this program with a view to ensuring the progress of this program which has been in effect since November 1.
I hasten to indicate to the hon. member and to the House that indeed we are very much encouraged by the public response to this program. We have received over 5,330 firearms from Canadian individuals, either for registration or for ultimate disposal. This is a very encouraging figure and the answers are coming in at an increasingly faster rate due to a very effective advertising campaign.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, I should like to address my question to the parliamentary secretary.
Most recently, the Cape Breton Development Corporation presented to DREE the first phase of the feasibility study on a new coal mine outside Glace Bay called the Donkin area. Would the parliamentary secretary confirm this, and will he table it in the House? If he cannot do that, will he table it with members of the regional development committee and indicate when the more important and crucial second phase of the study is expected to be completed?


Mr. Donald Wood (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question, and I will take notice of it.
Oral Questions


Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, I expected that the minister would be here for these questions. Will the parliamentary secretary also take notice of the fact that there are very strong rumours in the Cape Breton area that, because of difficulty regarding the coal preparation plant producing coking coal, this year we may not be able to provide enough coal to fulfil the orders of the Steel Company of Canada and Dofasco, thereby putting the corporation in a bad position? Will he ask the minister to comment in that regard, because this is very crucial to the future of the coal industry?


Donald Paul Wood: I certainly will, Mr. Speaker.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources for the purpose of seeking clarification. Is it his position that the financial liabilities incurred by Petro-Can, or any of its subsidiaries, which the Prime Minister referred to as a Crown agency, are in no way financial liabilities of the Government of Canada, and the Government of Canada will not ultimately be responsible in connection with those liabilities? Is that his position?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that there is a contingent liability as far as the Crown is concerned. There has never been any question that Petro-Canada is an agent of the Crown and that, acting as an agent of the Crown, there is that contingent liability. It was made perfectly clear in my answer that there is no taxpayers' money involved in this transaction in any way, nor were there any express government guarantees.
I went to some lengths yesterday to indicate that the section of the Petro-Canada act which provided for government guarantees was a section of the act that was not used. There were no government guarantees nor taxpayers' money used in that transaction.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if at some time the minister would explain why it has taken me three days to get that information from him.
I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister and ask him why, in light of the answer the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has just given, the Deputy Prime Minister, answering on behalf of the Prime Minister on November 14, said with respect to these arrangements of Petro-Canada, "It does not represent in any way a demand on government resources." Was that a misleading answer by the Deputy Prime Minister, in these circumstances?

November 15, 1978
1150__________________________________
Oral Questions


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I made it very clear a moment ago that this was a commercial transaction, that it was financed by the private banking system and that no taxpayers' money was involved. Therefore, there was no demand in any way upon the financial resources of the Government of Canada.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to re-read the question I asked him three days ago, and whether he can say in his heart that he honestly and openly answered it as he has today.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member to re-read that question too, and also, when he uses the words "express guarantees", whether he means express guarantees. Clearly, that was the phrase he used and I answered him in exactly the same way. I dealt with that in my answer yesterday. The hon. member cannot have it both ways.


PETRO-CANADA PURCHASE OF PACIFIC PETROLEUMS SHARES- CONTINGENT LIABILITY OF GOVERNMENT
Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Could the minister explain to the House how he rationalizes his admission now, after three days, that there is a contingent liability on the Crown in regard to transactions of Petro-Canada, but that it in no way represents a demand upon the resources of the Government of Canada?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, 1 think that anyone with any experience at all would understand that answer.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the minister go back to school.
My supplementary question is to the President of the Treasury Board. The 1978 capital budget for Petro-Canada was approved by cabinet on June 16, 1978, and the Privy Council document was tabled on October 10. This capital budget calls for common share issues of 205 million and preferred share issues of about 270 million. Since the Petro-Canada act clearly establishes that only the Crown can purchase common or preferred shares which must be purchased from consolidated revenue-meaning, therefore, that the costs involved must appear in government estimates of spending programs-can the President of the Treasury Board tell the House why this commitment on the part of cabinet has not appeared in either the main estimates or the supplementary estimates since approval was given back in June?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to examine that question. Is the hon. member referring to approval of this current acquisition?


Harvie Andre: The issue of shares in this capital budget.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will examine the question and I will be very careful in my examination before I give the hon. member an answer. I will give him an answer tomorrow.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: You approved it.

[ Translation]


TRANSPORT
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the decision of the Canadian National to increase its 1979 rates for users of suburban trains by about 50 per cent, I believe, can the minister tell us whether discussions are being pursued with the Quebec government in this regard?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport and Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I have not had personal discussions with the minister with regard to this matter. We are in touch with the province of Quebec, of course, at the official level concerning the use of urban transportation assistance program funds. Assistance to commuter travel, as well as other forms of urban assistance, would come under that program. The province of Quebec knows that we are prepared to consider their designation of federal funds for such purposes.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary. As the minister confirms that discussions are going on with officials, and as such a high increase is almost inconceivable for commuters, can the minister agree before this House to urge the Canadian National to put off application of its decision until such time as the matter has been settled between the two levels of government?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, some time ago studies were begun in the province of Quebec concerning the level of fares and level of service on commuter lines. It was our position then, as it has long been, that commuter service is the principal responsibility of either the municipal or provincial governments. At the time the studies were undertaken, in order to allow time for their completion I did ask Canadian National to delay a certain fare increase. However, at that time I indicated that it was associated specifically with the need to complete the studies.
Subsequently, the province of Quebec undertook of its own responsibility to make some payments to Canadian National in order to avoid fare increases. I believe the fundamental responsibility must be seen to rest clearly on the municipal government and the provincial government with regard to this
November 15, 1978

matter, as it is a commuter matter and not a matter of connections between cities or provinces in this country.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. On June 23 last, the House passed Bill C-42 which guarantees certain linguistic rights before the courts. That bill contained a provision prescribing a consultation between the Minister of Justice and the provincial attorneys general with a view to ensuring efficient implementation of the provisions which become effective on proclamation of the act. Can the minister tell the House which provinces have accepted to proclaim that act to date, and what the date of proclamation was? In addition, can he report on negotiations with the other provinces and tell the House which among them favour that bill?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we have had exchanges with the various provinces concerning the implementation of Bill C-42, as it then was, and after discussions did suggest the date of April 1, 1979, in the case of Quebec, Ontario, New Brunswick and Alberta. The province of New Brunswick has accepted that date. The province of Ontario and the province of Quebec have indicated that they see no problem in accepting it, but Quebec has indicated that it would like to see replies from the other provinces before making its final commitment. In the case of the province of Alberta, they indicated that they would want more time before implementing it. We are pursuing the matter further with the remaining provinces.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. According to all reports, the provincial representatives from Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Quebec, when meeting with the federal Minister of Fisheries in Moncton on November 10, indicated their displeasure over the decisions that have been made by the federal government on fisheries management and asked for the right to provide greater input into the decision-making process.
In view of the fact that spokesmen from the five provinces mentioned were unanimous in their views, I would ask the Prime Minister what steps he intends to take to see that the five provinces will become a full partner, with the federal
Oral Questions
government, in resource exploration, fisheries management, the allocation and establishment of fishery quotas, and the allocation of fishing licences.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the short answer, of course, is that at the federal-provincial conference on the constitution just a couple of weeks ago we suggested that the item of fisheries be included amongst those which would be discussed with a view to changing the distribution of powers. For some strange reason which I still cannot understand, the provinces refused to have that incorporated in the communique. In spite of their refusal, our offer still stands and the officials and ministers who will be meeting are prepared, as far as we are concerned, to study all the areas that I put forth for examination in terms of redistribution of powers.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, possibly this reaction is based on past experience and that is why there is a reluctance to participate. My question to the Prime Minister is: in view of the fact that Newfoundland indicated leadership this week by announcing a $500 million development program for the fisheries in that province, to take place over the next five years, when can we expect an announcement indicating that some initiative will be taken by the federal government to assist in the fisheries' development in all of the Atlantic provinces, including Quebec?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have just received a telegram from the fishermen's union in Newfoundland supporting the minister of fisheries for the federal government-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and not saying a word about the $500 million promise of the Newfoundland government. Probably they are used to this kind of experience and they want to see a bit of delivery by the government before congratulating it.


LOTO CANADA
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs has fled the chamber after the initial barrage. However, I do have a question for the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport.
Since the minister has been so kind as to table an agreement which I requested on Friday, in which clause 3 of that document provides for an agreement between the federal government and the provinces of Ontario and Quebec to decide how they would dispose of the assets for the Loto game which the federal government had bought from General Instruments-and I understand that that agreement between the

November 15, 1978
Oral Questions
provinces of Ontario and Quebec and the federal government has been concluded-could that agreement now be tabled?


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has the agreement. Clause 3, as he suggests, is precisely the agreement between Ontario, Quebec and the federal government.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, as clause 3 of this agreement states that the federal government will abandon the proposed Loto game and, as was foreseen during the last provincial conference, a reasonable agreement will be reached between the provinces of Ontario and Quebec and the federal government regarding the proposed disposal of assets for the Loto game, can the minister tell me what the disposal arrangements are for that equipment which was contracted from General Instruments, and considering this document has the word "will" in it proposing that something will be done in the future after the timing of the agreement?


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, as I have said several times in this chamber to the hon. member, when such an agreement is concluded, I will be pleased to give him the information. Such an agreement is not now concluded.


THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. It concerns his response some ten days ago that he would consider reconstituting a special joint committee on the constitution so that it could, through parliament, address itself to the ongoing debate on confederation.
I ask the Prime Minister if he has yet reached a decision to re-establish this very important committee. If so, could it have referred to, among other things, the economic studies that are being done on the future of confederation by government departments and related agencies, including the Economic Council of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I said the other day that I would consider that worth-while suggestion. I was hoping, quite frankly, that if the matter is so important to the opposition they would find it useful to take one of the opposition days to discuss the constitution. We would welcome such a discussion, and I hope the opposition will follow up on that suggestion.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I realize the Prime Minister's long-standing regard for members of parliament and what they can accomplish, but I do not think that even he feels that all of the problems of the constitution can be resolved by a single day's debate.
However, I would like to ask him a related question dealing with the recommendation that came out of the former commit-

tee on the constitution with regard to a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada as to the authority of the federal government to reform the Senate. Since the Prime Minister stated recently that he would not proceed with any changes to the Senate without the unanimous agreement of the provinces, I ask if that statement of his was based on the recognition that the federal government does not have the authority, under the British North America Act, unilaterally to make changes to the Senate without the consent of the provinces. If it does not, what is the present standing of the reference to the Supreme Court-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. lady that having a day's debate would not preclude setting up a committee after that. But I would have thought that one day's debate would be enough to put all of the ideas of the opposition on record.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: So far as the reference to the Supreme Court is concerned, Mr. Speaker, the answer is, of course not. If we believe, like the hon. lady, that the federal government has not, under section 91(1), the authority to change the Senate, we would not refer the matter to the Supreme Court. It would have been a no contest. We would have agreed with that, but because there was a division of opinion within, particularly, the joint committee, we agreed to refer to the Senate to see which of the two parties is right-


Flora Isabel MacDonald: To the Senate, or the Supreme Court?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -either the opposition or those who, like the government, believe that section 91 does permit the federal government and the Parliament of Canada to amend the Senate.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It concerns the fact that in Canada all auto parts manufacturing and otherwise takes place in central Canada and there is no manufacturing of any significance outside central Canada, particularly, of course, with regard to the Pacific Rim.
My question is this: at the present time there are proposals for duty remissions respecting places such as Japan: The Japanese can purchase Canadian parts and, therefore, take advantage of a duty remission to that country. In other words, can we bring them within the auto pact? Has the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce made submissions to the Japanese for duty remissions in order that we can make some
November 15, 1978

progress in developing an auto manufacturing industry outside of central Canada, particularly in British Columbia?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, I do not know whether that particular representation has been made. But I do know that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has a concern with the auto pact agreement. He has done a fantastic job so far, and we are looking for improvement in the future.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, that is not a very clear answer. My supplementary question is this: it has been reported that the U.S. embassy has made direct representations to the Government of Canada not to make proposals for duty remissions to foreign companies, so the impact is that the U.S. will receive new foreign assembly plants, rather than Canada. Has the United States embassy, or any other U.S. agency, made representations to Canada not to provide duty remissions to Datsun, Volkswagen or any other foreign company?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I will bring the hon. member's representation to the attention of my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Since the Department of National Revenue taxation branch has commenced its annual mass hiring of 3,000 keying operators and clerical workers, and since most of these workers come from the ranks of those who are not in the work force, not employed and not on benefits, could the minister say if it is his intention or expectation that these workers, when they are discharged by the Department of National Revenue, will be eligible for benefits from his department?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I would expect that if they were under personal contract, no, Mr. Speaker. But if they were hired by the department, of course they would pay their premiums and would be entitled to the benefits if they were unemployed following their period of employment.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, how does the minister see the proposed changes in Bill C-14 as affecting these temporary workers?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, that is a hypothetical question. Until we get the bill through this House and the other place, it is not really appropriate for me to comment, because I do not know what the bill will be in its final form.
Privilege-Mr. Crombie


PRIVILEGE
Mr. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege with regard to statements made by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) in connection with my position on the policy of mortgage interest and property tax deductibility. I wish to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to thank you for being permitted to clarify it. I have supported, and do support, that policy. I support it for four reasons which I commend to the minister. First, it is a policy-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have given the hon. member the floor. I understand the nature of his question of privilege. The Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) described the position of the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) to the House. If he has been inaccurate in describing that position, the hon. member for Rosedale has the opportunity to say so, which he has just done. However, I do not think even he would expect to have the opportunity to give us all of the reasons why he has taken the position that he has taken.


