1978-10-24

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure hon. members are aware that a number of successful candidates in the recent by-elections will be introduced into the House today in the usual manner. I cannot believe there could be anything more important for the House to turn its attention to; therefore, we ought to proceed to that as a matter of priority.
I will, of course, respect the time which is usually set aside for the question period and I ask for the co-operation of hon. members if they have applications pursuant to Standing Order 43. I ask them to exercise some discretion in that regard. Obviously, we ought to call those motions. If they are absolutely essential in nature, we will take them; but if certain matters can wait another day, I ask for the co-operation of hon. members because I expect it will take some minutes to introduce the new members.
I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the election and return of Bob Corbett, Esq., member for the electoral district of Fundy-Royal.
I also have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the election and return of David Crombie, Esq., member for the electoral district of Rosedale.
I also have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the election and return of Robert de Cotret, Esq., member for the electoral district of Ottawa Centre.
I also have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the election and return of Donald J. Johnston, Esq., member for the electoral district of VVestmount.
I also have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the election and return of Marcel Ostiguy, Esq., member for the electoral district of Saint-Hyacinthe.
Also, I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the election and return of Rob Parker, Esq., member for the electoral district of Eglinton.
I also have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the election and return of Yuri Shymko, Esq., member for the electoral district of Parkdale.
I also have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the election and return of Geoff Scott, Esq., member for the electoral district of Hamilton-Wentworth.


NEW MEMBERS INTRODUCED
[Stage Direction]
Bob Corbett, Esq., member for the electoral district of Fundy-Royal, introduced by Mr. Joe Clark and Mr. Fred McCain.
David Crombie, Esq., member for the electoral district of Rosedale, introduced by Mr. Joe Clark and Miss Flora MacDonald.
[DOT]	(1412)
Robert de Cotret, Esq., member for the electoral district of Ottawa Centre, introduced by Mr. Joe Clark and Mr. Walter Baker.
Donald Johnston, Esq., member for the electoral district of Montreal-Westmount, introduced by the right hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau and the hon. Warren Allmand.
Marcel Ostiguy, Esq., member for the electoral district of Saint-Hyacinthe, introduced by the right hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau and the hon. Jeanne Sauve.
[DOT]	(1417)
Rob Parker, Esq., member for the electoral district of Eglinton, introduced by Mr. Joe Clark and Mr. Sinclair Stevens.
Yuri Shymko, Esq., member for the electoral district of Parkdale, introduced by Mr. Joe Clark and Mr. Otto Jelinek.
Geoff Scott, Esq., member for the electoral district of Hamilton-Wentworth, introduced by Mr. Joe Clark and Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander.
[Stage Direction]
October 24, 1978
5.0.	43
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion on a very urgent matter, namely eligibility for unemployment insurance.
Considering that clause 57 of the regulations derived from the Unemployment Insurance Act reads as follows, and 1 quote:
The employment of a person in agriculture, horticulture, forestry and harvesting by an employer who
(a)	pays the employee a remuneration that is less than two hundred and fifty
dollars in cash in a year, or
(b)	employs the employee for a period of less than twenty-five working days in
a year is excepted from insurable employment.
Considering that such a rule is detrimental to the farmer who has difficulty finding labour and discriminatory to the agricultural worker who does not enjoy the same status as the industrial worker; considering that because of this unfair piece of regulation hundreds of fruit and vegetable pickers in Quebec who worked in Ontario will be deprived of unemployment insurance benefits, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Guay) lose no time in having clause 57 of the regulation removed so that all workers in Canada are put on an equal footing and are dealt with in a fair manner.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POST OFFICE
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. I refer to the fact that the acting president of CUPW in St. John's, one Ted Rice, has stated, as quoted in the St. John's Daily News with respect to injunctions:
If they are obtained they will be defied just as the back-to-work legislation has been. Twenty-three thousand workers stayed out on strike in the face of the legislation and injunctions are even a little milder.

Mr. Rice has questioned whether a judge will award an injunction, since the big question a judge will ask is whether the Post Office can guarantee that the injunction will be obeyed; and, since there can be no guarantee, he is doubtful that any will be obtained, and since the Newfoundland Federation of Labour has pledged full co-operation and support in defying the legislation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale):
That the government explain in detail on motions how the government will ensure that any injunction is obeyed and how the government intends to enforce the law and to obtain respect for the law as a result of this massive and unprecedented defiance of the law in the courts by CUPW and the Newfoundland Federation of Labour.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent necessity pertaining to testimony just given to the McDonald commission by former RCMP Commissioner Hig-gitt, investigating activities of the RCMP, testimony of the most serious nature alleging that three successive solicitors general were given both oral and written communications by Commissioner Higgitt concerning certain unusual police activities and that these cabinet ministers and the government failed to act in any way whatsoever.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick):
That the Prime Minister and the government be ordered to make available immediately to the McDonald commission all details of such oral and written communications referred to by Commissioner Higgitt; further, that the Prime Minister explain this gross negligence on the part of the government in failing to act on the former commissioner's information and completely and utterly neglecting its obvious duty to reply to the commissioner for what must be interpreted as direct requests for instructions from the political level as to how the RCMP should proceed with its various activities.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON EVIDENCE GIVEN BEFORE MCDONALD INQUIRY-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: privileges of members in the House I think it should be made in this form.
The testimony of Commissioner Higgitt of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police before the McDonald inquiry this morning raises matters, which affect the privileges of all members of the House. I would, therefore, move:
That the Prime Minister make an immediate statement on motions explaining the direct contradiction between the sworn testimony of the commissioner and previous statements made by himself and his ministers in this House, and that the Prime Minister table all written policy documents relating to this matter and referred to by the commissioner this morning.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: 
POST OFFICE
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 an impasse has been reached between CUPW and the federal government which is without foreseeable resolution, and in view of the fact that this impasse has resulted in defiance of the law by 23,000 Canadian citizens who have reason to believe that this government is out to destroy their union, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That this House instructs the Prime Minister to insert himself into the dispute directly by calling both parties together, without preconditions, to negotiate a solution to the outstanding differences between CUPW and the Post Office.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ACTION TO END ILLEGAL STRIKE-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Whereas the Canadian Union of Postal Workers is still defying the will of Canadians as expressed by parliament, and whereas the irresponsible leadership is continuing to advise its members to defy the law of the land, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Douglas):
That the government act forthwith to decertify the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and that all the members of the national executive of that union who
House of Commons
have counselled sedition be charged with that crime and fired from the public payroll.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and distressing necessity.
In light of the fact that the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert), who has been appointed a parliamentary secretary and, therefore, occasionally answers for government policy in the House, yesterday moved a motion directing the government to discontinue federal transfer payments to the provinces for health, welfare and social services, payments which are the very linchpin of confederation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn):
That the House direct the Minister of Finance to make a statement on motions as to whether or not the motion by the parliamentary secretary is government policy, and whether or not the government condones such irresponsible action by a parliamentary secretary.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In my view, the question period should continue until 15 minutes after three o'clock.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
Mr. Speaker:: Before beginning the question period, may I ask all hon. members to join me in recognizing the presence in our gallery of two very distinguished visitors in the persons of Mr. Giovanni Miglinolo of the department of foreign affairs in Italy, and Mr. Norbert Prefontaine, assistant deputy minister, intergovernmental and international affairs branch, department of national health and welfare. They are here to sign a treaty with Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

October 24, 1978
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Prime Minister has to do with the testimony given this morning to the McDonald royal commission by former RCMP Commissioner Higgitt who is reported as having said that he told three previous solicitors general that members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police security service were breaking the law in carrying out their duties.
The Prime Minister will recall that on June 21, 1977, in this House, on a question of privilege, the Minister of Supply and Services said:
Not once, in my 23 months as Solicitor General, did any RCMP official suggest to me that the RCMP engage in illegal activities in the pursuit of its duties.
Clearly, there is an absolute and complete contradiction between the statement made by Mr. Higgitt this morning and the statement made by the present Minister of Supply and Services relative to his responsibilities in the period when he was solicitor general.
In light of that conflict, I wonder if the Prime Minister could tell us whether he has consulted the Minister of Supply and Services to determine whether the statement uttered in this House on privilege by that minister now stands. If he has not done that, can the Prime Minister tell us whether it is his intention to put that question to the present Minister of Supply and Services and whether he will give this House of Commons a complete report on the response of the Minister of Supply and Services?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the minister has stated publicly and privately to me that he is not only willing, but anxious to testify before the royal commission. That is also the case with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. They have said they are willing to testify. I think the least we could do would be to hear what their testimony will put before the commission.
[DOT] 0^32)
Certainly, Mr. Speaker, it does underline one of the difficulties of the present procedure in the commission whereby one testimony is made, it is picked up by the media, it is picked up by members opposite in the standing orders-as they did today-and based on allegations from one side which may well be dissipated in further examinations or cross-examinations and which certainly may be put in contradiction by further testimonies. I think this shows the wisdom of the government in saying, "Let us wait for the commission to make its report before jumping to conclusions."


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, what we are dealing with here is a direct contradiction of a statement made by a former commissioner of the RCMP before the royal commission. Also, we are dealing with a statement made deliberately, after preparation

on a question of privilege by a minister of this government. There is a certain obligation of leadership of the Prime Minister.	i
My question has to do with whether or not the Prime Minister, in light of his obligation of leadership and in light of the testimony this morning by former Commissioner Higgitt, has done his duty and has spoken with the present Minister of Supply and Services to verify the accuracy or otherwise of the statement given by that minister to this House of Commons.
If the Prime Minister has not exercised his leadership relative to a statement given to this House of Commons, will he do that and report to the House of Commons fully upon the results of that conversation between himself and the minister of his government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it does happen to be the fact that not only have I exercised my leadership in this matter, but I have done this many, many months ago in talking to former solicitors general. I think it ill behoves the Leader of the Opposition to talk about leadership when he did not dare talk to the hon. member for Leeds when the RCMP wanted-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Leader of the Opposition makes a strong point of the fact that we are dealing with a direct contradiction. Indeed we are, Mr. Speaker, and we will be very anxious to find who in this contradiction is giving the proper interpretation of the facts. It just so happens that my information and my memory is, subject to verification, that former Commissioner Higgitt is in direct contradiction with himself who, if I am informed correctly, said before the Keable commission in Quebec not so many months ago that he had no recollection of having informed the former ministers of any such thing.
I urge the Leader of the Opposition to look up his files and to find out whether the former commissioner has or has not contradicted himself before, suggesting he has been contradicted by the former minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I regret to find that the Prime Minister is behaving as usual.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Instead of doing his duty, he is attempting to attack me and former Commissioner Higgitt.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: What is clear so far is that the Prime Minister, with the knowledge this morning of this quite remarkable testimony by former Commissioner Higgitt, has not so far, nor has he shown any indication of an intention to do his duty, in regard to verifying the accuracy of the statements made by the
October 24, 1978

now Minister of Supply and Services to the House of Commons.
I have a question, sir, that relates to an undertaking given by the Prime Minister of Canada to the House of Commons. It is germane in relation to the statement made this morning by former Commissioner Higgitt. The Prime Minister said in this House in answer to two questions on June 22, 1977 the following:
I have had repeated assurances from the commissioner of the RCMP and from the Director General of Security that this
The word "this" relates to an illegal act. The Prime Minister went on to say:
-was an isolated incident and it was in no way a general or special practice of the RCMP to have break-ins.
Can the Prime Minister tell us whether he stands by that statement made on June 22, 1977?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, yes, I stand by it absolutely. As a matter of fact, the statement was cleared with people in my office and in the RCMP who were working on this particular matter. In so far as doing my duty, it seems to me that I made it clear that I had talked to the former solicitor general in previous circumstances. So far as having done it today, I learned of this testimony over the lunch break. I had time to talk to the former solicitor general, who is now Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and he assured me that former Commissioner Higgitt's testimony is not in conformity with what he has said on previous occasions. I have not had time to talk with the previous one.
I find it a little strange that the Leader of the Opposition stands up indignantly and says that I am attempting to attack him and former Commissioner Higgitt. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the question period is a place where the opposition attacks the government. They have done nothing else in their question, and they did nothing else under the Standing Order. But I am not supposed to answer, because if I answer that it is seen as an attack on the poor Leader of the Opposition. '


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the question period is supposed to be a place where members of parliament can elicit information from the government. That has not been the case for the last ten years with this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The question that the Prime Minister should be putting to his long list of solicitors general does not deal with the consistency of Commissioner Higgitt's testimony, but deals with the question as to whether the testimony given today to the best of their knowledge is true. I wait to have an assurance from this Prime Minister that there will be a full revelation to this House of Commons of all the details of the efforts he has
Oral Questions
made to verify the record with the Minister of Supply and Services.
My question now relates to the invitation by former Commissioner Higgitt today that his advice to former solicitors general was in both oral and written form. May we have an unequivocal undertaking by the Prime Minister, now, that any written recommendations that are still extant will not be destroyed and will, instead, be made public to this House of Commons?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we have given the undertaking that we would turn everything we have over to the royal commission. It has asked for many documents. It has had all it has asked for. We have given them more than that to introduce them to new facts. I think it is a very despicable slur to suggest that we would destroy information-


An hon. Member:: You sure would.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Who said that we sure would? I will kick his ass.


Mr. Paproski:: Shame.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PUBLIC ACCESS TO EVIDENCIARY DOCUMENTS
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice, in the absence of the Solicitor General. The Minister of Justice will be aware of the arguments advanced by council for the cabinet-I am not sure that council was acting for the Attorney General, because he would not tell us-to the effect that certain classes of government documents would only be made public at the option of the government. This argument was, of course, rejected by the commission. Would the Minister of Justice give an undertaking that the documentary material referred to this morning by former Commissioner Higgitt will be permitted to be made public and that the government will not seek any remedies to prevent such material being made public?
Would he also confirm that no argument will be advanced by cabinet before the commission in an effort to prevent the former commissioner testifying in public?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport and Minister of Justice):: The hon. member, along with other hon. members, will be aware that we have taken a straightforward position that the material in our possession is available to the commission. That is a broad statement of our willingness to make available all that possibly could be of use to the commission. In addition, we have made it clear that we would expect the commission, obviously, to have regard for the public interest more broadly, that is, recognize the fact that there are certain classes of documents which deserve continued confidentiality

October 24, 1978
Oral Questions
in order that our national system may continue to operate well. That is our position and it is a position we shall continue to take before the commission.
I shall not engage in hypothetical, theoretical discussion about whether or not at some point we might get into some kind of confrontation. I do not foresee it. I foresee our making statements to the commission when the commission wants advice on issues of confidentiality. The decision will then be taken by the commission. As I see it, that approach has worked well up to this point. Of course, the opposition, which does not care about responsible investigating but only about partisan attacks, does not appreciate the fact. We continue to expect that approach to work well and I shall not engage in hypothetical alternatives.


William Herbert Jarvis: It is very hard to imagine what is hypothetical about a vast number of documents already delivered to the McDonald commission. The question is not whether the government will make them available-they are already available-but whether the government will attempt to invoke or bring down a shroud of secrecy through the argument of its lawyers. I ask the minister for an assurance that the documentary material referred to by former Commissioner Higgitt will be made public without objection on the part of the government. Second, I ask for an assurance that the government will not invoke the infamous provisions of the Federal Courts Act, section 41, to prevent these documents being subject to public scrutiny.


Otto Emil Lang: I have made the position very clear and I invite the hon. member to read what I said, if he has not understood it. We shall make such arguments before the commission with regard to confidentiality as the public interest requires. I expect the commission to take its responsibility at that point with regard to the public interest and I do not propose to engage in further hypothetical discussion beyond that as to what might happen. Why not wait to see whether such a case ever arises, and then we can discuss the matter?


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to ask a question about the evidence of ex-Commissioner Higgitt. The ex-commissioner further testified before the inquiry that none of the solicitors-general- referring to Mr. Goyer, Mr. Mcllraith and Mr. Allmand- advised him at any time that the law should not be broken. The Minister of Justice is presently engaged in an effort to have the postal workers obey the rule of law and go back to work.
Given the evidence before the McDonald inquiry and the minister's stated objective of seeing that everyone in this country respects the rule of law, will the hon. gentleman now give an undertaking to the House that he will see that charges are laid forthwith against those who have violated the law as indicated by evidence before the McDonald inquiry, meaning both RCMP officers and cabinet ministers? Will that evidence be placed immediately before the attorneys general in the respective provinces so that appropriate charges may be laid?
(Mr. Lang.]


Otto Emil Lang: Of course, if anything arising out of the commission's inquiry deserves the attention of a provincial attorney general by showing any indication of a breach of the law, that information will be placed before him. But if we talk about observing the law and the spirit of the law, I would think it equally important for the hon. member from New Westminster and the Leader of the Opposition not to engage in conviction upon first glimpse of a suggestion of evidence, but to wait for due process of that very law.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I was referring, of course, to specific evidence, known for a long time, of mail openings, break-ins, barn burning, you name it. There is enough evidence for charges to be laid. If we expect the postal workers to go back to work, they want to see that there is not one law for them and another for the cabinet and the RCMP.
My supplementary question is a specific one with regard to the letters which were referred to ex-Commissioner Higgitt. Would the Minister of Justice agree to table those letters before the House so that we could examine the evidence? The minister is talking about prejudging: we will not prejudge them.


Otto Emil Lang: I would remind the hon. members, again, that the very reason the commission was set up, at the strong urging of the loyal and official opposition at least, was that all the material might be made available to the commission for an independent judgment. There was a very important point involved in that process. It was that a complete study might take place before conclusions were reached. We now find the hon. member for New Westminster arriving at conclusions on the basis of his glimpse of what must be at very best a tiny bit of evidence or suggestion. On that basis, the hon. member is not only weighing the evidence and reaching a conclusion, but he has so convicted some of my colleagues that he has used it as an argument for postal workers and CUPW to disobey the law, and that is outrageous.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: My position has never been any different, and it is that everyone in this country should obey the law. And that includes postal workers. Can the minister at least make a commitment that he would not use the Federal Courts Act to suppress evidence concerning cabinet ministers, so that we may know publicly what the relationship is between those former cabinet ministers and the RCMP?


