1978-03-16

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. During yesterday's meeting, March 15, of the Special Committee on a Northern Gas Pipeline, an internal departmental document was identified and was quoted in part.
In view of the fact that the government document states, "The government of Canada is prepared to extinguish native land claims if necessary by legislation to support its international word and commitment but it will do so in a way which represents the fairest possible settlement to those involved", and that the contents of the document could prejudice Indian and native people and impede meaningful negotiations, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That this House requests the Prime Minister to take the first opportunity on motions to clarify government policy with a view to reassuring the Indian and native people in the Yukon and British Columbia and indeed in Canada that the government will not legislate a unilateral settlement of native claims but will continue the policy of negotiating a fair and just settlement of those claims.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for discussion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask the unanimous consent of the House to deal with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that Chrysler Corporation today announced it will be shutting down its truck plant in
Windsor in July, with a loss of 800 jobs, while the operation moves to the United States, that within the last three years the federal government forgave Chrysler $17.5 million in duties built up because Chrysler had failed to meet its commitments regarding trucks under the auto pact, and that it is unlikely Chrysler will continue to be able to meet its commitments in the medium- to long-term after the closing of this plant, I move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt):
That this House instruct the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to personally intervene and take whatever steps are necessary to force Chrysler to maintain production in this country.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, such a motion can be discussed only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity for Quebec dairy producers and especially this government's integrity.
In view of the fact that the CDC is holding back part of the subsidies dairy producers should have received for their January 1978 production, that approximately 50 per cent of Quebec dairy producers have gone along with the government's request to comply with the set quotas, and that these are precisely the producers who are most severely punished by the CDC's decision, in spite of the fact that their only mistake has been to do their duty and comply with the government's regulations, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Belle-chasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the House direct the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) to order CDC Chairman Gilles Choquette to shed light on the marketing boards' quota tampering, and ask the federal government to cancel this shameful holding back from Quebec dairy producers of the subsidies they should have received for their January 1978 production.
80033-29%

March 16, 1978


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the hon. member's motion. 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.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgency under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that prepaid 1976 orders for Olympic coins remain outstanding, purchasers are unable to get delivery or refunds from Olympic coin dealers under this federally-legislated program for which the government should be accountable to the general public, and that the Post Office Department apparently will not accept responsibility, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington):
That the Postmaster General report to the House of Commons prior to the Easter recess of parliament on this important matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for discussion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House wishes to make it clear to the Minister of Finance that a speech by him at 8 o'clock tonight during the debate on Bill C-31 is not to be construed as a substitute for a budget, and this House calls on the Prime Minister to make it clear that there will be a budget before parliament is dissolved for the holding of a general election.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
[Mr. Beaudoin.J


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I rise to bring a matter of urgent and pressing necessity before the House regarding the critical situation in the Middle East.
While Canadians can understand the frustration which has led people to resort to violence and terrorism, such activities cannot be condoned, whether in the form of terrorism or open aggression. Such activities are unacceptable from any source. I therefore move:
That this government, at the earliest possible moment, bring forth initiatives at the Security Council of the United Nations, bilaterally with the United States and with the states currently in confrontation, that would re-stabilize the situation in the Middle East in order that earlier, positive peace initiatives may be resumed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that radon gas has been discovered in the ground-water supply in the city of Castlegar, in view of the fact that the Department of National Health and Welfare is to conduct a survey of the basements of residences in Castlegar for the detection of radon gas, and in view of the fact that up to now the federal government has ignored an application by that city for assistance under the DREE program, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen):
That the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion reconsider his decision to fund that community under the DREE program.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



March 16, 1978


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Fleming):
That in view of the kidnapping this morning in Rome of former premier Aldo Moro, a political figure respected internationally for his integrity and stature, this House express to the government of Italy the deep shock felt by this House and by the people of Canada upon learning of the kidnapping, and express the hope and prayers on Canada's part that Mr. Moro be freed unharmed and soon.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. In accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 43, such a motion can be presented for debate only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Oral questions.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce regarding our trade deficit in the automotive account that we note has risen 8.5 per cent to SI,088 million. The minister is quoted as having said on the CTV program "Question Period" recently:
We've done very well in the auto pact; we've only lost about a billion in parts.
He is also quoted as saying:
More agreements similar to that might help Canada.
I ask the minister if he is aware that we have had five consecutive years of trade deficits in the automotive account. That amounts to $5,653 million and represents 39 per cent of our total balance of payments deficit over the past five-year period. The Canadian study done on the auto pact by his department indicates that the share of new trade would decline because new investment is being concentrated in the United States. Does the Minister still believe that the government has
Oral Questions
done very well, noting the effect the automotive trade imbalance is having on our balance of payments?
Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): Mr. Speaker, there are many ways to look at the automotive pact. We gain in employment. We have 11.2 per cent of the employment in the automotive pact, and we have about 8.9 per cent of the market. Actually, our exports of automotive vehicles and parts increased something like 25 per cent last year. I hope that with the efforts we are taking in 1978, we will come much closer to balancing automotive trade between Canada and the U.S. in total parts and vehicles. The 8.5 per cent which the hon. member speaks of, if he compares that with the inflationary rate he will see that we are holding our own very well.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, I would never consider a trade imbalance of $1,088 million as "holding our own very well." Be that as it may, the automotive agreement is a bilateral agreement between the Americans and Canadians. However, from the Canadian side it is a multilateral agreement.
I ask the minister why the government has not negotiated with the Americans for a North American content in automobile production and specified this by agreement as to the percentage of components we could have in that content. Why has he not done this, to offset the terrible loss in automotive parts that we are suffering at the present time?


Mr. Horner:: Mr. Speaker, our exports of automobiles increased something like 26 per cent last year over 1976. In order to increase our export of vehicles, we have to import parts to put into the vehicles.


An hon. Member:: That is intelligent.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If our vehicle exports increase, then it is understandable in the agreement that many more parts might have to come into Canada in order to allow us to increase our exports of vehicles. If the hon. member is suggesting that we go to the United States and renegotiate the automotive pact, that is a thought which we have considered from time to time. But we have not given up on the auto pact. We believe that with a great deal more encouragement we can get more parts manufactured in Canada.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting that we necessarily renegotiate the auto pact, because it is an ongoing process. I am concerned about the parts which come in from Brazil and Mexico. I am talking about North American content. I ask the minister, what negotiations is he having with Chrysler Corporation regarding the closing of their truck plant in Windsor? Is he aware that we will lose 800 jobs? Does he know what effect this will have on our balance of payments and balance of trade? Also, what effect will it have on Chrysler's Canadian value added equation in the auto pact agreement?
State. Does the minister still believe that the government has

March 16, 1978
Oral Questions


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, my officials are in Windsor this week talking to Chrysler. I understand that Chrysler is to shut down one old truck plant. In the last two years they have spent $43 million in overhauling their new truck plant. They hope there will be no loss of jobs and that they will be able to accommodate the workers from the old truck plant in the new truck plant.


GENERAL MOTORS-POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING FOUNDRY IN CANADA
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The minister will recognize that, under the auto pact, our country is now facing an increasing deficit as concerns automotive parts, but according to certain information, it seems that General Motors would be very interested in establishing a large foundry in Canada. Can the minister tell the House if he has had personal negotiations with officials of this company concerning the building of a foundry in Canada in the near future?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times in this House, we are carrying on negotiations with the Big Three automobile manufacturers. They are considering a foundry such as the hon. member speaks of. For me to comment on it now would perhaps hinder, rather than help the negotiations. I know the hon. member wants to see the negotiations come to a successful conclusion. For me to intervene now and say something publicly would not help.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister responsible for these negotiations if there still is a possibility of a major foundry being established in Canada by General Motors, which would make us very happy, and can he tell us if he has recommended any locations for this project? If so, can he say where this foundry could be built in Canada?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, many areas are being considered. Here, again, I do not believe the government should decide where it is to be. We have placed before General Motors the options available to them in Canada, and we are awaiting their decision.


ANNOUNCED CLOSING OF CHRYSLER PLANT IN WINDSOR- INCREASE IN UNEMPLOYMENT
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. At 11.30 this morning the city of Windsor was informed by Chrysler Corporation that it was closing its truck plant, thus

creating unemployment of 800 in the Windsor area, in July of this year. When did the minister first become aware that that plant might be closing, what consultation did his department undertake with Chrysler Corporation, and what steps does he intend to take to keep the plant operating in the Windsor area?
Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): As I said, Mr. Speaker, my officials have been in Windsor all week discussing Chrysler's hopes and expectations with regard to that truck plant. It is not for my officials to say the truck plant is old and needs a complete overhaul, or that a new plant will not do the same work as the old plant is doing. As I said earlier, Chrysler has spent $43 million on a new truck plant and hopes to accommodate the workers laid off at the old plant.


John R. Rodriguez: The new branch plant is operating at almost full capacity at the moment; therefore, it will not be able to absorb another 800 workers. Chrysler Corporation is building a plant in Jefferson, in the United States, to replace the old truck plant. In view of the fact this government forgave $17.5 million in duties which were owed by Chrysler up to 1975 because they failed to meet their commitment under the auto pact for the production of trucks in Canada, what steps does the minister intend to take to protect those 800 jobs now, and to make sure that Chrysler does not again default in its commitments, having already received a gift of $17.5 million from the taxpayers of Canada?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I like the hon. member's term "use force" to force Chrysler. We are in a free society. We can encourage. As I have said many times, I do not particularly want to do away with the automotive agreement. My understanding is that the workers who are laid off now will receive 90 per cent of what they are earning. We will have to wait and see whether Chrysler can accommodate them in a new plant. They are merely on a temporary lay-off now and will receive 90 per cent of their salary.


John R. Rodriguez: Whenever we on this side of the House ask the government to do something beneficial for Canadians we are accused of forcing the company. However, when they announce sudden lay-offs they are never accused of forcing our hand. They are holding the taxpayers up to blackmail. That is absolutely callous on the part of the government. There are now rumours in Windsor of the same sort that preceded today's announcement, that Chrysler will soon be shutting down its six-cylinder operation in that city.
Can the minister tell this House exactly what meaningful consultation is going on with the company? Is he being kept aware of the company's plans? Has his department approved any further shutdowns or been informed of any further shutdowns by Chrysler? Is the minister going to simply sit there and say "There's nobody here but us chickens"?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to run down every rumour that I hear with regard to a shutdown of a plant. I would like to add to what I have already said that most of the
March 16, 1978

old plant that is now being shut down will be renovated and it is hoped it will be back in operation before the end of 1979.


AGRICULTURE
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Certain actions deserve questions and especially replies on the part of the Minister of Agriculture. My question concerns the Canadian Dairy Commission whose function it is to set and implement milk quotas for producers. In view of the fact that the CDC has withheld from Quebec milk producers the promised subsidies for milk production within the quotas set for January 1978, I would like to ask the minister if he does not think it a shame to penalize the Quebec milk producers by letting the CDC withhold the subsidies for their production in January 1978?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member has a copy of the letter which was sent to the dairy producers in Quebec. A meeting was held with their organizations on January 26 this year to try to iron out their difficulties, to determine who is getting the quota and whether they are entitled to receive quota payments. That has not yet been ironed out. They promised they would have this information for the Dairy Commission within a few weeks. I understand that a meeting between the two producer groups and the Dairy Commission will be taking place in Montreal this coming Friday.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary.
I should like to ask the minister whether he intends to cancel that holdback on the subsidies for the January 1978 production of the Quebec dairy producers, which consists of hiding the errors in the estimates and the lack of coordination of the CDC with regard to the producers. In addition, can he tell the House whether the CDC will be forced to tell the truth about the manipulation of the quotas by the market offices in Montreal and elsewhere?


Eugene Whelan: As far as I know, the CDC is a very honest organization. If anyone has any information that the CDC is doing something dishonest, I want to know that also. They want to make sure that the industrial milk subsidy goes to those who are entitled to it. The provincial marketing boards
Oral Questions
in Quebec, Ontario and other provinces have jurisdiction over the allocation of quotas. There is a mix-up in the province of Quebec, but they hope to iron it out on Friday. We are not satisfied with the way this quota is being paid in the province of Quebec.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer the question I put to him. I asked him specifically if the commissioners of the CDC will force the marketing offices, especially in the province of Quebec, to tell the truth about the manipulations or exchanges of quotas which I feel are completely abnormal?


Eugene Whelan: Everything within the power of the Dairy Commission will be done to make sure that any wrongs in Quebec or in any other province will be rectified.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
Mr. Speaker:: Before continuing with the question period, I invite all hon. members to join with me in recognizing the presence in our gallery of two very distinguished visitors from separate countries, heading delegations of great importance in our relationships, the first being Mr. Minoru Masuda, ViceMinister of International Affairs, Ministry of International Trade and Industry, Japan, and the other, Dr. Sandor Beckl, State Secretary and President of the National Bureau of Sport and Physical Education, Hungary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
John Robert Holmes: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief but important question for the Prime Minister. It arises from the fact that a departmental document discussed at the Special Committee on a Northern Gas Pipeline yesterday, stated:
The government of Canada is prepared to extinguish native land claims if necessary by legislation to support its international word and commitment but it will only do so in a way which represents the fairest possible settlement to those involved.
I ask the Prime Minister if he will reassure the Indian and native people of the Yukon and British Columbia, and indeed people across Canada, that the government will not legislate a unilateral settlement but will continue a policy of negotiating a fair and just settlement of native claims.

March 16, 1978
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that this phrase was taken from a document prepared at a lower level of the bureaucracy, indicating various alternatives. There is no hesitation on my part in repeating what the Deputy Prime Minister said last night before the committee, that there is no intention on the part of the government to proceed in any other way than by looking for a negotiated settlement. The legislation speaks for itself. It has been reported out of the committee today, I understand, and indicates no intention to legislate.


NORTHERN PIPELINE-B.C. WITHDRAWING FROM COMMITMENTS ON NATIVE LAND CLAIMS
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister relating to the document quoted by my friend, the hon. member for Lambton-Kent. The document also states that it is the intention of the province of B.C. not to accept any responsibility and, indeed, to withdraw from any previous commitments it might have made to the government of Canada in respect of the province's obligation on the question of Indian land claims. Can the Prime Minister inform the House whether that position can be confirmed and whether it would not be a serious hindrance to signing the pipeline treaty with the United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have no further details on the status of the negotiations with British Columbia. I do know that the Deputy Prime Minister has spoken to the authorities of that province on several occasions. As to the exact status of negotiations on Indian claims jointly with the province of B.C., the question would have to be addressed to the minister responsible for Indian affairs.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. It arises out of the rumours circulating in the metropolitan area of Halifax that the federal government has entered into negotiations or is giving serious consideration to the purchase of Mercator I from its present owners, an overhaul and modification program for it and its eventual turning over to the Bedford Institute of Oceanography for oceanographic purposes.
Can the minister indicate to the House whether or not he is aware of these negotiations, and whether or not any conversations are being carried out between the government of Canada and the government of Nova Scotia or any other related interests with respect to this procedure?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, as has been alluded to by the hon. member, and as I am informed-although I will check this-it is only a rumour.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Perhaps he could be given an opportunity to return from a visit to his Social Credit friends.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: My question is in reference to a serious misrepresentation which I think the minister has repeatedly made to the House. I refer, for example, to what the minister stated last Tuesday in reply to a question put by me, when he said:
I feel we should wait to see what effect the $3 billion tax cut which came into force on January 1 has on the economy.
That is just not true. There was no $3 billion tax cut effective January 1. I hope the minister will take this opportunity to explain why he so misled the House.
[Translation\


Hon. Jean Chrdtien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have on several occasions in my speeches given a breakdown of those $3 billion. I do not have the figures here with me but, if 1 remember correctly, S850 million came from the automatic indexation. There were the $700 million because of the $100 given for the months of January and February, and there was other information of the same nature, which I do not have now but which I shall give the House, in addition to about $900 million in incentives to the industrial sector.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The minister has outlined $1.6 billion of spending, which includes $850 million of indexing which, may I point out with all due respect, is not a tax cut. Would he not agree that the further $1.4 billion to which he referred were actually tax cuts which became effective one year earlier, starting January 1, 1977, and were certainly not felt for the first time on January 1 of this year?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have made those statements many times in the House. I have given explanations about it. The budgetary position of the government gave an impulse of $3 billion to the economy as of January 1. I will be pleased to give from time to time an explanation to the hon. member who does not seem to understand.
March 16, 1978


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. It has to do with another political kidnapping which took place this morning in Rome, that of former premier Aldo Moro. Does the Government of Canada intend to express to the government of Italy the deep shock felt by the Canadian parliament and by the people of Canada, and indicate our hopes and prayers that Mr. Moro will be freed soon, unharmed?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have already sent to the President of Italy, on behalf of the government, an expression of our sense of deep shock and grief which the government feels at such senseless violence. I added the thought that certainly in a democratic society, that kind of violence is absolutely unjustifiable in the furthering of a cause. I also added, on behalf of the government, our condolences to the people of Italy, to the former prime minister's family and to the families of the victims of these senseless murders.
The government certainly agrees with the terms of the motion put forward by the hon. member. Of course, I cannot speak on behalf of parliament, but I understand there have been some negotiations with members on the other side and they might be prepared to agree to the terms of the motion. However, I do not know if the negotiations have been undertaken with all concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question for the Solicitor General concerning the RCMP operative about whom we spoke yesterday. I ask whether he has been able to secure the co-operation of his colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, and whether he is able to assure the House that any commitments that have been made to this important operative, who has been in the country for some years and who still has services to perform, will be kept.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Without accepting that any commitments have been made, I will say that there have been discussions between myself and the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the matter is well in hand. As I have indicated to the hon. gentleman privately, I will be able to provide him with additional information in due course.
Oral Questions IMMIGRATION


DEPARTMENT'S CO-OPERATION WITH RCMP ON RCMP OPERATIVE
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief supplementary question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I believe the minister now realizes that this man wrote to him on several occasions last year. I believe the minister has now briefed himself from the file. Can he give us the assurance that there has been complete co-operation between the RCMP, in terms of its commitments to policy, and his department in carrying them out?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: With respect to the individual and the letter which the hon. member was good enough to show me yesterday, I would simply confirm that he is here on a ministerial permit and that no illegal action took place. Certainly, no commitment was made by my department to that individual.


CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP IN RETURN FOR UNDERTAKING RCMP INTELLIGENCE WORK
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the same minister and follow up on the policy area. Is it the policy of the government to offer landed immigrant status, and with that status the possibility of eventual citizenship status, to non-Canadians in return for work which they have done for our security services in the Canadian national interest?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not the policy of the government to offer landed immigrant status on that particular basis. I have a responsibility to Canadian citizens to see that individuals who make application to come to this country meet the standards and conditions set for people all over the world. However, from time to time we issue ministerial permits to accommodate people who want to come into this country. Representatives and members of the hon. member's party have requested permission for an individual to come into the country for a week or a month to participate in a particular forum or to make a speech at a particular time. We issue ministerial permits, but we do not give them landed immigrant status. Certainly in so far as citizenship is concerned, that, of course, is within the purview of the Secretary of State.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am not referring to the short-term minister's permits of which the minister and I have spoken on many occasions. I ask the minister whether he or the officials in his department have from time to time received representations from various governmental departments or ministers to have the Department of Employment and Immigration grant landed immigrant status to non-Canadians who have served in Canada's national interests on security matters. Further, can the minister indicate whether landed immigrant status was offered but turned down by his department after the offer had
3828

March 16, 1978
Oral Questions
been made by a department such as that of the Solicitor General?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the second part of the hon. member's question, individuals do not receive landed immigrant status. Representations may very well be made by departments. As I have indicated, we accommodate not only the office of the Solicitor General but hon. members opposite with ministerial permits. There has been no blanket policy or, for that matter, individual policy to indicate that landed immigrant status will be granted if a particular operation is performed. That commitment has not been made by my department. If it has been made by others, it was done without the knowledge of my department and certainly without its concurrence.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and follows questions posed by my colleagues several days ago in the House. On a number of occasions I have approached the minister's department asking that regions of southern and central Ontario be considered for DREE eligibility. In light of increased unemployment which indicates that these areas are every bit as needy as some other regions favoured by his department, is the minister now prepared to give my request serious consideration?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I give very serious consideration to representations made by hon. members on problems which they encounter in their own region but there are of course limits which I must respect. One must remember that I come across problems too, and I would like to say also to the hon. member and to those from this part of Ontario who made representations to ministers that we are currently negotiating amendments to existing agreements with the government of Ontario. So it is possible that within the next few days we will be able to announce that progress has been made which will allow us to help the regions mentioned by the hon. member.


William C. Scott: Mr. Speaker, on February 8, 1978, approximately five weeks ago, I wrote the minister suggesting that we get together to discuss this matter personally, as it affects my riding. I have not yet received a reply to that request. I ask the minister if he will consider discussing this important matter with me, so that I can present the case for the people of my region.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I can inform the hon. member that he will receive a reply, because I signed the answer to his letter a couple of days ago.