David Edward Crombie: My intention was, simply because the minister had deliberately misrepresented my position, to have the opportunity-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw!


David Edward Crombie: I know the minister understood well he was misrepresenting my position on the matter. My concern, therefore, is to instruct the minister on my true feelings so that he might better represent them when he goes elsewhere.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We are getting into a little danger here about which I think I ought to warn the parties. The House recognizes at once that the minister having earlier indicated the position of a member of the House with regard to a particular policy, the member has the opportunity at the earliest possible moment to rise by way of a question of privilege to correct the minister on that. It is not fortuitous to indicate that that misrepresentation, if it was such, was a deliberate misrepresentation by the minister. However, I think that the hon. member may be understood in this effort to say that the minister knows and, if he did not know, the hon. member wants this opportunity to correct him. I think in that spirit that remark can be accepted. However, both sides will recognize there is a limit to how far we can go. I want the hon. member for Rosedale to have ample opportunity now to indicate that he disagrees with the interpretation by the minister. Presumably the minister will respond. Then perhaps we can close it off.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I apologize if I used the word "deliberately" when I should not have done so. There are four very good reasons why all hon. members of this House would

November 15, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Stanfield
support the policy. I will not get into that policy. I simply want to say that I have one concern. I know the minister and every member of this House has this concern. It is not in the policy. There should be a policy that also supports shelter for low and moderate income tenants. If the government of the day spent time on that, it would be appropriate. I therefore ask that the minister withdraw his remark with regard to my views on the policy. He knows I support it.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the hon. member has just withdrawn the words that I deliberately misrepresented his point of view. I am more at ease now to indicate to him and the House through you, Mr. Speaker, that my remarks were based on a Canadian Press report of September 29, which stated:
David Crombie, former Toronto mayor and a Progressive Conservative candidate in a federal by-election, says a Conservative proposal to allow income tax deductions for mortgage payments and property tax requires further thought.
I guess that the representative of Canadian Press felt at that time that the candidate wanted to review the matter further because he probably had a number of misconceptions about the scheme.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


André Ouellet: If the hon. member has now decided to change his mind, if in the first place he was having doubt about that scheme and now he has no doubt, that is up to him. However, it is too bad that he changes his mind now that he is a member of the Conservative party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Rosedale was given the floor and an opportunity to indicate that the minister should be corrected if the minister was describing his position as being opposed to a particular policy. The hon. member took the opportunity to indicate that he is not opposed to the policy, and has set the record straight. The minister indicated the source of his remarks. While the clarification of that is not entire, I do not see that procedurally there is anything I can do about it in the circumstances.


MR. STANFIELD-MINISTER'S REPLY ON PURCHASE OF SHARES IN PACIFIC PETROLEUMS LTD. BY PETRO-CANADA
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is that on November 13 the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) gave me one answer to a question. Today he gave me the opposite answer to the same question. I will try to develop this as quickly as I can. On November 13 1 asked the minister:
Is the minister saying, in connection with the Petro-Can purchase and the financial transactions involved, that there is absolutely no financial responsibility on the part of the federal government? Is he saying, not only that the federal government did not engage in any express guarantee, but that by virtue of Petro-Can being an agent of the government, and the implications of that under the Financial Administration Act, there is no financial responsibility on the 
Government of Canada in connection with this transaction by way of guarantee or otherwise?
The answer I got clearly indicated there was no financial responsibility.


Alastair William Gillespie: That was not my answer. Read my answer.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I will deal with the minister, Mr. Speaker. 1 say he answered my question clearly in the negative. He said there were no government guarantees. That is true. That is not the question he was asked. He answered in such a way as clearly to try to give the impression that there was no financial responsibility.
He continued through the discussion we had yesterday. He referred specifically to my question. He said:
There is no question that Petro-Canada as an agent of Her Majesty is covered, as are other Crown corporations, by the Financial Administration Act.
He did not say what the effect of that was, in his view. He continued:
That is common knowledge and is not in question. But I was asked by the hon. member for Halifax whether or not there were any expressed guarantees by the federal government. 1 would refer the House to Hansard, page 1050, I believe, in which yesterday's debate is reported. That is a fair question, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday he was pretending I was asking him the day before whether there were any guarantees. It was not just feeling around in the air. He referred specifically to my question and the text of it. There can be no possible doubt that he was asked on Monday whether there was any financial responsibility by way of guarantees or otherwise. I repeat, there can be no doubt as to the impression he intended to leave.
Yesterday Your Honour indicated you had some difficulties with a question of privilege like this. You stated:
If I were to try to make a decision, I have to make a substantive decision on the basis of facts as to what set of facts is correct. Essentially, that is a disagreement on facts, but often, to resolve it, the test the Chair has to apply is whether it is a disagreement as to facts or a question of privilege by virtue of an attempt to mislead.
I suggest there is no problem about the facts. The facts are there. They are on record in Hansard. The question I asked on Monday and the answer I received is there; the question I asked today and the answer I got will be in Hansard in due course. They will be on the "blues".
You went on to state yesterday, Mr. Speaker, that there was a further difficulty:
If the Chair finds itself in the position of having to make a decision between the two sides on an interpretation of facts, that is enough for the Chair to surrender the question of privilege and say that on procedural grounds, and in the circumstances, I have no jurisdiction. The difficulty is even more severe here because we are not even arguing about a question of facts but rather about an interpretation of the statutes. Therefore, the matter seems to place upon the Chair the obligation of not only deciding on the correctness of facts but also of making a judgment as to which argument is correct under the law.
I accepted that, Mr. Speaker. That caused me a great deal of concern yesterday and I felt I could not properly ask you to take a position with respect to the law. But in the light of the

November 15, 1978

minister's answers to me today, there is no legal question involved. The minister has stated his view of what the law is, and we are quite in agreement on that. He has eliminated any question of law and, therefore, in dealing with this matter there is no question of law for you to decide. It is now settled on both sides of the House that this deal made by Petro-Canada, or by a subsidiary of Petro-Canada, does involve a financial liability on the Government of Canada described more precisely as a contingent liability.
I do not know why the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mac-Eachen) and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources were at such pains a couple of days ago to leave the impression there was no financial liability with regard to this on the part of the Government of Canada. The Deputy Prime Minister may have honestly believed the Government of Canada was not involved in any financial liability. But I submit it is very clear that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources never believed that, or he was awfully careless if he did.
In short, I submit I have a question of privilege in that I was misled by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on Monday. He continued, if I may say so, to try to cover this up yesterday in the way he referred to my question, trying to pretend I asked him a question different from the one I put to him. It was very clear today, though, that he could no longer maintain any kind of cover, and consequently he had to answer my question correctly. The answer given today is directly opposite to the answer he gave me two days ago, and, if Your Honour agrees there is no question of law for you to decide and that there is indeed a prima facie case of privilege, based on the answer I was given on Monday being directly opposed to the answer I received today, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens):
That the answer given to me by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on November 13 constituted a misrepresentation in the light of his answer to me today and that these answers of the Minister be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections to determine whether the answer given by the minister on November 13 constituted a breach of my privileges.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that not only is there no question of law involved, but there is really no question of fact to be disputed.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear from the tactics the opposition members have used in the first three days of this week that they are trying to work themselves out of a serious dilemma, a dilemma in which their own leader has placed them. Their leader has placed their party against Petro-Canada, against the corporation which was created by this parliament to provide for the future energy security of Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: Their dilemma is how to deal with the politically embarrassing position in which they have been placed, so they have used the ruse of legal obfuscation.


Walter David Baker: Stick to privilege!
Privilege-Mr. Stanfield


Alastair William Gillespie: They are using the tactic of legal obsfusca-tion to try to deal-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I know the minister would not want to lead us into a debate on the merits of Petro-Can or the acquisition by that Crown corporation of Pacific Petroleums. The narrow question I have to decide is whether the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) and the hon. member for York-Simcoe have a question of privilege-I am not sure about the regularity of having both cases before me at the same time.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, may I refer to the notice which was given to you with respect to a question of privilege by the hon. member for York-Simcoe. In giving reasons why he wanted to give notice for his question of privilege he cited the question which was put by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield). When he actually spoke on his question of privilege though, he seemed to slide off that point and concentrate more on the act itself, on section 23, in particular, of the Petro-Canada Act. I was therefore placed in the position that both hon. members were concerned with the question of guarantees.
I should like to re-read the question which was put by the hon. member for Halifax, as reported at page 1050 of the House of Commons Debates on November 13. He said:
Is the minister saying, in connection with the Petro-Can purchase, and the financial transactions involved, that there is absolutely no financial responsibility on the part of the federal government?
These are the important words:
Is he saying, not only that the federal government did not engage in any express guarantee-
The words "any express guarantee" I judged to be the important statement. If those words were not intended to be important, I do not understand why the hon. member used them.


Mr. Woolliams:: Read the whole thing.


Alastair William Gillespie: It was a long and convoluted question, as the record shows. The hon. member has read out the rest of that question. It was a long and convoluted question of the kind for which, on occasion, the hon. member for Halifax has become famous.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Alastair William Gillespie: I believe it is perfectly in order for a minister, when answering a long and convoluted question, to extract what he considers to be the relevant portion of that question. The hon. member specifically referred to express guarantees under the Petro-Canada Act. I dealt with that in my remarks. There is an express guarantee section in the Petro-Canada Act, and it is section 21(1) and (2). I think it is important in the context of this debate to reintroduce that particular set of words because those words are relevant to our discussion. Under the sub-title "guarantees", section 21(1) of the Petro-Canada Act reads as follows:

November 15, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Stanfield
Subject to section 23, the governor in council may, on the recommendation of the minister and the Minister of Finance, authorize the Minister of Finance to guarantee on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Canada, the principal and interest of any debentures or other securities issued by the corporation for the purpose of raising capital otherwise than from Her Majesty in right of Canada.
As I recall, the hon. member for York-Simcoe referred to that specific section in his remarks.
Section 21(2) says:
The Minister of Finance may approve or decide the form, manner and conditions of guarantees under this section.
It is quite clear to me that the question of guarantees was uppermost in the minds of the two hon. members opposite, with respect to this question of privilege. It is for that reason, and for the other reasons I have given, that I believe my answer was accurate.
I also believe that the remainder of the answer which I gave yesterday, recognizing the fact that Petro-Canada is an agent of Her Majesty and that the Financial Administration Act does apply, also covered that point. That is clearly common knowledge, but that was not the issue. The issue was whether an express guarantee was given by the Government of Canada in this situation, and my answer stands. There was not an express guarantee given by the Government of Canada in this situation. The funds were provided in a normal commercial banking transaction through the banks. There was no express guarantee, and I stand by that answer.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to prolong this debate, but I want to make a couple of points. To some extent the confusion is understandable when one realizes that under section 5 of the act the government can buy shares to supply capital up to $500 million, that under section 13, on the authorization of the governor in council the corporation can borrow money, and that under sections 21 and 22 debentures may be issued by the government on behalf of the company.
What has been overlooked is that in section 7(l)(e) it says, among other things, that the corporation may, and I quote:
-acquire and hold shares, debentures or other securities of any other corporation having objects altogether or in part similar to those of the corporation, or carrying on any business capable of being conducted so as, directly or indirectly, to benefit the corporation, and sell or otherwise deal with the same;
Section 2 deals with promoting such a corporation. It seems to me that this is not a matter of the corporation's borrowing money. It is not a matter of the corporation's borrowing money through the Crown or the Crown issuing debentures. It is a matter of whether a commercial transaction could be carried out under section 7(1 )(e) by which shares might be acquired by putting up collateral for those shares. That did not amount to any intervention by the government, except that by so doing the government incurred a contingent liability. It therefore seems to me-and I thought so at the time that the minister answered the question-that the minister was leaving himself open. I admit that the question was very convoluted and that the minister may have missed the point.