Otto Emil Lang: I have explained the situation. The commission has the matter in its hands. If it would help hon. members further, let me say this: I can conceive of no circumstances in which the commission, seeing that there is some suggestion of impropriety or illegality in a document or in testimony and, therefore, a need for it to be made public-I can conceive of no circumstances in which that decision of the commission would not be honoured and the documents made public.
October 24, 1978


FISHERIES
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. Following the announcement that in future the private sector will have to conduct its own research in the field of fisheries, can the minister tell the House if small and medium fishing outfits, as well as fishermen, will have access to the information and knowledge acquired through scientific research by the large companies in this field?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, first I must specify that there is no scientific research involved among other things in determining the quantity of fish that can be taken. This research will be aimed at developing new fish products. We feel that the industry is sufficiently strong in this area to fend for itself. I have said it clearly, we will in no way reduce our scientific research nor our research aimed at improving the fishermen's equipment and increasing their catch.


Eudore Allard: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As a supplementary question, I would like to ask the minister if, at that level, the small and medium outfits as well as the individual fisherman will be protected?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, no doubt that as small outfits band together to form associations, as they are already doing, they can take advantage of the information which may result from ongoing research.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question with respect to the evidence adduced before the McDonald commission this morning. My question is directed to the Prime Minister and it concerns the sworn testimony with respect to its being the general policy of the RCMP to engage in activities which are the subject matter of the inquiry.
My concern has to do with the direct contradiction which exists between statements, not only of previous solicitors general but also the Prime Minister's own statement made in the House in 1977 which is recorded at page 6988 of Hansard. The Prime Minister left the House with the impression that the matter was discussed. He said:
-very clearly with them-
Oral Questions
Presumably, the security officials of the RCMP.
-in my office in the spring of last year ... We had these specific assurances.
That is, that there were no specific break-ins. In view of that apparent contradiction, and in the interest of getting to the bottom of things and getting all the facts and the truth, will the Prime Minister be appearing before the McDonald commission to make known the facts within his knowledge with respect to the degree to which his previous ministers were aware of the general policy of the RCMP in this area?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is referring to a page in Hansard. I cannot remember the exact context of that quotation, but if my memory is right, I was reporting on a conversation which took place in my office between the commissioner of the RCMP, the then solicitor general, and perhaps one other member of the security service. The assurance I received then in my office, which I believe was quoted by the hon. member, had to do with the question of whether the one presumed illegal act which had been brought to light had been isolated or whether there had been many others.
At that time we were discussing the question of whether we should set up a royal commission of inquiry into the RCMP, and I was assured by the RCMP that this was an isolated act. They argued that there was no need, because of that, to set up a commission of inquiry, that it was an isolated act, that it had been uncovered and that the matter was before the courts. We wanted to set up a commission of inquiry.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: No, we asked for it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You had not even heard about it then. At that time the police were saying it was not necessary because this was an isolated act.
The hon. member went on to ask whether specific cases had been brought to our attention. I repeat that the only specific case which was brought to our attention was the one which had been made known then. It was, I believe, a break-in at offices in Montreal. I have before me the testimony of the commissioner at the Keable inquiry. I think this is public. Before the Keable inquiry, while referring to the interception of the private mail of citizens of Canada, Commissioner Higgitt said, in so many words, "No, I do not recall any such conversation". So this rather substantiates the fact that he had not raised such a matter with the then solicitor general.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have one further supplementary question. For the benefit of the Prime Minister's recollection, the exchange took place on June 22 with the leader of the New Democratic Party. The Prime Minister is quite correct in his summary of his recollection, but I am not concerned here about a specific instance. In his testimony before the Keable inquiry, the commissioner was referring to a specific incident. The Prime Minister is referring to a specific incident, but I am referring to general policy.
It is inconceivable to me that, as chairman of the cabinet committee on security, the Prime Minister would not be aware

October 24, 1978
Oral Questions
of the general policy of the RCMP. As Commissioner Higgitt testified under oath, today, the general policy was to condone not only these specific incidents but also several others. That is the clear purport of his testimony.
In view of the fact that the Prime Minister and his former solicitors general should be, if they are not, fully aware of the general policy in this area, does the Prime Minister not think, in the interest of getting all the facts, that he should testify before the McDonald commission with respect to the policy areas which were testified to this morning?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that I do not have the testimony of Commissioner Higgitt. I doubt very much that he was saying what the hon. member quotes him as saying, that there is a general policy on the part of the government to support the RCMP in its breaking of the law. If the commissioner says that, that is flatly denied by his own testimony before the Keable commission. It is flatly denied by the solicitors general under which he has served, and certainly no such conversation ever came up in my presence or with him.


PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BEFORE MCDONALD COMMISSION
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Prime Minister, not only in his capacity as Prime Minister but also as chairman of the cabinet committee on security matters. Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the letters, documents and memoranda referred to this morning by former Commissioner Higgitt have actually been turned over by the government to the royal commission?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have never heard of any such documents. The former solicitor general says he has no recollection of any such documents. I do not think Commissioner Higgitt has produced any such documents. The government has made all its material available to the royal commission of inquiry, and I suggest that the advice of the Minister of Justice is the best. Let the commission do its work. Let us at least have the elementary fairness not to condemn one side until we have heard the other side. This is a rule which the opposition should keep in mind once in a while.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice: it has to do with the Post Office fiasco. We are now seeing the rule of law versus the rule of power with regard to the injunctions which the minister has been seeking. We find now that CUPW is not going to respect them. Police chiefs and police in general are reluctant to move. They say that perhaps there might be a breach of the peace if they did.

The minister must be in touch with the attorneys general across the country in order to see that the situation is brought to their attention and that they move and give directions, rather than several chiefs of police. Has the minister been in touch with the attorneys general across this country in order to put the position of the government before them so that the proper action can be taken?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, in cases where it is relevant, my deputies or other officials have been in touch with their counterparts in the various provinces. It is true that because we are applying the rule of the law rather than some rule of arbitrary power, the matter must necessarily take some time and some careful consideration and deliberation. That is true, but I still ask hon. members to join in the basic argument that what we must have is obedience of the law, we must have due process, no doubt moving slowly but moving inexorably just the same.
So let us not make it sound in the House as if it were some sort of confrontation between government and a particular group. This is confrontation against the law of this land itself and we will continue to apply that law slowly, carefully and properly, because in applying it-the hon. member for New Westminster says "very slowly"-very slowly, deliberately and properly, as we would in every case, we would not want in any way to be open to any feeling of disrespect of the law and the legal system which is being defied in this flagrant way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am glad the minister understands the situation, because the people of Canada are looking to the House for leadership in this regard. The minister indicated he was gathering the evidence, all the facts, in order that prosecutions can be laid. Can the minister rise in his place now and tell us whether he has the facts to enable prosecutions to be laid, and what type of prosecutions he is referring to? After all, this is the second or third day that has gone by in the gathering of facts in order to prosecute. Has the minister prosecuted-and to what extent?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Thirsty for blood, Line?


Otto Emil Lang: We have obtained injunctions in a number of locations and those injunctions have been served. We are continuing to seek injunctions in other cases in order to remove the biggest obstacle which inhibits those in the union who would want to return to work. We are, indeed, preparing the material for charges of a variety of sorts, and those will be against a variety of people involved in breaking the law.
While it would be very tempting, politically, for me to make broad statements about whom we will charge and what kind of charges those will be, I will not fall into that political trap against the obligations I have as Attorney General to, first, assess evidence carefully laid before me and, second, lay the
October 24, 1978

charges and then be able to say that those charges have been laid.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Labour. There were reports yesterday that the leader of CUPW had said categorically that he would refuse to meet with the hon. Lucien Tremblay whom the minister appointed yesterday as mediator-arbitrator. Today, however, there is a press release-and I am quoting from it-put out by the leader of CUPW which says:
However, we wish to reiterate that we are ready to meet any person appointed by the government with a view to resolving the issues that gave rise to the present dispute.
I know that the acting minister understands that if there is an absolute refusal to meet with the hon. Lucien Tremblay, then the whole nexus of the legislation falls apart. Can the minister tell us what the situation is?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Acting Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, in this regard the course of action which ought to be followed by the union is quite clear. It has been decided by parliament that the mediator-arbitrator would be appointed and that he will try, in the first instance, to bring the parties together to try to arrive at a negotiated settlement, and if he is not successful in achieving this, he will turn into an arbitrator, a responsibility which has been given to him by parliament; and he will draft a collective agreement which will have force and effect on both parties, on the government on one hand and on the union on the other hand. That collective agreement will be in force until the end of 1979.


John Allen Fraser: I have a final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Has the Acting Minister of Labour any information which can clarify what are, not apparently but clearly, conflicting statements made by the leader of CUPW, one of them yesterday, in which he is reported to have said that he would not meet with the mediator-arbitrator, and the second statement today that while he is critical of the choice of that particular person, nonetheless he will meet with anybody appointed by the government.
Can the minister clarify for the House just what is going on, because it is obvious to all of us that it would be preferable to have the union meet with the mediator-arbitrator?


André Ouellet: It is very difficult indeed for me to give an interpretation of two different statements made by the president of CUPW. But I am glad to see in his second statement that he is now starting to understand the fact that parliament has established a course of action which he ought to follow, that if he wants to present his point of view in order to have, for his own sake and that of his members, a better collective agreement, he should sit down with the mediator-arbitrator and present his point of view, because the course of action of the mediator-arbitrator has been set by parliament and within 90 days he will have to draft a new collective agreement. I am sure he will do it. This agreement will be imposed, I repeat, not only on the union but on the government.
Oral Questions


SUGGESTED DECERTIFICATION OF CUPW
Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Postmaster General. In view of the continuing defiance by CUPW and the counselling of its executive that members defy the law, has the Postmaster General asked the government to start proceedings to decertify the union, and will the government take steps to fire those public servants who counsel defiance of the law?


Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: In answer to the hon. member's question, I should like to advise him and members of the House that this morning a memorandum was sent by the Deputy Postmaster General to the CUPW bargaining unit, and in that memorandum the deputy minister advised members of CUPW that, under the Public Service Employment Act, any employee who failed to report for normal duties during the seven days ending at 12.01 a.m. on October 26, 1978, may be declared to have abandoned the position he or she had occupied.
This could lead to the termination of employment with the Post Office.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

[ Translation]


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
On August 31 last, the minister announced to the residents of Place Frontenac in Montreal that as a pilot project, he wanted to set up a management committee for those buildings. Considering that the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation stated recently that it wished to set up a non-profit company to manage those apartments, is the minister in a position to say why he does not extend the 12-month mandate which included a clause providing for its extension?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, indeed the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation which was the owner of Place Frontenac in Montreal decided to make a rather special experiment with that housing complex by setting up a joint management under which the tenants of those apartments met with the directors of the corporation to organize the joint management of that complex. We then said that if the experience was successful we would be prepared to offer the apartment for sale to the tenants who through a non-profit company would become owners of that complex. We are now negotiating the sale of Place Frontenac to tenants who have set up a non-profit company which will become the owner of the building.

October 24, 1978
Oral Questions


Roch La Salle: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that this morning, in Montreal I think, the president of the management committee expressed deep concern and regretted and complained about not receiving from the corporation the information they should provide him, can the minister give the required information, is the minister prepared to meet with the tenants and in particular with the responsible management committee in order to settle this question in the best interests of the tenants?


André Ouellet: Yes, Mr. Speaker, 1 did meet with this management committee in the past. Obviously, I will be happy to meet them again if there are some points to be clarified.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport and Minister of Justice. In view of the decision by Canadian National to prosecute individually 137 members of the United Transportation Union, local 913, in Thunder Bay, for a wildcat strike caused by CN demanding that train crews work longer than the hours stipulated in the collective agreement, in the interest of industrial peace, will the minister talk to CN management in an attempt to convince them that there is no useful purpose in prosecuting these employees now that a compromise has been worked out for a trial period?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to have that representation made known to the management of Canadian National. As hon. members know, it is not my ordinary practice to interfere in the day to day operations of CN. However, in referring to the action as a prosecution, perhaps the hon. member has misstated the situation. I believe it may involve civil actions.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Acting Minister of Labour. Will he have his officials investigate the situation with the United Transportation Union and Canadian National in Thunder Bay, to determine if the company is acting illegally or contrary to the intent of the collective agreement, and to see if, through his good offices, the dispute can be resolved?


Hon. Andr6 Ouellet (Acting Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


PRICE OF WHEAT
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I will not ask any questions about the retired commissioner, because I have been always under the impression that there should be no threats in parliament. But after the eloquent description of the kind of treatment that certain members of the opposition will receive, as expressed by the Prime Minister a few moments ago, I will not ask the questions I had in mind, because I would not want him to start into some other fuddle-duddle words!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: My question is directed to the Minister of Transport and Minister of Justice, as the minister reporting for the Wheat Board. In the last few days there was a meeting in Washington in connection with the price of wheat. Among other things, the discussions were leading up to an international wheat agreement. The Canadian participants in the Canada and American Senate wheat talks came to the conclusion that until farmers received $4 a bushel, they would not have sufficient money to pay their cost of production and receive any return. Will he give consideration to bringing before the Wheat Board the need of action in this regard?
It would not mean any particular increase in the cost of living, but it would place hundreds of thousands-tens of thousands-of western farmers in a position which they are not in today.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I presume the right hon. member is not suggesting the destruction of the Wheat Board system and the initial payment system. Therefore, he should take note of the fact that the farmer receives part of his return by way of initial price, and the rest by way of final payment.
While the price of the elevator does not reflect the fact that wheat is being sold by the Wheat Board for over $4 a bushel, I would have thought the right hon. member for Prince Albert would have known that for some number of months now the Wheat Board has in fact sold wheat at prices ranging between $4.30 and $4.70 a bushel. At the present time at least the returns for our grain are above the minimum to which he referred.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware of what the minister is saying. Whenever he expresses himself on any subject, naturally I give the greatest attention to it. I should like to ask him the simplest question. Having regard to the market as it now is, why can the farmer not receive $4 a bushel at the time of sale? Because the minister has said that the sales ahead indicate a price beyond that, that is a pertinent question to ask. Even his constituents in Saskatoon-Humboldt might be interested in learning whether the minister is interested in their prosperity.
October 24, 1978


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think the grain farmer realizes, in setting the initial price, that we often take the recommendations of the Canadian Wheat Board into account. In March of this year we set it at $3 for this year. We did so in March, 1977, for the past crop year. In both cases the government was taking significant risk regarding the possible deficit in those pools and was not advised by the Canadian Wheat Board to reach for so high a price. Prices have moved upward and are at a higher level now. I am glad about that. We will make every effort we can in the international negotiations under way to assure fair returns for our farmers from the international marketplace. That is where the farmer would most like to achieve it.
However, in the alternative we have available such things as the grain stabilization plan, for which the Conservatives fought so bitterly for so many years, and which this year has paid out $ 115 million to prairie farmers.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in so far as the grain stabilization plan is concerned, the minister and those connected with him gave farmers a ride. The Minister of Agriculture said that the farmers would secure a further payment from $110 million to $140 million. When the payment was made, it was $55 million. In other words, farmers were taken for a ride, and the last thing the minister should do is boast about the success of that particular plan.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, earlier it was made clear in the House that any reference by the Minister of Agriculture to the final payment under the scheme which farmers would receive was to the total payment they would receive.


John George Diefenbaker: No.


Otto Emil Lang: I made that clear, and that was very clear in everything said. Once again, it is quite wrong for the right hon. member for Prince Albert to attempt to perpetrate or put forward the notion that somehow an unfairness is being done to a sector of our economy. That is not so.


John George Diefenbaker: It is so.


Otto Emil Lang: The House and the government, through the grain stabilization plan, hopper cars and railway rehabilitation, have done things such as the right hon. member never dreamed of.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, earlier in the question period there was an exchange between the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis), and the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). It
Point of Order-Mr. S. Knowles involves an apparent contradiction in what was said to the House by the Prime Minister, what was said through him today by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer), what was said on former occasions by the Minister of Supply and Services, and alleged testimony given before the McDonald commission today. This raises very serious questions affecting the privileges of members of the House. In order to watch the universe unfold, I should like to reserve the right to raise this question of privilege at a later time.


John George Diefenbaker: It cannot be done now because the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has left.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure the nature of the question raised by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) is sufficiently clear to warrant it being classified as a question of privilege. In any case, if it relates to contradiction in testimony now before a commission or in answers given in the House, or something of that sort, the matter can be raised when the hon. member has been provided with an opportunity to examine the record. If there is any argument about procedural matters, in terms of raising it at the first opportunity, the hon. member certainly can refer to his remarks today.


POINTS OF ORDER
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. From time to time questions have been raised in the House concerning the role, authority, and responsibility of parliamentary secretaries.
For the most part we accept answers given by parliamentary secretaries as being the answers of their ministers. But today we received an answer from a parliamentary secretary which has very serious implications. Even the parliamentary secretary said that he was answering on behalf of the deputy minister, the Deputy Postmaster General in this instance. The suggestion was that a threat of wholesale dismissal was hanging over postal workers. How can we know, Mr. Speaker, in light of the concern that has been expressed in the past about the authority of parliamentary secretaries, whether that announcement was just a departmental answer or whether it represents the deliberate policy of the government?


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I did not convey this properly in the answer, but this is government policy. The minister made the announcement in his speech in Toronto at lunch today. Under the Public Service Employment Act, it must be the Deputy Postmaster General who notifies, in writing, the Public Service Commission of any intention to deem jobs abandoned within the employ of the public service.

October 24, 1978
Point of Order-Mr. Hnatyshyn


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Essentially, we are extending the question period as though two further supplementary questions had been put to the hon. parliamentary secretary, and this is really no different than if the Postmaster General (Mr. Lamontagne) had been here and had had further supplementary questions put to him. I can understand the concern of the House over the nature of this procedure, but, nevertheless, it is not a point of order. It is really an extension of the question period, but there is a limit as to how far we can go.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I accept the judgment which you just made. However, it seems to me that a matter of this seriousness ought to have been stated in the House by a minister of the Crown.