An hon. Member:: It is in the mail.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Paul E. McRae (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In spite of the success we have had in creating jobs in this country over the years-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Paul Edmund McRae: -by far the best of any other country in the OECD, there are still one million people unemployed. Given the high cost of creating jobs, is the minister giving consideration in a future budget to incentives for voluntary work-sharing and pairing so as to free-up a certain number of jobs?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, 1 will take the representation of the hon. member into consideration. When we have a budget, we will see if we can do something along those lines.

[ Translation]


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Could the minister tell the House whether there were some new developments in the case concerning the establishment of the ferrosilicon plant in Rimouski?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, not as far as I know as I checked the matter not long ago and there was no development in connection with that case.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question. Considering the minister's reply, could he tell the House whether he expects an early settlement of the matter?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, not at the rate at which the case is evolving. I would be quite surprised if a decision was taken during the next few months.
March 16, 1978


EDUCATION
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. It relates to the protests which are taking place on many university campuses today. Given the fact that some provincial governments have announced funding cutbacks to universities, which will be reflected in higher tuition fees and reduced student aid, thereby discouraging many young people from attending postsecondary institutions and throwing them into a disastrous labour market, will the minister urge the government to institute an emergency program of federal grants for needy students, since the present federal loan program alone does not meet student needs and is only an invitation to go deeper into debt?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, we are concerned about this problem. It is for that reason I hope to be able to introduce in the House very shortly amendments to the Canadian student loans plan. I hope the hon. member will be able to give me his assurance that his party will give prompt and speedy passage to those legislative changes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that the minister knows full well that national students' organizations object to merely increasing loans because that decreases the grants allotted to students, I hope the minister takes my first question seriously. By way of supplementary, since graduating or terminating students must begin repayment of student loans six months after leaving their educational institutions, and in light of the disastrous unemployment rate, will the minister ensure that any bill to amend the Student Loans Act will provide that students need only begin to repay the loans after first obtaining full-time employment?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I have already given the hon. member that assurance privately that I will explore this.


FINANCE
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Has he seen a copy of the question which I asked yesterday in the House concerning the Registered Retirement Savings Plan conversions?


Hon. Jean Chr6tien (Minister of Finance):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have checked with people in my office and in the department. There is absolutely no foundation to that rumour.
Oral Questions


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice in his capacity as the chief law officer of Canada. Has he had any requests from any other minister, or from anyone, to lay any charges under the Official Secrets Act against any persons in the media or in any corporation? If so, has he made a decision in that regard, in light of his statement in the Globe and Mail this morning?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member would agree with me that it is a long-standing tradition in the House for attorneys general or law officers of the Crown not to speculate on whether charges are going to be laid. Therefore, I will not answer his question except to say at this point that I have signed no consent for any prosecutions under the Official Secrets Act. I appreciate the fact that the hon. member for Leeds and other hon. members of the House have a lively interest and, in fact, a right to know as quickly as possible what my position may or may not be. At the same time, I hope the hon. member for Calgary North appreciates that in a matter of this nature my decision should be arrived at with some care.


PENITENTIARIES
[Stage Direction]
ST. J£rOME-INVOLVEMENT OF GOVERNMENT IN NEGOTIATIONS RESPECTING HOSTAGE-TAKING INCIDENT
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General to whom I gave notice a few moments ago. The question relates to the hostage-taking incident in St. Jerome at the provincial institution. I acknowledge that it is a provincial responsibility, press releases in the last hour have indicated some form of approach to the federal government, presumably to the Solicitor General or the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
I ask the Solicitor General if it is his position that any direct involvement by the federal government would only be at the request of the province of Quebec and its appropriate minister, or would the federal government become involved on the basis of a request from the negotiators, for example?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, the former case is the one I have followed and intend to continue following, namely, that the proper channels will have to be followed, and that would be through the intermediary of the minister of justice of the province of Quebec.
3830

March 16, 1978
Oral Questions NATIONAL DEFENCE


PURCHASE OF LEOPARD I TANKS
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Can the minister tell the House if he has agreed to have available an extra $60 million to give to the Department of National Defence for its capital budget for the financial year 1978-79 or, indeed, for this financial year, if the department discovers that due to adverse foreign exchange costs it has to pay up to $50 million more than it planned to for the purchase of Leopard I tanks? Is there some kind of contractual link between the ministers in this regard?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I think that question should be addressed to the Minister of National Defence.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday evening the Minister of National Defence said that he had voluntarily surrendered $60 million to the Treasury Board in cash flow this year on the understanding that as the program progressed, that money would be recovered; in other words, it would be added to the end for when it is required.
Does the minister have any contract or firm understanding that the President of the Treasury Board would be prepared to rise and tell us about in the House of Commons, or is it just a handshake arrangement?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows from being at the committee meeting the other night, this money goes to contracts which could not be entered into without great care this year. They will be added on at the end of the contract. The delivery of equipment will be the same. It is not to be diverted to any other purpose. It is our understanding with the Treasury Board that that will take place.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I hate to ask a second supplementary question of the same minister, but he has had $60 million taken out of his estimates. Does he have anything in writing, any note, any IOU, or some contract with the President of the Treasury Board that he will get that $60 million back?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board and I do not work on contractual arrangements. It is certainly an understanding. The programs will not be impaired.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the substantial economic development that the

government has indicated will follow the construction and completion of the Alaska pipeline, can the minister advise why his department has not taken any initiatives to discuss economic development with municipal and regional officials in northern British Columbia? Will such discussions take place and, if so, when; or are things going to be left to chance?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, there are discussions now going on between my officials and some other officials of the provincial government. Contrary to what the hon. member has suggested, there are no negotiations with municipal authorities but there are consultations between provincial authorities, some officials of provincial departments and officials of my department who are trying to put into force a subagreement on the industrial development of that province which was signed last year.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Last week the minister admitted rather reluctantly to the Standing Committee on Agriculture that he was going back to cabinet with a new proposal for the financing of the Co-op Implements' operation in Winnipeg. Does he have a decision on that? He was going to cabinet last Thursday, as we understood it. If he has a decision, could he indicate to the House what it is?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the supplementary estimates for agriculture had an item for Co-op Implements of $8.5 million. We are having some difficulty getting the provinces to come up with an equal amount to match that. I think those difficulties are being ironed out at the present time, because I believe the province of Alberta met with Co-op Implements' officials and their lawyers. I hope they are in agreement by now. I am very optimistic that it will be finalized at the end of this month, which is the deadline.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Jim Fleming (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. Considering that this year marks the one-hundredth anniversary of the Canadian National Exhibition, and that community spokesmen from the municipal and federal levels in Toronto have been pressing for government of Canada participation in the celebrations, can the minister say if he will act on these appeals and ensure a proper federal presence at the one-hundredth anniversary?
March 16, 1978


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, we believe it is important for the federal government to have a clear and obvious presence at this function. We are making arrangements for the rental of the automotive building and are gathering together all the federal government exhibitors who for many years have exhibited at the CNE. This year, for the one-hundredth anniversary, we will have them gathered together in one building.


POST OFFICE
Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. Because at least one Olympic coin dealer ignored a double-registered letter and telephone calls related to undelivered, prepaid Olympic coin orders, plus the fact that some of these dealers are rumoured to be on the verge of bankruptcy, will the government accept responsibility for supplying the coins ordered or refunding the purchase price to customers, as they operate under federal legislation?


Hon. J.-Gilles Lamontagne (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the fact that it is federal legislation, I do not believe that the government has any responsibility with regard to the financial predicament of this Olympic coin dealer. Therefore I think the only thing to do is to try to find a way to help those who seem to have been cheated and to assist them.


Thomas Gordon Towers: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Due to the fact that Canadian Olympic coin dealers are not filling orders for which they have received payment-in some cases over a year ago-can the Postmaster General assure this House that the same situation did not occur in other countries?


Mr. Lamontagne:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to tell the hon. gentleman that this question is under review in my department and a decision will be taken soon.


COMMONWEALTH GAMES-LACROSSE DEMONSTRATION BY NATIVE TEAM
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport). Since the Commonwealth Games will be holding a lacrosse demonstration in Edmonton this summer, and a native
Privilege-Mr. Rodriguez
team has not been invited to participate, could the minister use her good offices to intervene in this situation?


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, I have already intervened. There was a suggestion that one native team from the St. Regis reserve should participate in the Senior B championships. They declined because they did not wish to attend the Commonwealth Games but would rather attend the Senior B championships to be held this year in British Columbia. I am investigating the possibility of a midget team demonstrating techniques of lacrosse at the Commonwealth Games. This is not yet settled.


POST OFFICE
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. It concerns a disturbing rumour. Can the minister advise whether his department is giving consideration to closing all post office box lobbies after regular working hours?


J. Judd Buchanan: Not that I am aware of, Mr. Speaker. I think this question should be addressed to my colleague, the Postmaster General, but certainly I am not aware of any policy in our department to do that.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, may 1 put a supplementary question to the Postmaster General? Is there any truth in the rumour that the Post Office department is giving consideration to closing all post office box lobbies after regular working hours?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no foundation to that rumour.


PRIVILEGE
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, about a week ago, on Wednesday, March 8, I raised a question of privilege relating to alleged electronic surveillance of myself by one Warren Hart. When Your Honour replied to me on that date you made comments which gave me guidance in preparing the motion which I am now prepared to introduce. If you find that I have a prima facie case of privilege I would ask that you put this motion to the House.

March 16, 1978
Business of the House
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
That the allegation by one Warren Hart, in a sworn affidavit, that he taped electronically, on one or more occasions, the hon. member for Nickel Belt, together with the admission by the Solicitor General that the said Warren Hart was for a time in the employ of the RCMP, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, for the prupose of inquiring into the said allegation and the circumstances relating to any such electronic surveillance of the said hon. member, including an inquiry as to what happened to any tapes of the said hon. member that may have been made by the said Warren Hart.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is referring back to circumstances which had been raised several times by himself initially when the information was first brought to the attention of the House, and subsequently by a proposed motion of privilege which I adjudicated upon, as he has just described. At that time I indicated that if the motion was to be purged of discrepancies or alleged discrepancies with statements made by the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) which have been accepted by the House, and certain other difficulties, it may stand on its own merits. It raises a very serious matter, as I indicated then.
It may very well be that after due deliberation the House ought not to be deprived of the opportunity to address itself to this very important question as to whether electronic surveillance, which is, after all, a very recent and new development, constitutes that kind of interference in the activities of the member of parliament which would stand on the same basis as both classic kinds of interferences which were the basis of privilege in the early days' precedents. Therefore, I hope the hon. member will grant me a few days to consider the matter to see whether the House ought to pronounce itself on this important issue. I will endeavour to adjudicate it in a final way either on Monday or Tuesday.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the usual House business question. I understand that the pipeline bill is now out of the committee. In fact, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made reference to that. All of us are happy that is so. Could the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) tell us what priority he attaches to that in terms of dealing with it now that it is back in the House? While he is doing that, since this is the last House business question that we can ask in the ordinary way before the adjournment at Easter time, could he tell us what the government's intentions are with respect to the legislation we will be dealing with when we come back here April 3?


An hon. Member:: If we come back.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) knows the business for today. Tomorrow we will deal with Bill C-26 then, if possible, Bill C-21. There is a bill in the name of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Faulkner) which may

be given first reading today that would be considered. With respect to the northern pipeline bill which will be reported out of the committee either today or tomorrow, I would propose to deal with that bill probably beginning Tuesday so that hon. members might have an opportunity to put down whatever amendments they wish to place before the House. Following that, the amendments which we hope will come out of the committee relating to the anti-inflation program would be dealt with following the northern pipeline bill.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it might be helpful to the House if we could be advised today what the government's legislative priorities are as we look toward spring as it turns into summer. Given the fact there are some rumours that we might be facing an election this year, it would be interesting to know what the government intends to deal with specifically prior to that election. If my hon. friend is in a position to tell the House today, it would be most helpful indeed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to indicate what business we have on our priority list, provided the hon. member will not hold me to an obligation to deal with it before an election. There are a large number of items on the order paper and we will be bringing them forward-as has been indicated, the bill relating to a referendum and possibly bills relating to constitutional reform. As the hon. member knows, there are on the order paper proposals relating to the Public Service Staff Relations Act, and to the Farm Credit Act which are also very high on the priority list. We will have a rather substantial body of legislation to deal with, including a possible budget after we return.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, there is one other matter I would like to mention. I would like to inform my friend that if the government wanted to deal with the pipeline bill this evening, from the point of view of getting it back in the House, if necessary we would be prepared to give consent for that few moments to deal with that matter, because there is some anxiety that we deal with it quickly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I trust that the additional matter which the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) raised just now can be left to consultation.
May I ask a question of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) with respect to a possible budget, to which he has just referred? I realize that the hon. gentleman's right hand does not know what the right hon. gentleman to his left has in mind regarding an election. But there have been suggestions by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) that he might not bring a budget down until the month of May, which would mean that there would be no budget if the election is to be held in June. In view of that fact, will the Deputy Prime Minister take this matter up with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and ask him to make it clear to the House that there will be a budget before an election is called? Surely the Deputy Prime
March 16, 1978

Minister agrees that it would be unthinkable for the government to go to the country without presenting a budget.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have already discussed these matters with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). They are under consideration, and the additional views of the hon. member, which seem to be in the direction of putting off an election as long as possible, will be considered.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend, as he often does, has misinterpreted what I said. The election can come as soon as the government will bring it on. My point was there should be a budget before there is an election.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, it is very entertaining to see the old hands of the House play around with the procedure! In any case, in his initial answer to the House leader of the opposition, the President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) mentioned a number of bills which will necessarily have to be studied and possibly agreed to by the House, and many sittings will be required to do this. I would not want, either to be indiscreet, Mr. Speaker, about the conversation I had with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) during the sitting, to the full knowledge of everybody. We were not hiding away, Mr. Speaker, that took place right here.
Anyway, to come back seriously to the proceedings of the House, I should like to ask the President of Privy Council whether it will actually be possible to deal with these bills in a normal way. I am prepared, as well as my colleagues, to give my support so that parliament and the administration of our country will operate normally. However, it is only normal for us to obtain a guarantee from the President of the Privy Council that he will give us the opportunity to work within normal delays, notwithstanding the holding of a general election. Naturally, we are ready to face a general election when the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) decides to hold one, but let us forget that for now and let us work so as to govern our country in the best possible way. Having said that, I should like the President of Privy Council to state clearly if all the bills he mentioned a moment ago will be dealt with in a normal way, so that we can discuss them normally and adopt them for what they are worth.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has introduced a caveat into his question which I accept, namely the possibility of an election. Apart from that, legislation will be dealt with in the normal way.


Mr. McGrath:: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, in September, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) promised legislation dealing with a separate Department of Fisheries. That is a very important matter and, in the Atlantic provinces, a
Economic Council
matter of some priority. Last Monday in the House the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) indicated there would be legislation setting up a separate Department of Fisheries and that this was a matter of some priority. May I ask the government House leader if we can expect this legislation amending the Government Organization Act to set up a Department of Fisheries either before the House is dissolved or a summer recess, whichever comes first.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we place a high priority on this legislation. I am glad the hon. member has mentioned it. We will introduce it just as soon as possible and deal with it just as quickly as hon. members wish, which I believe will be very quick indeed.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, there is one question regarding the order of business following immediately. My friend mentioned his intention to call Bill C-26, followed by Bill C-21. Would he consent to reversing that order and calling Bill C-21 first? I can say to him the debate will be very short indeed and we can dispose of it as soon as it is out.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-21, I gather, is the Transfer of Offenders Act. I believe that will be satisfactory.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services-Mr. Coates.

[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs-Mrs. Holt.
[Editor's Note: For texts of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. President, pursuant to Standing Order 41,1 would like to table in the two official languages a letter I sent to Dr. Sylvia Ostry, Chairman of the Economic Council of Canada.

This letter requests that the Economic Council take on certain responsibilities for analysis of inflation and productivi-

March 16, 1978
Trade
ty developments in the period after April 14, 1978, and sets out the conditions and limitations of this reference.


HONOURS AND AWARDS
Mr. Robert Daudlin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I request permission to table the nominal roll of recipients of the Queen's Silver Jubilee Medal 1977 pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), at the same time advising that the same lists, collected and bound by province and territory, will be placed in the Parliamentary Library for the use of hon. members. I am certain all hon. members will join me in congratulating those deserving Canadians who have been the recipients of this expression of the esteem in which they are held by their fellow Canadians and Her Majesty the Queen.


NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
J. Judd Buchanan: for leave to introduce Bill C-32, respecting facilities and meetings in the National Capital Region and matters related thereto.


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

J. Judd Buchanan: for leave to introduce Bill C-33, to amend the Canada Elections Act, the Election Expenses Act and the Northwest Territories Act in respect of territorial elections.


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

Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-34, to repeal the Canada-France Trade Agreement Act, 1933.


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

Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that many milk producers are being penalized by way of a withholding of the subsidies they have earned on the January 1978 production for the quotas they have respected, and since nothing has been provided by the government to regulate the implementation of quotas and since certain delay is needed to hold a cabinet meeting where alternatives could be submitted which could settle that intolerable situation for Canadian milk producers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That this House do now adjourn.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.

(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)


Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 136, 1,090, 1,169, 1,239 1,271, 1,292, 1,305 and 1,316.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


DEEP SEA LOBSTER FISHERY
Mr. Crouse: 
GRANTS TO NATIVE ASSOCIATIONS IN NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Marshall: Of the $8.4 million provided by the Department of the Secretary of State for care funding of native associations, what was Newfoundland's allocation?


John (Moody) Roberts: Secretary of State: The Secretary of State Department disbursed the following amounts to native associations in Newfoundland in 1976-77: Indian and Metis Association of Newfoundland/Labrador, $215,176.24; Labrador Inuit Association, $131,290.00; Cartwright Interim Committee, $10,473.00. Total, $356,939.24.

March 16, 1978
Order Paper Questions


TOTAL NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES IN THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
Mr. Andre: 1.	For each of the past ten years, what was the total number of employees in the Post Office Department?
2.	For the same years, how many (a) pieces of (i) first class mail (ii) second class mail (iii) third class mail (b) parcels were handled by the Post Office Department?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: 1.
March 31, 1968-Information not available; March 31, 1969-46,838; March 31, 1970-47,599; March 31, 1971- 47,924; March 31, 1972-49,958; March 31, 1973-52,207; March 31, 1974-55,421; March 31, 1975-60,208; March 31, 1976-63,460; March 31, 1977-66,762.
2.	See following statement.
Originating Mail Volumes Pieces (Millions)
Categories	1967/68	1968/69	1969/70	1970/71	1971/72	1972/73	1973/74	1974/75	1975/76	1976/77First Class	2,586.4	2,531.7	2,708.2	2,723.0	2,699.0	3,141.3	3,347.4	3,504.0	3,243.8	3,684.7Second Class	694.3	673.1	518.6	504.7	448.1	443.8	446.9	445.3	433.9	398.2Third Class	1,331.4	1,375.1	1,206.2	940.6	1,147.0	1,007.3	1,144.6	1,222.8	1,134.7	1,514.4Fourth Class	96.5	85.4	80.4	74.3	81.9	87.8	75.5	72.9	61.9	65.9Special Services1	31.3	28.5	31.4	28.3	28.32	33.34	36.8	40.8	40.6	47.2Government Free Mail	257.7	263.1	269.7	282.3	308.83	37.7	23.8	31.2	25.9	33.6Total	4,997.6	4,956.9	4,814.5	4,553.2	4,713.1	4,751.2	5,075.0	5,317.0s	4,940.8	5,744.01	Special Services includes C.O.D.
Registration Money Packets Special Delivery
2	Includes Post Pak
3	Free Mail Abolished Except for Senate and House of Commons
Governor General Privy Council
4	Includes Certified Mail
5	Year of Major Strike


GRANTS TO THE HOCKEY CULTURAL EXCHANGE
Mr. Epp: Did the government make any grants to the Hockey Cultural Exchange Program and, if so (a) in what amounts (b) for what purposes?


Iona Campagnolo: In so far as the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) is concerned: No program entitled "Hockey Cultural Exchange Program" was funded. However, during the 1973-74 fiscal year the University of British Columbia Team was chosen by the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association to visit the People's Republic of China. The Fitness and Amateur Sport Branch and the Department of External Affairs shared the cost of $39,500 which was used for travel. This same cost-sharing arrangement was implemented during the 1976-77 fiscal year, when the University of Toronto Team visited the People's Republic of China. The cost of this trip was $48,000. On both tours, coaches and referees clinics were conducted in China by the Canadians.