Perhaps we are wasting time unnecessarily, but the question which was asked was very simple. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) asked for an assurance that there is absolutely no financial responsibility on the part of the federal government. That was the first question. The second question was as follows:
Is he-
That is, the minister-
-saying, not only that the federal government did not engage in any express guarantee, but that by virtue of Petro-Can being an agent of the government, and the implications of that under the Financial Administration Act, there is no financial responsibility-
There were two questions. One was whether there was a financial responsibility, and the other was whether the government has put out any money. It seems to me that the minister answered only half the question. That is quite understandable, in view of the exchange which was taking place. The minister said, and I quote:
-I made it very clear that this was a commercial transaction. It was negotiated and Financed by normal commercial instruments.
Then he went on to say:
There are no government guarantees.
What needed to be added was, "But there is a contingent liability by virtue of section 11(e)". An agency of the Crown has purchased shares and given shares as collateral. In my opinion that therefore involved a contingent liability upon the government. I think the minister is now saying that he recognizes this as a contingent liability, and that clears the matter up.
I do not think the minister was trying to deceive the hon. member for Halifax, but his answer was certainly incomplete. If the minister now says there is a contingent liability, in addition to the fact that there was a commercial transaction and that there were no guarantees, surely that clears the matter up.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) argued extensively yesterday. I think we should retrace the dimensions of this question of privilege. It was first raised by the hon. member for York-Simcoe. He made his presentation yesterday. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) then made a contribution to that question of privilege. He later rose to say that he might have a question of privilege of his own. We do not have two separate questions of privilege on the floor at the same time. If we do, I will have to deal with them separately, but I would not want to invite hon. members who have contributed to the question raised by the hon. member for York-Simcoe to make separate contributions now to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Halifax.
I think the situation is very clear. The answers of the minister have been the same on both days since Monday, when he made his initial answer. I am going to rule on this very shortly, and I do not want anybody to feel he has been
November 15, 1978

deprived of the right to discuss the matter. The hon. member for York-Simcoe first raised this question. I thought he had completed his argument.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the reason I rise once again is to speak in reference to the proposed question of privilege of my colleague, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield). I do so particularly in view of the fact that in responding to my hon. colleague's proposed question of privilege the minister referred to me several times.
In view of what has been said today, and in view of the fact that the minister has now indicated that there was a contingent liability, I would like, with your Honour's approval, to add at least some views with respect to why I believe the hon. member for Halifax has a valid question of privilege, which I hope Your Honour will find, as well as with respect to the question of privilege I raised yesterday. To that end I stress once again that the question which was put to the minister on Monday by the hon. member for Halifax was very clear.
In part the hon. member said:
Is he saying, not only that the federal government did not engage in any express guarantee, but that by virtue of Petro-Can being an agent of the government, and the implications of that under the Financial Administration Act, there is no financial responsibility on the Government of Canada in connection with this transaction by way of guarantee or otherwise?
I think the minister twisted that when he said that the real thrust of the question was whether there was a guarantee. Now he is saying that all he attempted to say was that there was no guarantee.
With all due respect, and in support of my argument, I draw Your Honour's attention to what the minister said earlier on Monday, as reported at page 1044 of Hansard, in response to a question put by my colleague, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). At that time he said:
This deal is a commercial transaction which has been Financed without any government assistance, without any government funds and without any government guarantee.
There were interruptions, and then he said:
-and it will have the effect of reducing the demand or the requirement for government assistance in the future,
For the minister to tell us now that he has found there is a contingent liability flies right in the face of not only his response to the hon. member for Halifax but also of what he said in response to the hon. member for Calgary North. There is absolutely no doubt that he misled the House.
The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), in attempting to support the minister's position, has missed the point, I think, and the minister, when he was making comments earlier about my argument yesterday, also missed the point. I referred only to section 23 in an attempt to show that if that is the section on which they are relying to justify the statements made, not only by the minister, but by the House leader and by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), in the opinion of counsel whom I consulted it is not adequate. Section 23 deals with an entirely different matter,
Privilege-Mr. Stanfield
and it is Section 14 which is the overriding section as far as Petro-Can's active incorporation is concerned. That section is very clear. It states:
The corporation is, for all purposes of this act, an agent of Her Majesty, and its powers under this act may be exercised only as an agent of Her Majesty.
It goes on to say that the property owned by this Crown corporation:
-is the property of Her Majesty and title thereto may be vested in the name of Her Majesty or in the name of the corporation.
Clearly there was always a liability on the part of the Government of Canada for the actions of Petro-Canada. The thrust of my comments today is that the responses we had on Monday, not only from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) but also from the House leader and from the Minister of Finance, misled the House, in an attempt to create the impression that somehow this was another commercial transaction. It was as if Petro-Canada had just filled somebody's gas tank and there was no government liability involved. In truth, it has now been agreed by the minister that there was a contingent liability. In my opinion, and according to the advice of my counsel, it is, in fact, more than a contingent liability; it is the direct liability with which an agent can bind his principal, and that liability comes from section 14 of the Petro-Canada Act.
I should like to mention, in conclusion, that where I think the misrepresentation has occurred is not only in the two statements by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, but also in what the House leader has stated on Monday, namely:
-this does not represent-
That is the deal involving Petro-Canada-
-in any way a demand on government resources. It is totally a commercial transaction, Financed outside government expenditures-
May I ask, with all due respect, how a minister of the Crown can make such a blatant statement followed by another minister of the Crown two days later stating that there was a contingent liability?
Secondly, I should like to mention that the Minister of Finance said on Monday:
-Petro-Canada pledged the assets they have gained in making the transaction. This was analysed by those who were loaning the money. They found that the assets being given against the borrowing were very good indeed, so they went along with the transaction. I believe it is a very good transaction for Canada.
Again I suggest that this was a misleading statement on the part of the Minister of Finance, because we know now that there was a contingent liability, that those who lent the money knew that Canada was ultimately liable with respect to the debt they were extending. As I have already indicated, subsection 3 of section 14 of the Petro-Canada Act makes it very clear that the Petro-Can assets are, in fact, not their assets to pledge; they are the assets of Her Majesty in the right of Canada.
May I conclude by simply saying that I support the proposed question of privilege that might be put by my colleague, the hon. member for Halifax, and in connection with my own

November 15, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Stanfield
proposed question of privilege I would like to reinforce what I said yesterday by stating that I think all three ministers should correct the record, because they have misled the House.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take very much time in order to deal with the points which have been made. I have been looking at the full question put on Monday, November 13, by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), and also at the answer given by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie), and I think that, in line with the reasoning advanced by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), the only justified comment that might be made about the answer given by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is that it might be regarded as incomplete.
I attempted to inform myself of this transaction before I came to the House on Monday because I anticipated there would be questions, and I remember quite clearly the question put at the time by the hon. member for Halifax and its significance, and, without doing violence to the substance of the question, I should like to abbreviate it thus:
Is he saying,-
Then there are some descriptive phrases-
-there is no financial responsibility on the Government of Canada in connection with this transaction by way of guarantee or otherwise?
It seems to me that the point is that in his reply the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources did not deal with "or otherwise". I thought the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources prudently sidestepped in his answer, as I would have done, dealing directly with that point, because the hon. member for Halifax cut quite a swath in his question by asking:
Is he saying ... there is no financial responsibility on the Government of Canada in connection with this transaction by way of guarantee or otherwise?
In other words, by guarantee or in any other way.
The minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, I made it very clear that this was a commercial transaction. It was negotiated and financed by normal commercial instruments. There are no government guarantees.
In so far as that statement is concerned and in so far as any answer I gave is concerned, I regard them as totally accurate. I believe the text will bear that out. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands is correct in saying that that "or otherwise" was not followed up. I am sure the hon. member for Halifax might have asked a supplementary question which gave the answer, namely, that there might be a contingent liability.
I am not posing as an expert on all these financial matters, but I do believe that the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) is attempting to telescope two events, one which has taken place and one which might or might not take place in the future. There is a transaction that has taken place, and that transaction, in itself, as I understand it, has not created any contingent liability. Certain events-this is not basically my point, I just add that-would have to take place in the future before the actual contingent liability would be trig-

gered. That is something upon which hon. members might reflect.
To suggest that an answer in the House of Commons, which does not deal with every single point, raises a question of privilege, cannot be sustained. To say every single piece of information available in the stratosphere was not put forward in answer to a question is a question of privilege, cannot be sustained.
Perhaps the hon. member would have had a question of privilege if he argued that the minister had deliberately attempted to mislead the House. He did not do so. In so far as the minister's answers were concerned, he was totally accurate. When the hon. member for Halifax pinpointed his question in precise terms today, he received a precise answer. I suggest that if he put his question in precise terms on Monday or Tuesday, he would have received the precise answer.
At worst, which is not a very grave accusation against anyone, the answer to the question put by the hon. member for Halifax was incomplete. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands put the matter in proper and true perspective in his analysis of the situation.
I do not think for a moment that the hon. member for Halifax or the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources are out to mislead the House or each other.
It was useful to have this clarification of what has been a rather abstruse point.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing abstruse about the point. The answer of the minister yesterday was very clear and definite. He said that there were no government guarantees. Today he said in an answer that there is a liability on the government.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Contingent.


Walter David Baker: All right, I will deal with that. He said that there is a contingent liability on the government. That is the situation. My friend talked about the triggering of some future liability. There is no question of a triggering of a future liability whatsoever.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, there is.


Walter David Baker: The liability exists now.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No.


Walter David Baker: The triggering depends upon some event which may occur in the future because the borrowing is taking place now.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The triggering would occur if Petro-Canada could not meet its obligations.


Walter David Baker: That is the situation in which we find ourselves. If one looks at the answer given to the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) on November 13,

November 15, 1978

1978, one will see that it is pretty clear what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) was trying to do. He was attempting to say that this was a great commercial transaction which did not involve the government in any way. The answer he gave today cleared that up, but the question put by the hon. member for Halifax still stands and is before the House: whether the minister's answer to the question on November 13, 1978, misled the House, inadvertently perhaps, or whether it was incorrect in the terms set forth by the motion.
The matter is still open and not closed so neatly and nicely as the hon. government House leader attempted to do. There is always a liability upon the Government of Canada. Perhaps the event which activates the process to fulfil and complete it is something else, but the liability is there. The intent of the statute is there. This statute is no different from any other statute respecting Crown corporations. The denial or indication that the liability was not there was a misleading of the House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think I should reserve on this question any further. My difficulty remains a fundamental one. In the circumstances I am able to accept every argument put forward by the opposition members who have risen on this particular occasion, except the last one by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), indicating that the misleading occurred as a result of the minister's answer, and whether the misleading was inadvertent or not, whether a question of privilege is to be sustained. Of course, the difficulty I have is that that is not the case. In order to sustain a question of privilege, I have to find not only that members of the House have been misled by the answer, but that the attempt to mislead had been deliberate on the part of the minister.
As I have said before, and I will repeat again, when a minister rises after this kind of intervention on a question of privilege challenging the correctness of his answer, and indicates that upon reflection his answer was not correct, then he must indicate to the House that he unintentionally misled the House in the circumstances. However, when a minister, as both ministers have done in this case, returns to the point after an intervention on a question of privilege and says that he has checked his answer and now stands by it, procedurally the situation is a very difficult one, if not an impossible one for the Chair because I must not only find that the House has been misled but deliberately misled.
I accept the interventions of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) and the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens). The hon. member for Halifax prefaced his remarks by saying that in all of his years here perhaps this was the first occasion on which he was raising a question of privilege. If not, it is a rare occasion. He said he would only do it after very serious deliberation. Of course, I accept the hon. member's intervention, as I do that of the hon. member for York-Simcoe. When they tell the House that they were misled in the circumstances, I accept that. In order to find a question of privilege, however, I must go further than that. Not only must
Privilege-Mr. Dick
I find that they were misled, or the House was misled by the minister's answer, but that it was done intentionally.
Equally I accept what both ministers have told me, that in the circumstances and in good faith they addressed themselves to the question put on the record, and that in good faith they made answers at the time, which are now being criticized as incomplete, inaccurate, misleading, or something of that nature. Nevertheless, while I accept the word on one side of the House, I also accept the word on the other side. In the circumstances I am compelled to accept the word of members that they addressed themselves to the question, answered it, and upon reflection the answer was accurate and not intended to mislead. If the answer did mislead and obviously was not intentional, any misleading was accidental and not calculated to mislead hon. members or the House in general.
The procedural case is quite simple. Unless I am able to find a deliberate attempt to mislead, I cannot find a question of privilege. Since both ministers have indicated that they did not intentionally mislead the House in the circumstances, it is impossible for me to find that they had any intention to do so. While I am sure the disagreement will continue, on procedural grounds I cannot find a question of privilege.