MR. HNATYSHYN-ROLE OF PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARIES
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) underlines the point which I wanted to raise and which was raised earlier in a motion under Standing Order 43 by my colleague, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), relating to the role, function, and position of parliamentary secretaries in this House.
Yesterday we had the situation where the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Miss Nicholson) stood in this House with respect to suggested anticipated policy concerning equalization payments. My understanding is that when a parliamentary secretary stands in this House and states a policy of the government, that it is attributable to the government. Yet we have the situation now where we have no explanation, and there has been no attempt to make a statement on motions as to whether or not the position put forward by the hon. member for Vaudreuil, (Mr. Herbert) is in fact the position of the government with respect to the abolition of the principles of equalization.
If we are going to have a system of parliamentary secretaries in this House, we have to know whether they are speaking for the government or whether they are speaking ex cathedra on some other basis, through some inspiration that we have no basis upon which to attach any method of attribution to the government. I suggest to you, sir, that if you think that the parliamentary secretaries are answering for the government, then we should be entitled to an explanation, particularly in the case of the matter raised by the hon. member for Vaudreuil with respect to the motion he placed yesterday, which apparently is government policy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Naturally I am only prepared to accept that thesis when the hon. member is prepared to tell me that every application put by a member of his party, pursuant to Standing Order 43, is the policy of his party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: That is nonsense, Mr. Speaker!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are rules of this House which give to every member the opportunity, as a privately elected member of this House, to intervene, put forward motions, notices of motions, bills or other matters. Those rights all operate to the benefit of a private member of the House. Whether or not a member in this particular instance is taking advantage of that rule in one way or another is a matter which can be debated. If and when the matter comes to a debate, it can be discussed, but, in fact, it does not constitute a matter of order in this House.
The point was raised by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) as a point of order. I think that he will recognize that he is perfectly entitled to make the conjecture that he has, as is the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands (Miss MacDonald) entitled to make that conjecture. It is not a matter of disorder for any member to take advantage of Standing Order 43 in any way, and 1 cannot find that any disorder or point of order now attaches to the point raised by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar.


Charles Joseph Clark: Very briefly, sir-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Charles Joseph Clark: I heard order being called from across the floor. It is not yet the prerogative of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) to set rules of this House. I think it may well be, in light of your remarks in response to the points raised by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn), that there is perhaps not a complete understanding of the points that the member for Saskatoon-Biggar was making. The difficulty posed for us here is that at one moment a parliamentary secretary is wearing the guise of a spokesman for the government, and at another moment-and there is no way by which we can distinguish what hat he is wearing-he stands in the guise of a private member.
It is well established practice in this House, honoured particularly on this side, that members of parliament are free to speak their views and to raise points that are of concern to them. The question relates to when is a member of parliament, who is also a parliamentary secretary, speaking not for himself or herself but for the Government of Canada. That is the difficulty that we have when, as today in the case of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Postmaster General (Mr. Collenette), a statement was made that is apparently government policy, and yesterday in the case of the hon. member for Vaudreuil, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Herbert), a statement of devast-ing consequences to this confederation-made apparently in a private capacity.
I suggest to you, sir, with all respect, that this is a very difficult question for this House, the question as to whether or not these people, who at one moment are private members and at another moment are spokesmen for the government, are, when they make those statements, speaking for the government or for themselves. That, I suggest, is a matter which
October 24, 1978

should be considered with the utmost care by the Chair and the table.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think we can finish this discussion. I do not disagree with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) in the slightest, or with the hon. member for Saskatoon-Big-gar. Indeed, it is a matter of concern, but it is raised by way of a point of order that a member of the House put forward a motion yesterday pursuant to Standing Order 43. There is no disorder or a point of order in that.
If there is any concern that the member was speaking for the government, then a question should be put to the leader of the government in the question period as to whether or not that member was speaking on government policy, or to his minister if he or she is a parliamentary secretary. This is a very direct vehicle for determining his performance.
Similarly, when the parliamentary secretary spoke today he did not make it clear if he was answering for his minister, and that was clarified by a point of order at the end of the question period. The question could be put quite directly as to whether or not the parliamentary secretary in that case, or any case for that matter, is speaking for himself or his party in the circumstances. I think that this is a perfectly legitimate proceeding.


MISS NICHOLSON-INCORRECT ATTRIBUTION BY MR. HNATYSHYN
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of clarification. I am sure that when the member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) spoke that it was an unintentional error, but he did attribute to me, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the remarks which were made by my colleague. Perhaps the hon. member would like to correct that, as I do not share those views.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I know how anxious the hon. member would be to dissociate herself from the motion put by her seatmate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) and in accordance with section 7 of the Immigration Act, 1976, I should like to table, in both official languages, a document
Point of Order-Mr. Beatty
entitled "Annual Report to Parliament on Immigration Levels".


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that those questions be allowed to stand.



POINTS OF ORDER


Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to express my concern that the parliamentary secretary continues to allow many questions to sit on the order paper. Many members who did not have their questions answered, and who left them on the order paper for several months in the last session, reinstated the questions at the beginning of this session in exactly the same form. Therefore, any work done by the government in preparing answers over the months could be used immediately.
I have already drawn to the attention of the parliamentary secretary my question No. 67 which was first put on the order paper about eight months ago. It inquired about a week end trip on government aircraft to western Canada by the then minister of labour, on the week end of February 3, 4, and 5. Surely the parliamentary secretary cannot continue saying he has done a brilliant job in answering 90 per cent of the questions when in eight months he is incapable of eliciting the cost of this visit to the taxpayer, whether it was official business, and who the people were who accompanied the then minister of labour.
If the vehicle of questions on the order paper is to continue to be of use to members it is necessary that the parliamentary secretary take them seriously and at least make some effort to prod recalcitrant departments into giving answers to questions legitimately asked, and which deserve legitimate answers.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is giving a very poor example to his new colleagues. Had he been in the House yesterday he would have heard the answer I gave to his colleague, the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt), to whom I said that at the beginning of the session last year we had started to answer questions on the tenth day after the Speech from the Throne. Today is the ninth day. The House would not have to waste its time listening such a fallacious point as this,

October 24, 1978
Borrowing Authority Act
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had attended the sitting yesterday. I refer him to page 353 of yesterday's Hansard where he will find the answer to his question.



MR. JONES-DELAY IN ANSWERING QUESTION NO. 69

Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 have a question, No. 69, on the order paper, which has been there since July 12, 1977, all last spring and last fall. I had promises in this House from the parliamentary secretary that I would receive an answer within a few days, a few days, a few weeks, but another 16 months have passed. I would ask that the parliamentary secretary do everything to get that answer within the next week.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. Could the hon. member repeat the number of the question, please?


Leonard C. Jones: Question No. 69. 1 do not know what the number was on July 12, 1977, and 1 do not know what the number was when the House started in the fall for that third session, but this is the fourth session.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, October 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien that Bill C-7, to provide supplementary borrowing authority for the fiscal year 197879, to provide borrowing authority for the fiscal year 1979-80 and to amend the Financial Administration Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, the remarks I had intended to make yesterday have long since passed from my mind in view of the circumstances today. My first words today are words of welcome to the new members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: 1 hope, if they get an opportunity to sit and ponder, that they will learn the first rule of this House is a bad one, namely, that every

member who comes here thinks that all history starts from that moment. It takes us most of our lifetimes to realize that it actually started before that.
The second thing is that they come here on a day that 1 think is very typical of the last several years of this parliament and the type of exchange that goes on between the opposition and the government side regarding a very critical matter on which this whole nation's integrity depends. When they ponder the questions and answers and the attitudes, I think they will have learned a good lesson with which to start. This was a good day.
When he spoke in this debate yesterday I believe the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) touched on something that has been overlooked almost entirely in this whole discussion of the economic situation in Canada. He made it very clear that the real sufferers in this type of action by the government over the last ten years are not only this generation but the generations that will follow. By this type of bill we are transferring the financial obligations of our country to the next and succeeding generations. The hon. member pointed out yesterday that the real culprit and the fundamental danger to our country are this attack on our sons and grandsons who will have to pay for the mistakes we have been making for the last ten years.
Put into perspective, Canada is not alone in this mess; Canada is part of a worldwide revolution which really began on the North American continent about 50 years ago. It started in Europe 50 years before that. This social revolution was supported by all parties in varying degrees. There is not a party in Canada that would say, "Turn back the clock on what we are trying to do on behalf of bringing social equity to all levels of our people." This social revolution has come so fast and at such a cost in the last ten or 15 years, and there was so much waste in the last ten or 15 years, that we are finding it hard to pay for it at all levels of government. This is not only true in Canada but is true in all western countries.
A huge proportion of the wealth of the nation each year has to go for the payment of services that we all want and that we intend to keep if at all possible, but we have got into the habit and the fatal blunder, destructive blunder, of more and more of these costs of what we are taking for ourselves today being left as a debt for our sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons to pay. I think the thanks of all Canadians should go to the hon. member for Provencher for putting his finger right on the sin we are all committing.
This bill is just one of the sins. It calls on us to approve or authorize the government to borrow up to $17 billion in this one year to carry out the services we want, to keep on carrying this place, to keep on carrying the incompetence of this government, not charging it to ourselves today but charging it to the future.
If one looks at what the demographic charts are showing it is that in ten, 20, 30, 40 or 50 years there will not be enough young people coming along in western nations to carry this ever-increasing load we are laying on them 20, 30 or 40 years in advance. As a nation we are deliberately planning a geria-
October 24, 1978

trie society, and the statement made by the hon. member for Provencher yesterday should strike home to all of us that passing this bill, or not passing it, is not just a routine of this parliament; we are nailing a major nail into the bodies of our sons, grandsons and great-grandsons by loading this debt on them without sufficient examination of what went wrong with our financing.
There is no question that because of the costs, legitimate and otherwise of this social revolution, we and other nations have forced on our countries a cost-push type of inflation. It is not a demand-pull type where people are asking for more goods than we can produce; it is a cost-push type of inflation almost entirely.
As has been stated in this House on many occasions, and as almost everyone agrees, the first villain in that cost-push inflation is the cost of government, forcing up taxes, forcing up prices and reducing the living standard of our people. Rather than force prices up any faster or force taxes up any faster, we immediately pass it all over to the next generation.
The second villain in the piece is the misuse of our money supply over the last 25 years. That did not start with this government; it started with a group of nitwits who accepted the philosophy that all our problems could be resolved by pouring money into circulation or withdrawing it from circulation. There was a lot of good in this monetary theory, but it does not solve our problems. This distribution of the money supply has to be put down as the No. 2 villain of the piece.
The third villain of the piece is interest rates. Almost everything one looks at today is capital intensive. Almost every project, no matter whether it is a big pipeline or the building of a building, it is capital intensive. In a capital intensive world of high technology we have interest rates over and over again being 75 per cent of the cost of anything we do. When a person of normal means tries to buy a home in our cities today that person will find he has to take out a mortgage of $50,000 to finance an ordinary $75,000 home, because that is the ordinary price today. Over a 30-year mortgage that person pays four times the cost of his home, 75 per cent of it in interest. That is how the arithmetic works out. The precise figures I have put on the record many times. This same analogy respecting home ownership applies equally to every large enterprise. For example, the cost of extracting oil from the big oil sands project in Alberta means 75 per cent interest in the way it is being financed. Interest costs are a large component of the cost-push inflation. We have sat here in parliament, and as well during the summer when we were away, and watched interest rates being raised a total of five times this year.
You understand why I have to use the word "nitwits", Mr. Speaker, to describe this type of madness. Here we are cursed and burdened with interest taking up three-quarters of the cost of capital intensive enterprise, and we have a government following the practice of an equal group of nitwits in the United States, because if they raise interest rates, we raise
Borrowing Authority Act
them. I would like to spend more time on that subject but that is not the main purpose of my speaking today.
The fourth item on my list is the land cost near our cities. If we look at the experience in Europe in the last century, and now North America in the last ten years, we see the sudden escalation of land costs around our cities which shows where the large costs of inflation are coming from. Frankly, I put it fourth on the list.
Fifth, what we have witnessed in this House this last two weeks is the heavy, heavy cost on everybody of the labour-management confrontations. Because we refuse, as union leaders, and we refuse, as businessmen, and we refuse, as governments, to face the fact that this ritual rhumba of a so-called collective bargaining procedure has developed into a professional "Maintain the battle", we see businessmen paying huge sums of money to hire the brighest young fellows they can get to take on personnel management. We find labour unions buying the ablest people they can to be the other part of the equation. As long as these people can keep a fight going, the more money they make. This ritualistic rhumba, as I call it, of obsolete techniques of labour-management is costing this country heavily, and the workers are the chief sufferers.
We have witnessed, as a result of what we have been forced to do in the last two weeks of parliament, this institution being made into a court of decision when it should not be, except in grave, grave emergencies.
The sixth item on my list is the misuse of the floating dollar. The floating dollar makes it possible for any government to resolve its own inflation at home. But when there is a pegged dollar we become part of worldwide inflation. The minute currency runs free, the domestic fiscal policy can cope with inflation. It is on that last point that I want to extend a little bit with general remarks.
In Canada today we are witnessing a ten-year phenomenon. It started under the late Lester Pearson, rushing into social programs without considering all the things that could have been done to deliver those services that we all want in a way that was prudent.
I recall the setting up of the Hall commission on medical matters and saying to Mr. Justice Hall via the terms of reference, "Look at what happened in Russia, in Sweden, in China, in Europe, in fact all over the world, and bring back a way of having medicare in Canada so that we avoid the mistakes made in the United Kingdom after 1945; and the mistakes made in Saskatchewan in 1946 and 1960." "Let us have social medicine but let us not do it in such a way that you set up a system that destroys itself with abuses."
Over half the costs in the systems are nothing but abuses. Every one of us here knows that to be true. We went hog-wild in pushing these programs under the present administration. Now we sit and look at them. After doing these things to us all in the name of carrying out a social revolution, we see a government sitting there, frantic and frozen at the same time, with fear of being defeated at the next election. It is too fat to

October 24, 1978
Borrowing Authority Act
fight and too frightened to run. Because their trauma is at that stage, they are not seeking the answers they should be seeking.
The answers are not difficult. They can be put into two words. The key necessity at this moment is to build an economic base which can carry the weight of our social needs without destroying our country. I spoke of two words. Those two words are productivity and savings. Every piece of economic policy placed before the Elouse should be based upon the philosophy and the principles therein. How can we get greater productivity from our people, from our resources, out of our capital? How can we create more savings on which to base productivity? It is not possible to get those savings if we spend all our time trying to eliminate the middle class and get rid of the upper class or moneyed class altogether-they are so few in number anyway that they do not count that much.
My advice to the government is this: get off the backs of the workers of this country. Look what ministers opposite have done to the Post Office in the last three or four years. They have deliberately allowed their management to force workers into a strike so as to pose as strong defenders of the law. Let them get off the backs of the businessmen. I am not talking only of regulations but of the countless changes of policy-no one knows whether they are going this way or that way, or straight down. Most important of all I say to the government: get off the backs of the workhorses-let's call them what they are, the middle class of this country, and that comprises 90 per cent of us. Get off their backs. Get these taxes off their backs and give them back the incentive to go to work, to earn some money, and to put that money at the service of the development of this country.
I should like to refer at this point to a proposal which was made during a by-election campaign by my party leader. He put forward a program which has been the policy of the official opposition since 1965. He suggested there should be equality of tax levels with other countries. He asserted, for example, that home ownership was something Canadians accepted and wanted. They want the possibility of raising a family with some dignity and away from the rat nests, of the highrises, and he knew that they should get equal treatment with the tenants of this country. The tenants have always been able, through their rent, to get tax deductions, not only on interest on the money spent on the mortgage to build their highrise but also on all municipal taxes.
When my leader suggested that program, in harmony with the Conservative philosophy of the family home, we all know the extent of the attack by so-called economists who all felt they had to honour the conformist role economists have always assumed, namely, always to think alike. I am simply pointing out that such a program has been long overdue. That program would not only help on the social side but it would help combat the lack of law and order which comes from crowding people together in highrise developments.
That policy is economically sound. At this moment in time, with one of the largest unemployment indexes being in the

construction industry, what could be better than to put people to work doing something productive, building individual homes? Nothing will be lost by way of taxes. There are many precedents to show that by reducing a tax, when you have an unused labour supply and unused material at hand, you increase the tax take. These precedents go back in North American history to a time after the First World War, 50 years ago.
Practical politicians discovered that if productivity was maximized, tax revenues rose. Every member of the House who has been here for the last 15 years has heard rne tell the story of how this was done by the Kennedy administration in 1964. A huge reduction in the balance of ways and means, approximately $10 billion, brought in $19 billion of new revenue which made the Americans think they could carry on not only their social programs but the Vietnam war as well. When you have unused labour supply together with available materials, it is fighting inflation to put people to work to produce more, because you get more revenue and at the same time you reduce the cost of maintaining people who are unemployed. This is called potential budgeting.
This proposal was made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and it was received well by the people of Toronto-I think it would be received well in all our towns and villages, and I hope it will apply equally to the farmers. What we have seen from the government in the last few years, in spite of our warnings in 1975, is this: the government deliberately brought in a measure which legislated inflation. I refer to price and wage control. One does not even need to be a grade one economist to know that this is the case. Ministers wanted to control the workers and they wanted to control business profits. All they did was force up costs and bring all these inflationary pressures to bear on us.
This government has no moral principles. It is intellectually dishonest, and philosophically confused. And the most confused man over there is the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). He does not know whether he believes in private entreprise or socialism. He goes this way and that way, depending on public opinion, and because he has no clearcut philosophy-he is still at second year university thinking-there is confusion in the government. Nor is there any help for the government in the civil service.
The civil service was at its peak 30 years ago when it produced that brilliant white paper in 1946. It has been dying ever since. All you have there now are a few mandarins who make certain they tell every other civil servant they must conform to their opinions and climb up the pyramid they have erected, before expressing opinions of their own.
These guys began to die 30 years ago, and today they are only walking around to save funeral expenses. The government cannot get any help from them. They are finished. And what I say about the civil service in Ottawa at higher levels applies equally to the United States. They just follow each other. It is a case of the blind leading the blind.
I have seen many a minister destroyed in this House. I remember the well-known name of John Turner, with all his
October 24, 1978