CBC-AMOUNT SPENT ON TELEPHONE CALLS FOR VARIOUS PROGRAMS
Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi): 1.	In 1977, what amount was spent on telephone calls by CBC for the programs (a) As it Happens (b) Cross Country Check-up (c) Morning Side?
2.	Does CBC intend to establish production facilities in the Province of New Brunswick and, if so, on what date?
3.	Does CBC intend to provide access to AM and FM programming by the Corporation to the citizens of northern New Brunswick and, if so, on what date?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. It has not been customary to require the CBC to provide such details of its internal management and administration as the costs involved in producing programs. The background to this custom is explained in detail in the reply to question No. 2,530, May 22, 1975.
2.	The CBC now has French radio and television production facilities in Moncton and Fredericton, as well as English radio production facilities at Moncton, Fredericton and, to a lesser extent, Saint John. The Corporation is planning additional English television production facilities at Saint John, Fredericton and Moncton which will improve production capability and distribution. English radio facilities will be enlarged at Saint John and staffed to originate local programming. The projects are expected to be completed within the next couple of years.
3.	CBC has planned the full AM radio coverage of northern New Brunswick, and discussions are to be held with DOC and CRTC with respect to the use of the FM band for this purpose. FM stereo service in northern New Brunswick is not anticipated in the near future. Because of budget limitations no dates for extension of AM service can be given at this time, but it is a Corporation priority to provide service to those areas not now served.

March 16, 1978


CANADIAN FORCES EXCHANGE SYSTEM FACILITIES
Mr. Jones: 1.	What is Canex?
2.	Are such operations under the direct supervision of the Armed Forces Personnel or are they under the control or operation of the Canadian Armed Forces, the Department of National Defence, the Department of Supply and Services, and/or any other organization?
3.	How many Canex stores are in operation within Canada and without?
4.	What is the total volume, expenses, profits or deficits and details of financial situations of each unit and in total over the last ten (10) years?
5.	Who are permitted to make purchases and sales at each Canex operation?
6.	What are the qualifications to become a purchaser or seller of goods in any Canex operation?
7.	Are such stores or operations open to the Armed Forces Personnel only or are they also open to civilian personnel and public as well?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1.
Canex (Canadian Forces Exchange System) is a system of retail sales outlets operated on Canadian Armed Forces bases, stations and ships for the benefit of military personnel and their families.
2.	Operations are under the direct control of a Board of Directors shared by the Chief of Defence Staff.
3.	Retail Stores, 66; Supermarket/Groceterias, 60; Service Stations/Gas bars, 70; Cafeteria/Snack bars/Canteens, 55; Vending Operations, 35; Total, 286.
4.	To provide detailed data on volume, expenses, profits etc. for each of the above unit outlets would require researching hundreds of financial statements all over Canada and overseas for which the department does not have the necessary resources. However, volume and profit for the total Canex operation was as follows:
Fiscal Year	Sales ($000,000)	Net Profit ($000,000)1968/69	54.2	3.01969/70	70.2	4.01970/71	72.0	3.01971/72	72.5	3.51972/73	75.8	3.31973/74	87.2	5.11974/75	103.8	6.41975/76	112.0	6.61976/77	125.4	6.55.	Purchasing Personnel-Base or Station Canex Officers, Sales Personnel, Civilian personnel hired and paid by Canex and at some isolated units with a small Canex operation, Canadian Armed Forces personnel are involved on a part-time basis.6.	Appropriate experience and training, and integrity to carry out the task in a responsible manner.7.	Personnel authorized to use Canex are members of the regular forces and civilians employed by DND and their dependants, members of the Reserve Forces when on duty, retired military personnel and widows in receipt of a forces pension, retired DND civilian personnel in receipt of a pension,
Supply
Canex employees, DND school teachers and members of the RCMP and their dependents.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-MAN-DROPS BY AIRBORNE REGIMENT AND SPECIAL SERVICE FORCE, 1976 AND 1977
Mr. McKinnon: 1.	How many man-drops did the Airborne Regiment accomplish during the period September 1 to December 31, 1976?
2.	How many man-drops did the Airborne Regiment and/or the Special Service Force accomplish during the period September 1 to December 31, 1977?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1 and
2. Airborne Regiment: September 1 to December 31 1976- 2,354; Special Service Force: September 1 to December 31 1977-2,091.


NUMBER OF IMMIGRANTS
Mr. Laprise: In (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977, did immigrants settle in (i) Canada (ii) the Province of Quebec (iii) the Constituency of Abitibi and, if so, in each case, how many?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: (i)	(*i)	(iii)(a)	187,881	28,042	not available(b)	149,429	29,282	not availableFirst nine months (c)	90,974	15,401	not available


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Robert Knight Andras: that Bill C-31, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1979, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me this opportunity of becoming involved in this very significant debate. It is significant because I note that the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) indicated

March 16, 1978
Supply
on November 7, 1977, that there was a new procedure required with respect to interim supply, and that a bill would be brought in which would give the intention of the government and, as a matter of fact, give some evidence providing a new procedure that will give ample opportunity for normal debate.
We have a bill before us, but as far as I am concerned this is not the bill to which we should be directing ourselves at this particular time. Once again I am shocked at the lack of credibility of the government.
I should like to refer to Hansard dated November 7, 1977, at page 646, which reads as follows:
In the past, borrowing authority has normally been sought in one of the first appropriation acts of a new fiscal year. The long-established procedure was to attach a clause requesting new borrowing powers to supply bills brought before the House. However, as hon. members are aware, this procedure provided no opportunity to debate the authority being sought. In the past two years, following a recommendation by the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization and agreement between the House leaders, one day was established for debate on this topic. Furthermore, it was agreed that the government would change the procedure for obtaining new borrowing authority.
I should like to emphasize that. It continues:
The government intends to introduce a bill soon providing a new procedure which will give ample opportunity for normal debate.
I do not know where that bill is. We are extremely disappointed. We do not know what the procedures are, nor do I call this a normal debate. As I understand it, all stages of this bill have to be completed by this evening.
Also I am concerned when I note the cheek of the government. It is asking for more money at this particular time, to the extent of approximately $5 billion. This is after repeated requests by the opposition, and by the people of Canada, for a budget. As yet we do not have that budget. If I understand correctly, we are liable not to have one. As a matter of fact everyone in the House is prepared to bet that we will go to the people without any budget whatsoever. That is a shameful attitude for any government to take, given the fact that the country is in one solid mess.
I do not understand this government. We have had ten years of ineptness and mismanagement, and yet ministers walk around saying that everything is great. The dishonesty and incompetence that are being practised by this government are appalling. When I think of the forecasts that are so out of whack and how this affects the unemployed, those on fixed incomes, the poor, it seems to me that the economic advisers leave very much to be desired in this regard. They have been wrong in their forecasts in terms of growth, inflation, and unemployment, and yet the Minister of Finance on a number of occasions has indicated that he has every confidence in these people. I should not say that they are incompetent, because I do not think that is fair, but I will say they leave very much to be desired in terms of advising the Minister of Finance. On the other hand, he does not seem to know that the advice that he is being given has been totally wrong.

It is little wonder that no one has any confidence in this country. Here we are bumbling and fumbling along toward economic disaster. We ask serious questions in this House of the Minister of Finance. It is no laughing matter when you have one and one half million, including the hidden jobless, unemployed. What does the minister do? He just pushes aside our questions with facetious answers, red herrings, and hooting by his own back benchers, who are callous and just take an attitude regarding the plight of our unemployed that, to me, is most astonishing.
What we need around here-and I do not know how we are going to get it until we have a change in government-are medium and long term forecasts that can be relied upon in terms of growth, inflation, and unemployment. We are not on the track right now.
Regarding last month's economic summit-which was a triumph for the provinces and a disaster for the federal government-it seemed to me that the leadership came from the provinces. I sat there and listened to first minister after first minister indicating what their plans were for the development of this economy of ours. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Finance, all of them, they sat around in awe until the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) came up with that big flim-flam of his regarding jobs. It was one of the most dishonest presentations I have ever heard, and there the minister sits smiling.
I would like to read something from Don McGillivray's column in the Ottawa Citizen of March 10:
Finance Minister Jean Chretien's dream of a good start on recovery this year, without extra stimulus, has faded in the face of adverse statistics:
Just let me read about four or five lines further:
Canadians are socking more money away into savings-11.2 per cent of their after-tax income in the last three months of 1977, a jump from 10.4 per cent in the previous quarter.
In other words, there is no confidence in this government nor the economy.
Business investment shows no sign of revival. It was down by $162 million, or 1.6 per cent, in the last quarter of 1977, after allowing for seasonal factors.
Once again, this shows no confidence in this government nor in the economy.
Statistics Canada's latest survey of business capital spending intentions this year shows a gain of about $1 billion or 3.4 per cent. But this turns into a drop of about $1 billion when stated in 1977 dollars, minus inflation.
Again, there is no confidence in this government nor in the economy.
Corporations are afraid of being caught with too much stock on hand if demand weakens. They have started to cut back on inventories again, reversing the buiid-up of last summer.
No confidence!
As I said the other day, the business failures are frightening. We are facing a national disaster here, a crisis in unemployment, and these people walk around trying to bamboozle, flim-flam and con Canadians to the effect that, "You do not have to worry, everything will be all right." There can be no credibility because every time they say everything is all right,
March 16, 1978

we find out that they are wrong in their forecasting of growth, inflation, and unemployment. The country is in a mess, and most of this comes as a result of the ineptness, mismanagement, and incompetence of this government.
Last year's growth was only 2.6 per cent, yet the Minister of Finance bamboozles the people again by saying he expects a growth of 5 per cent. The Royal Bank of Canada is more correct when it says 3.3 per cent. What we really need is about 5.5 per cent average growth if we are going to have a 5.5 per cent unemployment rate and a 3.5 per cent inflation rate as we hit the year 1981. We are so far off target that it is a disgrace. It is a national disaster.
In my view, we need an address on the state of the economy. We must come clean with the Canadian people and tell them, whether we are in a mess or not. It is the responsibility of the Minister of Finance to be honest, rather than trying to flimflam the Canadian people. He is here to give them direction and to create a positive atmosphere whereby this country can reach its ultimate destiny, and here he is playing around with an ad hoc, catch-as-catch-can approach. Is it any wonder that our dollar is destroyed, that the business communities and banking institutions offshore have no confidence? Is there any wonder when we find it is incompetence that we continually face?
The government, Mr. Speaker, preaches restraint, but it practices extravagance. The one time minister of finance inaugurated the current spending program, the budget of June 23, 1975. At that time the main estimates for 1976 had received the approval of parliament. They forecasted budgetary spending of $32.2 billion. The main estimates of 1979 forecasted budgetary spending of $46.5 billion. Thus, during the three years of the restraint program, main estimates for budgetary spending have increased by $14.3 billion, or 44 per cent. Main estimates have increased an average of 13 per cent a year. That is hardly evidence of restraint.
My colleague, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), on March 14 put it in these words-I just want to read what he said because he is concerned, as are the vast majority of the Canadian people-he wanted to know how three budgets could go so wrong. As reported at page 3748 of Hansard dated March 14, the Minister of Finance continued to say we must wait. What are we waiting for, complete disaster? The hon. member for York-Simcoe stated:
On May 25, 1976, the then minister of finance said unemployment would decline. On March 31, 1977, the then minister of finance stated we anticipated 5 per cent real growth and that unemployment would decline. In his October 20 statement, the present Minister of Finance said, "I want sustained growth of between 5 per cent and 6 per cent in order to bring unemployment down."
How can three budgets have been so wrong, Mr. Speaker, at the expense of the unemployed in this nation? That is the key question. How can they be so wrong?
The government now has the cheek to introduce Bill C-31. I think it is important to read what was said on March 15 when the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen)
Supply moved interim supply on behalf of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras). The motion begins as follows:
That a sum not exceeding $5,657,022,492.00 being the aggregate of: (a) three-twelfths of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1979, laid before the House of Commons on February 22, 1978 .. .
We have to read the rest of it because we cannot find it in the bill. The bill in paragraph 2 states: "not otherwise provided for, and being the aggregate of'. The thing is, they want another $5 billion. The motion then calls for "an additional eight-twelfths of the total amount of Energy, Mines and Resources", "an additional six-twelfths", "an additional five-twelfths of the total amount of Treasury Board", "an additional four-twelfths of the total amount of Finance", "an additional three-twelfths of the total amount of Communications", "an additional two-twelfths of the total amount of Energy, Mines and Resources," and then "an additional one-twelfth of the total amount of Energy, Mines and Resources." It is these additional amounts that bother us, Mr. Speaker. The government has found again that it is necessary to request increased borrowing authority, and this is a clear indication that things are out of hand. This government is out of control; its spending is unlimited. You would think that the taxpayers had a bottomless pocket that we can dip into without explanation. This government is out of control-it has lost control of the economy, and that is readily evident.
The number of officially unemployed Canadians has risen to over one million for the first time in Canadian history. I heard the Prime Minister, or I read about the Prime Minister and the Minister of Employment and Immigration saying, "If you want a job, go out of the country." They claim that the statistics are exaggerated and say it is not their responsibility to create jobs. Are they going to the people with this millstone hanging over their heads? I am going to use those expressions, Mr. Speaker, whenever the Prime Minister wants to pull the plug. They are making all sorts of plans right now and deciding when the opportune time will be. By-elections were called for October 16. What a lot of nonsense that is. We are going in June-heaven knows what day in June.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Stanley knows.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) knows. I think he said June 19 or June
26.
The government has lost control. Inflation is running at 8.7 per cent-and that is with controls. Members of all parties on this side of the House are asking what the government is going to do and what the facts are about government borrowing during the present fiscal year. Initially the House approved $7 billion of new borrowing authority based on a $6.4 billion cash requirement. The government increased its tax requirements to $8.5 billion as announced by the Minister of Finance in his October 20 throne speech remarks. In reality that was his mini budget. I think this is also a mini budget we are discussing now, this further borrowing of $5 billion that the government is requesting.

March 16, 1978
Supply
By the end of December the government had already used $6.2 billion, or 73 per cent of that cash requirement and, of course, everyone knows that spending accelerates in the last few months of the fiscal year. Thus as early as December it was evident that the government might be in deep trouble and in need of further borrowing authority. What incompetence it shows when it did not accept that fact-what ineptitude. The government had already taken the necessary steps when in December the bill to amend the Income Tax Act was passed providing it with an additional $9 billion borrowing authority.
The depth of the problem is even more evident if one compares the latest request with statements made by the Minister of Finance in a speech made on second reading debate on the income tax amendments last November. At that time the minister made the following statement-and these statements are germane-they are right to the point because they indicate they do not know what they are doing over there. They have lost control. It is an ad hoc approach, which is amazing, given the fact that they have been in power for the past years-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: 44 years.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: -it is just amazing, and yet they think they can go to the people and say, "We are the messiahs". Do you know what the Minister of Finance has been telling the Canadian people?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have no idea!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Well, just listen to this. My good friend, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), says he has no idea. This is what the Minister of Finance said regarding spending on November 7, 1977, as reported at page 646 of Hansard:
The increase in borrowing authority sought at the present is to cover estimated financial requirements into the next fiscal year and to provide a substantial margin for contingencies.
In another great statement reported on the same page, he said:
The government also needs a large contingency amount to provide it with flexibility in planning next year's Canada Savings Bonds' campaign.
Later, in yet another great statement, he said:
The increase in the borrowing authority will serve to cover our financial requirements well into the next fiscal year and will provide a cushion for contingencies.
These statements give a clear indication that the $9 billion increase in borrowing authority would be sufficient for the coming fiscal year-at least until after the Canada Savings Bonds' campaign, which does not even begin until September. Where is the credibility of this government, Mr. Speaker? No where. Why should we trust this government? Why should we accept what they say now as being a fact? When we refer to these statements, we see that the minister said, I am asking you for increased borrowing authority, but it will be enough. It will be enough to cover everything, including any contingency. Yet, Mr. Speaker, less than four months later the government is back again asking for a further increase in the borrowing

authority. Well clearly, the situation is out of control, and it is time for the government to take a hard look at its spending of proposals.
Part of the problem, in my view, exists because the government tries each year, when it tables its main estimates, to fool the Canadian public and parliament with regard to the amount of additional spending that it is actually planning to undertake. In reality, ministers seem to be fooling nobody but themselves. As the hon. member for Calgary Centre said, they play a flim-flam game. It happened last year when the government tabled the main estimates and talked about a 7 per cent increase in government spending. They conveniently forgot that there would be supplementary estimates and thus projected a cash requirement of $6.4 billion. Sure enough, along came the supplementary estimates of $1.9 billion. In October, the Minister of Finance raised the cash requirement projection to $8.5 billion and he had to ask for increased borrowing authority.
Just two weeks ago the government slipped in another $1 billion in the second set of supplementary estimates, and now it is requesting further borrowing authority. Where is the government taking this country? All I can see is bankruptcy and economic disaster.
I thought I heard somebody mumbling and trying to intervene, Mr. Speaker. I suppose they are mumbling in shock at what is going on in government circles. Here we are, on the same merry go round this year. In tabling the main estimates the President of the Treasury Board talked about how he has controlled government spending to a 9.8 per cent increase. In fact, if anticipated further supplementary estimates are taken into account, the spending increase will likely be closer to 13 or 14 per cent. Undoubtedly the cash requirement will have to be increased again when the government comes around to the realization that it has not controlled spending to 9.8 per cent at all. Once again ministers are fooling only themselves.
We are concerned with the approach this government takes when it comes to placing matters before the Canadian people. Ministers deceive, they mislead and they are less than honest. Why should we have to accept this as a philosophy of life, of parliamentary life? That is not our position. We believe in openness, in coming clean, in freedom of information. Now this government asks us for another $5 billion when we were all under the impression that it had its borrowing under control. Why should we give it to them? It is time that this flim-flam and shell game came to an end. The government should make a serious attempt to review its expenditure program and reduce government spending. It is time to be honest with the Canadian people. Sneaking in an extra billion dollars of expenditures and an extra billion dollars of borrowing authority throughout the year is not the solution to Canada's seriously deteriorating economy.
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, what we need is a new bureaucracy within the department of the Minister of Finance. Apparently their forecasting was wrong. As long as their

forecasting is wrong, whether we are talking about growth, inflation or unemployment, this country will remain in serious difficulties.
I want to thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for giving this opportunity to me to put these few remarks before the House and before the people of Canada in order that they will know that they cannot trust this government.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I want to take the opportunity to make some comments about this particular bill, C-31. It is symptomatic of the kinds of reactions that we get from this government across the way to the most serious problem facing the country. In fact every single day we have example after example of lay-offs. We have examples of multi-national corporations in this country cutting back a work force and withdrawing a local office to the parent company's country. This bill seems to envisage the parameters for the limits to which this government can react to those kinds of serious problems.
We have just heard an explication of juggling budgetary figures and juggling supplementary estimates and estimates. In this bill we have the government again fiddling with figures and presenting figures to parliament and to the people which can in no way be comprehended. In terms of the problem that is faced people cannot understand how that particular kind of legislation affects it. I am most concerned. When listening to the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) one would think that if there were a Conservative government things would be different. It ain't necessarily so. I always get upset about that. I have seen the Conservatives in the House in operation. They have splinters all over their posteriors when it comes to dealing with issues in the House.
In Ontario we have an example of a Conservative government and we have heard the chatterbox from Chatham tell it, D'Arcy McKeough, the treasurer. He thinks the greatest thing on wheels is those federal Liberals. He agrees with their budget. He agrees with their projections. He agrees with their inaction with respect to layoffs in the mining industry and any other manufacturing industry in this country. He agrees philosophically with Liberals that in effect the government ought not to interfere in the market place and that they should sit on the sidelines and let everything happen.
When I looked through Bill C-31 it is an example of the limits to which the government plays games with the Canadian people. Juggle a few millions here and few billions there. It gives the impression to the people of Canada that their problems are being dealt with. It is a kind of fiscal legerdemain where the government fools around with the figures and gives the picture that things are happening and will happen.
I always thought Canada was bounded by the limitations of the Nickel Belt riding. All hon. members tend to get the impression that the whole country, the whole world, rotates around their own particular riding and their own concerns. Nickel Belt is a marvellous riding. The hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Jean Pigott) says it is a very lovely riding. She ought to know because she was there. Some
Supply
disastrous action was taken recently by the major employers in the Sudbury basin. It was felt in a very real way. It was not the first time that a multinational mining company which dominates the economy of the region has laid off workers in the Sudbury basin. We became extremely concerned this time because the figures reached 3,400 which would result in spin off effects to the economy of the basin. We were loud and vehement in demanding immediate action from the federal and provincial governments with respect to those particular problems.
Since those lay-offs became effective on February 13 I took the opportunity to go to Newfoundland. I had no sooner arrived in Newfoundland than I was confronted with the spectre of the Alcan fluorspar mine closing in St. Lawrence. There is a situation where Alcan was saying to the people of Newfoundland, and to the people of St. Lawrence in particular, "We are closing here because we can purchase the fluorspar cheaper in Mexico. We can make a bigger profit in Mexico by purchasing the fluorspar there than by producing the fluorspar in St. Lawrence." They laid off 400 workers which was the whole work force in that community. These people had lived there for 40 years.
They always tell me about the capitalist risks but they never talk of the workers' risks. That graveyard in St. John's was filled with workers who had died prematurely from silicosis. There we had a company unilaterally deciding that they were pulling out and that they would buy their fluorspar from a company called Fluorspar Empresa de Mexico. This company happens to be owned by Noranda which is a well known company in this country.
The people in their helplessness tried to come to grips with the reality of that problem. They were paying their mortgages on their homes. They turned to the people who they had elected, their provincial and federal government representatives. They said, "What are we going to do?" They made suggestions, Mr. Speaker, and we raised those suggestions in this House. We said the least any self-respecting government ought to do was to impose an import tariff on fluorspar, temporary if you want, sir, and a percentage to make it more economical for Alcan to continue to take out fluorspar from St. Lawrence.
During the question period today I was amazed to hear the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) tell this House that we cannot dictate to Chrysler Corporation. We cannot dictate to the multinational corporations in this country. If our governments which have a mandate from the people cannot dictate and set the behaviour pattern for the multinational corporations in this country, who the hell can?
Alcan, Inco, Falconbridge, Noranda, Granby mines and all the rest do not mind holding a pistol to the heads of their employees, telling them they are going to be laid off. They do not hesitate to dictate to the people. However, who is governing this country? Is it the boards of directors of Inco, Falcon-