MR. DICK-ANSWER GIVEN BY MINISTER OF STATE (FITNESS AND AMATEUR SPORT)
Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a separate question of privilege arising out of an answer given by the hon. Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mrs. Campagnolo). The minister indicated that she had responded to my question on an earlier occasion. I should like to put this matter on the record now, which is my first opportunity since the conclusion of the oral question period, so that the minister will be able to respond fully tomorrow, if that is her desire.
As reported at page 1010 of Hansard of November 10, 1978, I asked the minister if she would table two agreements. The first agreement was the one which Loto Canada made with General Instruments. The second agreement was the one Loto Canada made on behalf of the Government of Canada with the provinces, which got the provinces out of $10-and-above games and the federal government out of $9-and-below games. To be fair, Mr. Speaker, and I am not sure whether this was through inadvertence or otherwise, the minister was quite co-operative and indicated in her reply she would be pleased to table the document concerning the agreement with the provinces dealing with who will have the $10-and-above games, and who is to have the $9-and-below games. The minister subsequently did table that document, for which I am very appreciative.
In the second part of her reply the minister stated:
-I think that it would be more appropriate to consider tabling it when the Final resolution of that contract is reached.

November 15, 1978
Tabling of Documents
She has disposed of the two agreements about which I asked, by tabling one and suggesting that the tabling of the second be postponed to a different occasion.
As a result of the tabling of the agreement I find that clause 3 states that the federal government will abandon the proposed loto game and, as was foreseen during the last provincial conference, a reasonable agreement will be reached, meaning in the future, between the provinces of Ontario and Quebec and the federal government regarding the disposal of assets for the loto game. There is now a third agreement. The minister indicated today in her reply that she had already told me on several occasions she did not think it appropriate to table that agreement at this time because negotiations were going on. That was in reference to the Loto-Canada and General Instruments agreement. This agreement deals with the method of dividing the assets or commodities purchased between the provinces of Ontario and Quebec and the federal government. That is definitely a third agreement which has not been mentioned heretofore in this House.
I did not know of that third agreement until this document was tabled, and I wanted to point out that there was an inconsistency in those replies. I am sure the minister did not do this intentionally, but perhaps on the spur of the moment she was confused. There are three agreements, and I thought I should bring that to the attention of the House at the first opportunity.
I am sure the minister will read this in Hansard and, in answer to a future question, or perhaps tomorrow after the question period, she will clarify the matter. I am interested in having that agreement between the provinces of Quebec and Ontario and the federal government, dealing with the proposed disposition of the assets which were the subject of the agreement between Loto-Canada and General Instruments, tabled as well. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, during the course of the question period, in fact in the lead question, the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott) referred the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) to an agreement or a document, a copy of which I have in my hand, dated March 9, 1978, entitled "A Discussion Paper on the Implementation of Housing Policy to Achieve Federal Priorities for 1978-79". In fact the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton quoted from that document in the course of her remarks.
During the interchange that took place in the House it was obvious that, for some reason or other, this reference agitated
[Mr. Dick.)
the government, and certainly over-agitated the minister. I really cannot understand why that should be so because this is a government document. In any event, during the agitation which occurred on the other side of the House, the minister and, indeed, his seatmate, the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations (Mr. Lalonde) shouted, "Table it! Table it!" The hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton reminded them that, of course, it is the government's job to table documents.
If the government had intended to make a disclosure I am sure it would have tabled the document, but the minister is not here to do that. Since the tabling of the document in the House obviously has the approval of persons in such high position as both the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations, I wonder, sir, if I might obtain unanimous consent of the House to the tabling of that document as I have described it. In order that members may understand the document, it might be appropriate if I read from it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will realize the difficulty we are in now. In order for him to complete that line of thought to its ultimate conclusion, he might read the whole document, and thereby put on the record what he is endeavouring to have tabled. I think the hon. member has made the point that he is seeking unanimous consent for the tabling of the document. Quite frankly, I am glad he relieved me of the procedural difficulty of having to decide whether a private member can table a document, even if agreed to by a minister of the Crown, for in fact a decision in that regard would be in the negative. Nevertheless, the hon. member in attempting to table the document is seeking the consent of the House, and unanimous consent would be required if he were to table the document at the present time. Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House for the tabling of this document at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I just wonder if it might be appended to Hansard rather than simply-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, since my friends have been so agreeable in respect of this matter, I wonder if this document, signed by the minister, which is fundamental to housing in Canada, could be appended to Hansard? I certainly think this would be an excellent idea.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if we could be absolutely clear in this regard. Procedurally the tabling of a document is quite different from having it printed in the records of the House. Was the hon. member originally seeking to have it printed in the records, or simply seeking to have it tabled?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for its generosity for agreeing, as I understand it, that
November 15, 1978

the document be tabled. You asked whether there was consent. There was consent, and I understand the document has now been tabled. What I was asking was whether it might be appropriate to ask the House if it was agreeable to the document being made an appendix to Hansard as well as being tabled.


Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, we agreed to the first request because it was so nicely made by the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott), but we do not see the necessity for the second since all we want is copies of the document which has been tabled.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT, 1971 MEASURE TO AMEND
David Orlikow: for leave to introduce Bill C-443, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (labour dispute).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to clear up and correct a serious misinterpretation of an act which has arisen as a result of decisions by the Unemployment Insurance Commission in recent years. This has resulted in workers who have not concluded negotiations with their employers being locked out. I am thinking of the recent dispute between Canada Packers and Swifts and their employees who were on strike recently. There was also the recent strikes in the brewery industry. All these employees were refused unemployment insurance benefits when they made their claims.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 209, 268 and 225.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: Is the government giving consideration to improving customs services at the Saskatoon airport and, if so, to what extent and on what date?
Point of Order-Mr. Beatty


Mr. Yves Demers (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: There is presently no permanent staff assigned to Saskatoon airport. All customs service is provided on a call-out basis from the Saskatoon office. Regional officials indicate that, to date, there would not be sufficient work to justify assignment of permanent staff to the airport. Given the current low volume of traffic and the necessity for financial restraint, it would be neither desirable nor feasible to further expand customs service at Saskatoon beyond the current level, that is from 0700 to 2400 hours, seven days per week.


Mr. Epp: 
Mr. McKinnon: 1.	Was Eyretechnics Limited, 92 Grenville Crescent, Ottawa, Ontario, allotted a contract for $175,000 in connection with preliminary work for destroyer life extension?
2.	Was the tendering process conducted before this contract was let?
3.	Is it the current plan of the Department of National Defence to go ahead with the destroyer life extension plan?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: 1.
Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	The Department of National Defence has approved in principle a program to extend the life of the current steam destroyers until the new ships come into service. The precise scope and extent of the project is yet to be determined.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would apologize to you and the House for having to raise a further point of order, because discussions have gone on and taken up the time of the House

November 15, 1978
Point of Order-Mr. Beatty
since the end of the question period. My point of order is with regard to the answers given to questions on the order paper.
I feel that it is a fundamental question and that my rights as a member of parliament are affected by the procedures we are following here, as well as the ability of all members of parliament to discharge their responsibilities. I acknowledge that you, sir, have stated on many occasions that it is not your responsibility to ensure that answers given to questions on the order paper, or answers to questions asked during the oral question period, are adequate and full, that your responsibility is merely to ensure that the rules are kept. I certainly accept your statement in that regard.
However, I think it may be useful to you, sir, and to the House, if I explain the difficulty that these procedures have put us in at the present time and which leads to a situation where the rules make a mockery of the ability of an individual member of parliament to get information from the government if the government is determined to frustrate his attempts to do so. I would like to bring to your attention the answer I received on November 7 to question No. 67, which I placed on the order paper on October 11.
You will recall, sir, that over the course of the past several months I have risen at this point in the proceedings several times to bring to the parliamentary secretary's attention the question which I had on the order paper relating to the use of government aircraft by the then minister of labour to fly to western Canada to consult with various owners of CFL teams to prevent the takeover by Mr. Harold Ballard of the Hamilton Tiger Cats. The first part of my question was to elicit from the parliamentary secretary whether in fact the trip had taken place at government expense and, if so, what were the costs to the taxpayers, who the other individuals were who accompanied the minister, and how these activities related to the official responsibilities of the minister of labour because, surely, if he is to commandeer government aircraft, it must be in line with his official responsibilities.
The second part of my question was to ask whether the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) intended to follow up on a suggestion made by the then minister of labour to the extent that the Minister of Agriculture would find money to cover the cost of increasing the seating capacity at Ivor Wynne Stadium.
These questions were first placed on the order paper on February 22, 1978. At that time they were listed as question No. 1,332. I allowed several months to elapse before first bringing the question to the attention of the parliamentary secretary because I felt, even though this was a matter which would be answered in short order, that the government was entitled to a reasonable period of time. The first time I rose in the House to bring it to the attention of the parliamentary secretary was in June, 1978, at which time I asked him, after mentioning the substance of the question, why it had sat on the order paper for several months without receiving an answer. The response I received from the parliamentary secretary, as reported at page 6832 of Hansard reads:

Mr. Speaker, the number of the question is all I need. I am quite capable of reading the order paper. I can assure the hon. member that we will give his question all the attention it requires within the next few weeks.
At the time I thought the parliamentary secretary was acting in good faith, and allowed the matter to drop. I assumed that he would discharge his responsibilities and provide me with an answer to this very straightforward question.
The House then adjourned for the summer, and the question was left standing on the order paper for three months while the House was in recess. During that period, of course, no further questions could be added to the order paper and therefore the government had three months to come to grips with the various questions left on the order paper and to prepare answers for when parliament resumed for the last day of the old session. When parliament resumed there was no answer given to that question and it died on the order paper.
Although I raised the matter in the form of a point of order at that time, the parliamentary secretary then assured me that he had made every effort to get an answer but had not been able to do so. I subsequently raised the question a couple more times, and in all it has been five times in eight and one half months that I brought to the parliamentary secretary's attention the fact that this question was outstanding. On June 29, October 17, and October 24 I referred specifically to this question, and on November 1 and October 10 I referred in general terms to a number of questions still outstanding which I had on the order paper.
On November 1, in response to a question which I raised in the form of a point of order as to delays in answering questions, the parliamentary secretary made this comment:
Mr. Speaker, I find these remarks unfair. On numerous occasions, following interventions made by the hon. member or by others, I have shown the government's good will and efficiency in dealing with questions on the order paper.
This was reported at page 698 of Hansard.
Quite apart from the irony in these statements when he talked about efficiency and good will in answering these questions, I think that the answer by the parliamentary secretary would lead a reasonable person to believe that a decent answer would be forthcoming shortly. But this was not to be the case.
Last Tuesday, the parliamentary secretary tabled an answer to my question. The answer to part one reads:
See Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, citation 171(11).
Over the course of the past few days I have had an opportunity to review Beauchesne to find out exactly why the parliamentary secretary was refusing to answer the question. Citation 171(11) of Beauchesne's fourth edition, 1958, reads:
A question oral or written must not:
(11) seek from an ex-minister information with regard to transactions during his term of office.
You can see the ludicrous situation I now find myself in, sir. The minister took the trip on the weekend of February 4, 5 and 6 of this year. On February 22 I placed my question on the order paper. It dragged on through the intervening months,
November 15, 1978

and half a year later the minister resigned from the cabinet. We end up with this situatin where the parliamentary secretary tables an answer in which he says that he is not going to give me the information because the minister has resigned. He does not feel that he has any obligation to give the House information about the way in which the funds of the taxpayers have been used.
As I said at the outset, Mr. Speaker, you cannot compel the parliamentary secretary to give adequate answers to questions on the order paper, but surely members of this House, under its procedures, in trying to discharge their responsibilities as parliamentarians and to ensure that the taxpayers' money is properly used, have rights too.


An hon. Member:: You are only politicking; you don't mean it.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite laughs when I mention the rights of members of this House.
I feel that 1 have been poorly treated by the parliamentary secretary. It is a sign that he has acted in either bad faith or simply has not been responsible in discharging his duties. I hope that the House will look at this matter and come up with a means to ensure that when members ask questions in good faith they will get full and complete answers and will be treated in good faith by members on the other side.


Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on a point of order with respect to answers that have been forthcoming. This is a special occasion for me. I have received my first answer in this session, and so I wanted to mark this by bringing to your attention, a grievance which I feel I have respecting the whole process of answering questions.
As you know, the purpose of putting question on the order paper are twofold. First they are not necessarily matters of urgent and pressing necessity which would be allowed within the context of question period. Secondly, detailed information is sometimes required that is not appropriate for question period. We have a device now of having written questions on the order paper, in order to obtain information from the government on matters that are of some considerable importance to each member, who puts these questions on the order paper. This applies not only to members on the opposition side, but indeed to members on the government side as well.
What we have is the example that is being set by this parliamentary secretary. I am sure he is merely the conduit for each department to give answers as they deem appropriate. 1 have observed the list that we have been getting during the course of this session. Most times it contains something like three replies, occasionally more, but three answers each time there is an opportunity for the parliamentary secretary to rise and table answers given to these written questions.
On the basis that, as individual members of parliament, we are using this device in a responsible manner to allow depart-
Point of Order-Mr. Beatty
ments to answer questions not in an indefinite period of time but within a reasonable time, under this point of order I would like to raise with the parliamentary secretary the question as to whether there are any guidelines handed down to departments concerning the time limit within which it is expected these questions will be answered. I can give examples of my own questions where it would be almost possible to have a yes or a no answer. Yet I have been in a position of waiting. In some cases I could give examples of questions which were put on the order paper in previous sessions that went unanswered, and I have replaced them on the order paper because I am still interested in finding out what the policy is with regard to areas important to myself and my constituents.
If there is to be any semblance of order and we are to have any credibility in this government-whether it wants to answer these questions or just play games with us-I would like to know if there are any guidelines the parliamentary secretary gives to departments to suggest that within a certain period of time it would be reasonable to expect answers to these questions, unless there are extenuating circumstances.
Some of my colleagues have asked on previous occasions, I think in all seriousness, whether the parliamentary secretary would tell us what questions the government does not intend to answer, and if in fact that is its intention, then let us know about it. However, will the parliamentary secretary inform us if there are any guidelines at all given to departments concerning time limits in which it is expected they will, in the normal course of activities, answer?