promise, with all his charm, well liked in all quarters of the House, coming here in 1974 with two budgets in one year and placing double taxation on the resource industries, a move which flattened out one of the most important segments of our economy. And all because the civil servants at the federal level were mad at civil servants at the provincial level and said, "If you guys are going to tax too much, we shall make the tax non-deductible." Turner destroyed politically not only himself but the party to which he belonged by yielding to this type of nonsense from the civil service.
There was another man I recall, one of the fastest readers in this House. He had been briefed and he regurgitated that brief sounding like a high speed phonograph. He brought into this House, in 1974, the Petroleum Administration Act, and got it passed after a long, long debate in this chamber. That act was the first major attack by the government on the rights of the provinces to own, control, and use their own resources. It began a confrontation between the federal government and the provinces which is far more serious than the so-called fight over language.
I put it to you bluntly, Mr. Speaker, that the sins of the government have not all been committed within the last six months. It is a lame duck government, and if members do not know what a lame duck is, I invite them to look at American history. The minute the people know that a government is no longer effective, no more attention is paid to it. Over the years I have noticed this, and I have tried to be helpful.
I do admit that there are certain things governments cannot discuss in public. Matters of security and matters of finance have to be kept within the confines of the Privy Council and the senior civil service. I do not relish the position of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) when he cannot divulge certain things. It is his right and his duty to keep certain things to himself. However, at the same time certain things happen, and it would be helpful to be able to talk them over with somebody besides our own advisers. Walter Gordon, once a minister of finance, recognized this, and he brought in outsiders from the business world. His only mistake was that he did not get rid of them soon enough before he brought in his budgets.
I have thought over and over again that as these difficult decisions have to be made by a minister of finance-and one cannot in all honesty and efficiency tell the country what is being done until it has been done-it would be awfully nice if he could discuss some of these problems with his counterparts in the Privy Council outside his own party. Some of these problems are not political. The interest of the country is at stake, and I suggested in a press release over a year ago that it would be smart, and good common sense if the Prime Minister would take advantage of the Queen's coming to Canada, name the Leader of the Opposition as a Privy Councillor, and use him.
I went further and pointed out that because of the vast experience of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The
Borrowing Authority Act
Islands (Mr. Douglas) and of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and because of their long service, they should be given the Privy Council oath, and then the government could discuss with them some of the problems it is facing but cannot tell us about in the House. The government at least knows what the problems are, and these men would be bound by the Privy Council oath to keep quiet about what they are told until the proper time. This system is used in times of emergency in the United Kingdom and in other Commonwealth countries. We are not exactly in an emergency situation now, but we are very close to it in this lame duck period.
I use the example here of the floating dollar. When dealing with our country's exchange, we cannot tip our hand on what we are doing. The Minister of Finance was quite right in saying that Canada's interest demanded a floating dollar. The minute he said that, he told the world that it could judge us and our economic health by buying and selling our dollars as it thought wise for its own good, but as far as we were concerned the dollar was floating, period. Then the speculators were working one against the other, and they would have given us a stable dollar, but when civil servants monkey around and use hundreds of millions of dollars to interfere with a floating dollar, it is called a dirty float. Every speculator in the world then knows he has a pigeon on the stove, and world speculators roast that pigeon.
Neither Canada nor the United States has enough money to buck international speculators. Not only are tens of billions of Eurodollars looking around for a quick buck, but now there are tens of billions of oil dollars trying to make a quick profit, and any government in the world, bar none, should be smart enough not to tangle with international financial speculators. They have too much money in this floating crap game.
We have taken a beating, and we have tried to get around this by doing the worst thing possible, going abroad to borrow money to speculate in our own currency. The new generation will have to pay for the debts which will cost us heavily not only in interest payments each year but also because of the fact that those debts did not achieve anything. World speculators were told that they had a pigeon on the stove and that they should really take that pigeon to the cleaners. We were cleaned thoroughly, to the extent of several billions of dollars.
The reason I speak today about the floating dollar is that the same thing happened to the Canadian government in 1962. We decided to float our dollar. We did not know where it was going to go, but we did not interfere with it until the spring of 1962 when civil servants in the Department of Finance began to play the same game on our minister of finance which the present group is playing on the present Minister of Finance. We did not last very long in that game. We did not have enough money, and we had to bow on our knees to the International Monetary Fund. We had to bow to the Americans and to the British, and we accepted a pegged dollar. Fortunately for us we pegged it at about the right level and stopped speculation for a number of years, but when I see the same mistake being repeated by a government 15 years later, I wonder what amount of study and reading it does.
414

October 24, 1978
Borrowing Authority Act
No one can tell me that this business of stabilizing the dollar by pouring hundreds of millions into it was the policy of the minister. He is too sensible a man ever to agree to that, but he is surrounded by officials who tell him what to do, and there is no other counter advice. He is helpless. It would have been nice if he could have spoken to some of the fellows who went through the same thing and who would have to honour their Privy Councillor oaths. It would have been good if they could have told him about the experiences they went through. That may have prevented this horrible mistake, for which we will have to pay for many generations to come.
I say this because the minister has been receptive to other proposals I have put forward. Last fall I suggested that with his shortage of money he would have to do things which would not cost him anything but which would make a lot of money for him. I suggested potential budgeting to him, and I gave only one example having to do with the field of renewable energy hardware.
It is very obvious that in the next six to ten years almost every individual home in this country, and certainly all big buildings, will be heated in a new way which will cost one quarter of present heating costs. We will use our oil and gas for more useful things than heating homes. With the knowledge we already have, why should individuals who live in this country not take advantage of the fact that we can heat our homes at one quarter of the present cost? I gave the minister figures, and he was impressed by them, but the civil service answer which came back was that we could not do a thing like that because we would be giving individuals the same break we give to businesses. We were told that we should not want to give a sucker any kind of break.
I know the attitude of the people in the Department of National Revenue. That is why I hope that the new man who came into the House today will back up his reputation, go in there, clean house, and get these people to realize that this money belongs to the Canadian people and not to them. These are the kinds of procedures which do not cost any money but which save us a lot of money.
If the Minister of Finance could have got his civil servants to accept that idea, and if he had brought in a whole series of things this summer when the Prime Minister came back from Bonn, things which would have been economically helpful to this country, we could have turned this country around.
When we look at the government's economic program, we realize what a roaring farce it is. Bill C-2 deals with the Resources Fund Act. What would that do to build up productivity and increase savings? Bill C-3 introduces new regulations under the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act, which is just information legislation. Bill C-5 would allow $20 more per month for the needy aged. Good, but that does not produce any more productivity. It makes the lot of the needy aged a little easier, but it certainly is not an economic program to build up our economic base. Bill C-6 on conflict of interest of senators and members of parliament-what does it do to build up productivity and savings?

Bill C-9 is on a referendum on the constitution. We have enough guys running around with referendums now, not only in Quebec but in Saskatchewan. Everything is going to be referendums-it is the new philosophy of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang). Bill C-10 is on income tax. Very good, they will cut down on family allowances and add a little bit more for children in poorer families. That is good, but where in that whole program do you get the sense that there is somebody driving the car?
This nation is like a big, powerful car going down the road at 90 miles per hour, but there is no wheel on the driving equipment. All these guys are out there waving, shouting and yelling, "What will we do now?" When you have a car without a wheel to hold on to, it is a damn risky period for the country. These people are going along like this, and I plead with them: for Canada's sake, admit your failures; for Canada's sake, beg for help, you need it; for Canada's sake, no more of these interest rate increases; for Canada's sake, no more foreign borrowing to enter a gambling game; for Canada's sake, recall that this country is strong; we must get it turned around and we do not have to wait until after the election.
Just because we are called Conservatives and are in the opposition most of the time, it does not mean that we are all bad. Some of these ideas do have some merit. Certainly with the complicated evidence of what the government has been doing for the last 13 or 14 years, there is no fate awful enough for people opposite. I am simply saying that they will be here for the next six months, whether they like it or not, because it is too cold to campaign in the winter in Canada. So we are stuck with this lame duck government. For God's sake, let us pull together for a few months, get some economic policy through this parliament, and turn this country around so we do not have so many unemployed and so we have some hope for the future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, while I have the opportunity to speak on this piece of legislation, which is a bill on borrowing authority, let me remind the House that I am from Newfoundland and I remember well the time when I was minister of finance in Newfoundland, from 1972 to 1975, and how the finger of caution was waved at us, when we came to Ottawa, by the minister of finance in Ottawa and the officials of the Department of Finance who told us how terrible it was that down in Newfoundland we were borrowing amounts of up to $200 million a year, that we were borrowing too much and that this little province of Newfoundland was going to flounder, that it would have to go to the bond market some day to borrow money if it kept up with this disgraceful, profligate attitude.
1 remember when the deputy minister of finance of Canada actually called on the premier of the province-who was then Mr. Smallwood-to tell him officially from the Government of Canada, to give him an official warning that if he continued his profligate ways, if he continued borrowing down in that
October 24, 1978

province which was so far behind every other province, down in that part of the country which is 100 years behind the rest and which has to try to catch up, that if he continued their terrible, terrible record of borrowing $100 million every year, the province would go under. That was the message from these great mandarins here in Ottawa.
When 1 became minister of finance, I got the same message. You were tut-tutted at when you came up here and had to confess that you had no choice, that you had to borrow a couple of hundred million dollars for Newfoundland that year because, if you did not, there would be no highway program and no capital program whatsoever, there would be no progress, you would not be able to do anything. The people would have to continue to put up with substandard services and substandard programs, so that was the minimum you had to borrow.
I remember how we cut and slashed. I was not the Mr. Nice Guy that I am here, Mr. Speaker. Down in Newfoundland in those days when I was minister of finance and president of the treasury board I was Mr. Public Enemy No. 1 because we were trying to keep ourselves solvent and there was a limited amount we could do, and because old Uncle Ottawa was making ferocious noises at us, and frowning severely at us because of the way we were borrowing.
Here we are, just three years later, and what do we have before us but a bill which asks us to authorize the group opposite to borrow $17 billion. Are the taxpayers of Canada listening to us at all? Unfortunately, the answer is no. If they were listening to us, they would be rioting outside this building to put a stop to this. It is money that will have to be repaid by them and their descendants through taxes. There would be riots out there. They would be trying to hang the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) by his heels. They would be trying to catch "of slippery heels" and get him up if they realized what was happening.
When the Minister of Finance came to the House to ask for authority to borrow this money, did he come in all humbleness and supplication to ask us, to take us into his confidence, to lay his soul bare, to give us the facts? He came in arrogance, and in ten minutes told us next to nothing.
Now I will read a selection of the musings of the lugubrious Minister of Finance in his introduction of this bill, as reported in Hansard of October 19 at page 264. The minister first recapitulated:
In March, 1977, borrowing authority of $7 billion was provided to meet anticipated cash requirements for fiscal year 1977-78. A further $9 billion borrowing authority was sought and provided as part of the income tax bill passed in December, 1977. Finally, on March 22, 1978-
What was it? April, May, June, July, August, September and October-just seven months ago. We poor Newfoundlanders have to count on our fingers. Just seven months ago we authorized a further additional borrowing of $5 billion. The minister went on to say:
-additional borrowing authority of $5 billion was granted.
This makes a two-year total borrowing authority of S21 billion-
Borrowing Authority Act
You would think $21 billion was fantastic, but he goes on to say:
-which is not sufficient to meet the combination of domestic borrowings for the $20.1 billion in cash requirements for the two fiscal years ending next March 31, and our foreign borrowings to date of about $4.5 billion. Nor does it allow a margin to bring our borrowing authority in line with the amounts available under our already negotiated stand-by credit facilities.
We authorized $21 billion for two fiscal years between March, 1977, and November, 1978, a period of one year and seven months, not even two years, not three years, not five years, not ten years, not 20 years, as you might think, but for a period of 19 months we have authorized the hon. gentlemen opposite to borrow $21 billion, and that is not enough. They want to borrow $1 billion for every minister in the cabinet. How much is that? It must be $34 billion that we are headed for.
We authorized $21 billion in 17 months; now they want another $17 billion. If we add $17 billion to the $21 billion, that will make $38 billion which will be authorized in 19 months. So we are asked to authorize another $17 billion over a 19 months period.
The minister went on to say, as reported at page 265 of Hansard:
The bill also provides borrowing authority of $10 billion for the new fiscal year beginning next April 1. We have previously indicated that cash requirements excluding foreign exchange transactions, are expected to be $9.7 billion for fiscal year 1979-80. The government's cash balances at the beginning of the next fiscal year-
He goes on to say what it is, that is excluding foreign exchange. The minister is already admitting that the government will need $9.7 billion for the next fiscal year, which is only a small down payment on what they really need. Should we do this? As our finance critic pointed out, this will make the Canadian debt, once the money is borrowed, amount to a total of $74 billion.
The people who are so happy to give advice to poor little Newfoundland, who shook their finger at us and said how bad we were to borrow this couple of hundred millions of dollars, have themselves borrowed $21 billion over the last 17 months. This has not been sufficient for their hungry mob. They want another $17 billion.

I suggest we should rename the dollar and call it the beaver, because that might stop the government. If the people of Canada had a picture of 17 billion beavers all knocking their tails on a pond, and if they heard the sound that would make, they would have some idea of what the government is doing. Let us change it from dollars to beavers. The government is trying to borrow 17 billion beavers. I know what they would do with those beavers if they borrowed them, or what they would attempt to do with them. That would give Canadians a picture. Billions of dollars are nothing now, but can Your Honour picture 17 billion beavers lined up? It would be quite a picture.
The government has brought this bill before us. The debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne was interrupted for this fantastic bill, this piece of economic mira-
80065-2 7'/2

October 24, 1978
Borrowing Authority Act
cle. What does this have to do with the government's economic and industrial program? Beans all, Mr. Speaker. Why has the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne been interrupted for this borrowing bill?
Why are we being asked to authorize $17 billion before we have even had a budget from the hon. lugubrious Minister of Finance? He said that he will bring a budget down in November. He wants us to authorize $10 billion in borrowing for next year without seeing the estimates. Why? What does this have to do with the television appearance of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) last August? What does this have to do with not having an election? Supposedly we were not having an election so that we could get on with our economic business and the government's fantastic program for economic and industrial development, but we have seen nothing. All we have seen is CALURA. If the government did not have CALURA brought in by the Minister of State for Small Business (Mr. Abbott) every session, there would be no legislation before us. Does anything express more fittingly the state of this government than the fact that it has the gall to bring the CALURA bill before the House again? The Minister of State for Small Business should resign in protest because he has to bring this before the House.
Does anyone care what all this does to interest rates? Hon. members opposite have the most shameful record in our history. Last March 8 the central bank rate was 7.5 per cent. That was the bank rate just seven months ago. That is what the central Bank of Canada charged, and probably the banks charged one half, three quarters or 1 per cent more. Let us call it 1 per cent. So, it was 8.5 per cent. Now we have had five increases, and in seven months it is up to \0'A per cent. How does this correspond with the Prime Minister's great program of industrial and economic expansion and growth which was brought back by him from Bonn via Morocco? The Prime Minister cannot explain. He throws his hands up and says, "Look, we have to do whatever the United States Central Bank does. If they go to 814 per cent or S'A per cent, we go to 10V4 per cent."
If the Americans increase their interest rates once again, which they may well do-and it is being forecast down there right now-the central bank rate in Canada will go up again, and the interest rate at banks will go up to 12 per cent, 13 per cent or 14 per cent. Where will it end? Where will it stop? How can we have economic expansion in light of these interest rates? What will the small businessman do? Supposedly the Minister of State for Small Business is concerned about them. What will they do to meet these heavy, additional expenses?
Is it not correct that one of the factors which make us uncompetitive compared to the United States is the much higher interest rates in Canada? Who is considering all this? Who cares? What will our merchandise trade balance be? All we have is wild speculation by the Minister of Finance and his ally, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner). They do not even take the figures and give you low estimates, so that when the figures come out it will be that much more encouraging for the analysts. No, instead of that

they exaggerate. When the lower figures come out, then everyone reacts, the Canadian dollar goes down, and all the rest happens.
In June, July and August of last year, our merchandise trade balance was $542 million. In June, July and August of this year, the year of miraculous expansion which the two ministers spoke about, the amount of our merchandise trade surplus was $101 million. The total for the first eight months of 1978 was $2,084 million. If we extend that for 12 months, it would be a $3.1 billion surplus, if it is extended at the same rate. The most optimistic analysts say that it might be $3.5 billion. Everyone who buys the Canadian dollar knows that we will have a deficit of $8 billion or $9 billion apart from the merchandise trade balance, tourism account, interest, dividends, services, shipping, insurance and the rest. So, there will be another deficit balance in the international current account of approximately $4 billion or $5 billion again this year. We do not know how much.
Canada is living beyond its means. That is why our dollar keeps going down. What will we hear the government discuss? I get sick of hearing about all these troubled things. I get sick of hearing myself talk about them. I would like to hear the government get up and tell us what steps will be taken to overcome them, and not the old pat answers which the ministers come up with, not the old rationalizations which they come up with. They should give us something to get our teeth into. For example, the merchandise trade balance in manufactured end products, fully manufactured products, which the former hon. member from our side talks about all the time, and rightly so, was a deficit last year. There was a deficit in fully manufactured products of $11,096 million. That is a fact. The year before it was $10,210 million.
What does the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce do? He puts out a study indicating that the picture is brighter than assumed. Another 177-page study detailing our trade performance in 1960 was presented. It showed that things were much brighter than we thought. We cannot dispute that the deficit last year in fully manufactured end products was $11 billion. The figures are there. He wants to show that it was not as bad as it was in 1960, and in 1960 proportionately it was better. Who does that comfort? Who does that help? How does that deal with the problem we have in the form of a deficit now? That is what we are interested in hearing about.
What about the GATT negotiations? We are asked to authorize $17 billion in borrowing. What about GATT? When will we have a minister of this government, a deputy prime minister, a minister of industry, trade and commerce, or a minister of finance, who will tell us what is happening at GATT? We do not know exactly what is happening at GATT. The only ones who seem to know are the people at the Globe and Mail. I should like to refer to an article which appeared in that newspaper approximately two weeks ago. It is entitled, "Canada Seeking More Concessions In Talks On Trade", by James Rusk. In part it reads as follows:
Two of Canada's key trading partners in the developed world must improve their offers if the current round of world trade talks in Geneva is to come up
October 24, 1978