March 16, 1978
Supply
bridge, Alcan and the rest of them, or those who are elected with the confidence and support of the Canadian people?
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce stated in a pompous way that we cannot tell them anything. We are to be the recipients of their actions. In so doing, we have allowed another 400 workers to become unemployed, in addition to a lack of productivity in that area. In other words, what we had in St. Lawrence was a strike by capital. Capital refused to go to work in St. Lawrence.
I could be sensitive about the feelings of those people and their helplessness in that situation, about the fact that they could not come to grips with the problem. All they got from the government, which was elected by and has the mandate of the people, was that "There is nothing we can do."
The week before last I visited Vancouver, British Columbia. I arrived on a Thursday evening. On the Friday morning the Grand Duke mine announced it would be closing in Stewart, B.C., laying off 400 workers. The mine owners said they were down to second grade copper ore which was not economical to mine and, therefore, they were closing the mine.
There again we have the people of a particular community helpless in regard to coming to grips with a very serious problem. We sent some of our miners to the Grand Duke years ago. When we had layoffs in 1972, the miners went to Grand Duke. When they returned on holidays, they stated they were making a pile of money. What they were doing was high-grading the ore in the Stewart mine. As a result, today that mine has second grade copper which the company says it is uneconomical to mine.
There is also the situation in the Sudbury basin, my area. On February 13, 3,400 jobs went down the tube. The government was not given previous notice of the lay-offs. This government was told at midnight, October 20, the day the announcement was made. We were told that nickel markets were soft, the companies could not sell the nickel and they were therefore forced to lay-off workers. As a result, they intended to reduce the work force from 13,000 to 10,000. Those jobs have been lost. However, I now understand the company is running up overtime on production. Production levels are at the same height as they were prior to the lay-off notice.
Last week the treasurer of Ontario, D'Arcy McKeough, brought in a budget. He stated that Falconbridge and Inco would be permitted to write off their European offshore operations against taxable income in Ontario. How that will create jobs in the Sudbury basin, I do not know.
The Conservatives in this chamber say that things will be different under a Tory leadership and a Tory government. They had an opportunity to show leadership in the province of Ontario. We have not seen any results from that.
Jobs were lost in the Sudbury basin, but overtime is piling up and production levels are remaining the same. At the time of the announcement of the lay-offs, we kept pushing the government to stockpile nickel. The government said it could not interfere in the market place and, if nickel was not selling,

there was no use stockpiling it. Therefore, the workers were laid off. Those are the realities the people of this country experience every day.
While in Windsor last week I heard rumours about the possible closing of the truck plant there. At eleven o'clock this morning, Chrysler Corporation announced it would be closing its truck plant and moving to Jefferson in the United States. They are going to build a plant and manufacture the trucks there. Therefore 800 jobs in the Windsor area will be going down the drain.
Today I questioned the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce about this. All I could get from him was that the government was studying the situation and that it could not tell the corporations what to do. That is the kind of reaction that Canadians from coast to coast get from this government. These are the problems with which they have to deal.
In these dying days of this parliament, the government brings forward the shell game of figures. The people of this country are looking to parliament for some action to solve the problems they face. The main problem that faces them, eroding their confidence and their livelihood, is that of unemployment.
When I first came to Canada I had the impression that the Tories were different from the Liberals. One thing that has been brought home to me in the past 21 or 22 years I have been here is that there really is no difference in their philosophies and approaches to the economy.
When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) brought in his mini-budget last fall, he stated that we were looking to the private sector to create the jobs in this country. He stated that the government must not involve itself in the operation of the economy, that it should sit on the sidelines and stage. It has been doing a lot of staging. It has fixed the acoustics, put in the proper lighting and a proper background. However, the jobs are not being created. That is the problem.
What the government has been doing is handing out tax concessions. It forgave S17 Vi million in duties to Chrysler Corporation which should have been paid under the auto pact agreement. Under Bill C-ll which was passed last fall, $10 million was given to Inco. Alcan received $11 million last fall. Inco was allowed to defer $378 million in taxes, in effect an interest free loan. Alcan was allowed to defer $180 million in taxes, again an interest free loan. Between Guatemala and Indonesia it was some $17 million in low interest loans-we do not know the rate exactly but it is below 6 per cent. So Inco is putting one billion dollars into developing ores in Indonesia and $233 million in Guatemala.
Falconbridge, through its parent company, MacIntyre Mines, and its parent company, Superior Oil of Texas, along with Noranda, is putting a billion dollars into Chile for the strip mining of copper. I am always impressed by the patriotism of the multi-national corporations. I recall the days the AIB was brought into being. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) two or three years ago announced one Thanksgiving

evening that he was establishing such a board and that the workers' wages would be controlled, the workers were in the process of negotiations with Inco and Falconbridge. The corporation then said "We cannot pay you in excess of the guidelines. We are good corporate citizens and we cannot break the law."
Those were true words of Samuel Johnson when he said that patriotism was the last refuge of a scoundrel. At a time in our history when we need large investments of capital in this country, those same multi-national corporations, having made their wealth here, are going beyond our borders and investing in paragons of human freedom such as Chile, Indonesia, and Guatemala. They are doing this with the aid and support of a government which has failed to take action in accordance with the needs of the people. This is a period when the government ought to be assisting in the creation of jobs for those who want to work. Instead, it is saying to the multi-national corporations "Go right ahead and create jobs abroad."
The situation is so blatant as to have led that radical, left-wing organization known as the Canadian Council of Catholic Bishops to issue the following press release at the time of the lay-offs. It was put out by Bishop Proulx, and by Bishop Alexander Carter of the Sault Ste. Marie Diocese. I want to read it because it constitutes an indictment of this government:
The massive lay-off of workers violates one of the most fundamental rights of life, namely, the right to work and to provide the basic needs of one's family. Moreover, the decisions of the companies to cut back production and terminate jobs were announced suddenly and made without prior consultation. The workers became victims of market forces and the companies exaggerated concentration of profits... Sudbury has been primarily developed to serve the interests of trans-national mining companies and world nickel markets. As a result, the economic and social life of the people in this mining community has been fragile and vulnerable.
Later on in the document we find the statement:
Powerful, foreign-controlled companies exercise increasing power in Canadian society, beyond the reach of public intervention.
Remember, this is not a radical, left-wing organization. This is the Canadian Council of Catholic Bishops talking about a matter of very real concern in this country.
Where do we get investment capital? At the moment the government is running out inviting an increase of foreign ownership, preparing for a further sell-out of the economy. It is inviting foreign, multi-national corporations to come in still further and put Canadians into the position of being hewers of wood and drawers of water. It is simply piling up problems for the future.
The corporations of which we have had experience in Sudbury have always placed their own interests first. I had an interesting telephone debate the other day with a Mr. Alfred Powis, who is the President of Noranda Mines. During our conversation, Mr. Powis said to me, "Look, if Inco had not gone to Indonesia, some other mining company would have gone there. Wasn't it better that a Canadian mining company should have taken this initiative?" I have heard the same argument made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources,
Supply
(Mr. Gillespie), that mouthpiece for the mining companies. I said to Mr. Powis, "Mr. Powis, you are absolutely correct. I have absolutely no argument with you. I think you are right, and I tip my hat to Inco and Falconbridge for having applied that kind of reasoning. The corporations set goals. The senior officers who serve them have obtained their mandate from the shareholders, and that mandate is to increase the volume of profits and hence the value of the shares as much as possible so that the shares become more attractive. I have no objection to a corporation fulfilling those goals and carrying out its mandate."
Then I said, "Now tell me, Mr. Powis, who sets the goals for Canada? What are Canada's goals? Are you telling me that Inco's goals are the same as Canada's-that what is good for Inco is good enough for Canada?" I see the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce shaking his head. That is what happens when you take a Tory and make him a Liberal cabinet minister. He screws everything up. We do not need to elect a Tory government to find out what it would do.
We have a Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, but who sets the goals for Canada? Surely the goals of multinational corporations are not ours. The truth, unfortunately, is that members on the treasury benches have no goals. There can be no goals because they have no plan. There is no national economic plan and no sector strategy.
The other day the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources had a big "confab." This is what happens before elections- they discover they have to communicate. The minister called all the ministers of mines from the various provinces together in an attempt to develop a national mining strategy. What happened? That chatterbox from Chatham, D'Arcy McKeough, ran back to Ontario where he came out last week with a big giveaway to Inco and Falconbridge, allowing them to continue to process ore from Canada in their European refineries, indeed, encouraging them to do so by letting them write off against Ontario taxes the cost of their operations in Europe. I think this was a despicable act by someone elected to serve the taxpayers of the province of Ontario.
I asked the minister how that figured in with a national strategy on mines. I put a question to him on this subject during the question period. He played the old game of never answering the question put to him. He simply said it was the provinces which had control over these resources and over their taxation policy.
What I want to see from the government is a national economic plan with sector strategies, not mere words, but supported by legislation which would direct investment into sectors which need investment capital. We have said time and time again that in this strategy the surplus generated from the resource must be plowed back into the community where it was mined. It is surprising, and I know it will come as a shock-it might not come as a shock to some hon. members- that, for example, we do not have a research and development program in the nickel industry in the Sudbury basin. Indeed, we do not have much nickel research and development in Canada, and we have none in the Sudbury basin. When we

March 16, 1978
Supply
ship out our mineral resources, we are also shipping out our human resources because we educate our young people to levels which equip them to undertake challenging and interesting jobs, but since we do not have those jobs, our young people are shipped out with the ore.
We have said that we must have the infrastructure. They call us the nickel capital of the world. Our only claim to that title is the fact that our people rip out the resource from the ground, put it into box cars and ship it out. The objective of any national economic plan must be that the resource be used, first of all for the benefit of this generation and future generations of Canadians, so that any surplus generated from the resource is plowed back and put into the infrastructure in the communities from which the resource was taken.
We talk about related industries. For example, there is no reason in the world why we should not be producing equipment for mining in the Sudbury basin. At present we have to import equipment from Finland. Imagine importing to the Sudbury basin mining equipment from Finland! We have the mines there, many of which are now closed, which could be turned into laboratories for developing new mining equipment.
We do not have a nickel rolling mill. The Royal Canadian Mint buys 50 per cent of its rolled nickel from Inco, and that comes from Pittsburgh. They purchase the other 50 per cent from Sherritt Gordon. It comes from the Philippines to the Sherrit Gordon mill at Fort Saskatchewan and then is sold to the Royal Canadian Mint. Even the coins in your pocket, Mr. Speaker, are not the result of Canadian labour to any extent other than the extraction of the metal from the ground.
We should look at how the Japanese protect their industries. We have raised this question with the minister numerous times. In effect, Japan has a temporary import tariff of 13 per cent on finished nickel. We have said that surely we should have some sort of import tariff against raw nickel coming into this country when we have nickel stockpiled up to our eyeballs. The problem is that we have a government which is part and parcel of the establishment. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce laughs, but let me point out to him that no sooner had the former minister of finance stepped out of his ministerial portfolio, than he was clasped to the bosom of the boys on Bay Street and given a $200,000 a year job. Now he is set for life. The previous minister of finance has also gone to his rewards on Bay Street and will be clasped to the bosom of the boys there.
One only has to look at the structure of the government. They are only puppets and mouthpieces of those who invest in the country and have the big bucks. They do exactly what they are told by Bay Street, no more, no less. They do not challenge that structure because that is the way the boys on Bay Street like it, and that is the way they will have it.
We spoke about what is needed. We need a national economic plan with sector strategies. Furthermore, we need a government whose first basic commitment is to full employment and which will never allow the Canadian worker to be
used as any kind of tool in any fight, whether it be against inflation, against unemployment, or against anything else. The Canadian worker must not be used as a tool in those struggles as the government sees them.
Indeed, the Prime Minister, speaking at the Liberal conference in Toronto some five or six weeks ago, when asked whether he expected inflation to come down in the next year or so, said that he expected it to come down and the reason was that he did not think workers would be asking for big increases in their wages as they had been doing prior to the controls. He also said that the reason he did not think they would ask for these big increases was that there was such a large pool of unemployed people in this country. Imagine the Prime Minister making a statement like that! He was saying in effect that the government had a plan to have a large pool of unemployed.
As a matter of fact, they should be very proud of themselves over there; they can be proud of their accomplishment in the number of unemployed having reached one million. Perhaps they should give a lottery prize to the one millionth person unemployed. It goes well with the way the government approaches problems in this country. If you have a debt in the Olympics fund, create a lottery; if you need to subsidize amateur sports, start a lottery. The provinces have picked that up now. If we cannot deal with problems in a realistic way, we deal with them in dreamland, in the never-never land. We say "You too can win $1 million. Have a provincial Loto, have a Perfecto, have a Wintario, have a Loto Canada." They are following a dangerous path, I suggest. We have to deal with these problems and we need a commitment to full employment.
The first and foremost thrust of the government should be to ensure that jobs are not disappearing in communities which can least afford it. That is why we suggest that in the short term the government should be stockpiling nickel because we recognize that, as soon as people lose their jobs, we will pay them unemployment insurance. Now we find new changes in the unemployment insurance scheme. When those changes were brought in, all the Tories voted in favour of them. The hon. member for Hamilton West was all for changing the required number of weeks worked to enable the unemployed to collect benefits. Now we find in all parts of the country that people cannot even get unemployment insurance benefits because they could not accumulate the required number of weeks worked to participate in the scheme. What they are doing is to rush into welfare programs. In our area in Ontario we find that the welfare programs are out of funds, so we have large numbers of people sitting around hoping that some organization will give them a few dollars.
I said that the NDP is committed to economic planning. We have said that there must be a national economic plan with sector strategies. We have said that in this party we believe in full employment. We cannot support tinkering and manipulating with the economic structure in this country. We have said that a clear alternative rests in this corner on this side of the House. Very often members on the other side of the House become removed from the problems of the people of this


country, so we are e^-essing these feelings in an attempt to give them a quick kick in *ut so that they can realize what the problems are, and perhaps start to solve them. With this aim in mind, I should like to move the following motion, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That Bill C-31 be not read now a second time but that the subject matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs with instruction that the said committee give consideration to the making of recommendations for inclusion in this said bill, that the salary for the Minister of Finance be reduced to $100.14 a week, this being the average level of unemployment insurance benefits, so that the minister may have an appreciation of what it is like to live as one of Canada's 1.6 million unemployed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Hon. members have heard the amendment presented by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). I should ask for the indulgence of hon. members to give the Chair time to consider whether the amendment is receivable or not, and rule thereon.
I ask hon. members to wait until after eight o'clock tonight, at which time the Chair will make a ruling on this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre).


Mr. Andre:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I have a note which indicates that I was to recognize the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council (Mr. Pinard). Is that agreeable to the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre)?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I ha no objection to that, provided I have the opportunity of beinv -ecognized next.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Very well. The hon. member will be.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe there is an agreement that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) will speak tonight at the very first opportunity, unless 1 am mistaken. 1 see the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is signalling to me. I should therefore like to have his opinion on the matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it has been mentioned around the halls that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) proposes to speak tonight, but I know of no agreement that he be given a special time. He can take his turn along with the rest of us ordinary members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Supply


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker,have noticed one thing. On this side of the House, no one has yet spoken on this bill this afternoon, on the other hand, two hon. members have on the other side. So, I would not be averse to the idea that two government members, ordinary members or ministers, should speak one after the other, though I know, of course, that it is up to the Speaker of the House to decide, on the matter.
So, very briefly, Mr. Speaker, this bill requests the authorization to spend a certain amount in the various department during the coming fiscal year, and of course, a good part of that money will be spent on agriculture in Canada. I shall make one short comment. I think it is fundamental and of prime importance to point out that, on the agricultural scene in Canada, many things have happened in the last while. The department was reorganized, its services were relocated according to the new strategy of agricultural expansion and the new food policy. With regard to the agricultural expansion strategy, it emphasizes a team approach in agriculture, in that it gives a greater role to the provinces, producers, processors and consumers. The key elements of that food and agriculture strategy are as follows: First, increase production effectiveness; second, promote the sale of the products with the most trading potential; third, help low income farmers to improve their living standards through agriculture; fourth, preserve and improve natural farming resources and soil utilization; fifth, increase the effectiveness of the marketing system; sixth, protect the farmers against income instability and the natural risk of farm production; seventh, ensure longer term protection against foreign competition for certain products; and eighth, extend the access of Canadian farm products to foreign markets.
Concrete achievements at this time are as follows: first, a free system of paid telephone messages implemented since November 1, 1977; second, three new federal assistance programs totalling $28 million, announced in October 1977 and designed to increase our feed grain storage capacity, to increase local feed grain stocks and to promote the building of grain elevators; third, the Canadian missions at the GATT meetings have consulted farming representatives on many occasions; and fourth, the Eastern and Western Divisions of the Research Branch will have their headquarters relocated outside Ottawa, in Saskatoon and Quebec City.
Mr. Speaker, there is also the food strategy. A white paper on our food strategy was published in June 1977 and its three objectives are as follows: first, maintain food prices; second, maintain adequate supplies; and third, provide producer and Fishermen with stable incomes adjusted to their work and their investments. Agriculture is very important in the Drummond constituency which I represent, and I am pleased that the Canadian government is considering spending very substantial amounts to help our farmers in all areas of production.

March 16, 1978
Supply
Unfortunately, since I have only a few minutes left, I do not have the time before five o'clock this afternoon to give more details about all the farming policies of the federal government, but if the Chair allows me to do so, I would like to take this opportunity to mention the dairy products promotion program, which is all to the credit of the government and which is already beginning to show positive results. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call your attention to the various dairy research programs put forward by Agriculture Canada. Because it is concerned with the need to better balance the production and consumption of dairy products in Canada, the department has been working with the private sector and research bodies on a $4 million program that was called for in the national dairy policy announced last spring. This program is administered by the Canadian Dairy Commission and aims at stimulating consumption and the use of milk products, especially skim milk powder. And since 48 per cent of industrial milk producers are based in the province of Quebec, it is my view that those government expenditures will first and foremost benefit Quebec producers, a great number of whom are in the constituency of Drummond I represent here in this House.
There are three main goals: new product development, advertising and market research. Nearly $1 million have been allocated to the first goal, $2.4 million to the second and $500,000 to the third one. The Canadian government has signed contracts with various private firms for the development of new products, such as cheese of low fat content, Greek cheese and skim milk cheese.
Another project is aimed at increasing the opportunities for skim milk marketing in underdeveloped countries. The maximum term for these projects is three years, and the Canadian dairy product bureau, a producer body established to promote milk consumption, will be leading a $2.4 million advertising campaign. Last year, the Canadian government helped industrial milk producers by writing off the $152 million export debt, but this was of a short term nature only. The $4 million research and promotion program, put forward as I said by the Canadian government for the benefit of our farmers, should bring longer term answers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions, private and public bills.
The Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, there has been an agreement among the leaders of the various parties to proceed first with consideration of private bill 1001 and then with motion No. 4 standing in the name of the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert). I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to proceed in that way and to allow the other motions and bills to stand.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary is correct this time. There has been such an agreement.


Mr. Paproski:: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) says that it is true, then 1 will go along with it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Hon. members have heard the representations of the hon. parliamentary secretary. Is it agreed and so ordered that we proceed to Bill C-1001 immediately?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Agreed and so ordered.