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in support of the excellent point of order put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty), and to support him with my own particular grievance. This concerns question No. 232 on the order paper. It has been on the current order paper now since October 17. That question, sir, is really a very simple one. It has to do with a detailed account of the spending of money under the Federal Labour Intensive Program and, more particularly, how many jobs were created under that program, and by department.
That question was placed on the order paper in the last session. It was one of the 20 per cent of those questions which the parliamentary secretary was unable to answer because he was unable to obtain answers from the various government departments to whom the questions were directed. However, this question deals with an expenditure of $100 million voted by this parliament. This expenditure was undertaken by this government under a program late last winter, a program known as the Federal Labour Intensive Program, the purpose of which was to be a part of the government's over-all attack on the very troublesome and serious unemployment problem facing the country.
As we get into this winter, and as the present serious unemployment situation becomes even more aggravated by winter conditions and the traditional seasonal factors that are at work, we will be called upon, I have no doubt, to provide more funding for the Federal Labour Intensive Program.

Point of Order-Mr. Beatty
Surely, Mr. Speaker, it is not unreasonable to expect, and indeed we have every right to expect the government to inform us as to just exactly how productive, how effective that last vote of $100 million was under the Federal Labour Intensive Program and, more particularly, how many jobs were created by it.
The parliamentary secretary can put my mind at rest very quickly by explaining to me and to the House why he cannot get an answer to this question. That phase of the government's make-work program is now over. We are going into the next phase which will mean, as I have indicated, another vote under the Federal Labour Intensive Program. We have a right to know, Mr. Speaker. We are voting public money. We have a right to know whether or not that public money is productive in terms of its intent, in terms of the purpose for which it is being voted. Surely, sir, that lies at the very root of supply in this House.
We are on the eve of a new budget and we are going to have to go through the whole process again. By addressing myself to the legitimate grievance of the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo, I would hope that you, sir, and the House, can find some way to satisfy the House and its members who have grievances in this regard. As I say, we no longer have the right under our new rules in this House to withhold supply. If we did, here is a classic case where I, as an aggrieved member, would withhold the passage of estimates to provide more money under the Federal Labour Intensive Program until the government was able to satisfy me that the previous vote, the $100 million spent last winter, was effective in producing jobs.
The parliamentary secretary can put this matter to rest by telling me and the House that he is unable to obtain this information from the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) and from the various government departments. I suspect that is the dilemma in which he finds himself. If that is the case, then I have a question of privilege, and I will pursue that question of privilege with a substantive motion.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the remarks made by the first speaker, I believe he raised two points: the question of good faith and the question of the taxpayers. On the question of good faith, his remarks were directed either at me in my capacity as parliamentary secretary or the government generally. He knows quite well, or should know, that good faith is always presumed, and it is up to the person allegating that there was bad faith to substantiate it. The hon. member will understand that. He is smiling like his leader who, if he had passed his law exams, would be able to understand the principle I just mentioned but he is in a very bad position to be smiling on that principle when this government in the past two sessions answered over 90 per cent of the questions that were put on the order paper. I realize the hon. member is in an unfortunate situation in not being able to give

more substantiation or weight to his argument, when you consider that there are hundreds of questions put on the order paper every session, that my predecessor answered more than 90 per cent of them and that I answered 88 per cent or 89 per cent of those questions. That takes care of the argument of good faith raised by the first speaker.
With respect to his concern for the taxpayer, I draw his attention to his own questions. Very often his questions require research in several departments, and they are costing the taxpayers a fortune in time and research so we can give him a full answer or an answer that makes sense. And even if sometimes we are unable because of the end of a session to answer a question he asked, that does not mean that we did not do any research to try to answer it. In that sense, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member were more concerned with the good of the taxpayers, he would be more careful with the kind of questions he asks and he would try to ask questions perhaps as intelligent as the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) has the habit of asking.
Mr. Speaker, there is also the intervention made by a second hon. member who spoke before the hon. member for St. John's East. He wanted to know whether there were any guidelines to be followed by those who do the research to provide answers to the questions on the order paper. The instructions given to the employees of all departments and agencies when they consider these questions are as follows: they must try to find as much information as possible to provide the best and the most complete answers possible as soon as possible. In this regard, Mr. Speaker, we continuously take steps to encourage these employees to provide us with full answers as soon as possible. In support of their excellent work, I must say that they have behaved very well and that they have always made valid efforts to provide this type of answer to the opposition as soon as possible. The results of the last few sessions stand as evidence of this fact.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, as concerns question No. 232 asked by the hon. member for St. John's East, I shall take note of his representations, but I would still like to draw to his attention a mistake that he made in his comments. Since I have great respect for the hon. member, I am certain that it must have been an involuntary mistake when he said that we failed to reply to 20 per cent of the questions asked during the last session. He probably wanted to say that we did not reply to approximately 10 per cent of the questions asked during the last session, and I am convinced that he made this mistake involuntarily. As far as we are concerned, we shall try not to make any mistake when we reply to his question.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of matters I want to talk on with regard to this point of order in connection with answering questions, because of the diminishing right of private members to obtain informa-
November 15, 1978

tion. This is one of the faults of our system. It is something to which we must address ourselves.
Every time this matter is raised the parliamentary secretary states that they answer 90 per cent of the questions. That is their record. I do not know how it stands statistically. I would not doubt the word of the parliamentary secretary that in statistical terms that is true.
The problem raised by the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty) was with regard to the kind of answer he received and the circumstances under which he received it. To rely on that citation in Beauchesne is to evade an answer or give a non-answer. Statistically I would not argue with the parliamentary secretary, but that is what is happening with regard to answering questions.
The question raised by the It reads: member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) is very simple. It reads:
1. By department and by community, how many positions have been made or will be made available under the Federal Labour Intensive Program?
That kind of information must be in the hands of a competent department in order to do the planning. It has to be there and available. To say that it is not available or it is hard to find, is to say that the ministry involved is incompetent, is not doing studies and so on.
It is wrong, innocently wrong, or I suppose innocently improper is the best way to describe it, for the parliamentary secretary time and again to say that all questions cost a considerable amount of money. I realize there is work caused in the public service as a result of questions by members of parliament because I represent a number of public servants who do the work in respect of answering questions. They tell me that is the case. Of course, that is their job. Not one has ever complained about doing his job.
I become concerned when I hear colleagues in the House worrying about questions that are not answered when the public service has done its job, when the answers are prepared and available, but the minister or someone else does not let those answers see the light of day. That is a matter which concerns me. Perhaps at some stage during the course of this parliament we could examine the process to ensure that does not happen. The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) says it is nonsense. If that were so, I would be relieved.
I know a large number of public servants who prepare answers to questions. They do not complain about that. I worry that sometimes their work does not get to the floor of the House of Commons because somebody's ox has been gored. That is the suspicion I have. Perhaps some day the parliamentary secretary can indicate the process to the House of Commons so that we can be relieved of that doubt.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I rise because, in his earlier intervention, the parliamentary secretary made some statements with which I take sharp issue. I have had a large number of questions on the order paper session after session. I admit that some of them have been complicated. When it has taken a long time to get an answer, I have not complained.
A year and a half or two years ago I put on the order paper of that session a series of questions having to do with Crown corporations. Each one was a very simple question. I will quote one which I have again placed on the order paper. I quote question No. 85:
1.	Who (a) is the president (b) are the vice-presidents of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority?
2.	What is the annual salary in each case? x
I have a series of questions, each along the same line, asking about a particular Crown corporation.
Had the government said it has not been the practice to divulge that kind of information with regard to Crown corporations, I probably would have accepted that answer, gone to the committee where the Crown corporation reports, in this case the transport committee, and discussed it with the minister. These questions would have then been off the order paper.
I do not do what the minister accuses some members of doing, create a great deal of work for public servants, then the end of the session comes, they do not have a chance to report, and the questions are forgotten. I waited until the first day of this session and I again placed the questions on the order paper. I repeat, they have been on the order paper for a year and a half or two years.
These are not complicated questions. They would not be difficult to answer. If the government wanted, I am sure it could obtain the information in a day or two, answer the questions, and have them removed from the order paper. If the government is embarrassed because it is paying too much or too little and therefore does not want to answer the questions, I suggest to the parliamentary secretary a lot of time could be saved by simply saying it does not want to answer the questions. I would not then have to get up every two or three months to ask what is happening.
I sympathize with hon. members who complain that their questions are not being answered or that it is taking a very long time to get answers, because I frequently receive that kind of treatment in this House.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26   NATIONAL DEFENCE PURCHASE OF FIGHTER PLANES

Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the proposal of a cabinet committee to seek the approval and commitment of the cabinet to the purchase of fighter planes at the total of $2.3 billion in 1977 dollars, on the grounds that

November 15, 1978
this order, which is the largest arms order ever made by Canada, has not been debated in the Elouse or in the standing committee on defence and involves the assumption of a very large commitment at a time when restraint and retrenchment in government expenditure are called for, and when there is no need for the proposed fighter planes to be used against the unreal threat of manned bombers, there being no such commitment in either the NORAD or the NATO treaties.
This motion, as I say, comes at a time when restraint and retention are urged.


An hon. Member:: What about Petro-Canada?


Francis Andrew Brewin: I am not dealing with Petro-Canada at the moment. If the hon. member would recognize the importance of the subject I am dealing with, it would be helpful.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Perhaps the hon. member would recognize the importance of Petro-Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member gave the Chair notice of his intention to make this application pursuant to Standing Order 26. First I would like to call to his attention the language I used in dealing with a recent application, if I recall correctly, by one of his colleagues in respect to the proposed acquisition of Pacific Petroleums by Petro-Can which has been the subject of such lengthy discussions this afternoon. In that circumstance I indicated that in order for me to respect paragraph 16(a) of Standing Order 26 and find a genuine emergency, I would have to find some irregularity or something extraordinary about the practice that was being followed, and on the surface I see no allegation that the practice which is followed in this instance is any different from that followed in the past.
Elowever, I am also struck by subparagraph 5 of the rule in this particular case, not because I am inviting the hon. member to make this the subject of one of the allotted days. I do not like to use that approach in dealing with applications under Standing Order 26, but I can scarcely ignore the fact that if the hon. member is seeking an opportunity for himself and his colleagues to inform the government of the position they would propose to take in respect to this kind of an arms' transaction, they would have, all of them, I trust, an ample opportunity to do so in the course of the discussions which are to begin tomorrow evening when the budget is presented. In the days that follow, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), along with other hon. members, will have the opportunity to address themselves to defence policy in general and, in particular, to the spending of money, the subject most germane to that debate. Therefore, in deference to those two paragraphs of the rule, I have to decline the hon. member's application at this time.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) on a point of order.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My point of order arises from a matter that has been raised, I think, on three occasions earlier-the fact that the government has declined to date to make a commodity tax review reference to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
I see the parliamentary secretary to the House leader is in the House, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to draw his attention to the fact that the commodity tax matter was referred initially in the last session of parliament to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs on June 8, that is, 1978, not long before we adjourned. On July 12 the committee advertised for submissions from all concerned with respect to that commodity tax review. To date, 93 briefs have been submitted, and we understand there are another 21 to come. The deadline for submitting briefs was initially September 21.
Our problem in the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs now is that we cannot deal with this matter. There is no reference. Yet, there are 93 briefs sitting there and I think it is a grave injustice to the various people who have spent the money and taken the time to send in their material. We still cannot process it without a new reference to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. My House leader has reminded me that every time this question has been raised we have assured the government that if they move a reference it will pass without any debate on our part.