with a package acceptable to Canadian negotiators, report on business interviews with trade officials in Ottawa indicate.
Both the European Economic Community and Japan still have a way to go to make their offers acceptable to Canada-
The shortfalls in the Japanese package are in fish and farm products,-
Non-ferrous minerals and paper products are the main areas of difficulty, and there has been minimal movement in fisheries products and nothing significant in agricultural products.
This is the kind of thing we want to hear discussed. What is really happening at GATT? What can we expect of GATT? The people involved in fisheries are dependent upon the United States market. They would like to know what is happening at GATT. We on the opposition side would like to know, and I am sure Liberal members opposite would like to know. Rather than a bill to borrow $17 billion, a minister should come in and spend some time tracing out the negotiations at GATT, what is really happening there, and what our prospects are. That is what our manufacturing industry is waiting to hear. That is what our fishermen are waiting to hear. That is what our agricultural organizations are waiting to hear. They do not want to hear the government asking for $17 billion before it has produced a straight, new, economic investment and financial program. Give us the programs first. Then we will authorize the dollars afterward, if we think the programs are worth something.
What is happening at GATT? Never has a government been more anxious not to give information as this government is with reference to GATT and everything else. This is why we came here two weeks ago. We came to hear about GATT. We want the government to rat on GATT. We want information as to what is happening, what Canada's future is in trading, and not nonsensical studies produced by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to show that there is nothing wrong with our deficit in fully manufactured end products, even though it is $11 billion.
I could talk all day, Mr. Speaker, and I intend to unless you stop me. Let the government come in and give us some answers. What about our investment hemorrhage? We are hemorrhaging in Canada in the dollar sense. In the first half of 1978 Canadians made direct investments abroad totalling $910 million, principally in the U.S. This is the largest six-month outflow of dollars in Canadian history. The outflow in the first six months of 1978 was greater than the yearly outflow in all our previous history, with the exception of 1975. Now what about the counterbalance of foreign direct investment into Canada, Mr. Speaker? That inflow in the first half of the year was only $185 million. Foreigners invested $185 million in Canada, and Canadians invested $910 million outside. We had a net outflow of $725 million in six months, greater than any yearly outflow, with the exception of one year.
Why is this happening, Mr. Speaker, and what does the government propose to do to change it? Surely to God we cannot afford to have, in six months, such an outflow, and if it continues it would put us in very dire straits, a $725 million
Borrowing Authority Act
outflow of capital more than is coming into the country. We are a country which still needs capital to develop all kinds of our resources. Canadians apparently have no faith in their own country, and they are investing outside more than others are investing here. What does the government think of that? Can or will ministers do anything about it? What do they think about it? What is the bright side about it? This is what we would like to hear. We came here to hear the government's new economic, industrial and financial proposals, not to authorize billions of dollars in borrowing. It will be $38 billion that we will have authorized in 17 months if we pass this bill. Let us hear something on this problem of investment before the government asks us on this side to approve this bill.
One gets sick of even thinking of the statistics on every side. A person cannot find a bright corner anywhere, and it is not the opposition's role either to look on the bright side. It is our role to point out what the government is doing wrong and what it needs to correct it. The professional, bright-eyed optimist should be on the government side, but they are getting more doleful every day. They are Pinnochios, as I said the other day. What we want to hear, is what we came here to discuss.
The Minister of Finance announced in September a $750 million loan from the U.S., the second bond issue this country had in the United States. This amounts to $1!4 billion. Then we had a 1.5 billion deutschmark loan in West Germany, which at that time amounted to something like $705 million. The total foreign credit in loans that this country has arranged this year is $7.7 billion in money which was borrowed outside of Canada or arranged. The spendthrift crew opposite does not know how to do anything except to borrow, this crowd that had the gall to criticize the province of Newfoundland because it was borrowing a couple of hundred million per year.
How do they propose to pay for that, Mr. Speaker? The interest costs alone are more than $100,000 daily, finance department estimates indicate. We are selling off our international reserve holdings at a rapid rate. So far this year we have sold $3.2 billion U.S. of our international reserve holdings. Prior to this year the government had not borrowed outside the country in ten years. These are things which we want to hear about, but we are treated with contempt, as are the Canadian people, by the Minister of Finance, who comes into this chamber and asks us, in a ten-minute cursory speech, to authorize the borrowing of $17 billion. He will have some job borrowing it if I have anything to do with it, Mr. Speaker.
When the minister comes before the House in this way- and I have pointed out some of the things which the government is telling us nothing about-it is time for us to bring forward some grievances. There are something like $11 million to $12 million that the government would not have to borrow if it had administered the income tax laws of this country honestly and efficiently. 1 have mentioned before in this House, and I am going to keep mentioning it until we get to the bottom of the matter, the dealings of that one individual, Mr. John Christopher Doyle, a great friend of the government, and who owes the government not only what I reported last June but more than that.

October 24, 1978
Borrowing Authority Act
I have some more information, Mr. Speaker, to bring up to date the tax saga of John C. Doyle and why the government could borrow SI 1 million less if it had collected the taxes owed it by that great friend of the Liberal party, John C. Doyle. Just to refresh minds opposite I would point out to them that for the 1950 tax year this gentleman was reassessed in 1955, and he had income tax added to his income tax. He appealed to the Income Tax Appeal Board, and was heard in 1967, 12 years after the tax year in question. He then appealed to the exchequer court, and that was not heard until 1970, three years later. He lost there again before Mr. Justice Gibson, whereupon he put in a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, which was not heard until October 24, 1977. It was heard then only because I brought it up in this House and peppered the then minister of justice, the Minister of Finance and the minister of national revenue with letters about this scandalous situation.
The government allowed the appeal to drag on for seven years. In the 1954 tax year Mr. Doyle was reassessed on June 11, 1959, but it did not go to the Tax Appeal Board until 1967. It was not heard in the exchequer court until 1970, and his appeal to the Supreme Court was not heard until May 3 and 4, 1978; heard only because I had pressed and exposed this nefarious dodge in this House and outside it. I am glad that there is approval opposite because there has not been much approved in the ministry.
I then pointed out to the House, Mr. Speaker, that the government received no adequate security for the amount they were owed, that this was the one taxpayer in Canada who did not have to pay the tax as most of us do and who did not have to put up a bond or bank guarantee. He was allowed all those years to go free, with no adequate security in the hands of the government at all. The government eventually took over about 55,000 shares of Canadian Javelin Limited. When it finally received a judgment, the government could not collect because Mr. Doyle had left Canada. This Canadian had become a Panamanian citizen. He bolted from Canada in 1974 and now lives in Panama City.
What is the amount owing for those three tax years which were involved in those cases, Mr. Speaker? According to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Guay), as at June 23, 1978-I was given this information in the committee-Mr. John C. Doyle owed the Government of Canada a total amount of $5,014,281.13. I am just recapitulating what I said in this House before. He owed $211,000 for 1950, $276,000 for 1953, and $4,526,000 for 1954.
If you are like the ordinary taxpayer who has to pay, or be reassessed, dragooned, have an attachment placed on your bank account or have your assessments seized and sold, you might get a little irritated when you hear that one taxpayer has had that kind of treatment for 27 years. He has now left the country, and the government cannot collect the money.
By the way, the appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada were dismissed from the bench. They were so involved with great matters of law and fact that they were dismissed from the bench.
Mr. Speaker, you might think that that is something, $5,014,000 lost, but during the summer I discovered that the gentleman owed another $6 million. I wrote to the Prime Minister on May 18 or 19 of this year, bringing all this and a lot more to his attention in connection with the Doyle case. I asked him to appoint a commission of inquiry. After writing that letter I discovered that there was another case involving Mr. Doyle. He was involved in a case called the Minister of National Revenue versus Javelin Foundries Machine Works Limited and Mr. John C. Doyle with seven appeals. I discovered that Javelin Foundries Machine Works Limited was wholly owned by Mr. Doyle, and I discovered that there are $6 million owing for the years 1950 to 1956 to the Government of Canada by Javelin Foundries Machine Works Limited.
I discovered that this tax delinquent, this fugitive from justice in the United States since 1965, this fugitive from Canada since 1974, made an application to the Federal Court of Canada, to Mr. Justice Addy asking to have a commission take his evidence in this matter down there in Panama because he did not want to come back to Canada because he might be arrested for all the other charges against him.


Mr. Abbott:: Would be.


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes, he would be. So he asked the court- imagine the audacity and the gall-he asked the court to come down to Panama and take his evidence because, "if I come up there I will be arrested for fraud and stockmarketing offences, 406 of them, stockmarket transactions and I do not want to do that. Although I owe $6 million which I am disputing, I want you to take my evidence down here." Two million dollars in income tax was levied for the years 1953 to 1956 which, with interest and penalties, now totals over $6 million. The company ceased business in 1956-the company has not existed since 1956 except with this one-man shareholder.
The matter has not gone to trial yet, Mr. Speaker. We are talking of the tax years 1953 to 1956. If the previous cases I cited in this House were not bad enough, these cases of another $6 million not adequately secured have not yet gone to trial.
The resume of all of this should go to every Canadian taxpayer so they can decide what to do about their own taxes next year. I got a notice for $950 a couple of months ago. I fought it like a good Canadian, and they are withdrawing it now. I won. Four constituents got on to me. One owed $250 and had his salary attached. Another one owed $500 or $600, another one $50,000. They dragooned him and they did everything under the sun with the poor devil. But here is this man who for 27 years has had the most tender treatment that any taxpayer could ever ask. This stinks and cries out for an answer. It cries out for justice. Mr. Speaker, that is $6 million and it has not gone yet to trial. From 1953 to now is 25 years, from 1956 to now is 22 years. In 22 years we were not able to get this matter to trial, so what does Mr. Trudeau reply to me after I write him again?

October 24, 1978


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I would ask the hon. member to refer to a member of this House by his title and not by name.


John Carnell Crosbie: What does the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) respond? I have the Prime Minister's letter of October 2, which is his answer to my letter of May 19 and September 7. He regretted the delay in replying to me and said:
The issues you have raised are serious and substantial. I have consequently had a careful study made of this matter by officials of the Privy Council office in consultation with the Departments of Justice, National Revenue and Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I am advised that no indication has been found that partial or preferential treatment has been given to Mr. Doyle.
Imagine a prime minister putting that down on a paper. The bare recital of facts shows partial and preferential treatment.
The Prime Minister goes on:
While I am inclined to agree that, on the face of it, the proceedings in respect of Mr. Doyle's tax assessments for the years 1950, 1953 and 1954 have taken an inordinate amount of time.
That is some admission.
-the study that has been made indicates that the substantial delays that have arisen are largely the result of unfruitful settlement negotiations entered into in good faith by the government, the appointment of new counsel at frequent intervals as the court cases have proceeded, and complex procedural questions that have continued to arise.
How are they going to deal with the Post Office, Mr. Speaker, if they could not deal with one taxpayer in 27 years and they are going to give such thin excuses as this?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question?


John Carnell Crosbie: "Unfruitful settlement negotiations". They do not have to have a-


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: On a point of order-


John Carnell Crosbie: That is not what happens to us ordinary Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The Minister of State (Small Business) (Mr. Abbott) on a point of order.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question.


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: I would just like to ask if he is asserting that the shortfall in taxes, that the government has failed to get from Mr. Doyle, is what is giving rise to the borrowing requirements. Is that the linkage to this particular bill? Could he explain what remote connection this case that he has been pursuing for two years has with today's debate?


John Carnell Crosbie: The minister has put his finger right on the leakage. There has been a leakage in tax collection. There has been dishonesty, maladministration, misfeasance, and corruption in the collection of taxes in this country. That is my charge. I make the charge again. Because of that they are
Borrowing Authority Act
borrowing $11 million more than they need borrow if they had collected this money from Mr. John C. Doyle.
I come back to the Prime Minister's letter now, Mr. Speaker. As the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) said once, when you are on the hunt do not be distracted by rabbit tracks. The letter continues:
With regard to the question of the security held by the government, it appears from the study that the security originally taken by the Crown was adequate to secure the indebtedness. However, as a matter of law, it has not been possible to realize on the security while appeals from the assessments have remained outstanding and the market value of the security has in the meantime decreased.
What he means is that Canadian Javelin shares traded at $17 a few years ago and today they are trading at $1.50 or $1.75.
The letter goes on:
Nevertheless, all legal means of utilizing the Crown's position to obtain recovery of the amounts owing are being vigorously pursued.
He goes on to admit that they only have security for part of the amount owed them by Javelin Foundries and that efforts to obtain payment are continuing. I am only giving a short recital of the facts-the facts that impugn the whole administration of the tax laws of this country.
The Prime Minister concluded by saying:
I believe that all possible steps are now being taken to conclude the matters to which you have referred.
They sure are. I am the burr on their tail, Mr. Speaker, and they are certainly taking all possible steps.
He goes on to say:
In the circumstances, a public inquiry into these matters, as suggested by you, would not appear to me to be necessary or desirable.
In the matter of collection of taxes we have had several immense scandals in the last couple of years, Mr. Speaker. One is the matter to which I am referring now. It shakes your faith in the collection of revenue in this country and how fairly and equitably it is administered, or whether friends of the government, people who have done the Liberal party favours in Quebec and outside, are to get treatment so that they do not have to pay their taxes, so that they do not have to put up adequate security, so that they can do what they like, living right here in the nation's capital for years and getting away with this. We only know about the years 1952 and 1953 to 1956. The minister will not answer my questions about other years.
We know that the government permitted Canadian Javelin Limited to ignore attachments placed with it in 1964 directing them to pay any moneys they owed to the government on this tax plan. They ignored that, and Javelin paid out $1,444,000 to Doyle through a company in the Bahamas, and ignored the attachment. The government only started to sue Canadian Javelin for that last fall as a result of my constant chasing of them. It is another example of negligence and misfeasance in the administration of tax laws.
We know from other evidence given at a royal commission in Alberta that the minister has disregarded the laws of this country and that the Department of National Revenue has

October 24, 1978
Borrowing Authority Act
given the RCMP information from people's tax returns whenever the RCMP asked for it. If that is not enough to topple the government, I do not know what you need to topple a government in Canada today. This is a topless government because it is a government that needs to be topless out of office as soon as the Canadian people can get at them.


Miss Begin:: How can we be topless and cover up too?


John Carnell Crosbie: They should not open their mouths because they are cowering and quavering in their lairs, afraid to go out and face the people of Canada. The only one who has a chance, in my opinion, is the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) (Mrs. Campagnolo). I think she has a real chance, but I would not put any money on any of the rest of them.
I just wanted to bring this to the attention of the House hoping that the consciences of some of those opposite would be pricked and they start a public inquiry into these tax matters to which 1 have referred.
There is also the question of PUITA, the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act. The government has announced it is going to abrogate that act unilaterally through legislation before this House. It was passed in 1965 at the time Newfoundland was entering into the Brinco deal with the government of Quebec of not so happy memory. It was introduced in this House by the then minister of finance, Mr. Mitchell Sharp, in July, 1965. It involved the agreement of the Government of Canada to pay back to the provinces 95 per cent of the federal corporation tax paid by utility companies which distribute and sell electrical energy, steam or gas. The three provinces most affected by this are Alberta, Newfoundland, and Prince Edward Island, where we still have some major publicly-owned utilities engaged in the sale of electrical energy, steam and gas.
This has been in effect since 1965, and yet unilaterally the government has announced it is going to do away with this act and stop transferring this 95 per cent corporation tax. It was entered into originally because it was recognized that if something like this were not done, each province would be encouraged to nationalize its privately-owned public utilities so that they would all be on the same basis and none would be-


Mr. Martin:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. parliamentary secretary on a point of order.