PRIVATE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, Febraury 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. O'Connell that Bill C-1001, respecting Bell Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Leggatt.
Hon. Martin O'Connell (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate the consent that the House has given for us to proceed with this bill at this time. After considering the questions raised in the extended debate in the House on Bill C-1001-debate that began in the previous session some 14 months ago-I would like to advise the House that, as the sponsor of this private bill, I intend to introduce three important amendments in the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, assuming the House is willing to send the bill to the committee. I will describe to the House the essential nature of these amendments, all of which were circulated some days ago either to House leaders or whips, or to other representatives of all parties in the House. I should also say that the proposed amendments arise out of discussions held under my auspices as sponsor of the bill.
The amendments arose out of discussions I had with officers of the company and with certain party representatives in the House. I have also had the benefit of some brief and informal discussions with members of all parties in the House. Therefore, my hope is that the amendments-which I now give assurance will be moved in the appropriate standing committee-will enable the House to give second reading this afternoon to the bill and send it to the committee for formal amendment and further consideration.
The first two amendments to be proposed would delete clause 5.2 and clause 5.3 on page 7 of the bill entirely. The

March 16, 1978

third amendment would delete clause 4 on page 8-the clause which is consequential to the aforementioned clauses, 5.2 and 5.3. A further amendment would delete the words "and 2" in line 6, clause 6, page 9. The result of these amendments would be to withdraw the request in the bill for a letters patent procedure and a negative resolution procedure as a future means of amending Bell Canada's basic charter. The amendments would also withdraw the request for certain ancillary powers sought through the application to Bell Canada's charter of Section 16 of the Canada Corporations Act.
Finally, the amendment would withdraw the request in the bill that future individual common stock issues of the company not require CRTC approval. The effect of the latter amendment would be to continue the present requirement that each stock issue be approved by the CRTC. Those are the proposed three principal amendments. I believe they will overcome the main objections expressed in various parts of the House in varying degrees.
What will remain in the amended bill are two important matters. The first is the company's need and request for a new, higher ceiling for equity capital to assist in financing new construction and the new equipment program in the years ahead. It is a requirement of the bill that parliament give assent to new and higher capital ceilings for common stock issues-before they can be made. There also remain certain provisions for greater financial flexibility suited to today's market conditions, for example, the right to split common shares and create classes of shares.
I trust, Mr. Speaker, that these explanations and assurances will assist the House in coming to a decision with respect to the amendment to the second reading motion, which is before us. I would hope that the amendment would be withdrawn and that we could then come to a conclusion of second reading this afternoon and that the House would agree to move the bill to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the intervention by the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell) on behalf of Bell Canada and his commitment to move in committee the amendments that he described. I consider the amendments that will be moved a tremendous victory for my party and those in the Creditiste party, who assisted us in debating the bill for over a year, because we felt that the provisions in the bill were not in the public interest. I think it is a great achievement, despite the charges in the past that we were filibustering, that Bell Canada has finally come around to our point of view and has agreed to drop the offending clauses from the bill.
I would remind the House that this bill began as a bill called S-2 in the Senate. Indeed, it was passed with only one day's debate in the other place back in December, 1976, which says something about the degree of scrutiny of legislation in that chamber. The bill was sent to the House of Commons in January, 1977. Once the members of the New Democratic Party saw its contents, we were determined that the bill would not go through this House unamended. As a result, we have
Bell Canada
delayed it until proper amendments were forthcoming from Bell Canada.
Why did we object to this bill, Mr. Speaker? We found that it was not just a bill, as was first claimed, to increase the capitalization of Bell Canada from $1.75 billion to $5 billion, but that it contained many more significant clauses that would have, in our opinion, ended effective parliamentary scrutiny over this giant monopoly. If Bill C-1001 were passed as it was originally written, the effect would be that Bell Canada would not have to come before this House of Commons and be subject to debate on its performance and obligations. It would have been merely through a negative resolution procedure which would not have allowed for thorough debate such as we have had today. The bill in its original form would have allowed Bell Canada legally to own companies not related with telephone operations.
I regret to say that Bell has been moving in this direction in an indirect and quasi-legal way on a limited basis in the past. This is in contravention of its act of incorporation, an act of this House of Commons. So this bill would have given Bell that freedom to move into non-telecommunication fields. We maintain that Bell's ownership of non-telephone related companies would be against the public interest. We maintain that Bell was given a monopoly position by parliament on the clear condition that it would not invest in other fields. Bell Canada was trying to change this position through this bill we have before us. If it had passed in its original form. Bell, unlike any other company in Canada, would have retained its monopoly position in telecommunications in certain provinces and, at the same time, been allowed to own other businesses not related to its monopoly service.
Bell, in our opinion, by looking at its act of incorporation, was charged by parliament to provide good telephone service at reasonable prices. Our submission was, and still is, that if Bell is allowed to own other businesses not related to telephone service, then the telephone subscriber in the long run would face higher rates and poor service. The reason for this is quite obvious. Telephone subscribers would begin to subsidize Bell's non-telephone business ventures-and if anyone cares to go through the debates on this issue in past records of Hansard they will be able to see examples of this that we have brought out. Indeed, the people who I think would be affected most detrimentally would be those rural subscribers of Bell Canada who today have had a very bad deal from the company. We have given example after example of rural subscribers who have faced year after year of multi-party lines and who have faced exorbitant charges to get telephone service to their areas. Bell has a lamentable record in improving rural service, and our fear is that if it moved into other business ventures, rural service would become even worse.
We know how Bell Canada pleads poverty year after year and how it asks for rate increases and how, despite our regulatory system which is to protect the consumer, Bell

March 16, 1978
Bell Canada
continues to get these rate increase. In the years 1970 to 1977 Bell was granted rate increases totalling $416 million.
In 1978 Bell is asking for a 20 per cent rate increase, which, if approved, will give Bell some $399 million additional, on an annual basis. That would mean, for example, that telephone subscribers at Toronto and Montreal, who are paying the current rate of $8.15 a month for basic telephone service, would see their telephone bill go up to $9.80 a month. Compare that to a government telephone system in Manitoba where subscribers in Winnipeg are charged only $4.90 for the same kind of telephone service.
We say that there has to be much closer scrutiny by the regulatory agencies of these kinds of rate increases, and one of the opportunities, the rare opportunity that parliament has to examine this history of rate increases and the workings of the regulatory commission is through debates such as this, when Bell is required to come before this Chamber in order to get amendments to its act of incorporation.
We have also complained in the past-I do not have time to go into the details-of how the subsidiaries were not taken into account. For example, there is Northern Telecom and its profit structure in the CRTC determining the rate increases for Bell. But most of all we have been concerned about the rural service, or lack of it, as I have mentioned earlier.
I have raised, through debate in this Chamber examples of people in the smaller communities outside my riding in the district of Algoma who have made direct representations to me and also to Mr. Bud Wildman, the MPP for the area, who complained they had not had good telephone service or affordable telephone service from Bell Canada. I am happy to report that through many discussions we have had with executives of Bell, not only related to the content of this bill but to the problem of rural service, we have won some major improvements for rural subscribers in northern Ontario. We have noticed an acceleration in the reduction of the number of parties on a rural party line. I think, for example, of Prince township within my riding where, by 1979, they will be reduced to four people on a party line. That does not mean that all is well because we still have examples of individuals facing ten-party telephone lines or even more, or people facing telephone bills running into the hundreds of dollars annually in order to get a telephone line to a rural community.
What disappoints me most is the silence, throughout this debate that has gone on for over a year, of many of the Liberal and Conservative members who represent rural areas, who could have used this opportunity to bring before the public and Bell the examples of the poor service in their constituencies as well. I notice in particular, regarding the complaints that I received from the riding of Algoma, that the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) has not participated in this debate, and I regret that.
As I said at the beginning, Mr. Speaker, we have won major concessions from Bell Canada in the amendments that have been announced today. This has only come about because of determined opposition by the members of the NDP caucus in not allowing this bill speedy passage as was originally hoped. I

consider it a major victory for the telephone subscribers of Bell Canada. It means that on future occasions we will be able to debate and examine in this Chamber the operations of Bell, and demand of Bell that, in return for any future consideration of amendments or what-have-you, we expect good service at affordable costs. I wish to commend the member for Scarborough East for bringing in these amendments. I look forward to discussion of them in committee and to calling witnesses, in particular the CRTC, so that we can examine the implications of this bill.
I would like, in conclusion, to thank my colleagues who, every second Thursday, were loyally here to debate this bill. I thank, in particular, those outside the House who have assisted us-Dr. Robert Babe, Mr. Gary Steeves, Action Bell Canada, and the many hundreds of people who either called or wrote us giving us examples of poor service, and encouraging us in this debate to get the needed amendments that we now have achieved.
I look forward to having this bill moved to committee, and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the New Democratic Party is in agreement that we move the bill to committee for further study.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the statements that have just been made by the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell), and by my colleague from Sault Ste Marie (Mr. Symes) it is clear that we are prepared to let this bill have second reading and be sent to the appropriate committee.
There is standing against the second reading motion, however, an amendment that would give the bill a six months' hoist. Since we are willing to let the bill go to committee, I wish to say on behalf of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), as well as on my own behalf, since we moved and seconded that motion, that we would be prepared to ask the consent of the House to withdraw that motion so that we can go directly to the vote on the main motion. This is proposed in light of the excellent agreement worked out mainly between the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie and the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) on the one hand, and the hon. member for Scarborough East on the other.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Hon. members have heard the request of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Is there unanimous consent that the amendment be withdrawn?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Leggatt) withdrawn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
March 16, 1978


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Mr. O'Connell:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe standing order 103(1) requires a one week's delay to intervene after second reading in the House before a Standing Committee can consider a bill sent to it.
I would like to ask the House whether it would be prepared to give unanimous consent to waive that provision of Standing Order 103(1), in view of the possible tight time bind in which we may find ourselves with the House recessing on Wednesday next week and this notwithstanding the desire of most members of the House to move the bill to committee stage quickly.
In asking for that unanimous consent I might say that it would be contingent upon the committee being willing to receive the bill with less than one week's notice. I have not been able to consult the committee chairman beyond discussing with him generally that the bill will likely come to him some time soon. He does not know that it will be prior to the one week's interval. Therefore, I would like to ask the House if it would give unanimous consent to waive Standing Order 103(1) on the condition that the committee is willing to receive the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to join in giving that consent. The hon. member for Scarborough East spoke to us about it a short while ago. There was one other point which was part of the understanding and that was with respect to the times of any meetings of the committee. They would be arranged by consultation, bearing in mind the possibility of members being present and the possibility of the availability of certain witnesses. So far as the waiving of the one week's requirement is concerned, as set out in Standing Order 103(1), we are prepared to agree to that.
We have an excellent example today, Mr. Speaker, of how useful it is to consult and to get together when there is an important problem before us.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, we agree also.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Speaker, it is understood and agreed that the witnesses would have to be available.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Hon. members have heard the suggestion of the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell). Is it agreed and so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Veterans Affairs


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil) moved:: That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence, notes, minutes of meetings and other communications relating to the decentralization of the Department of Veterans Affairs to the Province of Prince Edward Island.

He said: Mr. Speaker, this notice of motion for the production of papers was put on the order paper because, in my opinion, the decision which was made to relocate most of the Department of Veterans Affairs to Prince Edward Island was made without adequate prior study. I fully support the program of decentralization. Equally I am happy that the Department of Veterans Affairs will, in large measure, be moving to Prince Edward Island. However, it is my opinion that before any such large move is made, proper studies should be conducted so that the full implications would be known before the decision is taken and the decision surely should be contingent upon the study.
The relocation of the Department of Veterans Affairs to Charlottetown was announced on October 28, 1976. A departmental task force was set up in November of that year to co-ordinate with the province and the municipality to monitor social, economic, physical activities and impacts. The site selection was due in the fall of 1977.
Part of my problems probably stems from the fact that the original announcement was made without any prior information given to interested members, myself included. In my riding there are many veterans, and there is also a large veterans hospital. Because of these contacts, I have constant communication with many of the employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs in Ottawa.
I received many phone calls concerning the announcement. I knew nothing about it. As the newspapers reported, I was especially irritated that the announcement should be made first in the media without concerned MP's being made aware of it. It was not alone. The Dominion President of the Royal Canadian Legion stated the Legion's opposition to the move. He said that the proposed move was not anticipated and the minister's announcement came as a complete surprise. The Dominion President made it clear that he was not opposed to the program of decentralization or the fact that the department was moving to Prince Edward Island, but the fact there had been no consultation was of concern.
The employees were eventually consulted. A questionnaire was given to them. Language concerns and possible disruptions to family life were seen as the main reasons for an overwhelming majority rejection of the move. Some 90 per cent of those responding to the questionnaire were opposed to the transfer. They had, of course, a multitude of reasons for their rejection. One of the obvious reasons why public servants might be

March 16, 1978
Veterans Affairs
unwilling to move was indicated by the fact that a quarter of the employees had members of their families working in the Ottawa area so that they too would be disrupted by the move.
Employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs were also concerned about the disruption to schooling. Many of the children from families affected by the move were enrolled in school systems either in Ottawa, Ontario, or in Hull, Quebec. The minister admitted himself that the department had not analysed the implications of the relocation on DVA staff, and that no employer/employee assistance policy had been adopted. In my opinion this is not the best way to proceed if we want to maintain morale in the department.
Of special concern to me was the subject of language. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) on November 25, in connection with the decentralization plans into the province of Quebec, stated that the government was presently negotiating with Quebec. He said that if there is no agreement to permit English speaking public servants who will be going into Quebec to send their children to English schools, there will be no move. If there is to be decentralization in another province which does not provide for education in French for French speaking people, there will be no decentralization. He went on to say "except where personnel for decentralized units could be hired locally."
I questioned that move to Prince Edward Island. I put many questions on the order paper. 1 wanted to know what the department or the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) had done to ensure there would be adequate French language schooling facilities available in Prince Edward Island. Prince Edward Island, which has four members of parliament in this House, one of whom is a minister, is smaller than the constituency that I represent and has far fewer persons living in it. Because it is a province, it has a lot more clout than my constituency. I would think it would be possible to make some arrangements.
We talked many times about what might have been done. After much prompting and a lapse of several months, the then president of the treasury board, now the Minister of Finance, was in communication with the premier of the province of Prince Edward Island. He stated that we now have to face up to the issue and asked what the premier was going to do about it. The premier stated that he was prepared to provide French language instruction in the province of Prince Edward Island for those children who needed it.
It is disappointing that we have continually to make these representations and bring pressure to bear in areas where these matters should be looked after in advance. In other words, before considering a move into Prince Edward Island, such subjects as language of instruction for children should have been looked into and some assurance obtained from the premier of that province. I know some will say the situation is different in Quebec because of their bill 101. I suggest whether or not there is language legislation, any province can in a

practical fashion exclude teaching in the second official language by not providing the facilities.
For many years in the province of Ontario, discrimination was practised with money. They did not need a bill 101. The same situation continues in many of the other English speaking provinces today. To say there is not the same problem in Prince Edward Island because there is no bill 101 just does not hold water.
There are many other areas about which we asked questions and where answers should have been given before an announcement was made. The department uses 660,000 square feet of office space. In Ottawa alone, about 180,000 square feet of office space is used. It costs $800,000 per annum for the space they are presently utilizing. We all know of the concerns of the people in Ottawa because of the space that will be vacated.
I would like to know whether the relocation is going to affect, for example, Saint John, New Brunswick where 21,000 square feet of space is occupied at a cost of $154,000 per annum. In Toronto, something less than 40,000 square feet of space is occupied at a cost of $200,000 per annum. I could give similar statistics for areas of other provinces. So far these questions have been unanswered.
I also wanted to know the estimated cost of the relocation. I was told the total estimated cost is $816 million. Without any further explanation I am inclined to question the figure. I very much doubt whether any consideration has been given to the dislocating effect of such a move.
I was interested in whether there would be any organizational changes in those departments being decentralized. I asked the question whether changes were necessary in the organizational structure of senior management personnel in departments affected by decentralization. The answer was no. 1 asked whether decentralization necessitated a change in reporting lines and responsibility of such personnel. The answer was no.
As an individual who operated a company with offices in several provinces of this country, I find it extremely difficult to imagine a major move of this nature going ahead without some changes in the top organizational structure of the department or in the reporting lines of those personnel. Surely just distance itself will affect in some way the reporting lines of the senior personnel.
My concern was directed to certain other areas. I asked the estimated cost and the approximate number of square feet of the new building which is to be constructed in Charlottetown, P.E.I. The answer was:
-not known at this time as detailed accommodation requirements have not yet been identified by Department of Veterans Affairs.
I asked whether land had been purchased or an option taken on land in Charlottetown for the construction of the new building. The answer was no. I asked what amount of land acquisition and construction costs, if any, would be charged by the Department of Public Works to the Department of Veterans Affairs in connection with this move. I was told "none".
March 16, 1978

The reason was that the Department of Public Works was responsible for cost of land acquisition and office space for the Department of Veterans Affairs and under current policy, the cost of providing and maintaining office space would be carried in the budget of the Department of Public Works as long as the facility was required. If I do not know now, how am I going to know later? It is going to be in the budget of the Department of Public Works? I am a member of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs but that information is not going to be in the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs. I suppose one could float between committees and maybe finally get the question to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Buchanan). Of course, he will say that decisions are being made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald). This is the run-around we sometimes get between committees.
In any major move of this nature, we have the stated policy of government that we are going to decentralize. Surely the next move should be a study and questioning of employees. When the study has been completed in reasonable detail, the announcement can then be made based on our findings, the availability of space, the cost of moving, the availability of educational facilities and so on.
Let me give hon. members another example in connection with Place Guy Favreau in Montreal. We shall be spending multi-millions of dollars in the construction of this building, which is an illustration of decentralization in reverse. I asked the minister what departmental offices were scheduled to occupy space in that project. The answer was: "We cannot at this early date identify specific government offices which will be relocated into complex Guy Favreau." The answer continued:
Public Works does not to date maintain records of numbers of personnel in client premises ... an analysis is currently under way which will recommend renegotiation of economically favourable leases and relegation of some Crown-owned properties. The allocation of space in Place Guy Favreau will be made after this analysis has taken place.
I mention this for two reasons. First, we have decided to put up a building in Montreal at a cost in excess of $100 million before deciding who should move into it. That, Mr. Speaker, is reverse decentralization. The responsible department, the Department of Public Works, does not know what it is doing in this case because it has received no information from the other departments. So in one case the Department of Veterans Affairs passes the buck to the Department of Public Works, while in the other the Department of Public Works passes the buck to departments generally.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that I have good reason to place my motion on the order paper asking for the production of papers so that a little more light might be cast upon this whole issue. That is why I asked for the correspondence, the minutes of meetings and other communications relating to the decentralization of the Department of Veterans Affairs to the province of Prince Edward Island.
Veterans Affairs


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, long before I came to this House I was an academic and a firm believer in having before me the fullest documentation possible before arriving at a judgment on any subject. I am, therefore, in agreement with the motion. I am also much committed to the idea of freedom of information to the fullest possible extent with respect to government and government transactions.
I listened carefully to what the hon. member had to say. He intimated he was not opposed to the move to Prince Edward Island, but-it was a substantial "but" for a three-letter word. I cannot understand why he should be surprised that this proposal should be made. It is long ago since this chamber first discussed the decentralization of the administration to various parts of the country. A number of departments are already functioning from one end of the country to the other. It is past my understanding that this move to Charlottetown, the cradle of confederation, should cause so much consternation or that it should be held up as an example of inflicting pain and anguish upon public servants. I can understand that great difficulties might arise over family matters, children's education, and so on but there are not many operations in the private sector or, indeed, in the government itself where guaranteed geographical security is part of the job commitment. I never had a big business empire such as the hon. member referred to but I am wondering whether in that empire extending all across the country there are not many people who were called upon to move very suddenly from one part of Canada to another.
The move to Prince Edward Island will not take place suddenly. I hope all those concerned will be able to make suitable arrangements to provide for their families, their children and so on. But I do not accept with good grace the suggestion that Prince Edward Island is incapable of offering language training for those who will be working in the Department of Veterans Affairs. Instead of quibbling about things like this I believe this House and the country should applaud the honourable and gallant Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) who has arranged for the transfer of the department to the city of Charlottetown, a city where the per capita representation of veterans in the Boer War, the first world war, the second world war and the Korean war was very high.
It is very fitting that a minister of such great military distinction should be the man responsible for the initiation of such a move, it is conceivable that the move will be finished under another government, but those are the fortunes of political warfare. Before I leave this place I want to salute the Minister of Veterans Affairs for the action he took and say to the mover of this motion that any public servant now living in the national capital who finds that his work will take him to the city of Charlottetown is very much blessed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: His real income will not change but his psychic income will be greatly increased. I have not lived in Charlottetown for a hundred years-


An hon. Member:: It just seems like that!
3852

March 16, 1978
Veterans Affairs


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: -but these people will be well treated. Those who join the department from Prince Edward Island will include many fine people who will maintain the quality of service which is provided. This is a department dedicated to looking after a select group of Canadians, those who bore hardship and endured the struggle at times of national peril. While I think it is wise to have all the information before us, nobody concerned should consider that they were taken by surprise. Sooner or later, decentralization was bound to strike Prince Edward Island. Surely somewhere along the line, if Camrose, Alberta, or whatever it is called up in the north, which the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) is presently representing, can get the Farm Credit Corporation, Prince Edward Island is entitled to something.
I am firmly convinced that the decentralization of bureaucracy is a good thing. The more we can get the Canadian people to look upon this great structure of government as being their own, the better. We saw the cabinet moving about the west-


Mr. Gilbert:: At public expense!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: The hon. member says "at public expense".