Mr. Alan Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I share membership on the steering committee of the same committee with the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), and I am well aware of the suggestions which have been put forward by him. My understanding at the moment, however, is that the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs decided just
November 15, 1978

last night in full session to call six meetings a week to deal with the Bank Act reference which has been made by this House and that the committee has been extremely busy recently in connection with Bill C-7. I did make an undertaking in the committee-and this is really a committee matter-to report back to the next meeting of the steering committee with regard to a reference of the commodity tax matter.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, November 14, consideration of Bill C-7, to provide supplementary borrowing authority for the fiscal year 1978-79 and to amend the Financial Administration Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance Trade and Economic Affairs, and the motion of Mr. Stevens.
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, last night at the end of the day's proceedings I had the floor, but in view of today's dilatory tactics by the opposition, I will give others the chance to speak.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert).


Some hon. Members:: Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I had indicated to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) that he might follow the parliamentary secretary, but when the hon. member resumed his seat nobody got up except the hon. member for Vaudreuil. I have recognized him, but if there is unanimous consent I could go back to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. Is there unanimous consent?


An hon. Member:: Agreed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I was
on my feet, Mr. Speaker, when the parliamentary secretary sat down. I had no way of knowing he was going to play the shrinking violet and disappear from the debate.
When the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) put his amendment on the order paper, I decided I would not take any part in this debate even though I thought the amendment was somewhat puerile and mischievous to the extent that all it would do would be to confuse the whole situation with respect to Canada Savings Bonds.
Borrowing Authority Act
The hon. member for York-Simcoe used his speech on this amendment yesterday to launch a vitriolic attack upon socialism, on the NDP in particular, and on the things which the New Democratic Party members in the House from 1972 to 1974 supported and to some extent succeeded in having put on the statute books of this country. The hon. member spent a good deal of his time attacking the establishment of Petro-Canada, and particularly the acquisition by that corporation of Pacific Petroleums a few days ago. His speech was reminiscent of the Coolidge and Hoover era. It could have been delivered by Ronald Reagan or a member of the John Birch Society.
I recognize that the official opposition has a compound name. It calls itself the Progressive Conservative party. I have always thought that to be a contradiction in terms, but a party which looks in two directions at the same time is bound to have a left wing and a right wing. Yesterday the hon. member for York-Simcoe demonstrated the genius, which the right wing of the Conservative party has always displayed, of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Whenever they get within sight of taking office, they immediately drop the masquerade of being progressive, and all their reactionary tenets come to the fore. That is what we witnessed yesterday.
The hon. member for York-Simcoe talked about the dangers to this country and to the western world if democratic socialist principles were put into effect. He spoke about how this country would be pushed back to the stage of human history reminiscent of conditions in Calcutta. The trouble with the right wing of the Tory party-and the hon. member for York-Simcoe is the exponent of it-is that it never really understands the people of Canada. Members of the right wing of the Tory party spend so much of their time talking to the bankers and financiers of this country that they think those individuals represent the man on the street, but they do not. The man on the street is not fooled by the "bogey man" of socialism. He is not fooled about the great blessings of free enterprise. He knows perfectly well that in the Scandinavian countries, some of which have had socialist democratic governments for over 40 years, progress has been made.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: They also have the highest suicide rate.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Only the hon. member for York-Simcoe would believe that fable. If he will take the trouble to look up the figures published by the United Nations, he will find that that is not true, as is the case with many other propaganda figures tossed out by the right wing. He should take the trouble to look at West Germany, which has a social democratic chancellor, a social democratic prime minister, and social democratic government. The economic performance of West Germany far outstrips Canada or the United States.


Mr. Oberle:: How many Crown corporations are there in West Germany?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If he wants to, my friend can speak when I am finished. People are not

November 15, 1978
Borrowing Authority Act
fooled any more. People look around this country and recognize that the province of Saskatchewan has a better debt position and a better budgetary situation than has the province of Ontario. Saskatchewan does not have the big deficit Ontario has, nor the debt load per capita Ontario has. The official opposition tries to frighten people about public enterprise and about governments using the power which the people have given them to insert some control in the market place so that the average individual will at least have a voice in determining his own economic destiny. Most people recognize the value of such a procedure.
Yesterday the hon. member for York-Simcoe said that in the years 1972 to 1974 the New Democratic Party, along with the government of that time, and I quote:
-seeded the expansion in our monetary system and fiscal system that gave us the inflation we are now living with-
As a matter of fact, it was the New Democratic Party which moved an amendment to the budget which defeated the government and brought on the election of 1974. Our opposition was to the fact that the government was giving $2.5 billion to corporations which, by the way, the Conservatives supported.
The right wing of the Tory party and the Tory party as a whole are going to have to come clean with the Canadian people. What are they talking about with respect to the inflationary fiscal policies of 1972 to 1974? Are they talking about the fact that we put pressure on the minority Liberal administration to index old age pensions and family allowances, and to improve the medical and hospital services of this country? Is it to that they are objecting? The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asked the hon. member for York-Simcoe whether that was what he was objecting to and whether he would commit the Conservative party not to curtail those services if it took office. What was the answer? The answer was, "Give us a chance; just try us; put us in office and see what we do." That will hardly satisfy the people of Canada.
1 tell my friends in the Conservative party that the people of Canada will not be satisfied with a party which says, "Put us in and we will then tell you what we will do." The Conservative party seems to be saying, "Put us in and then we will start to think about what we will do." The people of Canada will not be fooled by that technique.
The hon. member for York-Simcoe criticized members of the New Democratic Party for supporting and, in fact, urging the government to bring in legislation to set up Petro-Canada. The official opposition criticized us at the time. The hon. member for York-Simcoe was a member, as I was, of the committee which worked on that legislation. I think there were 19 sessions. At least 12 of them were the result of the objections and filibustering of the hon. member for York-Simcoe, who fought tenaciously against the legislation. That was his right, and I did not blame him for exercising it. He did not support the legislation, and he had a perfect right not to do so. However, that obsession has stayed with him, and he used yesterday's debate to criticize the acquisition of Pacific Petroleums by Petro-Canada.

It is time that we brought this issue out into the open. It is time for the Progressive Conservative party to tell us where it stands. For the past 20 or 25 years 99 per cent of the ownership and control of the production and refining of petroleum products in this country has been in the hands of foreign corporations. I have not heard any protests about that from the hon. member for York-Simcoe. Are we to assume that, in the eyes of the Progressive Conservative party, government intervention in the oil industry is bad and that 99 per cent ownership of the oil industry by foreign corporations is good? Is that where the official opposition stands?


John Edward Broadbent: That is their position.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is time the official opposition told the Canadian people where it stands. It is significant that when the Liberal government reluctantly and belatedly got around to setting up a Crown corporation-and I have been as critical as any of the slow pace at which it has moved-the opposition came solely from the Conservative party.
What is the situation now? In Canada today we have probably sufficient quantities of light crude oil to last us at best until 1990, and after that we will be dependent for oil upon the tar sands which cannot possibly meet our requirements because of the large capital investments necessary and because of the disposal of the tailings.
The only other way we will be able to have anything like adequate petroleum supplies will be to develop the heavy oil deposits which straddle the borders of Alberta and Saskatchewan. It is estimated that there are billions of barrels of heavy oil there, but it is heavy oil which is very difficult to extract, which requires new technology, and which requires very large investments of anywhere from $700 million to $1 billion. The difficulty is that that territory is in the hands of private oil companies which have the leases. They have not been developing the oil, they have been sitting, waiting until the price gets to the place where it is economically viable to develop that heavy oil. Petro-Canada and the government have been pushing these companies to get on with the production, but nothing has been happening.
A few months ago Petro-Canada decided to try to purchase Husky Oil Company, which has very large holdings. All the members know what happened. Alberta Gas Trunk Company, closely associated with the government of Alberta, moved in, bid the price up and took the Husky Oil Company away from Petro-Can. I did not hear any of the Progressive Conservatives objecting to that. As a matter of fact it was the very opposite; they were chuckling with glee at the fact that Petro-Canada had been denied the opportunity to develop those heavy oil resources. Petro-Canada was not going to be able, on behalf of the Canadian people, to develop the Canadian people's own resources for the benefit of the people of Canada! The Conservatives were delighted that Husky Oil was going to go into the hands of a private company.
November 15, 1978


An hon. Member:: And the government of Alberta.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Now
Petro-Canada has made its second move. It has managed to purchase from Pacific Petroleums in the United States 48 per cent of the shares which they hold, and it will endeavour to buy the shares which are held in Canada, but even 48 per cent will give them a controlling interest in Pacific Petroleums.
We have listened all week, in question period after question period, to all kinds of criticisms made about the impropriety and the foolishness of the government and of Petro-Canada in seeking to buy up the shares of Pacific Petroleums. Pacific Petroleums gives to the Canadian people the opportunity of having oil ten or fifteen years from now, therefore enabling us to avoid the terrible imbalance in our overseas payments if we have to import that oil from the Middle East.
Every person who has looked at the situation knows that any industry which controls the energy resources of a nation has its fingers on the windpipe of that nation's economy, and unless people in this country, through their federal and provincial governments, obtain some control of the petroleum industry, we will have to go through, in the next 25 years, what we have gone through in the last 25 years when we have watched the petroleum industry, which is foreign owned and controlled, ignoring the interests of the Canadian people and blackmailing Canadian governments.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yesterday the hon. member for York-Simcoe said that taking over Pacific Petroleums will not produce one barrel of oil or provide one job. What it will do is to enable the Canadian people to get oil when they need it, at a fair price to the Canadian consumer.
What has been our experience with the 99 per cent American controlled oil industry? Any member who was here in 1974 can give you the answer. In 1974, when the price was $4 a barrel and the government was reluctant to raise it, the oil industry sent its drilling rigs down to the United States-it went on strike. If the oil workers had gone on strike there would have been legislation on the floor of this chamber within 48 hours. But the oil industry went on strike and said, "We are not going to drill until you raise the price." They put the gun to the government's head, and the government had little choice, so they knuckled under, and since then we have been raising the price by $1 every six months until it reaches the world price.
Are we going to go through that again when we come to the heavy oil? At present we are already net importers of oil; we now import more oil than we export. It is going to cost us $2 billion or $3 billion in the next 12 months or so to pay for imported oil, even after we subtract from the cost of importing oil what we export. Will we once more, when we come to deal with the billions of barrels of heavy oil that straddle the provincial border between Saskatchewan and Alberta, allow the same companies to hold us up to ransom as they did in 1974?
Borrowing Authority Act
When the Canadian people realize where the Progressive Conservative party has been standing, or at least where the hon. member for York-Simcoe has been standing, and when they realize that the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) has committed his party to wiping out Petro-Canada if he takes office, then I say the Canadian people will realize that the choice in this country is whether or not we are going to develop the petroleum resources of Canada for the benefit of the Canadian people, or whether we are going to continue to be an economic colony in which our vital energy resources are owned and controlled by foreign multinational corporations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Hal Herbert (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) for his remarks concerning the purchase of Pacific Petroleums, and particularly for his reference to the need of the people of this country to have a greater handle on the development of their natural resources. I think the effect will be considerable in the sense that presumably the realization that we can purchase and control our own resources will be forcibly brought to the attention of the Canadian people by this purchase, and also by the fashion in which it is done. I am pleased it is not done by expropriation but rather by agreement.
I find it quite interesting that there has been some discussion about the price that was paid. I would not suggest that I have any special knowledge by which I can judge whether the price was high or low, but let me say that I am under the impression that the shares of companies such as Pacific Petroleums are considerably undervalued so far as the stock market is concerned, and therefore their fair value will be substantially higher than the present market value. Therefore it is not unreasonable to pay some $20 more than the present market price of the shares.
What I want to point out in my few remarks this afternoon is the fact that this bill is necessary essentially because we are running into a deficit, one this year and probably one next year. The fact that we have these deficits necessitates additional borrowing. When I look at the situation as it exists today, 1 see our national debt, the public debt, as of March 31 of this year, listed at some $80 billion. The figure is made up of $51 billion in unmatured debt, and another $28 billion in other liabilities. I am not talking about net debt because that would include a deduction of the assets. I am not deducting the assets for the simple reason that the only assets listed total approximately $40 billion. Obviously this amount does not include huge assets throughout the country which have never been recorded in the balance sheets of our nation. Most of the debt on which we are obliged to pay interest charges totals $80 billion.
Federal expenditures this year are expected to be somewhere between $48 billion and $49 billion, and our deficit will be