Alan Gray Martin: I wonder if the hon. member could in some way demonstrate to the House how it is legitimate to be speaking at this time, when we are dealing with Bill C-7, on another bill that is before the House. I do not see any relationship whatsoever, and I wonder if you could rule on that matter, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I suggest that the hon. member keep his remarks to the bill under discussion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: As always, Mr. Speaker, I bow to your ruling. If the bill I am talking about is not enacted we will have to borrow more money. That is the relevance of this matter I am discussing. If PUITA is not done away with, we will have to borrow more. In one case we have to borrow less and in the other case we have to borrow more.
1 am not going to speak at too much length because my time is going fast. The finance critic has given me permission to take my time, Mr. Speaker. Let me just say I will not go into any more detail on that. What I want to speak about is how can we trust ministers to borrow $17 billion who answer questions like this-and I refer to Hansard of October 13 where the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce was asked a question by the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Bawden) about PUITA-first he asked a question of the Minister of Finance, and then he asked the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce: "If the minister is aware of the government's proposal to repeal this act." As reported at page 65 of Hansard the minister answered:
Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware of the arguments put forward at that time and now. I have made my representations to the cabinet and to the Minister of Finance, and my colleague has assured me he will discuss this matter fully with his counterparts in the provinces.
I would not loan one dollar to a minister that made that answer. A minister in the Government of Canada is responsible for every act of the government. In September an announcement was made by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) outside the House that the government was going to ask this House to repeal the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce comes to this House and pretends he did not know about this, that he is not just as responsible for it as the President of the Treasury Board or the Minister of Finance. He has made his representations to the cabinet. Yes, he made them. The cabinet ignored them. That is how much influence the cabinet minister from Alberta has. He is nothing but a laughing stock from here to his district.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
October 24, 1978



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier)-Public Service-Reduction of personnel-Effect on service to public; the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn)- Canadian National Railways-Proposed strike by Nordair pilots-Air Canada control of Nordair; the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr.	Beatty)-Post
Office-Alleged lock-out of returning strikers.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed Consideration of the Motion of Mr. Chretien that Bill C-7, to provide Supplementary borrowing authority for the fiscal year 1978-79, to provide borrowing authority for the fiscal year 1979-80 and to amend the Financial Administration Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 feel I have to speak in French at the outset of my remarks this afternoon to remind certain hon. members, more particularly certain members of the press media, be it the written press, radio or television, that the province of Quebec does not have a monopoly on French in Canada and the parliament of Canada. Recently I heard certain commentators say that the Progressive Conservative party had tried to show they had Frenchspeaking spokesmen because they had used certain members, particularly those from western Canada, to speak in French in the House. Mr. Speaker, members of the media who made those remarks are outright ignorants, and 1 say so in all sincerity.
Just today I was reminded that I have been serving in this House in my capacity as member for Edmonton West for 21 years and 135 days. That beats the record of any other member from the province of Alberta, except my former colleague, the Hon. Douglas Harkness, who served his riding of Calgary for 27 years. I just want to say that we, from western Canada, are of bilingual origin; we speak French-


An hon. Member:: I beg your pardon?
Borrowing Authority Act


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -and I can speak English just as well as anybody else-
-and we have nothing to apologize for to anyone in this House and if I happen to be speaking to a French-speaking minister, since we are in a bilingual country and we know the two official languages are English and French, I will be putting my question to him in French-simple courtesy.
It is quite simple, and if on the other hand he did not speak French, I would speak to him in English. So I hope that we will develop this habit in this House.
In my 21 years in this House we have witnessed progress because before we had simultaneous interpretation-and just this week I was invited to a dinner to celebrate the twentieth anniversary of simultaneous interpretation in this House; I want to point out that fact to the newer members in this House who accept that as a simple matter of fact, just like the sunrise every morning. Indeed, simultaneous interpretation was for us-


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, we are discussing Bill C-7 concerning the possibility for the government to borrow certain sums. The hon. member is making very interesting remarks about bilingualism in this country and his freedom to use the language of his choice, which I entirely respect. But I think it would be more advisable to stick to the rules of the House and not only express oneself in the language of one's choice but also to discuss the matter of the debate. I would urge the Chair to call the hon. member to order and ask him to discuss the bill before us, Bill C-7.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I would suggest to the hon. member that he return to the bill under discussion.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I agree to be patient with the hon. member who is one of the youngest in the House. He forges straight ahead probably hoping for a promotion as there are interesting vacancies to fill. I have known him for a long time and when it comes to our rules I would hope he will show just as much eagerness in calling members of his own party to order as he does for the members of the opposition. This is a forum where we can express our ideas. I am going to express my views on Bill C-7. The hon. parliamentary secretary might then decide to draw my attention to something else.
Bill C-7 is very simple and asks us a very simple authority, a blank cheque allowing the federal government to borrow an additional $17 billion by 1980. The hon. secretary who is rather young has a poor memory, he did not look into the records of the administration to see what are the limits and the borrowing needs of the federal government. Ten years ago, the man who is now thumping on his desk in support of the Prime Minister-I remember perfectly when the Prime Minister
422

October 24, 1978
Borrowing Authority Act
arrived as a lion and promised to solve the problems of our country, not only our linguistic and cultural problems but also the inflation we had at that time.
"We shall wrestle inflation to the ground," said the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Later on he said he had wrestled it to the ground. Nonsense, Mr. Speaker. Never has there been a greater misrepresentation to the Canadian public than by the present Prime Minister over the years. Yet the parliamentary secretary has the gall to say that I should limit myself to this paltry bill.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Yvon Pinard: 1 think the hon. member-who has been sitting here for over 20 years, as he pointed out so well, and whom I respect very much-is mixed up. I was not here ten years ago, Mr. Speaker. 1 was elected for the first time in 1974. So, either he is mistaken, or he is speaking of someone else; but I should like him to be more specific, to stick to Bill C-7, and stop chiding me for having called him to order, what Your Honour confirmed by asking him to speak strictly to Bill C-7. The hon. member says he knows me very well, that I am young and have no memory: there is nothing repugnant about young people having a good memory. But, as the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said so well recently to the leader of the official opposition: 'Tis better to have good brains than good memory. On the other hand, I would point out that the hon. member would be well advised to speak to the bill instead of making personal remarks. If, however, he is in earnest about making of this institution a place where problems and not individuals are discussed, then he should limit himself to the bill before the House; he should respect our Standing Orders, for this institution, so that it can work efficiently.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I suggest to both hon. members that they stay with Bill C-7. I find we are getting into debate.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: God forbid that we should get into debate in this House, Mr. Speaker. 1 will debate with the hon. member. I will debate side issues or any issues he likes having to do with this bill. He should have been here on Friday afternoon to hear his hon. friends; they debated everything but the baseball scores that afternoon to keep the House from voting on the amendment put forward by my hon. friend from York-Simcoe.
I want to remind the hon. member that this bill has to be considered in the context of the quality of the administration. After all, that illustrious colleague of his, the Acting Minister of Labour (Mr. Ouellet), is forever trying to bootleg into the record things that happened prior to 1963 when there was a Conservative administration. I want to tell the hon. member

about what happened prior to 1974, before he was conscious of the political process. I want to call attention to what the government was doing at that time and to the pattern which we could see developing. I have been connected with finance since 1963. I do not know how many speeches I have made on the subject. 1 do know that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) used to wonder whether my needle had got stuck in the record when I talked about inflation and its pernicious effects.
We look back to 1963 when the present administration took office. Those were the hey-days. The total budget brought down in 1963 amounted to $6.3 billion. Today we are looking at a deficit which is going to exceed $12 billion in the present fiscal year. That is the deficit, let alone the total. By the end of 1978-79 the total is going to be in the neighbourhood of $50 billion. There is the pattern of inflation.
I recall some years ago looking at an appropriation bill-in 1973 or 1974, I think it was. It was an appropriation bill dealing with supplementary estimates. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), who was then the leader of the opposition, asked me whether there was anything objectionable about it. I looked at it and said, "Of course, there is. We are being asked, out of the blue, without previous notice, in a bill upon which there can be no debate, to give authority to borrow something like $5 billion." Of course, when the matter came up, we blew the whistle. I raised an objection, and Mr. Speaker held that I was right. The clause was struck out of the appropriation bill and the government had to come back to the House with another measure.
There are two ways in which we can deal with the Financial Administration Act and the authority to borrow. One is the method used in the bill before us, the regular way of doing it through an amendment to the act indicating clearly what changes in borrowing limits are being proposed. As long as the minister can explain why-I note that the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) mouths the word "why"? What he is doing is epitomizing the attitude of the official opposition toward this bill. In particular, we are directing that question to the proposal regarding 1980.
Is this 1980 figure, $10 billion, a symbolic one chosen from thin air? It does not sound too bad. From $7 billion to $10 billion to $15 billion-the way inflation is going, $10 billion seems to fit the pattern. It is instructive that the parliamentary secretary, who was so interested a while ago in what I had to say, should no longer be here. But to return to my theme, that is the essence of our questioning this bill and that is why I shall oppose it.
Why should we want authority to borrow at that level? Even should the present administration, by some unknown miracle, manage to survive beyond 1979, why should there be authority to borrow an additional $10 billion? I would think enough has been said in the standing committee and in committee of the whole to have made the government wiser and more readily prepared to share confidences with its backbenchers and the opposition.
October 24, 1978

When we in the opposition ask for more information, we do not do so entirely for our benefit. In the standing committees I have seen representatives of the governing party asking the same kinds of questions 1 ask, and I have wondered why those men and women have to do that. The reason is that information is not shared. It is not put out. Why does the government think it has a special, private preserve, that it has gone to a higher ground, and that "so help me, Hannah," it shall be forbidden for the government to disclose to man, woman or child in this country the information the government has? I admit that administrations I have seen and of which I have been a supporter have sinned in this regard just as much as anyone else. God only knows that in the 1950s and 1960s "mum" was the word. Nothing was said. I have seen great administrations with great potential go down because the membership knew nothing. The membership was not given anything, and it became frustrated.
Many backbench members on the government side have been here almost as many years as I have, and-


Mr. Bechard:: Don't look at me.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard) says I should not look at him, but I have heard him asking questions in committees. He should have had the information he was requesting before he came to the committees, but it was not given to him, and he did not get it in those committees. He was rebuffed in the same way members of the opposition were rebuffed. The treatment of government backbenchers is no different from the treatment given to members of the opposition regarding access to information. This bill is a classic example.
I have known the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) since 1962 when he came into this House. He has done a good job. I like him as an individual. I think he is was out of his depth as Minister of Finance, but that is beside the point. He won his spurs in other departments. However, when it comes to explaining this bill-and when it came to explaining other bills earlier this year-I am afraid that our hon. friend, the Minister of Finance, is seized by the attitude, "Don't tell them anything". He does not want to tell anyone anything for fear of being criticized, or that there might be another opinion.
Many factors have led to this bill. One of them is greater government reliance on Canada Savings Bonds sales. There is a great dependency on the part of people to be able to convert their immediate demands into cash. After all, Canada Savings Bonds are their cash. Last week the minister had to increase interest rates on Canada Savings Bonds by three-quarters of 1 per cent. Today several leading banks in the United States increased their prime rates by another quarter of 1 per cent. What will rates be a fortnight from now? If the American prime rate goes up another one-half per cent a fortnight from now so that the rate will have risen three-quarters of 1 per cent, the Bank of Canada will have to increase its prime rate. Then what will happen to the balance of sales of Canada
Borrowing Authority Act
Savings Bonds? What will happen to those people who have bought Canada Savings Bonds?
Has anyone looked at the stock market quotations in the last few days and seen how equity stocks have dropped in exact balance with the increase in the interest rate on Canada Savings Bonds and others? We have seen a drop in mutual funds, which are a mix of both Canadian and American stocks, but the interest rate in the United States is climbing too, and now we are talking about seeing some major banks in the United States charging almost 10 per cent as a prime rate. I caution hon. members that they should put their hats squarely on their heads and hang on because the wind which will blow this winter, if this should continue, will be of super hurricane force, and we will see interest rates we have never seen before. If that is to be the case this bill, particularly the anterior portions of it, will be seriously questioned.
The minister must tell us about this. This bill will be going to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. The minister has been very reticent in telling us anything here, and I suggest to him that his tactics have been totally erroneous in this regard. The more open the minister is now, the better it will be in committee because 1 know that I, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), and others in the opposition, will have questions to ask in the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Incidentally, the standing committee has not yet been organized. If this bill had been passed earlier, we would not have been able to consider it in committee. We cannot do any preliminary work on the amendments to the Bank Act because somebody on the government side is asleep at the switch. This House has been sitting almost two weeks, and the first notice to go out regarding a committee meeting has been in connection with the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services. It is shameful that that should be the first committee to sit. For a week now we have asked that the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs be set up and that there be a reference, but that request has fallen on deaf ears. Therefore, what is lost to the government if we debate this bill in extensol The Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs could not sit even if the bill passed second reading stage tonight because there has been no notice sent out to organize the committee. There is no reference, nothing. That is just another indication of this administration's loss of control and lack of direction. I have seen it before, and the rot is very apparent.
I will not repeat the figures which were put on the record by the hon. member for York-Simcoe and others. We have them all from national finance figures. I could refer to the percentage of gross national product which has been taken by federal governments, provincial governments, and municipal governments, over the years. I could give a breakdown of percentages and of absolute figures regarding government revenues over the years. I could demonstrate how personal income taxes have risen over the last decade, ever since the so-called income tax reform of 1971. God forbid that the Canadian public should
80065-281/:!

October 24, 1978
Borrowing Authority Act
ever have such a philosophy in such a law inflicted upon it again.
Is it any wonder that Canadians are investing abroad, that they do not want to invest in Canada at this time because of the incidence of tax? Look at our real estate development companies. Hundreds of millions of dollars are going to the United States. If you ask their principals why, they tell you that we have developed in Canada the greatest municipal bureaucracy, when it comes to land development, that man could devise. That is where we have to start reforms as well, right down at the municipal level, and then at the provincial level. There should be an intermix between municipal and provincial bodies. They exist for their own self-perpetuation and they serve no useful purpose.
Why is it that in Dallas, in Denver, and in Minneapolis it takes less than three years to put together a big package and get it into building? Here in Canada it takes over five years. Why is it that Canadian development companies-I will not name them but they are both in eastern and western Canada- are moving into the development centres in the U.S.? First, because it is easier to get things moving, and second, because the tax return there is much healthier and there is a reasonable profit for those people who are prepared to take the risk to develop the ulcers and suffer the high blood pressure of being a mover and a doer. This country was developed by people who are movers and doers.
It seems to me that the government's philosophy is that, first, in far too many administrations, in far too many halls of academe, according to far too many columns in our daily newspapers, he who dares to move and make a profit, he who dares to move and give jobs, should be the first to be hit on the head. That is the philosophy that has crept in and it is all too rampant in Canada. Was it the consequence of the 1960s and the early 1970s? I do not know.
If someone should say that there is something irrelevant in what I have to say, I must be fair and say that in the end the deficiency in development, the deficiency in the Canadian economy meeting the demands that are put on it through our levels of social service-I am not criticizing the level-is that we went to the welfare state too quickly. The cost of our medicare, our hospital care, our care for the aged, is not met by plucking the money tree. It is met by the efforts of the hon. members sitting across from me, of our constituents, of Canadian corporations working in Canada and abroad, the big operators and the little two man operations running a couple of trucks. It depends upon the willingness of the Canadian people to spit on their hands and get on with the job. The more they can do, the wider the economic base, the greater is the facility of the Canadian economy to support that level of social services to which we aspire.
There are many things that must be corrected yet in the Canadian society, but let us be sure that we can afford all those things and that we do not set up incentives that become disincentives. There are some industries today which face the

impossible task of getting people to work for them and to give an honest day's work for an honest day's pay because there is an alternative means of getting by. This is the sickness that has afflicted far too many Canadians. Why do I say this? Because it all accumulates in this type of bill.
This is the sort of bill that accompanies the little statement that was supposed to have been on Harry Truman's desk. It read, "The buck stops here." In Canada, the buck stops right here. The Minister of Finance is the man at the end of the line. You can have activity by the provinces, some of them richer, some of them poorer, some good administrators, and others which should never have started out in the business. But here we have the ultimate in the requirements of the Minister of Finance. This is residual bank account.
What does the Government of Canada have to borrow to pay its bill? There are no two ways about it. Can we say in this day and age that we will balance the budget? No, not particularly when on one side the government is fighting a losing battle with regard to the foreign exchange account. That is a many-holed rice bag. There is no way that the government can pour enough money into that holey rice bag and say that they can balance their cash requirements with their cash resources. Therefore, there has to be this particular authority to borrow.
What contributes to the condition of the Canadian dollar? It is worth less than 85 cents on the best of markets, and if you have currency and want to exchange it in an hotel, if you are a foreign traveller, you get only around 82, 83 cents. I have had this unfortunate experience this summer. This summer's experience in September in Europe has been, in over 40 years of travel, the first time that I, as a Canadian, felt like a beggar. I must say that prior to World War II I went overseas for the first time and the Canadian dollar was at 86 cents. It had been at 86 cents for a long time, but one did not have that sense that we have today. In a matter of three weeks I saw the pound climb 8 cents on the dollar, I saw the Austrian schilling and the German mark climb. My goodness, the climb was astronomical. It is a good thing that we did not go to Switzerland.
There is no real reason why this should be happening, other than that approximately two years ago, when we were at an artificially high rate, there was a lot of so-called hot money in Canada. There are pools of hot money around the world. Many people do not recognize the importance of investor confidence. If something is done which upsets the confidence of investors, then they do not have to invest in our country because there are many other places in which to invest. They have been chased away. Goodness only knows that the useless institution FIR A has scared away more foreign investment in this country than any other organization. There are different ways of controlling the situation other than setting up a cosmetic institution which scares foreign investors into diversifying their portfolios in Canada.
We are taxed too much. We are over-taxed. We have no incentives to save or invest. Canadian taxpayers are laid out by
October 24, 1978

the many carcasses of beef which are carved up by federal and provincial governments. To the maximum shall he bleed, to the maximum shall he yield a pound of flesh! Then we tell people to invest in Canadian enterprises, that they have money so to invest. Our tax system penalizes people for investing. Gradually a patchwork of minor incentives is being built up, but they are meaningless.
We must shake our tax system and thinking fundamentally so that Canadians are interested in investing in Canada. In the past several years Canada has invested more abroad than foreigners have invested here. What is the reason for this? What a commentary upon our tax laws and philosophies! We live in a fool's paradise. We are similar to ostriches which have found a bed of soft sand; they shove their heads so far down that practically only their tails are showing. That is the reaction when it comes to considering what can be done for our economy. If Canadians were given a potential in resource development, the situation would improve. Is there any incentive for Canadians to invest in resource development? None at all.
Canada has some antiquated nineteenth century thoughts on capital gains which were imported from Britain for another purpose. We sock it to investors. I am ashamed. It all boils down to the bottom line when the government indicates that it has to borrow an additional $7 billion for 1979 and another $10 billion for 1980. That is the way of mendicants and bankrupts.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing more to say. I have given my reasons for voting against this bill.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the same issue after my colleague from Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) because I feel this bill is very alarming and I would like to explain why. I can state several reasons, Mr. Speaker, to justify my concern. First I would like to detail them and then elaborate. To begin with, Mr. Speaker I find that the procedure followed to introduce this bill is disquieting. The throne speech debate was suspended without notice nor consultation to consider Bill C-7. That is the first reason for my concern.
Then, Mr. Speaker, this is the third time in the last ten months that the government has been seeking authority to borrow. In December last, we passed a bill empowering the government to borrow $9 billion-I repeat, $9 billion because we must keep that figure in mind while last March, three months later, we were asked for another $5 billion. All told,
Borrowing Authority Act
$14 billion in three months. And this after having sought authority to borrow $7 billion in March last year, that is in 1977. Mr. Speaker, this amounts to a total of $21 billion for the period from March 1977 to March 1978-nearly $2 billion a month. Authority has been requested to borrow $2 billion a month and now an additional $17 billion, including $7 billion for the current fiscal year for expenses and spendings already provided for in the estimates, but $10 billion for the coming year without even offering us and the Canadian people a budget or the blue book which contains the estimates, all that without any explanations. Some $10 billion without explanations. This is more like blackmail than a request to raise by $17 billion the national debt of Canada which already amounted to $71 billion in 1976.
I want to list the other reasons for my concern. So here is a third reason: the short-term effect of the implementation of this bill on our debt. The fourth reason is even more important: It is the long-term effect of this increase in our national debt, a burden imposed by this government on future generations, those generations represented in this House by these young students who serve in the House as pages. Mr. Speaker, they are the ones who will have to pay back the debt which we are asked to contract today.
I would have liked to offer an explanation of what exactly is $1 billion. My colleague the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) offered a very simple illustration of that amount. He did so yesterday in his speech. I am referring to page 364 of Hansard dated October 23. So with your permission I would like to quote it because it is interesting to see exactly what is $1 billion, not $17 billion but just $1 billion. My colleague wondered if hon. members can grasp the meaning of $1 billion. I have often thought that if they did not, they can hardly have any idea at all about what $17 billion is. In order to grasp what a billion dollars is, and I quote the member for Provencher, I did a bit of calculating. I want to show the magnitude of $1 billion. Here is his illustration, and I quote: If from the day that Christ was born a man had spent $ 1,000 every day, seven days a week, every month of every year and had done so regularly, by the end of this century he would have spent $730 million. There would still be $300 million left out of the $1 billion. And now under this bill, this government is asking us the right to borrow an additional 17 billion dollars.
As I said, there are a number of reasons. I have explained some of them in French, and I wish to go on with the explanation in English of the reasons for my disquiet at the introduction of this bill. The first one is the manner of its introduction. It was done without any consultation in the middle of a traditional debate which permits members to explain their problems and uncertainties as to where this country is going. It is one of the two debates in this House which is free and open to all members to discuss matters which