An hon. Member:: In the public interest!


John Gilbert: It was a political propaganda event.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Perhaps I can say what I am going to say. I appreciate the help from all sides, but I would just as soon utter my own thoughts. I was going to say that I think it is an excellent thing for members of the government to be moving across the country. That makes me a very good Canadian citizen. But as a good Progressive Conservative I say it is an excellent thing that the present government move across the country so that people can see them at close range. If they get to know them as well as we know them here, there will be a great future, not only for my party but also for the country.


John Gilbert: Yes, great changes will take place.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I look forward to welcoming the people from the Department of Veterans Affairs in Charlottetown. I am voluntarily withdrawing. I do not know what will happen to my colleague, the hon. member for Cardigan, but he will have his memorial there. I am looking forward to my memorial, which is the Charlottetown airport. The last time I was there I saw a beautiful replica right in the foyer. It is pretty crowded there, but that is one thing I welcome. I think we may each leave something tangible-surely there are many intangibles-but I welcome and salute the fact that, as the people on the Island say, "the honourable Danny Dan" has done well.


Mr. Donald Wood (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to applaud most of the comments made by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), but with regard to the comments made by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert),

I should like to say no wonder we have regional disparity in our country when we hear centralized comments such as those that he expressed. I was surprised and disappointed to have heard a member of the House speak in this manner.
I am particularly happy to have this opportunity to speak for just a few moments about the planned relocation of the Department of Veterans Affairs from Ottawa to Charlottetown, a move of real importance and magnitude which will be completed in about three years.
We all know the government is committed to the policy of decentralizing some of its operations and the associated relocating of selected agencies, branches and divisions of certain departments outside the national capital region. When one thinks and speaks of decentralization, certainly DREE is a shining example of success. In 1974 DREE made the move to decentralize, and today the Atlantic provinces have 281 people in the four provincial offices and in the regional office in Moncton, as compared to 77 prior to decentralization. But, perhaps even more important, the decentralization of DREE has resulted in over 70 per cent of the senior executive positions being located now outside of Ottawa. This means that 90 per cent of the incentive grant decisions under RDIA are made right in Atlantic Canada.
The relocation of the Department of Veterans Affairs, which is the fifth largest federal department, is seen as an impoitant instrument for attaining such priority national objectives as, first, bringing government operations closer to the people, second, reducing regional economic disparities, and third, promoting a more balanced urban development.
Officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs have worked with the Treasury Board secretariat task force on decentralization for more than a year to determine which units and functions can be relocated. They also developed details of operation, cost and other factors which would permit cabinet to decide which units can best be relocated.
In preparation for relocation, the Department of Veterans Affairs, in conjunction with the Departmental of Regional Economic Expansion and the Department of Urban Affairs, together with representatives of the province of Prince Edward Island and of the city of Charlottetown, have formed a trilevel committee to address itself to all aspects involved in the relocation. The provincial and municipal representatives of the co-ordinating committee are: Dr. Tom Connor, deputy minister of development, and Mr. John Butler, city manager for Charlottetown. Also included in the advance planning team is Dr. John Glendenning, president of Holland college in Charlottetown, with whom the department might soon be working to develop curricula to provide islanders with skill training for possible recruitment to the Department of Veterans Affairs. It is also important to note that there are more federal officials on this co-ordinating committee than provincial and municipal officials because there is a lot of work to be done by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, the Department of Urban Affairs and, of course, the Department of Veterans Affairs.
March 16, 1978
When the committee addresses itself to all aspects of the relocation and a great many different subjects, among the committee's concerns will be the effect of the move of employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs and their families on the medical, health, cultural and educational facilities in P.E.I. There has been considerable discussion about the provision of public education in the second official language in Charlottetown when the department moves. It is considered a priority. In that respect, the provincial government has agreed that French language education will be available in Charlottetown by 1981. However-we must understand this-precise language training needs of employees of the department cannot be determined until closer to the actual relocation date.
Officials of the personnel section of the department have had consultations recently with a Holland college committee examining business courses to be offered, especially bilingual secretarial, administrative, stenographic and clerical. Former Charlottetown mayor Frank Zakem, who is also principal of Holland College's Charlottetown centre, says that these postsecondary courses which, he predicts, might begin in 1979 will emphasize skills in bilingualism.
However, I should like to emphasize again that the extent of the requirement for French language training will not be definitely known until it is determined how many French speaking employees will choose to relocate. Here are some of the statistics we have already drawn up indicating the number of personnel interested in relocating. The result of the department's first relocation questionnaire circulated to all Department of Veterans Affairs' employees shows that out of 228 employees whose mother tongue is French, 32 indicated they would make the move the Charlottetown, 135 said they would not, and 61 were undecided. Out of the survey of the Anglophone speaking employees-there are 454 of them-108 said they would relocate, 200 said they would not, and 146 were undecided. To put these figures together and to put it all in perspective, 20.5 per cent of the head office staff indicated a willingness to relocate, 49 per cent said they were not planning to relocate, and 30.4 per cent were undecided.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hour appointed for private members' business having expired I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess. [DOT]


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Supply

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Cullen (for the President of the Treasury Board) that Bill C-31, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1979, be read for the second time and referred to committee of the whole.
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, before the House recessed at 5 p.m., I was dealing with agriculture and the dairy products promotion program. I should have stressed that the advertising campaign will centre on cheese, because consumption is increasing and the annual cheese consumption per capita is in the neighborhood of 15 pounds, while it is double that figure in some European countries.
In the area of market research, funds will be used for finding new markets for the existing dairy products. As an illustration, one project will go into the possibility of increasing daily sales in restaurants, hotels and institutions. The Canadian Farm Economic Research Council received grants to research the use of powder skim milk in animal feeding and various studies are under way on the economic aspects of feeding powder skim milk to suckling calves.
Over the last few years, milk overproduction and low demand for powder skim milk, a by-product of butter manufacturing, has been one of the main problems in that area. Butter and powder skim milk surpluses from increased world dairy production and lower butter consumption depressed world prices to a fraction of their normal level. The Canadian government is supporting the domestic price of powder skim milk at the 72 cents per pound level, while world price plummeted to 20 cents and less. In order to export, Canadian producers must therefore pay some 50 cents a pound, which significantly curtails their level of revenues. This is why I referred earlier to the $152 million government subsidy in the form of export debt write-off, the debt incurred by producers.
Mr. Speaker, of course in this time of year, in mid-March, there is talk of the forthcoming dairy policy. A number of Liberal members and myself are now attending various meetings, in a concerted effort to convince cabinet to approve and announce the best possible dairy policy. This would be forthcoming in the beginning of April. Last year, we succeeded in obtaining a very good daily policy and this year we would like this policy to be even better, in the interest of all our farmers.
I have every reason to hope, Mr. Speaker, that the dairy policy for 1978-79 will be most profitable, not only for the producers but also for the consumers, that is for the people

80033-31'A

March 16, 1978
Supply
generally. Before closing my remarks, Mr. Speaker, there is a program I should like to explain. I am thinking here of the program to increase the production of fodder in Quebec. An agreement was signed by our Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and his provincial counterpart on last February 17. The federal-provincial agreement provides for the expenditure of $33.5 million towards the implementation of four programs to help our Quebec producers improve their self-sufficiency in the area of fodder.
At the present time, Quebec produces only 34 per cent of the fodder crops it needs; the rest is imported from the Prairies, Ontario and even the United States. The federal government has committed itself to paying Quebec producers the total cost of those programs, that is a total amount of $33.5 million, or $6.7 million a year for the next five years starting on April 1, 1978. This program will end on May 31, 1983. Four programs are available to enable Quebec farmers to finance grain stocking facilities on the farm including silos, ventilation systems and corn dryers. Our producers may also benefit from subsidies for the purchase of grain harvesters, hay dryers and silos to improve the conservation quality and quantity of grain and fodder crops produced in Quebec. Those programs will be administered by the Quebec Department of Agriculture and the provincial offices in each area will maintain the liaison with producers.
Therefore, all farmers who wish to take part in those programs will be provided with forms and expertise by local offices of the Quebec Department of Agriculture as of April 1, 1978. A federal-provincial committee will supervise the general administration of those programs.
The federal government will pay to the Quebec consolidated fund an amount of $6.7 million annually. The payments made to producers through Quebec will clearly show the contribution of the Canadian government, that is any cheque made to producers will come from federal funds for carrying out those four programs.
This is, Mr. Speaker, what I had to say concerning agriculture during consideration of Bill C-31 for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1979. If I insisted on agriculture it is because it is a vital sector of our society, agriculture being not only the concern of producers but also that of consumers and the Canadian government, has it can be noted, is very much aware of farming problems in Canada as very substantial funds are allotted to agriculture in the best interests of the people.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to seek the unanimous consent of hon. members of the House in order to make a short statement. I understand the standing committee will be sitting in another room and there is an agreement

among its members that the meeting will reconvene some time after I have made my statement. As there was only one member from our side who spoke today perhaps I might be allowed to make my short statement, and that would make it possible for me to make myself available to committee members for interrogation on the bill which has to be concluded before the committee tonight.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I believe under the rules I was recognized prior to five o'clock and would probably have been finishing my remarks about now. However, I agreed to let the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader have the floor on the condition that I would be recognized after that. I am not interested in attempting to disrupt the business of the Minister of Finance but we are interested in putting some questions to him.
I would like to offer the minister the opportunity to speak now if he will agree that we go into committee of the whole after the completion of his remarks so that we might have an opportunity of quizzing him on the impact of the comments he intends to make. His remarks may not be long in duration, but probably important in terms of impact. Therefore we would like that opportunity.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. The Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) on a point of order.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, discussions on Bill C-31 began this afternoon and, except for myself, only members opposite have participated in the debate. Indeed, one Conservative member has spoken as well as the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) and at seven minutes to five o'clock, I am the only government member who has been recognized this afternoon on that bill. I was allowed 40 minutes. I knew that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) wanted to make himself available for the Committee on Finance tonight and that is why I have shortened my speech and spoke for only about seven minutes. I was entitled to another half hour. I was expecting the same courtesy from the hon. member who spoke before me. I am quite surprised by his attitude, and given the circumstances, when he claims that he had been recognized before me this afternoon, he knows quite well that this was a mistake since no government member at that time had yet been recognized. Now, all I want from the hon. member is to be gentlemanlike and courteous and allow the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) to make his short statement and make himself available for the Committee on Finance before which he must appear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I recognize the hon. member for York-Simcoe on the same point of order.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps there is some misunderstanding. Certainly our impression this afternoon was
March 16, 1978

that at about this time this evening we might have reached the point where we would go into committee of the whole, and then those who wished to use the time to make what might be regarded as speeches could do so. This would allow us an opportunity to question the minister on the statement he now wishes to read into the record.
Perhaps we could make a compromise. If the minister would indicate that he was at least willing to answer questions, notwithstanding the fact that we would not be in committee of the whole, I think that would satisfy us and we could get on with the formal proceedings of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The Chairman has no choice but to ask all members if there is unanimous consent in response to the permission sought by the Minister of Finance to speak now. If there is not unanimous consent I cannot grant him that opportunity. If there is I will do so. But I cannot impose any conditions.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I think it is clear that there may be a misunderstanding on your part in respect of what has been suggested on this side, and I say that with great respect to yourself. What the hon. member for Calgary Centre and our financial critic have suggested is that we are prepared to allow the Minister of Finance to speak, but because we do not know what he is going to say, and we are very interested in knowing, as I am sure the nation is, we would like him to consent, as part of the unanimous consent, to a 15 minute question period. No doubt what he has to say will require some clarification. If the minister does not agree to that, then I must agree with your comments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: With all due respect to hon. members, especially the hon. member who has just spoken, I must first seek the unanimous consent of the House in respect of whether the minister shall be recognized. If there is that consent, after he has been recognized hon. members can then ask whether there will be a question period, and that request may be granted. Before that, however, I must seek unanimous consent that the hon. Minister of Finance be recognized. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: There is not unanimous consent.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, the only reason hon. members said no was that the hon. member for Calgary Centre was recognized before dinner hour and deferred-


An hon. Member:: Why shouldn't he?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. 1 have before me an amendment moved by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) to the effect that the bill be not now read a second time, but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and
Supply
Economic Affairs, and the amendment goes on to offer certain instructions to that committee. Without getting into the difficult procedural problems respecting instructions to committees, I would simply draw the attention of the House to the fact that we are operating under a special order in respect of this bill which requires that it be given second reading, be considered in committee of the whole, reported, given third reading and passed before the adjournment of the House tonight. This amendment proposes an alternative procedure not provided for in the special order, and for that reason alone I regret that I must rule the amendment unacceptable.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But it was a good idea.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding with my remarks, so there is no misunderstanding, I should like to
say-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order please. Is the hon. member seeking to be recognized for the purpose of discussing the bill or is he rising on a point of order?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the point of order. I should like to ask for the unanimous consent of the House that the Minister of Finance be allowed to speak, followed by a 15-minute question period.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Members have heard again the proposal of the hon. member for Calgary Centre, that unanimous consent by given the Minister of Finance. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Who said "no"?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: 1 asked whether there was unanimous consent and I heard a "no". Therefore, there is not unanimous consent.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: If the hon. member is seeking the floor on a point of order to make remarks that certain members have not been recognized, I do not think that is procedural and, therefore, I would not recognize the hon. member on that point of order. If the hon. member wants the floor on a point of order relating to the remarks made by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), I will accept that.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I would just like to explain to you, Mr. Speaker, that prior to the dinner hour we discussed this when I approached you at the chair and informed you that there was a possibility of a problem here. I knew there was going to be a problem. Now the minister wants to say a few words. It is fine

March 16, 1978
Supply
for him to say a few words providing he answers a few questions at the same time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I see no point of order. I recognize the member for Calgary Centre, and the floor is therefore open to him.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, we are debating today at second reading Bill C-31, which could go into committee of the whole if the government is willing to answer some questions in regard to spending, the economy and other related matters. But it is not. Therefore, we will have only this opportunity tonight at second reading to debate this bill, which is part of a process that is one of the most meaningless and embarrassing things that we in parliament are called upon to do. The whole process of estimates, spending allocation and supply appropriation is a giant sham, a charade that we perpetrate on the people of Canada every year.
In the third week of February the government presents its main estimates on spending. We know from experience those are not, in fact, their intended expenditures for the rest of the year but only part of them. They are going to present more later on. Committees are given references to look at government spending, but as we all know, that does not happen. There is no opportunity for members of parliament to get to the root of the activities of government departments to determine how they are spending their money.
Each year at this time we end up with an interim supply bill, and in June the final appropriation bill is presented to the House. This is the first time we have had a second reading debate on the bill. Unfortunately, members of parliament have no real opportunity to influence the contents of this bill in any real way. There is no parliamentary control over government spending, none whatsoever. Any attempt to claim otherwise is perpetrating a sham and a charade on the people of Canada. There is no chance for democratic input into government spending planning. There is no way for the people's representatives to exercise any authority over spending. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we would be more honest with the people of Canada if we passed a one-clause bill saying the government could spend whatever they wanted to spend, because this, in fact, is what happens. The government do whatever they want to do. We in parliament have no control whatsoever. To go through this annual charade of pretending there is parliamentary examination of estimates, of spending plans, parliamentary approval of spending plans, parliamentary approval of appropriations, is a charade that we are perpetrating on the people of Canada.
My constituents-and I think the constituents of every other riding in the country-believe in our democratic system. They believe that their members of parliament authorize the taxes, spending, and so on; and they further believe that their representatives monitor or audit the day to day operations of the government. That is what the people of Canada believe. That is what we are taught in school about our parliamentary system. That, in fact, has nothing to do with reality, because in

reality taxes become law when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) says they become law. There is no opportunity for parliament to exercise any influence by virtue of standing orders. Spending is exactly what the blue book says it will be. There is no contradictory control or parliamentary input.
The people's representatives have no input whatsoever in terms of determining spending. The day to day monitoring of government activities is impossible due to our inability under the current system to obtain information or find out what is going on. When we have a situation, as we have here today, where we are offering to the Minister of Finance an opportunity to make a statement so that we can question him afterwards to find out what is going on, the minister's parliamentary secretary says no. He does not want that. He does not want parliament to find out.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Perhaps the Chair should clarify one point at this time. It is not that anyone said no. I just said we could not permit members questioning the minister unless we passed second reading and went into committee of the whole. We cannot permit questions being asked at this stage. That was not sought. The ruling that I made earlier was that we could not go into committee at this time. We are still on second reading. We cannot go into committee until we have passed second reading. Therefore, the remarks being made at the present time are not justified.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I will not endeavour to argue with the Chair. I have always believed that the House is the master of its own rules and by unanimous consent we can do whatever we want. I was merely seeking unanimous consent to offer that opportunity, which was not granted.
Nevertheless, in terms of this whole spending process which Bill C-31 is a part of, what actually happens here and what people believe happens here are two totally different things. The reality is not democracy, but something else-I do not know what it is. It sure is not parliamentary democracy, and the sooner the people of Canada recognize that fact the sooner we can get back to a democratic system.
Compare our situation with the situation in the United States, Mr. Speaker. A budget is presented by the executive to congress in January, and it contains both taxation and spending plans of the government for the fiscal year starting on October 1. In other words, the legislature in the United States gets nine months to consider the taxing and spending plans of the U.S. government. We get, at most, five weeks. In the United States, congress demands and gets full information and they get changes. We demand information and get nothing and have no recourse. There is never any change. Even in the minority parliament, when the majority of members wanted changes we were precluded from obtaining them under the rules.
In the United States, congress was what the people believe it to be-a legislative assembly. Parliament in Canada, in terms of spending, is nothing like that whatsoever. We have no
March 16, 1978

ability to legislate taxes or spending. That is done entirely by the executive branch. Again, it is a sham perpetrated on the people of Canada to claim that parliament collects taxes and controls government spending.
Apologists for this system from amongst the government say that the check here is ministerial responsibility. That is the phrase they love to use when they are defending the system they operate under. What does it mean, Mr. Speaker? According to the Oxford Dictionary "responsible" means "liable to be called to account, answerable, morally accountable for actions." How can the House of Commons call a minister to account? How can we exercise this ministerial responsibility?
When the Minister of Finance was president of the treasury board in February, 1975, and tabled the main estimates for the coming fiscal year, he said that spending for the following year was going to be $28.2 billion in budgetary terms and $1.3 billion in loans for a total of $29.5 billion, representing a very modest 15 per cent increase over the previous year. He said he and his colleague the then minister of finance, the current Bay Street buccaneer were going to keep things to 15 per cent.
Let us examine what happened, Mr. Speaker. In reality, spending for that year was not $29.5 billion, it was $38.2 billion. The increase was not 15 per cent but 21 per cent. The Minister of Finance, who was then President of the Treasury Board, misled this House and the people of Canada about the government's spending plans. He was the responsible minister, but did he resign? He is still here. Did he apologize? Did he in any way account for this? Was he held responsible for this gross inaccuracy that he perpetrated on this House and the people of Canada? He was not. He is now perpetrating the same type of gross inaccuracies regarding some other aspects of government activities-unemployment, spending, debt and numerous other things.
Under this government ministerial responsibility is a sham. It is a shroud behind which they hide. It is a fraud. The Auditor General fills his report every year with instances of misspending by this government of illegal, improper activities. But has any minister resigned? Has one of them apologized? Has any responsibility been taken by ministers? Has the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) accepted responsibility for the AECL kafuffle and all the abuses that occurred there? Not on your life, Mr. Speaker. It is absurd to suggest that we have a system of ministerial responsibility in this country. We have no such thing.
The second line of defence of the apologists of the current system is that, through the debates in the House, through bills, through things like the blue book, the public is given information, and through that there is a weight of public opinion to keep the government and ministers responsible. Again, that is a sham. We have no freedom of information act in this country. The information we obtain is that which the government gives us, no other. We do not know, so we cannot ask the right questions. Even when we do ask the right questions we are not assured that we are getting the right answers. Mr. Gordon Robertson, the second highest bureaucrat of this government, when talking about freedom of information said it is
Supply
just agitation by vested interests, such as members of parliament and journalists. That was his reaction to our requests for information.
There is outright deception in the form of presentation of data, Mr. Speaker. Let us take the estimates which were presented less than a month ago by the President of Treasury Board (Mr. Andras), as an example. I shall outline four ways in which the method of presentation by the government deceives the House of Commons and the people of Canada about their spending plans.
When dealing with non-budgetary expenditure-loans and advances-they subtract low repayments. Thus, if last year one agency was given a loan of $500 million, and another agency repaid a loan of like amount, the net effect on the spending estimates presented to parliament would be zero. There would be no effect. If this year that loan of $500 million was written off, as is frequently the case with this government, that $500 million would not show up either because that is a no-cash transfer system situation. It does not show up in the figures. The people of Canada would end up spending $500 million of tax moneys and the President of the Treasury Board would not reflect that expenditure in the figures he gives to the House of Commons and the people of Canada. Therefore, we are deceived again about government spending plans.
This year for the first time some Crown corporation loans were not included in government loans. Whereas last year the Export Development Corporation received loans from the government of Canada of $400 million, in the coming fiscal year they will make a loan directly from the private sector. Government spending for the following year is thereby reduced by this $400 million to the Export Development Corporation, but there has been no change in terms of the loan. The people of Canada are still responsible for that loan. It is no different from the previous year, yet the numbers we get from the President of the Treasury Board say that they are spending $400 million less in that way. That is a sham. It is a charade. It is dishonest.
Then we have a situation where the minister predicts future supplementary estimates through the year. Last year he predicted supplementary estimates of $1,800 million. They turned out to be $3 billion. Did the minister apologize? Did he retract? Did he correct that? Did he explain why there was such a difference between his prediction and fact? Not on your life, Mr. Speaker. That is what ministerial responsibility means.
He also predicted that certain funds would not be spent, that they would lapse. He predicted for this year that there would be $1 billion lapsing, which is larger than any other year. If one were using historic precedents the amount of lapse would be about $600 million, not $1 billion as predicted by the Minister of Finance.
There is one other thing the government has been doing to hide true spending, and that is to push expenses off to the private sector. In the pipeline bill there is provision for a monitoring agency which is to cost around $200 million. That is not to be paid by the government but by the pipeline