Borrowing Authority Act
somewhere between $11 billion and $12 billion. Looking at a total indebtedness of $80 billion for a nation such as Canada, it seems to me that we should not become particularly excited. I do not. I look at it from the point of view that the debt is something in the order of half the total income of the nation for one year. If a person has an income of $20,000 per annum, the chances are that his personal debts are considerably in excess of $10,000. In fact I doubt whether anyone would criticize an individual with a $20,000 per annum income if his total indebtedness was in the order of $25,000 or $30,000. The person judges whether he can handle his debts on his ability to pay interest charges and principal.
Canada is running into increasing public debt every year because of deficits and deficit budgets. We should examine the reason why. I should like to deal with that. Of the total expenditure this year of something less than $49 billion, $13.7 billion is in the form of transfer payments to the provinces, transfer payments made in areas acknowledged to be entirely provincial areas of responsibility, such as hospital care, education, social services, and welfare.
A few days ago I made a rather simplistic motion indicating that we could very easily get rid of our deficit of almost $12 billion by eliminating transfer payments to the provinces. That would leave us with a net surplus of approximately $2 billion which could be used for other purposes. Obviously the purpose of my motion was to illustrate why we are running into deficit financing and budgets at the present time.
The province of Quebec receives $4.3 billion from the federal treasury. Before someone says that the province of Quebec does not agree, I should like to indicate that the figures of that province amount to $3.2 billion. For the moment I will not argue about the difference between Quebec's figure of $3.2 billion and the federal government's figure of $4.3 billion. At the present time the Quebec budget varies between $12.3 billion and $12.7 billion, depending upon whether provincial or federal figures are used. That means between one-quarter and one-third of the Quebec provincial budget is moneys which come from the federal treasury. I am not objecting. I am saying that in provinces which run balanced budgets, this is being done because they receive money from Ottawa, even the rich provinces of British Columbia and Alberta. These provinces are considered to be rich because they have greater wealth than other provinces in the country. Those two provinces receive $2 billion from the federal treasury.
We must recognize that there was good reason for transfer payments being introduced. They are just as valid today as they were when the programs were put into force. I support fully the fiscal intervention or participation by the federal government in programs recognized as being of a purely provincial nature in order to ensure standards of service, portability, and a national scope. When the federal government puts out moneys to the provinces to ensure minimum standards of service, then those payments should not be discontinued. As an individual, that is why I opposed the latest agreement on social services, where the government no longer

November 15, 1978
exercises its right to ensure even social services in the provinces. As a federal government we must strengthen our position, not weaken it. We should say bluntly to the provinces that presently we are running a huge federal deficit, substantially because of moneys being transferred to the provinces in areas recognized as entirely the responsibility of the provinces. Conditions should be attached, and we should insist upon conditions which ensure that the programs are national in scope, such as hospital treatment being available to all Canadians no matter where they are situated in the country, welfare payments, and so on.
I should like to deal with the two areas of transfers in old age security payments and family allowances which amount to a total of $8 billion. Approximately 11.6 per cent of the federal budget is devoted to old age security payments, and 4.8 per cent to family allowances. These are national programs, but if one wants to argue about constitutional powers they can be construed as provincial by nature. One cannot have it both ways. The only way to maintain a strong federation is by ensuring that social programs are national in their scope.
At the present time the direction in which the Conservative party is going, when talking about more power for the provinces, is hypocritical in the extreme. When I attempted to draw them out on the subject of transfer payments, I heard loud cries from the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) who called transfer payments the very linchpin of Confederation. Even the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) suggested that to withdraw these transfer payments would be a matter of devastating consequence to Confederation. At least we have that position established. When members of the Tory party discuss the weakening of the federal system they presumably are not talking about cutting payments for hospital service, welfare programs, social services, old age security, and so on.

I think the criterion on which we must judge whether we should be in the position of deficit financing is precisely what we do with the moneys that are involved. In the present case one of the problems we face obviously is that most of these programs have been indexed, or because we have been involved in sharing on a percentage basis with the provinces there have been substantial percentage increases beyond the control of the federal treasury.
I have no idea what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) is going to introduce in his budget tomorrow night. One thing I do hope our federal finance minister will do at the finance ministers' conference which is coming up next week is put bluntly to the provinces, "You have been talking about provincial powers, you have been talking about the fact that the federal government is exercising its authority in areas where it should not be exercising such authority; how about now being specific? We have on going programs in areas which are entirely a provincial responsibility; do you believe we should re-negotiate these programs now, which would be of tremendous advantage to the federal government, or do you believe it
November 15, 1978

is of national importance that we maintain the programs in their present form?"
Even though the programs are ongoing, it is my firm belief we must have the position established with provincial finance ministers and provincial governments before we go much further in this debate regarding what we want in a new confederation. I am absolutely convinced that the people of this country have been somewhat mesmerized by the continuing statements of provincial premiers that the federal government is too strong and that more powers should be distributed to provincial governments. Personally it is my belief that the opposite should be the case. In the many discussions I have had, I have found that people, when you discuss directly with them what they believe should be the power of the federal government, agree that rather than decreasing federal powers there should be a transfer of some of the powers from provincial governments to the federal level so that we can act in many areas as a nation.
I feel, for example, and I am glad that the subject of the petroleum company has come up this afternoon, that resources in this country should be considered as belonging to the nation. Before we start an argument on this, that does not mean I want immediately to transfer control of all resources to the federal government. I only suggest that most people, I like to believe, feel that the lumber of British Columbia, the oil of Alberta, the wheat of the western provinces, the industrial might of Ontario, the hydroelectric power potential of Quebec, and even the potatoes of the maritimes and the fish of our coastal waters, belong to our country, and in that respect we should look upon them as being national resources, and we should under no circumstances accept from either private companies, as in the case of the oil industry, or for that matter even from provincial governments, any attempt to hold back on the development of resources that can be of national benefit.
The federal government has contributed so much in the resource area which at the present time is often ignored. For example, I wonder just how far the oil industry in Alberta would have been developed had it not been for federal intervention to assure a market for Alberta oil when it was much cheaper to buy it from foreign sources. I wonder where the consumers of fuel oil, heating oils, for example, in the province of Quebec and in the maritime provinces, would be if the federal government had not intervened to stabilize prices in this country, ensuring that the full impact of oil price increases was not borne by the consumers of these provinces. I wonder even, in spite of all the arguments I have heard in this House about the Wheat Board, where the western provinces would be if there was not a national policy for grain. I wonder today where the coastal provinces would be were it not for the position taken by the federal government to keep to ourselves our fishing waters.
All these things clearly indicate there has been in the past, and is continuing today, massive federal intervention in respect of resources of the country-resources which I suppose, according to the letter of our constitution, are provincial, but
Borrowing Authority Act
which the people of our country from coast to coast look upon as being national.
I feel we are now moving toward a realization that we as a nation must be able to control our own riches. I am very pleased to see we have acquired a major interest in the oil industry, and I certainly like the way it has been done. I feel that the continuing intervention by Crown corporations for the benefit of Canadians as a whole will achieve something we are not able to achieve through the private sector. It has been extremely difficult to encourage Canadians to participate fully in Canadian enterprises, or to the extent we would like.
Hopefully our Minister of Finance will come in one of these days with something regarding the capital gains tax that will make it a little more encouraging for Canadians to invest in Canadian corporations.
We are asking for the power to borrow more money. We need that additional borrowing power because we are in a deficit financing position. We are in a deficit financing position for two basic reasons: first, huge transfer payments to the provinces and, second, increasing cost caused by indexing, increased population in areas of social service programs, all of which are surely a stimulus to the economy. This point should not be missed by the Conservative opposition. Moneys which are paid-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Harold Thomas Herbert: I will just conclude my sentence, Mr. Speaker. These moneys paid in the area of social services are, in the main, moneys that are spent by the recipients. Old age pensioners, the majority of whom obtain the supplement, will obviously be spending these dollars. Women receiving family allowance cheques will be spending these dollars. These programs must surely be a direct stimulus to the economy. If the Tory party would look upon it from that point of view perhaps they would be a little less critical about the present deficit and less difficult in passing a bill which is so essential if we are to continue to manage our country in an efficient fashion.


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: At the calling of the orders of the day just a few minutes ago, sir, you witnessed a fine piece of footwork when the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) deferred his remaining time to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), one of the Liberal party's crutches, the former leader of the NDP and who, the government thinks, apparently is better at expounding its devious policies than any of its own members.


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Speaker, I was present in the House last evening when the parliamentary secretary made his remarks. As I understand it this afternoon, he merely stood up to
1172

November 15, 1978
Borrowing Authority Act
indicate that he had completed his comments, and it was as simple as that.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Anyone who was here last night, Mr. Speaker, knows that the parliamentary secretary had plenty of time to finish. If the government's policies were any good, why did he not remain to expound on them himself, instead of deferring to his ally in the NDP party, who spent all his time attacking the Progressive Conservative party and their policies? Both the Liberal party and the NDP party are in a federal eclipse, and the House has just witnessed one of their last frantic embracing gestures. I say to the Canadian people, "Don't vote Liberal or NDP, both of these parties are in bed together, with nothing but deceit and political trickery to offer as a solution to Canada's problem."
As I join in this debate on Bill C-7 I am reminded that on April 20 I made what I thought at that time would be my last major speech in this House. When I left for England on April 30 as a delegate to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference in London, I fully expected to return to the excitement of a federal general election campaign in this country. Instead I found that our country was still gripped in the turmoil caused by this confused and leaderless government. It is common knowledge right across this country that the government is in deep financial trouble, and has been for a long time. There is a five hour time limitation on the debate of this bill, the equivalent of closure, because the government cannot issue any bonds until it is passed.
This bill gives the Prime Minister and what is left of the Liberal party in this House the authority to borrow another $7 billion. The name of the session has changed since I returned from the old country from the third to the fourth session, but apart from that nothing else has changed. We are still mired in the same old political, social, and economic morass. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) does not seem to have heard the same message that we in this House have heard from people across the country. The message is that the Prime Minister has had his day and reached the end of his rope. It would be charitable and merciful if he should step aside and let the country recover its equilibrium with a new administration in charge.
On the occasion of my last speech I announced my voluntary retirement from active politics, and I did not expect to be here six months later debating still another government bill that turns out to be no more than another effort to borrow money. Just six months and 15 by-elections later I find that the government is setting still another record for spending and borrowing.
What we are getting is economic doubletalk. We hear from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) that we can still go deeper into the bottomless pit of national indebtedness without increasing per capita indebtedness. What a fallacy that is. There might have been a time two or three years ago when it would have been true, but even then it would have required some juggling on the part of those who were selling that theory. Today, with a greatly devalued dollar, reduced productivity, and even greater deficit spending, there is no way that

the Minister of Finance can sell such a theory; he will just have to think up a new one.
In the same vein, Bill C-7 seeks borrowing authority for the government to go into the market place anywhere in the world to borrow $7 billion, and at the same time amends the Financial Administration Act. While they were at it they should have asked for authority to amend the dictionary, and in particular to change the definition of "debt" and all its derivations. It now takes more than 15 cents of every dollar levied to carry our national debt. A year ago it was between 13 cents and 14 cents, but I am making that safe estimate of 15 cents now because there is at least 15 per cent discount on our money in the New York stock markets, which is the source of our emergency credit.
Unhappily, the government is faced with the same fact that the rest of us must face, that that debt means the same today as it meant yesterday, the same today as it meant 50 years ago, and the same today as it meant even to the Fathers of Confederation, and will mean the same in the years to come when our children and grandchildren are faced with a veritable mountain of lOUs, promissory notes, bond issues, and heaven knows what. The plain fact is that we are up to our eyeballs in debt, and yet this government wants more and more.
We are being asked to approve a further $7 billion of indebtedness, but we do not know for what it is to be used. If my leader had not jumped on the government and forced it to split its bill in committee, it would not have been $7 billion, it would have been $ 17 billion, but the government backed down on the other S10 billion.
What is the explanation we are given for the use of this money? Paragraph 2 of this five-paragraph bill reads:
-the sum of $7 billion, as may be required for public works and general purposes.
Given the record and the attitude of this government, we probably should be thankful for small mercies and for the fact that the writers even volunteered to mention what it would be used for, albeit in general terms. Government bills seeking spending authority keep getting shorter and shorter.
Previous speakers in my party and in other parties in the House have termed this bill a disaster. It would be difficult to improve on that, because a disaster is a disaster. The Trudeau government is the all-time record holder in Canada for profligate spending and for floating bond issues. Over the past two years this government has been floating bond issues to pay interest on interest on the national debt.
I would like to quote from today's Citizen, no handmaiden to Liberal policies of profligate neglect of our nation's business and her economy:
Canadians are desperate to see solutions to the country's economic problems and they're willing to make major sacrifices to achieve that objective-
The more the government spends, the more it prints money. The more money it prints, the less worth that money has. Once it's into the cycle, there's almost no way, short of draconian measures, to get out of it.
Part of the problem is government borrowing to finance over-spending.
November 15, 1978