October 24, 1978
Borrowing Authority Act
are on their minds, whether they be constituency, provincial, national or international in nature. This opportunity has been thrown away and we have been asked to concentrate on this bill, without being given any explanation. There has been no explanation of what the $10 billion is for.
The urgency puzzles me. Here we are, not quite seven months through the fiscal year, and having been conned last March before the fiscal year started into believing that the $5 billion being borrowed at that time would meet the needs of the government, we are now being asked to approve an additional $7 billion. Why is $12 billion needed in a planned expenditure of $42 billion? Maybe it is $49 billion; I get lost with the immensity of our budgets these days. I will stay with $42 billion, a good round sum which came up at one time and has probably been added to at some time. But do we need $12 billion to help meet the planned expenditures of $42 billion?
This government on the other hand is talking about cutting back. The Canadian public is being conned, and we are being asked to share in the con game. Our revenue is down, not just for this year but for next year, because an extra $10 billion is being sought for next year. What assurances do we have that this is going to be the last request by this government in this fiscal year or the next? We have no assurances.
Why do I say we have no assurances? I would like to go back to the earlier loans, back to November, 1977 when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), in talking about Bill C-45, said the following, as reported at page 646 of Hansard:
The increase in borrowing authority sought at present is to cover estimated financial requirements into the next fiscal year and to provide a substantial margin for contingencies.
A little further on he says:
The size of the request for additional borrowing authority requires some explanation. Earlier this year, this House approved $7 billion of new borrowing authority.
I should say it does. I jump now to the end of that paragraph, where the minister says:
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.
Just four months later, on March 16, the Minister said, as reported at page 3860 of Hansard:
-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.
That was intended to cover our domestic cash requirements for 1978-1979, but what do we see in this bill? Section 2 of the bill calls for the authority to borrow $7 billion any time before April 1, 1979. It provides:
-such sum or sums of money, not exceeding in the whole, the sum of $7 billion, as many be required for public works and general purposes.
That is within the present fiscal year. We have now been assured twice. First of all, they said there would be something

left over from the previous year, and now they are asking for another $7 billion for this year.
Let me go now to section 3-and this is why I have some hesitation in saying that I will vote for this bill, because I do not know when the government is going to come back at it again. It provides:
-at any time after March 31, 1979-
They are getting into the next fiscal year now.
-and before April 1, 1980, borrow ... such separate sums... not exceeding in the whole, the sum of $10 billion, as may be required for public works and general purposes.
We have already started into the next fiscal year, and that is why I am deeply concerned, not just for today but for the future. What we are being asked to do today is to load upon future generations, those who will be paying the taxes and sitting in these places in the next ten, 12, or 15 years, an extra burden of debt.
I admit that some of these funds-although we have not received any explanation-are probably intended to retire some of the debt. We do not know how much debt is going to be retired, but some of this is going to be added to the debt as well. Before agreeing to go that deep into debt 1 want to know the purpose for which the funds are to be increased and whether proper controls are to be applied to their use. That is a perfectly legitimate request. I think some members of the government should be asking exactly the same questions, unless they have been told in caucus why this extra money is required. But I doubt that very much.
The hon. member for Edmonton West explained that it does happen and the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard) had trouble finding out in committee what certain funds were used for. He was not told but he should have known before. Why were they not asking, as it is their duty to ask, why these funds were being requested?


Alan Gray Martin: It is quite clear why they are being requested.


Donald W. Munro: 1 am assured by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Martin) that it is quite clear. The bill says they are required "for public works and general purposes." That is a pretty broad statement. I wonder about these public works and I think we ought to be a little more specific than that. I should like to figure out a way of needling either the parliamentary secretary or preferably the Minister of Finance into giving us some explanation of what the public works are. I think the best thing the minister could do is to bring down a budget and tell us what he wants to spend the money on.
There are times, however, when I wonder how a budget is worked out. I got a glimpse of it the other day when listening to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras). He was boasting about how well they managed the economy and how much they had been saving, but he was not very convincing. At page 187 of Hansard for October 17, he is reported as saying:
October 24, 1978

I often hear that our expenditures have gone from $16 billion to $50 billion- 'Isn't that shocking'? and 'Indeed that is startling.' But nobody adds to that that next year the gross national product of this country will be $250 billion. It has to have a form of relativity-
Why did he bring that notion forward? Is it because the government's expenditures are decided upon by either estimate of what the gross national product is going to be? I wish I could do that in my own domestic financing. I have to know what my revenue is going to be and I have to budget with a margin of safety within my domestic arrangements in order to do it properly.
There are only two things that 1 think any good housekeeper does in the matter of overspending and casting beyond his revenues. One is buying a house and the other may be buying a car, particularly with the price of cars these days. Ele realizes he can use so much of his current revenue for a mortgage or to make a loan-although mortgage rates are pretty frightening these days. But that is not the way the government does things. It estimates in advance what the gross national product will be and says, "We are going to take x per cent as our chunk of the gross national product, because that is the revenue-producing part and we are going to levy taxes against that." Sometimes they make mistakes. What any good manager should know is what the revenue is going to be and keep within that.
I wonder why the government does not deal more with what its revenues are this year and what its forecast of revenues is next year, not in terms of the gross national product but in terms of an addition because of greater employment or expanded business activity, and then work out on a percentage basis if it has to increase its expenditures. Now it is finding it has to pull back. I have to convince myself and my wife that we can afford carrying charges, whether it be for a house or for a car. I cannot understand why the government cannot work that way.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until 8.00 p.m.
At six o'clock the Elouse took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, in my remarks before the dinner hour I mentioned the many reasons why I am disquieted by this bill, worried and deeply concerned. 1 had reached my fourth reason, that is the contribution the proposed borrowing will make to our national debt. Now I want to look at the growth in that debt.
Let us look at the record of this government in debt accumulation. I put that forward as something that we ought to examine closely when we are being asked to add to that debt by several billion dollars. I repeat what I said earlier several
Borrowing Authority Act
times, that what we are doing is adding to a debt which is going to be assumed by those who follow us, by those serving in this chamber today and who may very well be sitting here ten years from now. Those are the people for whom we should be concerned.
Let us look at the record of the government, which says today that on the road to Bonn the Prime Minister saw the light of restraint. We can think of another road, the one to Damascus. However, a different light fell then. This time the Prime Minister talks about the light of restraint. Can we believe him, Mr. Speaker? You may; I cannot. I will come to the matter of expenditures in due course. What concerns me at the moment is debt and the actual, eventual debt charges.
I have extracted from a reputable publication put out by the Canadian Tax Foundation called "The National Finances" some very interesting statistics about the debt of Canada over the last several years. These statistics are from the latest edition. I have chosen selective years over the past 30 odd to give us a perspective of the growth of the debt in this country. The first date is 1946, just after the war, when the total growth debt was only $18.9 billion. Some 20 years later in 1968 the debt had grown to $32.9 billion. By 1977, the last year for which we have figures, the debt has grown to $80.5 billion. That is $80.5 billion compared to $32.9 billion ten years earlier. Over ten years, the ten years of this government, this is an increase in excess of 150 per cent. That is gross debt.
Let us now look at net debt. There is a distinction which is drawn very carefully here. Time unfortunately does not permit me to delve into it, but I advise those who are interested to have a look at this particular publication. The net debt is when all the earnings have been taken away. In 1946 it was $13 billion. In 1968 it was $16.7 billion, a modest increase in 20 years. I repeat, in 1968 the figure was $16.7 billion. In 1977 the figure was $29.5 billion. As hon. members can see, that figure has almost doubled in ten years. In 20 years there was an increase of $3 billion, while in ten years there was an increase of $ 13 billion. That is what bills like this have done to our debt.


Alan Gray Martin: The GNP went up at that time.


Donald W. Munro: That is what bills like this have done.


Alan Gray Martin: Tell us how much the GNP has gone up in that time.


Donald W. Munro: I will come to that. I can tell the hon. member that I do not see why government debt should increase in line with the gross national product. How much is this costing every Canadian in this country, man, woman and child, in terms of net debt? In 1946 Canada's net debt was $1,000 per capita. Just after four years of war, it was precisely $1,091. By 1968 it had fallen somewhat to $842. Ten years later it had gone up to $1,273, a 50 per cent increase.

October 24, 1978
Borrowing Authority Act
Yes, Mr. Speaker, there has been a war going on, a war on your pocket and my pocket.
Who were the ministers of finance in those years? I remember a certain gentleman who is now the commissioner for the northern pipeline, Mr. Sharp. I remember Mr. Turner. Now we have another minister. I am waiting with bated breath to learn what the debt per capita is likely to be in 1978.
What is the cost of this debt per capita? This is of importance because debt carries interest. In 1946 it amounted to $367 for every man, woman and child in Canada. In 1968 it was $688. In 1977, almost ten years later, it had risen to $2,228, having almost quadrupled in ten years.


Alan Gray Martin: What did the gross national product do?


Donald W. Munro: You are having trouble with the gross national product.


Mr. Robinson:: You are the one who is having trouble.


Donald W. Munro: I intend to give the House an idea of what it costs to carry that debt. At the beginning of the war it was $10 per man, woman and child. In 1946 it was $30-the cost had trebled during a great war. In 1968 it was $33 and in 1977, $95. These are just interest charges; these figures have nothing to do with amortization of debt. One might wonder in these circumstances why we have to go back to the moneylenders again.
I suggest it is time we looked at the expenditures on government operations during this period. I see that the hon. member who was talking about the growth of the gross national product has left the chamber.


An hon. Member:: He will be back.


Donald W. Munro: In 1946, according to this valuable study by the Canadian Tax Foundation, total expenditures were of the order of $2,800 million. By 1968 they had risen to $12 billion, by 1976 to $38 billion and by 1977 to $42 billion. The 1978 figure is around $50 billion. So in those ten years expenditures had risen from $12 billion to almost $50 billion. Is it any wonder I am worried and that the Canadian people are worried?
Before hon. members opposite point out that the gross national product has also increased, let me turn to the argument that so large a part of government expenditure is dictated by statutes and cannot be reduced. What was said by the President of the Treasury Board when he spoke on this subject during debate on the address? He got in his speech before the government House leader interrupted the debate to bring down this bill about borrowing. On October 17, as reported in Hansard at page 188, the hon. gentleman stated:
On April 1 of this year, the April problem I call it, my people did a tally for me about the inexorable and inevitable growth of spending for next year. As I said publicly, my hair went white. It was far too high. It would have broken through the commitment to stay within the GNP trend line.

We are back with this GNP again. To continue:
Something significant had to be done . . . We took $500 million off this year to cut our ceiling to $48,300 million. We have taken $2 billion off for next year to get from $54,600 million to $52,600 million.
I see I was modest in my estimate when earlier I mentioned $50 billion. The amount is more than $52 billion. That is the sum which is to be spent next year and this, I suppose, has something to do with the extra $10 billion which is to be borrowed. I still do not understand why the government insists that the amount of expenditure has to be tied to the g.n.p. and not to revenue.


William Kenneth Robinson: It is the same thing.


Donald W. Munro: I do not see that. If the revenue of the government is the GNP, I think we are all in trouble.
The history of the growth of the public service should also be told. It is staggering. I choose as a starting point the year 1964 when there were about 200,000 public servants. By 1968 the figure was 234,000-I suppose the GNP grew during the same period. By 1976 it was 321,000. In ten years the number had risen from 234,000 to 320,000, a growth of about 33 per cent in ten years. We see in the Speech from the Throne that the government is dedicated to the proposition that there should be cuts in the expenditure. Ministers claim to have made them. They say planned expenditures have been cut by $2 billion.
It is easy to plan an expenditure and then to cut back, because the figure they are cutting back to is $52 billion, the figure I mentioned just now. If I were to go back again to the speech of the President of the Treasury Board, I would find that he made a public commitment to reduce the growth of spending to something below the growth of our gross national product. The government has no regard for what it can collect in revenue. In 1976 the minister said that the government met that commitment. I draw the attention of the House to that year. There was growth up until 1976, and I recollect that a minister of finance decided to get out of the government in 1975. It was just after that that the government decided it should cut back on its commitments. The government claims it met its commitment in 1977-78, and it claims it will meet it again in 1979. How growth from $42 billion to $52 billion in one year, 1978-79, is a reduction in the growth of expenditures I find difficult to understand. The absolute figures could be quoted.
With that indication of the extent to which this government has been committed to expanding expenditures and increasing the national debt, I will rest my case and say that it will be impossible for me to support this bill.


Mr. Rob Parker (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
October 24, 1978


Rob Parker: -perhaps I should begin by pointing out that I am the newly elected member for Eglinton which, as I am sure most hon. members of this House realize, is located in the city of Toronto. Some years ago when I had the privilege of living in Newfoundland and first becoming acquainted with my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), we used to refer to Toronto as one of the more pleasant mid-western cities in Canada. 1 think that continues to describe Toronto accurately.
The riding of Eglinton in that mid-western city is an historic one. At one time it lay entirely within the boundaries of the city of Toronto at the north end of the city and stretched across the boundary, much like a cap on Toronto. Since then the boundaries have been altered somewhat. The riding is now vertical in shape. Its eastern boundary runs straight north along Yonge Street. Its western boundary curves out and back into the borough of North York, while the southern tip of the riding is rooted in the city of Toronto. I think the riding might now more properly be described as a feather in the cap of Toronto.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Rob Parker: Eglinton riding was represented with distinction in this House by the Hon. Donald Fleming from 1945 until his retirement in 1963. For the first 60 years of this century the riding remained Conservative virtually without a break. In 1963 it fell slightly from grace, and during that period in the wilderness it was represented here by the Hon. Mitchell Sharp. It is now 1978, and I am pleased to stand on this side of the House and say that the prodigal son has returned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Rob Parker: During the past six months of compaigning for the by-election which was held last week I was fortunate to get the know the riding of Eglinton well, and it is, with some statistical variations, urban Canada in microcosm. In the riding of Eglinton live businessmen, labourers, academics, office workers, professionals, shopkeepers and many hundreds of unemployed. In the riding of Eglinton there is much religious diversification: Protestants, Catholics and, on October 16, a large number of effectively disenfranchised Jews. In the riding of Eglinton there are widows, pensioners, disabled people and others on fixed incomes whose quality of life has been ravaged by inflation running out of control.
The riding of Eglinton is ethnically diverse. There are Canadians from foreign lands as well as Canadians who were born here. It is a constituency interested in national unity and dedicated to a country where people may live together in a spirit of consensus rather than confrontation.
Finally, in the riding of Eglinton there is a diversity of generations stretching even beyond what might be found in this House. There are those in the riding who are old and nearing retirement, like the right hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Trudeau). There are those who are young and on
Borrowing Authority Act
the threshold of their careers, like the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Rob Parker: That briefly is the riding of Eglinton. Eight days ago the people of that riding went to the polls. They faced decisions on two major issues. The first was representation in this chamber, which they have not had for some months. They have made their choice, and I intend-indeed, I am honoured-to provide that representation to the best of my ability.
The second issue was an opportunity for the people who live in Eglinton to pass judgment on what this government has done to Canada during the past four and one half years. For those who believed that this government has done as well as possible under the circumstances, for those who believed, as my opponent believed and stated publicly, that the state of the economy is a red herring, and for those who believed, as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) apparently believes and has said publicly after complaining about his breakfast and before ordering his lunch in Washington, that Canada is a country of two cars in every garage and citizens just returned from a trip to Europe, October 16 offered a clear opportunity to vote for the government.
For people who lived in Eglinton and who believed that government priorities in recent years have been properly ordered, who approved of a government which, until the miraculous conversion of August 1, referred to a few moments ago by my hon. colleague, talked almost exclusively of constitutional reform and national unity-we have all noted that our Prime Minister was, shall we say, "Schmitten" in Bonn, enlightened in Morocco and unbelievable in Ottawa-and which looked around and saw one million people out of work and tried to fire the Queen-


Alan Gray Martin: Shame.


Mr. Gillespie:: Shame.


Rob Parker: Mr. Speaker, if hon. members opposite have something to be ashamed about, I would be happy to give them a chance to apologize.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Rob Parker: For all of the people to whom I have just referred, October 16 was a chance to vote for the government.
Finally, for those who believed that the government's approach to the powers of parliament and secrecy was justified and for those who approved of a government which makes Richard Nixon on Watergate look like Chatty Cathy, October 16 provided an opportunity to express that approval.
However, the fact is that despite that opportunity the people of Eglinton chose to vote against that kind of government. They chose to vote for credibility, for making the economy the first priority, for the rights of parliament and for efficiency, honesty and integrity.