March 16, 1978
Supply
company. Civil servants will be working there. There is $200 million of government spending which is not going to show up in the estimates, and it is not going to look like government spending.
Bill C-20, which deals with northern land use regulations, contains a clause requiring companies to contribute to an environmental protection fund. The moneys involved will never go through consolidated revenue and will never show up as government spending, yet, in fact, they are a tax to the company. If honesty were the mode of operation they should be reflected in the government spending estimates to indicate that the money was being spent in this way.
It is in these ways that this government deceives the people of Canada. Any apologist for the system who says public opinion is a check on government extravagance simply does not realize that in fact the public cannot have an opinion about something they have no information on.
I am sorry the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is not here this evening, as I should like to give a further example of deception. He went out to Edmonton on a campaign trip paid for by the people of Canada and while there made a speech. This is reported in the Ottawa Citizen of March 14, under the heading "The Trudeau & Co. Shell Game", and begins as follows:
Someone is lying-Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, his advisers, or Statistics Canada.
It goes on to demonstrate the flimflammary of our Prime Minister, his abuse of fact, his willingness to distort, twist, misuse and deceive the Canadian public in the interests of electioneering.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: The article ends as follows:
But it should be informative to discover whether you can fool most of the people all of the time.
With that kind of leadership, is it any wonder that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, when electioneering at public expense in Lloydminster, should make a statement that led to headlines like this-


Mrs. Holt:: There is nothing in that front row.


Harvie Andre: There is the bionic mouth, Mr. Speaker. The headline said that the minister claimed a P.C. victory may jeopardize the heavy oil plant. If it were half parliamentary, Mr. Speaker, I would say that is a damn lie, but I cannot say that because it is not parliamentary. It sure as heck is not the truth. We voted for Bill C-19 on second reading. If that incompetent minister had paid a little attention the bill would have been through committee weeks ago.
While on the subject, we have a tradition here of not criticizing officials and bureaucrats and not attacking them because they cannot defend themselves. We are supposed to direct our concerns to the responsible minister. I understand

and appreciate that. In turn, Mr. Speaker, the requirement is officials not get involved in the political process. Therefore, I was more than a little upset to hear from four different delegations which had been to see officials of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. Certain senior officials in that department had told these individuals that the hon. member for Calgary Centre was making unreasonable demands and delaying that bill. Mr. Speaker, let me indicate that if those officials want to get involved in politics, they should be told to get out and run, otherwise keep their mounths shut.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: The third level of defence of this sham of a system is that the public at elections can indicate their concerns about government, that we can hold government responsible at election time. How do you do that? The Prime Minister has had 150 ministerial changes. Who the blazes are you to hold responsible? What postmaster general can we hold responsible for the fact that during the period 1969 to 1977 the amount of mail went up 17.9 per cent but the number of post office employees went up 42.7 per cent? All that is the magic effect of automation. The figures show almost 18 per cent more mail and 43 per cent more employees, and they do not work. What postmaster general are we supposed to hold responsible for that, Mr. Speaker? That is what I would like to know.
Can the people trust what this government says? This is the government that has said, no, no, to price and income controls. They said they would not work, and they would never do it. Then they introduced them a year later. This is a government led by a man who said he would wrestle inflation to the ground. He wrestled inflation to the ground, this great tiger. This is a government led by a man who said that separatism is dead. This is a man who at the last election promised $250 million to help remove railways from downtown urban centres. The list goes on and on. This is a man, this is a government, this is a party which has deceived the Canadian people repeatedly.
The strategy is very clear. They do not think the public is very bright. They think the public will accept whatever lies they are told right now. They will have a whole new batch and a whole new image and a new haircut and they will go to the people and the people will forget about all these lies from the past and believe them from now on. I do not think the Canadian people are that dumb and 1 do not think that will happen. I think hon. members on the other side are in for a surprise. The people of Canada must realize that we no longer have parliamentary democracy in this country. They must not be deluded into thinking that we in parliament can hold this government responsible, that there are really checks and balances.
As my leader pointed out the other night, if the Americans had this system Senator Sam Irvin would have had to ask Richard Nixon's permission to study Watergate. What do you think of the chances of that happening, Mr. Speaker, in the
March 16, 1978

American system? The fact is that in our system the cabinet can do whatever it wants. It can spend like drunken sailors, and it does. It can hide embarrassing information, and it does. It can distort the truth, and it does. It can ignore the wishes of the Canadian citizenry, and it does. All they feel is necessary is that near elections they put on the act they think the public wants to see, tell whatever fresh new lies are necessary to get elected, and that is all that is required. The only way that we could be less democratic than we are today is if we did away with elections altogether. And only the most naive would dismiss that as a possibility with that bunch.
Even as a debating forum our opportunities are being restricted. We wanted the opportunity given today to the Minister of Finance to make a statement, and for the opposition to be given a chance to ask questions of him so that the whole truth could get to the people of Canada. But the gurus on the other side said no. They are not interested in that. They are plainly not interested in talking about the economy. There are a million unemployed and the minister does not want to talk about that. Our dollar is only worth 88 cents and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) thinks that is the greatest thing that ever happened. I am sure if our dollar went down to a quarter he would be ecstatic. He would be beside himself with glee.
With the anti-inflation program ending we have no debate or discussion as to what is to follow on. I can understand that; the government does not know what to do. It has no idea of how to get out of this mess. It created a million unemployed with its policies. It created an 88-cent dollar with its policies. It created the regional disparity in this country with its policies and it does not know what to do. It is not going to allow parliament to discuss these problems because it is not in their interests to do so. The Liberals want the people to accept a lot of half-truths and mistruths and they expect with that formula they can get back into office. Mr. Speaker, I do not think the people of Canada are that foolish. I think the people of Canada recognize that this coming election is a vote of confidence in this government. They will look at the record and they will see that there are a million people unemployed. They will look at double-digit inflation and at all the blunders of this government, along with the half-truths, the mistruths and the outright lies that have come from this government, and they will vote accordingly, knowing full well that if they vote for the Liberals again they will get more of the same and that there may not be any country at the end of it all.
As Mr. Calami said in an article in Tuesday's Citizen, it will be interesting to see if you can fool most of the people all of the time. I do not think you can. I think this government are in for a rude shock when they get up their courage and go to the people.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, Clause 5 of the interim supply bill now before the House seeks a supplementary statutory borrowing authority of $5 billion. It also seeks explicit authorization for the government to borrow in foreign currencies as well as Canadian dollars.
Supply
Under the Financial Administration Act, only parliament may authorize the government to borrow money or issue securities. This requirement refers to borrowings that increase the amount of outstanding loans. The act gives the government a continuing authority to borrow funds to repay maturing debt.
The traditional procedure for seeking new borrowing powers is to attach a clause to supply bills brought before the House. However, this procedure provides no opportunity to debate the borrowing authority request because the clause is not part of the estimates discussed in standing committees and because supply bills are usually passed without debate. For these reasons, it was agreed in March 1976 and again in March 1977 to give the House an opportunity to debate the borrowing authority.
Hon. members will recall that last March, borrowing authority of $7 billion was provided to meet anticipated cash requirements for the 1977-78 fiscal year. Authority to borrow an additional $9 billion was sought and provided as part of the income tax bill passed in December. This request was made because it was recognized that the government's 1977-78 cash requirements were going to exceed the borrowing authority provided earlier and that an additional substantial margin was required then to meet contingencies such as foreign borrowings and the possibility of an advance refunding of maturing Canada savings bonds. It was anticipated that the contingency margin sought would in fact allow the government to meet a significant part of cash requirements for 1978-79.
The authority in this bill to borrow a further $5 billion, together with the unused portion of the $16 billion authority granted in March and December of 1977, should provide the government with sufficient borrowing powers to meet all cash requirements for the fiscal year 1978-79, and provide a margin as usual for contingencies.
To provide greater clarity, clause 5 makes it explicit that the borrowing authority covers foreign currencies as well as Canadian dollars. While this authority has always been implicit, and has not been questioned in our previous foreign currency issues, we think it is helpful to follow the example of other Canadian borrowers in this regard.
I now expect that cash requirements for fiscal year 1977-78 will total $8.8 billion and as of now I am anticipating a cash requirement of about $11 billion for fiscal year 1978-79.
[ Translation]
My colleague, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) has already announced that budgetary expenditures, as well as loans, advances and capital assets should represent $48.8 billion in 1978-79, which is 9.8 per cent over the level forecast for 1977-78. Budgetary expenditures should increase by a little less than 10 per cent, with supplementary estimates and cancellations. As for loans, advances and capital assets, they should increase by about 6 per cent.
3860

March 16, 1978
Supply
I expect budgetary revenues to increase by about 13 per cent in 1978-79. As the S100 reduction for each taxpayer has mostly affected personal income tax revenues for 1977-78, these should increase fairly rapidly in 1978-79. The budgetary deficit should remain at approximately the 1977-78 level. However, our financial requirements, apart from exchange operations, will be substantially greater as we must pay approximately $2.6 billion in accrued interests and bonuses payable on Canada savings bonds maturing on November 1, 1978. We expect that many Canadians will want to reinvest this money in more Canada savings bonds, and we certainly encourage them to do so. We therefore foresee that these bonds will this year satisfy a greater proportion of our needs than in the two past years.
As at the end of February our treasury totalled $5.2 billion, a fairly high level; the borrowing authority asked for should allow the government to plan and efficiently carry out management of the public debt. The unused part of the existing borrowing rights, and the new $5 billion authority requested will cover our domestic cash requirements in 1978-79, and will be used to draw on the $1.5 billion U.S. credit opening and the $750 million U.S. loan which is being negotiated.
Our borrowings in Canada are completed for the current fiscal year, except for the treasury bonds which will be offered in the last two adjudications for March. The government increased by about $8.2 billion its outstanding internal debt. The new issues of negotiable shares and the increase in the number of treasury bonds, in net terms, amounted respectively to about $3.5 billion and $2.9 billion. The balance of the increase was provided by the Canada savings bonds, the outstanding debt derived from them having been increased by $1.8 billion during the fiscal year.
We expect to meet in part our financial needs for 1978-79 through our treasury. The balance will be provided through current program providing for an increase in weekly adjudications of treasury bonds, new issues of negotiable bonds from time to time and the periodic campaign for Canada savings bonds in the fall.

That is the statement, Mr. Speaker, that I wanted to make this evening on the borrowing authority. It is for an additional $5 billion.
I want to make one comment before closing because somebody said "shame". I would like him to explain to me how he would manage to borrow less and still cut taxes by an additional $2 billion, as his party proposes. It makes absolutely no sense to say that his party would cut taxes an additional $2 billion and at the same time say "shame" because there is too much borrowing in this country at the present time. The hon. member would be well advised to make up his mind about this.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day. This is a sad evening.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, was I recognized? This is a sad day. It is a sad evening for parliament and for the people of Canada. On October 20, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), under the guise of a statement during the debate on that day, chose to give what he now says was a budget, without the benefit of parliament having the normal six day debating period it would have on a budget.
This evening, under the guise of making a statement with respect to the bill now before us, the minister has filled in some details as to what we may expect with regard to the revenue and spending position of this government for the coming fiscal year 1979, again, I would emphasize without giving this House the privilege it would have if the government had the courage to bring in a budget. We do not have the privilege to debate the minister's budgetary position.
Not only did the minister bring in his statement in the context that it was, but he has adamantly refused to allow the members of this House to ask questions with regard to that statement. He adamantly refuses to allow the House to go into committee of the whole so that we can have a meaningful review.
The point I wish to make is that there is a great deal unanswered in the minister's statement tonight. He has indicated that we may anticipate a cash requirement of $11 billion for fiscal year 1979. However, he did not make it clear what cash requirement he was referring to. Was he referring to what is generally looked upon as the budgetary cash requirement? Was he referring to the cash requirement after foreign exchange dealings? Most important, the Minister of Finance should have made clear tonight whether the $11 billion, which he is now admitting to be the government's cash requirement for fiscal 1979, includes the borrowings that the government intends to make regarding the Export Development Corporation, the CNR and various other Crown corporations.
Let me put this into perspective. We have a Minister of Finance who lacks the courage to bring in a proper budget, but who indicates we have a $ 11 billion cash requirement without making it clear to this House that that does not include the cash requirements of such agencies as the Export Development Corporation, which will be going to the public for additional funds. We were told this was part of a larger plan to commit $2 billion of possible future Canadian financing to be raised in the name of Canada. Add that to the $11 billion which has been disclosed here tonight and we are up to $13 billion which the minister is saying will be the fiscal requirement for 1979. Add, further, the borrowing planned by the CNR and other agencies and it becomes clear why the general public is expecting borrowing by Canada to the tune of $14 billion.
Let us put this into perspective. When the minister says tonight he foresees a financial need of $11 billion, it means that 22 per cent of his spending will not be paid for out of revenue in the coming year. In other words, 22 per cent of everything that is being spent on behalf of the Canadian public
March 16, 1978

is being put on the cuff. Between $ 11 billion and $ 13 billion represents funds being spent by the government to cover the current shortfall incurred with regard to operations which will have to be paid for by generations to come. What a legacy to inherit! Future generations will have to pay for the government's mismanagement and ineptitude in choosing to run our financial affairs so badly.
Again, to put this issue into perspective, on May 25, 1976 we did see a proper budget introduced. At that time the minister of finance disclosed that the total financial requirement of the government, including those of Crown corporations, was $1.5 billion. That was for the fiscal year 1975. Tonight, four years later, we are told $11 billion will be required. Mr. Speaker, the climb has been sensational. In the 1976 fiscal year, the total sum the government needed to cover the shortfall in its operations was $4.6 billion. In 1977, the total was estimated to be $4.7 billion. In 1978, the fiscal year which will shortly be running out, we are told the total amount required is $8.8 billion. Mr. Speaker, no other nation is incurring such a huge deficit and cash requirement in terms of its population, the total federal government's spending program and the gross national product. That is the truth. It is time those Liberal backbenchers stopped giggling over there behind their ministers, stopped blindly supporting those ministers and asked a few questions. Why have they tolerated the type of deficit which is being incurred?
Why did the minister choose to make this revelation tonight? There may be members who are curious. Why did he choose tonight to spell out the cash requirement for 1979? The truth is, he was told to do so. He was told to make this disclosure by the bankers of New York City. They said he was bound to disclose exactly what was to happen in Canada in 1979. They said to him, in effect: "You may be able to fudge these figures as far as the people of Canada are concerned, but we need to know the facts."
I refer now to the preliminary prospectus which was filed in New York and particularly to the pages in that prospectus dealing with the public debt. Pages 18 and 19 spell out more clearly than the government has ever done what the problem is. It is revealed in this document that as of January 1, 1978, the total direct debt of the federal government was $49.7 billion. This compares with $29 billion in 1973. In the short period of six years they have run up our debt by $20 billion. Tonight we are told they are still spending, or at least attempting to borrow, $7 billion for which they received authority in March, 1977, $9 billion for which they received authority to borrow in November, plus another $5 billion they are wanting us to approve tonight. Mr. Speaker, the Department of Finance seems to have lost control over the budgetary process.
Unfortunately, it is not only the present generation which will be paying for this spending spree the government has embarked on; it will be future generations as well. Not only is the direct debt of the government revealed, but the document also shows that at the end of December, 1977, Crown corporations had borrowed $1.2 billion and that indirect guarantees to which the government is committed amount to almost $21
Supply
billion. In short, if we put together the various debts and guarantee obligations of the government we find, according to this document filed in New York, that the government has got us into something exceeding $75 billion of debt.


An hon. Member:: Disgusting!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Those are the facts, and rather than come to parliament and make the statement he has made it would be better if the minister were to tell parliament why the government has got into this mess, why it has run into this cash requirement it is now obliged to disclose. Surely the House is entitled to find out exactly the height of the debt ceiling the government presently contemplates.
If we agree to extend the borrowing authority by a further $5 billion, where will it all end? We know from the records filed in New York that the borrowing they have used up already amounts to something like $75 billion. If we add the figure to which the minister has referred tonight the ceiling will be hovering around the $85 billion mark. We should be told clearly exactly what obligations the government intends to run up on behalf of the Canadian public.
Not only has the government incurred the debt to which I have referred, but it has done something which, to my mind, is intolerable: it has monetized an increasing amount of the debt it was incurring. Last year, the Bank of Canada was forced, because of the cash requirement shortfall, to buy from government nearly $2 billion of further obligation in the name of the government of Canada.
At the end of December of last year, the total debt owed by the Bank of Canada in government of Canada securities was $10,225 billion. As I said, that is approximately $2 billion more than at the end of 1976. But let hon. members put that again in perspective. When the emperor became the Prime Minister of this country, when the Prime Minister took over the reins of government in 1968, the total Bank of Canada holdings of government securities amounted to $3.8 billion. From $3.8 billion they have increased to something over $7 billion, and the hard fact is that that is what people call monetizing the debt. There is no mystery about inflation in this country. Since the government took power, real growth in Canada has been 55 per cent. The government has created, largely through what I have referred to as the monetizing of debt, 156 per cent more money in the country. Is it any surprise that we have had 100 per cent inflation since the Prime Minister took the reins of power? I ask urgently that all members of parliament, before they vote to give the government still further borrowing authority of $5 billion ask themselves why we are getting into such a lopsided debt position when we were told, as we are still being told by the government, that we are doing relatively well. If this were not as strong a country as it is, we could not withstand the inept management of a government such as we have.


Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for giving me the privilege of speaking on Bill C-31, the
80033-32Vi

March 16, 1978
Supply
supplementary estimates. I will not speak very long because I know some of my colleagues want to participate in this debate. I will not go into the details of the supplementary estimates-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Why don't you read them from cover to cover? I am interested.