Yes, that is true. I have stressed government borrowing to finance the payment of interest on interest on maturing obligations in the form of bonds.
The article in the Citizen continues:
In the process it imposes totally contradictory policies on Canadians and tries to explain those policies with unmitigated gibberish, pompous bluster and downright falsehoods.
A majority of Canadians may favor wage and price controls, but that preference should be seen as a willingness to bite the bullet, to make the sacrifices required to preserve this country's economic future.
The last few paragraphs in the Citizen editorial read as follows:
What it failed to do in the first ten years of its existence, the Trudeau administration now hopes to bring together in six months.
Is that the date of the election, six months from now?
Borrowing and deficit financing further debase and undermine our currency, and therefore our dollar falls in relation to the currencies of more responsible governments, the cost of imports goes up, and inflation soars.
In the last three years the government has been remarkably inactive in planning to reduce Canada's demand for imports. It has been equally delinquent in planning for increasing Canada's exports.
To return to the subject of the national debt, a subject which this government shies away from, but nevertheless it will have to face up to, we find that this is the third time in fiscal 1978-79 that the government has come to parliament to request an increase in its borrowing limit. Over the past two years these increases in borrowing authority have amounted to $28 billion, a 66 per cent interest in the national debt accumulation. I should add that "coming to parliament" is a hollow phrase. Those Liberal members vote as a pack, probably without even reading the bills, and so it is a foregone conclusion that Bill C-7 will pass.
Bill C-7 also authorizes the government to borrow in currency other than Canadian currency, and to repay loans in the currency in which it was borrowed. The plain fact is that the loans must be paid back in Canadian currency converted to the foreign currency borrowed, and the discount on the Canadian dollar must be paid. In the case of U.S. funds the exchange rate of 15 per cent to 17 per cent must be added to the average of 10 per cent interest, and to that must be added the two or three points that foreign buyers are discounting for our bond issues. This all adds up to an astronomical cost to our children and grandchildren.
Considering the growth in government spending and borrowing, and considering that we are being plunged headlong into massive public debt, there should be more, rather than less scrutiny of bills such as Bill C-7. There should be dollar by dollar accountability by parliament on the part of any government. It is obvious from this five-paragraph bill before us that accountability has been lost. It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that this government has lost control over our economy.
Accountability for public funds has always, at least until the past ten years, been an honour and a sacred trust. Under the reign of the present government it has now become somthing else. It is now a vital necessity to restore accountability to
Borrowing Authority Act
governments and ministers. The PC administration that will succeed this one will certainly stick to that code. Bill C-7 is a prime example of what I am talking about. Seven billion dollars is a lot of money to approve of spending for general purposes. I have to tell myself what I spend my money for, and so does each member of this House. We do not try to delude ourselves that we can spend vast sums of money and put it under the heading "general purposes", and yet the explanation in Bill C-7 as to what the money will be used for reads "For public works and general purposes" That is exactly six words, not even one word per billion. That is not an explanation, it is a put-off.
When I came to parliament 17 years ago I came from the municipal level of government where 1 learned my lessons on accountability of elected officials. As any hon. member who also came here from municipal politics can tell us, we did not strike mill rates for general purposes. Those rates are struck to cover the cost of specified expenses and services required by the corporate body, the municipality. I shudder to think of where I would be today if I had attempted to cover an item of, say, $20,000, by telling my colleagues to just charge it to general purposes. I know for certain that I would not be sitting here in this House.
Briefly, by way of qualification of this point, municipal government expenditures are controlled in three ways. Municipal governments are far more accountable than we are. First, council committees draw up their budgets. These are combined and brought before the whole council for debate and approval. Second, budgets are scrutinized and approved, in whole or in part, by the official arm of the province. In my case, it was the Ontario Municipal Board. In Ontario, and I suppose in other provinces, municipalities are creatures of the province and each has their municipal board. Third, mandates are often given by the people in the form of local referendums concerning certain types of laws and public improvements. There is naturally a certain amount of deficit financing allowed by the province since the province is responsible to the people. But it is not run-away deficit financing without accountability as we have seen over the past few years with this profligate government.
Day after day this government is stretching its credibility to the breaking point. Day after day the obedient ciphers on the Liberal benches across the way vote yea plunging the Canadian people further into debt. I have objected as strongly as possible to this government's practice of floating bond issues to pay interest on interest, but this has been to no avail. This practice is destroying parliament's confidence and the Canadian people's confidence in this government. They should do the honourable thing, get out and call an election.
This bill should be thrown out for at least two very good reasons-I know it won't be-but in the first place we do not have the faintest notion as to what the government wants the money for. I suspect that it is to pay interest on interest because it has to pay that, among other equally devious purposes. But the fact is that we do not know, and we know that we are not going to be told before this bill passes. Second,
80067-3'/2

November 15, 1978
Borrowing Authority Act
what we are being asked to do is approve a third mortgage for a client who is not able to pay even the interest on the first and second mortgages. That is certainly not good financial practice, Mr. Speaker. We should not be put into the position of approving this bill by aiding and abetting it here. I resent being put into that position. It is a perversion of the high trust of public office and it is a misuse of the high privilege of being allowed to cast a vote in this chamber. How much of this money will go to buy another oil company? How much of this money will go help shore up the shaky Trudeau buck in New York, London, and other world monetary markets?
In short, there is a misty aura of deception and doubt already created by the dismal record of this government which should make any member voting on this bill conclude that the borrowing authority which they have asked for, of another $7 billion, should be refused. But better still than that, an amendment should be moved to the Financial Administration Act prohibiting and forbidding any government of Canada or any government in Canada at any level to borrow money anywhere from anyone to pay interest on interest, making it illegal to place a third mortgage on Canada, our country, which is now financially embarrassed and in a state of near bankruptcy as a result of being too long governed by the false and phony policies of Trudeau liberalism.


Yves Demers: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to speak on a matter as important as borrowing money to ensure the efficient operation of the federal government.
I noted the speech of the previous speaker as well as those of other members of the Progressive Conservative party. It seems to me they are all mixed up about that bill requesting authority to borrow money. Most hon. members refer to borrowings and expenditures. The bill is merely aimed at borrowing money and does not authorize the government to spend it in various areas such as agriculture, fisheries and so on. It is merely a bill to borrow money.
If we want to borrow money, it is surely to do something, to spend it. As I said, however, that amount will not necessarily be earmarked for specific areas. It could be used, for example, to maintain what is commonly called the cash flow. It could also be used to repay matured bonds. In short, it could be used for many purposes.
The official opposition suggest that the Liberal government is spending money in an irresponsible way. However, since last August the Liberal government is cutting expenses in almost all departments, wherever it is possible to reduce expenses. In spite of those cuts, the official opposition still suggest that we spend far too much money. Yet in the course of the last election campaign the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) said that if he were elected he would allow Canadians to

deduct from their income tax return up to 55,000 in interests or taxes paid on private houses.
A few simple calculations show us that such an exemption would cost the federal treasury about $1.5 billion and again as much to the various provinces. In other words, by a very innocent electoral promise he commits himself and others to outlays of about $3 billion. Since we know that the federal budget varies between $43 and $44 billion, such an expense would represent 6 per cent of the total budget and would result from a very arbitrary and hasty promise. If that promise were enacted, it would cost $1.5 billion.
And the Conservatives have the nerve to say that we Liberals are irresponsible in our spending. I would really like to hear what they have to say about that $1.5 billion promise. My contention is that not only it would cost the government a fantastic sum of money but it would be unfair to all Canadians. Tenants who rent their homes would not benefit from that exemption. Yet when they pay rent these tenants also pay interests, taxes and unavoidably a portion of their landlords' profits. But when the landlord determines the rent, he takes into account these taxes and interests. I think it would only be fair, if these credits are allowed, to grant them not only to landlords but to tenants as well. Incidentally, the province of Ontario has a system through which such things as interests and taxes are deductible. True, this system is restricted to a very small amount but on the other hand, it applies to all Ontario taxpayers, whether they are homeowners or tenants.
Another thing is very important. People whose houses are mortgage free could not benefit from this exemption even if the Progressive Conservative party could pass it because they do not pay mortgage interest. However, if such a measure were accepted, these people could mortgage their home for a sum depending on its value, let's say, for $50,000. The same owner who took a mortgage loan of $50,000 on his house could go to Florida, buy a condominium and live there during the winter months. Then he would be eligible for the deduction for the interests paid on his mortgage, which means that Canadian taxpayers as a whole would finance a portion of the condominium in Florida.
I said earlier that the present government has been reducing expenditures as much as possible since last August. I would like to bring hon. members to a place where I agree with the limitation of expenditures, namely my constituency where it affects me particularly. As we know, Mr. Speaker, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has a definite purpose, which is to lend money to builders so that they resell their buildings to Canadian people with as little cash as possible. I understand that there are some other things related to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, but its main purpose is what I have just mentioned. However, along the way some contractors went bankrupt. The Central Morgage and Housing Corporation, as any mortgagee, was therefore forced to take over its property and in many cases even had to
November 15, 1978

complete construction, improve it and rent out to individual Quebeckers. And in Quebec a great many housing units belonged to CMHC. However, in view of management restraint, it decided to sell its properties, which were often rented 40 per cent to 50 per cent below market value, which means that indirectly CMHC was helping underprivileged people to have adequate housing at minimal cost. To recover its money, it is now selling its properties in Quebec. Before selling, it asked the Quebec Housing Corporation Authority, which is under provincial jurisdiction, to make offers on all its units. The Quebec Housing Corporation did in fact buy some of them, but at a minimal price.
However, I would like to explain also the difference between the role of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Quebec Housing Corporation. The main function of the Quebec Housing Corporation is not to lend money to promote construction and help Quebeckers become homeowners but to have buildings built or bought to rent them to underprivileged people so the poorer people in our society can have adequate housing.
I think the Quebec Housing Corporation should have bought a lot more of those units in Quebec. Furthermore, I realize that the Quebec Housing Corporation should have incurred deficits because its duty is to rent its housing units according to the capacity of the tenants to pay and not the market value. However, those deficits incurred by the Quebec Housing Corporation are financed 50 per cent by the federal government and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I realize that CMHC rented its buildings to individuals at reduced rates for a long time, because then the federal government was financing 100 per cent of those tax credits, but according to the law, those credits should be paid half by the federal government and half by the provincial government.
That is an example where the federal government is tightening its belt, recovering money and saving. I can also mention others, Mr. Speaker. In my riding there is the St-Vincent-de-Paul penitentiary. And now civil servants are being laid off, particularly staff working in the kitchens, and also office staff and even guards. And again the opposition which wants to spend $1.5 billion on a tax credit for housing is accusing the government of overspending. This is one specific area where we are saving the taxpayers money. In fact, I could mention all the departments, but one department where most members can see a saving in their ridings is the Post Office, which is spending a lot less than before. In the Montreal metropolitan area, for example, the Post Office has reduced the number of available boxes where people can deposit their mail. In the rural areas of my riding, we have boxes located on street corners, and the people living there must go and get their mail at those boxes. There again we have reduced the number of boxes and, of course, in doing so, we had to relocate them in
Borrowing Authority Act
perhaps somewhat more strategic and more central places so they could accommodate all the people in that same area.
Bill C-28 aims among other things at limiting the indexing of pension for public servants. I am not saying that it aims at eliminating indexing, but rather at limiting it. In my opinion, it would be a good thing if our public servants were limited to a reasonable amount because there is absolutely no restriction for most Canadian workers. There is also the unemployment insurance policy where there have been carefully thought-out cutbacks which will also save money for the federal treasury. For instance, in the past benefits represented a maximum of 66% per cent of the insured salary. This has been reduced to 60 per cent. We have also increased the number of weeks of work required for employees to become eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. I cannot give the list of everything that has been done in all areas because I would then have to list all the departments as there have been significant cutbacks in each one of them.
I noted one thing earlier when I read the speech made by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens). He said that if, instead of issuing federal government bonds on November 15 we were to postpone the issue until November 22, because this bill will not have been passed yet, this would cost $30 million more to the federal treasury in interest charges. He then said: If this bill is not passed, instead of November 22, it could be November 29. This would mean one week more and cost another $13 million. If the members of the Progressive Conservative party are serious, they should give us their support as soon as possible so that this bill can be passed and we can avoid needlessly paying current interests on Canadian bonds. I therefore urge them to act like responsible managers and responsible Canadians and allow this bill to pass as soon as possible so that the interests charged to Canada will be as low as possible.


Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to have the opportunity to make some comments with respect to the bill currently before the House. 1 always enjoy the opportunity to speak on measures that are constructive, measures which offer some means by which the problems facing us as a nation can be resolved. Unfortunately, the bill before us is one which somehow brings with it a feeling of unhappiness and unease because we are being asked in this measure, the first of economic consequence to be introduced this session, to authorize the borrowing of a further $7 billion for the financing of government operations. This, in itself is an indication that we are facing serious difficulties. It is an indication that the government has failed to come to grips with the problems which are besetting the nation. It also indicates that the administration has failed to find solutions for the problems which are of current concern, not only to members of this House but to Canadians generally. So, as we face the task of commenting on this legislation we find it necessary to go

November 15, 1978
Borrowing Authority Act
back and remind ourselves of some of the circumstances which have led up to the present serious financial situation.
For the past ten years the government has been engaging in a mad spending spree, with adverse results which are of tremendous consequence, and which call for immediate action.
May I call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It being six o'clock, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow afternoon at 2 p.m.
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, November 16, 1978