Frank A. Philbrook: If the hon. member does not mind, I will speak off the cuff, but I will pick up my papers.
I should like to touch on a couple of points regarding the economy because this bill on supplementary estimates is a very important part of government spending, which in turn is an important part of our whole economic situation. We have heard a great deal in recent times about some of the hot issues of the day which, by and large, are shared by all countries in the world, all our trading partners. I refer to such issues as unemployment, inflation, trade deficits and currency exchanges, along with government spending which, as I said, is certainly an important part of our economy and which was an important topic of discussion at the recent federal-provincial conference at which we gained a great deal of reassurance that both the federal and provincial governments recognize there must be a change in government spending. They recognize that there must be retrenchment or more restraint and also that the whole problem of excessive government spending must be dealt with.
There is also the other aspect of competitiveness, which is the other side of the problem. As we all know, to make this country more competitive, as it should be, wage costs should be better controlled, as they seemed to be during the anti-inflation period, on a more permanent basis. Productivity, the ability of this country to work hard and produce efficiently, should also be increased. Under productivity there are a number of factors. It is not just a matter of how hard the worker works, as many of us have thought in the past, but how best to modernize our means of production, our productive machinery, also how to identify markets which need our products and in which we can compete.
There is also the business of lost work time. It has been a very serious concern in this country in recent years, perhaps more so than in other countries, perhaps not so much in the way of strikes, but rather the matter of how long the strikes last. We also worry about the special area of strikes in the essential services because those are key monopoly functions that this country cannot do without if it is to have a healthy economy.
Recently 1 took the trouble to send out a questionnaire on interruptions of work in our essential services-strikes, lockouts, and so on. I found in the early returns, which are fairly heavy, an interesting, although not surprising, fact, namely that the majority of people answering seemed to say yes, we must put a stop to strikes in essential services. I am sure they had such areas as the post office, transportation, Air Canada, and so on, in mind as well as our civil service and security forces which also occupy key monopoly positions in the economy.
[Mr. Philbrook.)
I received a letter from a constituent, whom I regard as a friend and supporter. He is certainly not an opponent or critic. He spoke very straightforwardly and honestly in his letter about strikes in the essential services, in the following terms:
Strikes and work stoppages in the public service will have to be stopped somehow, not because it is in the public service but because the service is a monopoly and people have no viable option. Strikes must be made illegal not just in "essential services" but in all cases where a monopoly service operates. The people cannot be held to ransom by a monopoly, public or private.
He goes on to say as well that it will not just be a matter of passing legislation but that we will have to have the courage to enforce it, which is another dimension. This gentleman, who is concerned, articulate and well qualified, a gentleman named Mr. Frank Price of Oakville, Ontario, is a senior executive in GSW Appliances Limited of Canada. He took the trouble to send me a copy of his recent address to the Ontario Economic Council entitled "Investment in Manufacturing Industries" in which he outlined, very courageously and in a straightforward manner, the serious problems in our economy today as well as the problem of national unity, probably the most serious problem in the past decade.
I will not go into the report but I would recommend it to anyone who would like to read a good analysis of a serious situation. It is dated March 6, 1978. In his closing remarks he states that the key to our economy is fresh capital investment in the manufacturing area. He concludes by saying the following:
The outline for investment in manufacturing in Ontario today is bad, discouraging, scary, yes, all of those things. In my opinion, the OEC paper-
That is his own paper
-seriously understates the problem. Unless something major is done to encourage new investments, we will lose what is left of our manufacturing industry in this country. We need all of the recommendations in the position paper, but perhaps a more important ingredient would be demonstrable evidence that governments in this country believe in the private business system. We do not have any other wealth creating system in this country. We had better all acknowledge that fact and publicly voice our support of the system. We then must so legislate that we allow the system to function.
He makes the following recommendations about what to do in our manufacturing area and therefore what to do in the best way about our economy. First, we must start to measure international trade in jobs created or lost rather than in dollars. Second, we must recognize that the more primary products we export, the more secondary products we will import. Third, we must consider foreign imports for what they are, an increase in our unemployment. Fourth, we must identify which new jobs will be created, and by whom, before we liberalize trade. Fifth we must conserve our capital and consider how many jobs are created with each major capital investment. Sixth, we must increase our investment in new technology to three times its present level by tax deferment. Seventh, we must limit the growth in government expenditures at all levels to half the growth in the GNP.
There is some hope. At the recent first ministers' conference some governments came down hard on the side of the free enterprise system. If we can translate this into positive action
March 16, 1978

now, we may yet create a viable manufacturing industry in this underdeveloped country of ours. If we do not, I fear the consequences.
In a recent speech before the Vancouver Institute, J. B. Klein, a former board chairman of MacMillan-Bloedel and a former British Columbia supreme court judge, said that parliamentary democracy is becoming less responsible to the people, and we may have to change our system of government. I am sure he had the American congressional system in mind. Mr. Klein concluded by saying that if we do not get business in general, and manufacturing in particular, moving and moving soon in our country, Canadians may well insist that we change our system. Along with this, as has been said in recent days in the House, it is obvious there must be something resembling industrial strategy. We must have more forward planning in the area of industries-short, medium and long term. Therefore, we have a great deal to do to put our own house in order.
I said that I would not speak very long, but in closing I would not feel right without mentioning the other dimension of our trade and economic problems, which is the international effect on our economy. I am referring to trade, which would bring us prosperity and some stability in the world, and also to offering aid and development to those who need it the most. We have problems with our wealthy, industrialized, western trading partners; there is no question about that. Hopefully these will be ironed out at GATT, although the process will be very difficult.
With regard to the second world, the communist world, we need to trade with them more than we are at the present time. Certainly we cannot afford to let them lapse into isolation. That would be very, very dangerous politically and militarily. Yet we have to be very careful in our trade with them for obvious reasons. We have to walk the tightrope with the second world. If Canada is going to make a breakthrough, the real challenge will be in the area of the so-called third world, which is sometimes referred to now as the third and fourth worlds because of Arab oil wells. Some of those countries have slipped back farther now than they were before.
As I indicated previously, we will have to continue offering aid; there is no question about that. It is for our own sake and for their sake. Of course, the real answer is in trade, as well as helping them to develop their own resources in order for them to become healthy trading partners like our present western trading partners, rather than charity cases. Within that umbrella of development, which will be a long and difficult process in many cases, we must start paying more attention and making more effort in certain areas that will assist development.
I am not referring only to areas which would help directly. I am also referring to areas which would not inhibit efforts third world countries are making to become healthy trading partners. One such area is population. We have not talked about that too much in the House. I would like to talk about that at length some time. I had hoped to in the last debate on external affairs, but unfortunately it did not work out. Like many subjects in the area of international affairs, this is a subject
Supply
which must come into its own again very soon. That is not just because of the human social implication, but also because of the very practical material implications for us as well as the third world countries.
Under the sponsorship of the United Nations, a new worldwide parliamentarians group working on population and development is being formed. Recently I was very pleased to be asked to chair that worldwide group of parliamentarians. I think we will begin to accomplish things in the very near future. I hope the House will hear more on that debate. In both senses and dimensions, both international and domestic, we have quite a job to do. I have every confidence that the government will achieve those challenges.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, we are seeing something tonight which I have not seen in the number of years I have been in parliament. It is approximately a year since we have had a budget in Canada. Tonight we saw the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) refer to a document which he read from. Sometimes he calls it a budget, sometimes he calls it an economic statement. Once again tonight he referred to it as a budget. As was indicated by our finance critic in the debate in answer to the minister this evening, we are almost never allowed to question the minister on that. According to the rules of the House, we are only allowed to question him for a few moments. Under the rules of the House, we are not permitted to have a six-day debate.
We are now into that period of parliamentary history where there is an uncertainty. We are witnessing this place decaying and dying, because we are moving into a period where there is likely to be a federal election. If my memory serves me correctly, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) came into the House and announced that there would be four or five by-elections on October 16. We know he did that with a smirk on his face, and that he had no intention of holding those by-elections on that date. Whether the Prime Minister has let his cabinet in on the secret or not, he has planned with his advisers to announce an election between now and October 16. Also we know between now and that date that perhaps there will not be a budget.
Surely I can speak so that Canadians will understand when we talk about billions. For example, we have been told that this year's deficit is greater than Canada's entire budget when the Prime Minister and his gang took over in 1968. The minister read a statement tonight in a manner similar to that of an elementary schoolboy reading from a text book. Never before have I witnessed either a Liberal or Conservative minister of finance reading in such a manner. Since I have not experienced the New Democratic Party in office federally, I cannot criticize them in this regard.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just stick around.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have never seen such an inept and economically illiterate minister of finance in my lifetime. He entered the chamber and insulted the House by reading from a statement and refusing a simple, ordinary request. We were

March 16, 1978
Supply
prepared to yield the floor to him. We requested 15 minutes of his time in order to interrogate him on the statement, which indicates that Canada is seeking a quantity of money from the United States. If it is to be believed, we have been told that bonds are being sold in the United States. Apparently there will be a law for Americans in Canada as well as another one for Canadians. Canadians who buy bonds to bolster the economic policies of the government will be required to pay income tax on them, but Americans will be exempt from that tax.
Over the years I have heard the so-called learned gentlemen who sit on the Treasury benches talking about foreign investment. Here we are today in such a state of economic collapse and economic disaster, the worst since the 1930's, having to go cap in hand to the United States to ask them please to lend us $750 million at a rate of interest higher than that paid by any other country in the western world, and we say that we will not even charge tax on the earnings. There is a law for the Americans in Canada and another law for Canadians. If ever there was discrimination against our taxpayers, that is it, and I hope I get that message across.
To digress for just a moment, I might add that the relationship between Canada and the United States under this government has not been too good over the years, and every backbencher in the Liberal party knows that.
One of our great difficulties in dealing with matters of financial and economic policy is that we are always talking in billions of dollars. How many Canadians know what the budget was in 1965 when we were defeated? How many know what it was in 1968? The message has got across to the public that the national debt has tripled. They know that.


An hon. Member:: You mean back in 1963.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, back in 1963, you are quite correct. I am very pleased that the hon. member has drawn that to my attention. It does seem a long time ago, but when you think back that far you can imagine how awful a time it has been for a Conservative, putting up with this government since 1963. I cannot believe it is that long.
Returning to what Canadians do know about the value of the dollar, they know all the taxes they are paying and that 14 cents of every dollar goes to pay the interest on the national debt, most of which occurred since 1968.
Let us take a look at that economic pie that is put out for the taxpayers in beautiful colour. It shows the share for national health and welfare, defence, and one other, and then it shows the cost of our national debt. As a matter of fact, I think our national debt is third highest.
I do not have much time left, but in the remaining minutes let me deal with what I believe are the two fundamental things causing concern to the average Canadian. His first concern is about his take-home pay. He knows tonight that government expenditures will amount to $46.5 billion. Who knows what a

billion dollars looks like? I guess you could stretch it in $20 dollar bills from Nova Scotia to Victoria and never even miss a link. Perhaps you could even come back again. Our debt is getting close to $48 billion.
The average Canadian is concerned about his own take-home pay or, if he is a small businessman or a professional, his take-home profit. Taxes have increased and increased and the budget is built in by statutory law. That is the only reason I might have sympathy for the Minister of Finance, if I have any sympathy for him at all.
This government has legislated and legislated to such an extent that it now has a budget of over $40 billion, and no matter how the minister wriggles and squirms, unless he has a sunset aspect in some of these loans, he has a built-in budget and built-in taxation, and this means less take-home pay for the worker and less take-home profits for the business and professional man. No matter how you look at it, the minister is chained to that situation.
The average man's second concern is in respect of ever-spiralling inflation. The greatest thief of all from the Canadian taxpayer, outside of the high taxes that he is forced to pay, is the thief of inflation. Inflation steals from the weak, from the average income family, from the poor, from widows, from veterans, from everyone. Inflation is the biggest thief of all, but nothing has been done by this government to control it. Is it any wonder there has been a loss of confidence in the Canadian dollar in the international economic process? Not only has the Canadian dollar dropped below the 90 cent barrier, but it is even lower because of the drop in the value of the American dollar in terms of the German mark and the Japanese yen. As a consequence we are really buying on an export market, particularly when you take into account the fact that we have a 65 cent dollar.
One of the greatest aspects or difficulties in respect of inflation is the spiralling cost of energy. The cost has increased not only to drive our automobiles-and an automobile has become a necessity in Canada today-not only to heat our homes, but to run our factories which produce our products. This ends up increasing the cost of consumer goods.
Recently when I was back at home doing a little campaigning a man came to see me to tell me he had started a small factory in Didsbury, Alberta. He is attempting to make galvanized farm bins and Quonset type buildings. He got started nicely and wrote to the steel companies in Hamilton and elsewhere inquiring about the supply of galvanized materials, but he was told they were not able to supply the steel for his factory. He said he had to work it out somehow or another. He was paying $21 per hundredweight for galvanized steel. These companies now want $32 per hundredweight. He is relying on steel imported from Japan and West Germany. This is the case at a time in Canada when we have 1.5 million unemployed. This man is prepared to employ 50 to 75 men, and probably 250 within a short period of time. Can anyone imagine this situation in a nation such as this with iron ore resources and many existing factories? Our steel companies cannot supply this man with steel. There has to be something wrong.
March 16, 1978

Let us consider what the situation is when we talk about the cost of gas and oil. We have been criticized in the past for what we have said in this regard. I have some statistics produced by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankow-ski) on May 10, 1977. They are slightly out of date because the price of gas and oil has gone up since the cost of a barrel of crude has increased almost to the world price. I am not going to go into that at the moment. The cost of crude oil is 12.3 cents a gallon. At the present time provincial and federal royalties and taxes on crude are 18.1 cents; the cost of refining and margin is 5 cents; the marketing cost and margin is 18.6 cents; federal sales and excise tax is 14.9 cents; and provincial road tax is 10 cents.
Let me put this in terms of a dollar so we know what we are talking about in relation to the cost of the product. I wish there were more members of the NDP here to listen to this because they are always talking about corporate profits. I do not remember which minister it was, but one minister the other day was entirely correct when he spoke of this matter. He said the cost of the crude product is 32.1 cents per gallon. You cannot drive up to a pump and buy gasoline for 32.1 cents per gallon. That goes back to my boyhood days when we paid 25 cents at the pumps. It is only seven cents more.
We talk about the high prices of corporate bodies. They are exploring and developing gas and oil and at the same time trying to cope with inflation. This is very relevant when we are dealing with the budget. If 32.1 cents is the cost of the product, the provincial take in taxes is 29.4 cents. So every time someone buys a gallon of gasoline across the board, whether it is Ontario, Alberta or British Columbia, he is giving approximately 29.4 cents to the provinces. That is what it should be at the pumps.
The federal take is 25.1 cents. The wholesale and retail margins are 13.4 cents. I will just review that: the cost of the product is 32.1 cents, the provincial tax is 29.4 cents, the federal take is 25.1 cents, and the wholesale and retail margin is 13.4 cents. What it really boils down to is extravagance; policies by the government without any priorities. That is why we are in this mess.
The Minister of Finance earlier tonight said what a ridiculous argument the Conservatives have when they say that they are going to cut taxes by $2 billion, and yet are criticizing the government because they have a $48 billion deficit. That is a fallacious argument. It is a dishonest argument because anybody could take $48 billion and with proper priorities and proper trimming reduce the amount of money we are going to spend, thereby reducing the taxes to the average man in this country so that he would have more take home pay.


Robert Knight Andras: Tell me what you would do.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I must say it is not easy-


Robert Knight Andras: Tell me precisely what you are going to do.
Supply


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, if you cannot trim down $48 billion then you are illiterate. I can answer that very quickly. Over the years as you sat as a minister on the treasury benches, the government have brought in new programs without any thought of where the money is coming from. They have had deals and they have forced these policies on the provinces, forcing the provinces to tax their people more. It has become a vicious circle.


Robert Knight Andras: Is that the answer to the question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, you do not know the answer and that's for sure. So I say there is no doubt about it that when you get to the question of inflation, energy is the problem. The problem is not in the cost of the product but in the cost of taxes that are hidden, direct or indirect, on a gallon of gasoline and a gallon of oil. That is partly why we are in this mess today in reference to energy.
May I end on this point. One of the things the government does is get you off the track. I was very pleased to receive after a speaking tour a pamphlet from a constituent in St. Catharines put out by the member of parliament for St. Catharines (Mr. Parent). It is one of the greatest pamphlets I have ever read. This is how you get the people off the problems of inflation and high taxation. It says:
Just Thinking . ..
Corrupt the young; get them away from religion. Get them interested in sex. Make them superficial; destroy their ruggedness;
They sure know how to do that.
2.	Divide the people into hostile groups by constantly harping on controversial matters of no importance;
This government has done that to get us off their economic policies.
3.	Destroy the people's faith in their natural leaders by holding the latter up to contempt, ridicule and disgrace. Always preach true democracy, but seize power as fast and as ruthlessly as possible;


Mr. Parent:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Steve Eugene Paproski: It is a quarter to ten. Sit down, the Speaker is up.


Gilbert Parent: I would ask that the hon. member state where I quoted that from. He is saying I made that thing up. I did not. I quoted it from the communist manifesto of 1917.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Oh, you are one of those, are you?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It continues:
4.	Incite unnecessary strikes in vital industries, encourage civil disorders.
5.	Cause breakdown of the old moral virtues ... honesty ... self-restraint... faith in the pledged word, ruggedness.
Now, my good friend said where he got it from. In May 1919 in Dusseldorf the allied forces found this copy. Why would he quote it in a pamphlet? It is because it is exactly what this government has been doing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 16, 1978
Supply


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being 9.45 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to order made Monday, March 13 of this year, to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of all remaining stages of Bill C-31. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Turner in the chair.
Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 5-Power to borrow $5,000,000,000 for public works and general purposes.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, 1 rise on a point of order with respect to the language or phraseology in lines 33 and 34 of clause 5. I say to the President of the Treasury Board that I have checked previous legislation of this kind and I find that the phraseology is the same; but when the minister comes to do this again, I think he should look at the language where it says "as may be required for public works and general purposes." That gives the impression that it is for public works-public buildings and so on. I think the language should be modernized. Perhaps it could read "required for general purposes" or even "required by any and all purposes." Is it not misleading to give the impression that in the main this money is for public works? It is for everything.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's suggestion and certainly if we do this again we will use some other wording.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Schedules A to G inclusive agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Robert Knight Andras: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall I call it ten o'clock?


POINT OF ORDER
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I thought this time might be open for us to discuss some things arising out of the procedure today and yesterday that are rather important. There are seven minutes left on the clock.
I should like to indicate to the government, through you, sir, the great importance that must be attached in the next little while to reviewing the rules of this place so that there can be meaningful discussion of the estimates which are the springboard of government policies. It does not matter whether we support the government or sit in opposition, one of the difficulties that faces all of us is that procedures have developed that do not allow us the opportunity to examine the supplementary estimates or the main estimates thoroughly.
It is as important to members on the government side as to us that we seriously consider changing our rules and practices. I realize it may be difficult to do that in what I think are the dying days of this session of parliament, but I think we should consider the matter very carefully.
One thing that has become apparent is that we do not have the opportunity to examine the government's programs. Our standing committee system, to which estimates are referred, is an excellent system from the point of view of examining legislation. Over the last little while some members have developed an expertise in certain kinds of legislation through their experience and background, and that is good. I do not think that anyone is very happy or very proud of the limitations placed on all of us to look at government programs, however. I know there is a strong feeling in the opposition parties shared by some of my friends on the government side that this is the case.
We have appointed a comptroller general to examine proposed government expenditures and there is a review of how the government manages expenditures and carries out its mandate through the Auditor General. One very important facet of this examination is missing, and that is the right to examine government programs and the workings of government departments in depth. All of us have faced the difficulty of dealing with public servants in standing committees. They are well informed, and therefore the government and the minister are very well informed; but they are faced by members of parliament, and not just members of the opposition, who are not well informed.
After going through what can only be described as a charade-and I do not use that word in a pejorative way but as a member of parliament looking at millions and millions of dollars of estimates-we have to admit we do not deal with the estimates at great length.
It may be claimed that some members are not capable of looking at them, but that argument will only be used as a means of turning the issue away. I think we must look at our committees, not only from the point of view of examining the
March 16, 1978

estimates of departments in detail, but from the point of view of having some basic, independent research facility that can examine these matters. I am sure the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) does not go anywhere in this country and say that the system is adequate. Knowing him as I do, I am sure he would be much happier with the assistance of that kind of informed parliament. I think it would be a help to the government, to parliament and to the people of Canada.
We have a challenger ahead of us at some stage. We cannot deal with it now, but I think this is a complaint of grievance which I would like to put before you on behalf of members on all sides of the House.


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to share in this expression of concern about the means at our disposal for the control of expenditures. I think it is a part of a general concern that has arisen over the complexity of legislation, the growth of the regulatory process, the growth and difficulty of managing expenditures. Along with the hon. member, I have suggested on other occasions that we need a different kind of approach from that provided in the standing committees. I think we need an expenditures committee that can take a four or five year view, that can assess expenditures as they accrue over the years and find better ways of managing them and perhaps better ways for government management.
Point of Order
I do not think we can presently do this in depth or in a way satisfactory to us as the institution that controls government ultimately. It comes right back to expenditures. I want to say I share the expression of concern raised by the hon. member and hope that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) and his colleagues will give very serious thought to the concern we all feel, regardless of where we sit in this House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The concerns expressed by the two hon. members are well noted. Of course, the House notes with some encouragement that recently we circulated the supply bill earlier in the day on the last day on which it is to be voted. All day today the House took under consideration the supply bill. This is certainly a step forward in terms of our procedures and avoids the unseemly last minute decision aspect of the procedure we have been following of late.
However, it still leaves room for the concern which has been expressed in terms of the ability of parliament adequately to examine supply. I do not think the situation is as a result of ill-will on the part of any member or party in the House of Commons. It seems to be more a result of the constraints of time that we face. I am sure this will be the subject on ongoing attention on all sides of the House.
It being ten o'clock this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 10.02 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, March 17, 1978