October 24, 1978
Borrowing Authority Act
On October 16 the people of Eglinton chose to send a message to Ottawa and, given the state of the mails, I have opted to deliver it in person.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Rob Parker: I am aware of the tradition that a member's first speech in this chamber should be non-partisan in nature. I trust that so far I have fulfilled that obligation.
I would like now to refer specifically to the bill before this House. Although I am a new member of less than ten hours' formal standing, I have had some opportunity to become acquainted with this debate. It seems clear to me that the principles expressed at the polls in Eglinton eight days ago are directly contradicted by Bill C-7.
This bill asks basically four things of the House. First, it asks for authority to increase government borrowing by $7 billion during this fiscal year; second, authority to increase government borrowing by an additional $10 billion in the next fiscal year; third, explicit authority to place all or part of that borrowing in foreign markets; and fourth, explicit authority to maintain all previously authorized borrowings in perpetuity, if the government chooses, as a charge against the people of Canada.
On the issue of credibility, on March 16 of this year, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) acknowledged that $21 billion of borrowing authority obtained in three separate instalments was sufficient to meet all cash requirements for the fiscal year 1977-78 and the fiscal year 1978-79, plus a margin for contingencies. Seven months and three days later, the minister informs the House of the need for an additional $7 billion-a 33 per cent increase over the total cash needs he forecast for two years.
The same minister, while steadfastly refusing to discuss his projected budgetary deficit beyond the figure of $10.9 billion, admitted in the spring, some six months ago, and reluctantly confessed, to a $300 million increase in cash needs. Presumably that $300 million is covered by this request, but in addition he suddenly discovered a need for an additional $6.7 billion. He still refuses to give budgetary deficit forecasts when the most conservative figures-and I use that adjective deliberately-indicate a minimum $13 billion deficit which could soar to $15 billion to $16 billion. This government has a credibility problem, and it need look no further than this sort of behaviour for the reason.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Rob Parker: Mr. Speaker, I feel it strikes at the rights of parliament for this House to be asked to approve borrowing authority in the amount of $10 billion for the next fiscal year, without estimates, without detailed spending and revenue projections, and to be asked for that approval in the face of massive inconsistencies and errors on the part of the Minister of Finance in presenting previous numbers, forecasts and figures. This time they do not even present the inconsistencies.

According to the record of proceedings of October 19, the minister said simply that the government requires the authority to borrow $10 billion to meet next year's cash needs, including that ever present margin for contingencies. That $10 billion is over 90 per cent of this year's entire deficit, or at least that part of it which the minister is so far willing to admit publicly exists. They want the authority five months before the fiscal year begins and they justify it with two phrases: cash needs and margin for contingencies. Ten billion dollars! Some margin! Some contingency!


An hon. Member:: Some government!


Rob Parker: While the minister was silent on further reasons for this borrowing, his loyal parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin), was not. This hon. member must have felt a cold breeze around 9.30 p.m. on October 16. He presented the following reason: "The authority is needed now", he said, "to avoid our having to come back to parliament time and time again."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Rob Parker: As I acknowledged earlier, Mr. Speaker, I am a new member, a babe in the woods compared to most members in the House, but even I know that parliament is here in the first place to be referred to time and time again.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Rob Parker: I am sure I speak not only for my colleagues but for myself when I say I am willing to sit here as long as necessary to listen to debate, to hear justification, to study estimates and projections, and to vote for or against such bills as this, based on what the hon. member referred to as positive facts. Given the record of spending of this government, any facts they bring forward are highly unlikely to be positive, or even accurate for that matter, but at least he might do this House the courtesy of providing a semblance of justification for these outrageous figures.
I think it strikes again at the rights of parliament and at the issue of control over spending that this bill contains a clause authorizing every dime of borrowing authority virtually in perpetuity. It removes any last possibility that any borrowing authority, once obtained, would ever have to be submitted for review. Instead of sunset laws, this government is asking for perpetual sunshine.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Rob Parker: Finally, it strikes at the expressed desire of the public in these election results to place the economy first on our list of priorities when the introduction of and justification for this bill mentions no major measures related to reducing unemployment, no steps to put Canada back to work, just spending, spending, and more spending.
The same government that made so much noise two months ago about cutbacks-$2 billion of illusory reductions next year-now asks for $10 billion of real money-$2 billion of
October 24, 1978

soft cuts versus $10 billion of hard cash. That they define as restraint. This government is like a dog surrounded by four trees; it does not have a leg to stand on.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Rob Parker: This bill is bad in principle. It is bad in practice. It is disastrous in precedent. It is an arrogant request for unnecessary authority. It is clearly timed to lessen the impact of criticism as we approach a general election. It is the kind of bill, and the kind of approach to government and financial management, that I came to Ottawa to defeat, and I urge all members of the House to vote no when the time comes.
A few minutes ago I mentioned representation and sending a message to Ottawa. This is the first instalment of that message, and I am sure my colleagues in the freshman class of 1978 will have additional chapters. In the months ahead, to the best of my ability, Mr. Speaker, I will be providing that representation on issues that matter to my constituents. 1 hope to see changes in the Canada Elections Act so that never again will Canadian citizens be deprived of the right to vote because of their religious observances. I am preparing a private member's bill to that effect.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Rob Parker: I hope to see changes in our regulatory procedures and practices, making them administratively simpler and less costly. I hope to see the delivery of government services reformed, made leaner and more businesslike. I hope to see stimulation of the economy in a real and meaningful way as we begin the long, complicated and much overdue process of putting Canada back to work.
May I say in closing, Mr. Speaker, that I am proud to have been elected by the people of Eglington, I am very proud to be a member of the House, and I am particularly proud to be a member of this caucus.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Parker) for his contribution. Perhaps some of my colleagues will find themselves equipped with a number of new first liners which may bring some joviality to this staid and sombre chamber.
In Bill C-7 the government is requesting an additional $7 billion of borrowing power. Others who have participated in this debate have indicated that the government has been borrowing itself almost out of business. My generation was taught that it was good to pay one's bills and live within one's means. Certainly the present generation of finance ministers are not the least bit concerned about that. They are leaving a very large debt for generations to come.
In 1978 borrowings amounting to $38 billion have been authorized. Bill C-45 requested $7 billion, Bill C-ll requested
Borrowing Authority Act
$9 billion, Bill C-31 requested $5 billion, and now Bill C-7 is requesting $17 billion. This total of $38 billion means that each one of us is paying interest on over $7,000. Through the produce of this nation, every citizen will have to pay 10 per cent or in excess of $700. In many instances people in Canada are living on annual income of $3,000, and that $700 is a very large amount of money for them to shoulder.
Those members who were involved in the recent by-elections are aware that the average citizen is now concerned about the amount of money borrowed, and the difficulties faced in an attempt to retain stability in our money. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) was involved in borrowing to sustain the dollar years ago when he was a cabinet minister in the government of the day. That government decided to borrow in order to sustain the Canadian dollar. Canada was faced with extreme financial difficulties because of that measure. It turned out to be totally unsuccessful in the end. In an attempt to maintain the Canadian dollar at 85 cents, an awful lot of money has come out of the pockets of Canadians which has not brought much in return.
I am no financial expert. I have not studied the financial structure to the extent that I know all the answers. In fact, I am not sure whether the new economists will be able to say any more than I. I consider their knowledge to be zero as well. Not long ago I read a newsletter which indicated the United States borrowed so much money a few years ago that it is having a great deal of difficulty making the repayment which is now due. Apparently the money was borrowed in Europe, on terms that it would be repaid in one of two currencies when the term expired, either gold or Swiss francs. Also the newsletter indicated that United States treasury representatives went to Switzerland in an attempt to persuade the Swiss to devalue their money and print more so that there would be enough francs to go around. Rightly so, the Swiss told the Americans there was no deal. There is not enough money in the American treasury at Fort Knox to pay off that loan in gold, particularly with the price of gold today.
Apparently our dollar is worth approximately 84 cents compared to the American currency. One must remember that the Americans are bankrupt. They may not be able to pay the debt incurred in Europe because they will have to pay it in a currency which they do not have. When the deal was made, gold was worth $35 an ounce; today it is worth considerably over $200 an ounce in the United States. They paid large interest payments over the years for that loan, and it will be necessary to pay off the remaining debt at a rate five times what it was incurred at. The United States is not in a very good position, yet we weigh our dollar at 84 cents against the American dollar.
Another government newsletter indicated that three years ago $1 Canadian bought 300 Japanese yen; now it buys 162 Japanese yen. That means our money is worth approximately 50 or 51 cents on the Japanese exchange market. We are in serious difficulty, as is the United States. Even countries which find their currencies rising rapidly are in trouble, because

October 24, 1978
Borrowing Authority Act
eventually they will not be able to make their payments, as was the case in Canada at one time.
I am glad to see the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) present in the chamber this evening.
1 am sure the minister is not a collective enterpriser. Surely he is not interested in establishing a Crown corporation in order to operate Syncrude or to raise money to put into the Syncrude operation because it would not happen otherwise. Aside from being responsible for mines, he is also responsible for energy. If we must buy all our energy offshore, we cannot exist as we do today. At one time his friends in the seven sisters told him that there was no future in oil, that the end was in sight. Even so, he saw fit to put taxpayers' money into the development of Syncrude. I congratulate him for that, particularly since the situation has changed marginally in the last few years. But why did he not put all of it into Syncrude? Why did he allow the oil companies to become involved? Perhaps they are smarter than us. They have been robbing people for years and years.


Mr. Dick:: Oh, oh!


William Arnold Peters: Apparently the hon. member does not believe that. At one time the seven sisters put lead into their gasoline, which resulted in a five-cent increase in price. Then that lead was taken out, which resulted in another five-cent increase. That little exercise cost an additional ten cents. Now they are pushing leadless gasoline, which is apparently anti-knock. Of course, there will be another five-cent increase because of that. The hon. member is entitled to believe that the oil companies are not crooked, but 1 consider them to be crooks. At least, I do not consider them to be reasonable and legitimate businessmen.
There is still a valuable commodity out there under the minister's jurisdiction, and that is gold. We are not unaware of this. One of the minister's own colleagues has authorized a publication which indicates that the government has 200,000 gold coins containing half an ounce of pure gold for sale at $150 each. That is a good bargain because gold is going to go up to $300 an ounce, and as the value of the dollar goes down the value of the gold goes up. I suggest the value will go to $300 an ounce by early March. It is now selling on trade markets at from $262 to $267 Canadian funds. We are selling these coins for $150 and the government is going to make some money.
When we have talked about putting out a bullion coin containing one true ounce of .999 fine 22-carat, we have found that we do not have enough gold in this country to produce them. We are somewhat like the United States which found that when it had to pay off its debt in gold it did not have a sufficient amount.
In my part of the country there is still a lot of gold. I suppose there are two or three thousand mines there which operated when gold was selling at $35 an ounce. When I started to work underground in a gold mine I received 58 cents an hour. Things have improved since then. I think my highest

hourly wage was $1.19 as a raiseman, which is a skilled position in a mine.
Let us assume that the same man receives $10 an hour today. It is hard to look back and find that you were making less in a day than a man doing the same job now makes per hour. Gold has increased in price proportionately more. Obviously wages are not going to represent the major portion of the cost of developing gold mining operations. Perhaps the minister should sit down and put together a consortium to pick up some of the gold mining claims throughout northern Ontario, northern Quebec, the maritimes and British Columbia. I imagine that in each of those areas the consortium could operate 500 or 600 mines. These mines would not have to be big producers.


An hon. Member:: But they must have gold.


William Arnold Peters: Sure, they must have gold, but the minister and his department knows exactly how much gold there is in every cut on every face in every mine that has operated over the last 50 years. He knows what the projection is in respect of the tonnage in each one of those holes in the ground. He could get that information from his computers in a matter of a few weeks. I am sure he would find there is a very large amount of gold-bearing ore still available producing gold valued today at $265 an ounce.
When we abandoned emergency gold mine assistance some 15 years ago gold production was supported by the government to a maximum of less than $50 an ounce. 1 know the minister is not interested in government corporations, but he has had to take some interest in Syncrude for the production of petroleum. When things were tough under a Conservative government-and maybe things are always tough under Conservative governments-most of the Crown corporations or national corporations were established. This was not in the Diefenbaker years because those years turned out to be a financial disaster as well.
In a previous Conservative regime the government established railway companies, airlines and banks as well as radio services, and many of these things were considered to be totally acceptable. No one wants to change them even today. My point is that just because one is not in favour of government ownership it does not mean the government should not support something that can be of tremendous value. It is my guess that we would be able to put more people back to work for every dollar used in the redevelopment of these gold mines than for every dollar invested in any other industry we might consider.
When we were considering the manufacture and sale of gold bullion coins we were told we would have to double the production of gold in Canada to meet the projected demand of coin distributors in New York, London and other international marketplaces. Canada has a great advantage over large foreign coin manufacturers in the world today, and specifically over the largest, South Africa, which produces the Kruger rand. The United States does not want to buy South African coins or gold from South Africa. Many countries are looking for a
October 24, 1978

hedge against inflation and one of the best obvious hedges can be found in gold bullion, gold coins or gold in any of its purer forms.
I think it is safe to say that in my area there are 30 or 40 mines which could be put into operation within a matter of 12 months. Gold mining is a very highly labour-intensive industry, one that would not require a great deal of money to put into operation. This would require some leadership, and one other thing that is not in existence at the present time. This industry would have to be given some assurance that the tax structure would remain stable for a period of at least four or five years. The industry would have to be assured that the federal and provincial governments involved would be willing to guarantee stability in their tax structures.
One reason it is difficult to raise money or venture capital today is that no one is sure the tax structure will remain the same for even one year. There would also have to be some supervision on the part of the government of the penny or dollar market, whatever might be involved in respect of gold. There would also have to be an assurance that the return for those who invested privately in these sponsored mining operations was more than 10.25 per cent, because that is an interest rate you can get at the bank today.
It is interesting to note that many large corporations are today making more from their investment portfolios than from their operations. I remember suggesting not long ago to an individual in a large corporation of the Weston chain that they should expand operations. He asked me if I knew what the profit was from their plant the previous year. I suggested it was 4.5 per cent on a very large volume, and he said they could make more money than that by putting their money in the bank, and suggested the corporation was not too interested in putting capital into risk ventures.
If the minister would provide more leadership, we could make more money than that by putting it in the bank, but we are not the least bit interested in venture capital. The minister could solve many of the problems that Canada has today. I figured it out roughly. I am no good at arithmetic so I may be out a million or a billion or so-but that does not really make a difference when you are playing around with the national debt-


Mr. Stevens:: You are sounding like a Liberal now.


William Arnold Peters: The Liberals do not care. They merely print some more money. If I divide $7 billion roughly by 265, I get $26 million, and that means that 26 million ounces of gold would pay for this loan. This would be better than borrowing it in the market where we will pay twice as much in seven years. We could take gold out of the ground and sell it and we would be able to use it for our balance of trade. It would certainly prop up our dollar and we would not need to go on the market to borrow money to stabilize it.
Borrowing Authority Act
In a very short period of time this country could put into operation a number of gold mines if the government would give the leadership.


An hon. Member:: That's hard.


William Arnold Peters: One of the members has said that that is hard, and this is certainly true. It is easier to come to parliament and take the flak for two or three days and then borrow another $7 billion. In three years we have doubled our national debt in just four or five easy jumps. The government has said that this time will be the last time.
Why do we not start producing our own wealth, Mr. Speaker? At $265 an ounce for gold, we could produce more new wealth in this country than we do with the wheat and pulp industries and probably the manufacturing industry as well.


An hon. Member:: We could sell a lot of tobacco.


William Arnold Peters: Yes, you would have to sell a lot of tobacco to cover that kind of production. The gold is there, and we know where it is. Anybody could go to the department of mines and trace every mine that has ever operated within the last 50 years. They have the information as to their location, depth, size of vein, etc. If the minister is at all interested, there are companies I am sure who would go into a consortium, companies such as Lakeshore, Hollinger, Kerr Addison and Noran-da. All these companies have operated gold mines and are knowledgeable about the mining industry. Most of them quit operating gold mines when the price was at $35 an ounce. At $265 an ounce, if they were given the assurance that they would not get hosed over the next four or five years through the tax structure of this country, I am sure they would be very willing to become involved in a deal with the government.
1 had occasion to speak to some representatives from the mining industry at the last meeting of the gold mining committee, and I asked them if they had any objection to going into partnership with the government. They said they had none. They could see many problems, but I guess the government sees lots of problems in the event they were to go together with some of the gold mining companies as well, because they are certainly no patsies or pushovers. Unlike the postal workers who are on strike against an inefficient government, it would find that these gold miners are not inefficient and that they are the kind of people who know how to bargain. They are certainly capable of looking after their interests on anybody's market, and I know that from personal experience.
I am not the least bit surprised to hear that the Supreme Court has issued injunctions against meetings, or injunctions of any kind, because I personally remember when the riot act was read, and all the rest of it, when the coal mines were involved in a similar situation. So, I consider them no patsies. I am sure that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will give the miners full credit for knowing how to run their operation efficiently. If there is participation on the part of the government it will get as good a break as ever, better than dealing with the shysters, the seven sisters in the oil consortium at Syncrude.

October 24, 1978
Borrowing Authority Act
I cannot understand why the minister is not interested in mining gold. I do not understand why he does not ask some of his people about it, such as his deputy minister, who is very familiar with the gold mining industry. I am sure that if he sat down and discussed it with him he would find that what I am saying is true. He would find that mining is a very large employer of labour and that the labour is fairly easily trained. The labour force consists of many young people who are net particularly interested in working underground but are interested in the money they can earn, which is one hell of a lot better than what they would get on welfare or unemployment insurance.
If we would quit playing these games, we could start producing gold again as a hedge against inflation and against our dollar. Indeed, perhaps it would put us in a position to be able to help the United States do something about their huge debt, which may sink them if nothing is done about it. I do not think that the minister is doing his job if he does not give some consideration to how to get the gold mining industry back on its feet.
There are probably 30,000 small mines in Canada, and of those 1 would guess that 50 per cent could be put into operation with the price of gold being what it is today. Every time the price of gold goes up there is that much more incentive to mine gold in this country. I honestly believe that, and I am not trying to persuade the government to go back to the gold standard, though it might be a good idea. 1 would like to hear a good discussion as to why we should not. The reason why we cannot is that we do not have any gold reserves and are probably scared of the fact that Russia has a considerable amount of gold which it has not put on the market. It would probably do something for South Africa as well.
We have a former minister of mines from a provincial government sitting here. I am sure he is well aware of the areas of gold deposits like Kirkland Lake, Matachewan, Timmins, Geraldton and that whole area of northwestern Ontario which I am not very familiar with. Other such examples would be Snow Lake and Pickle Crow, areas which have produced gold in some quantity. It is a commodity which is Canadian and which is available. I see no reason for leaving it in the ground for our children or grandchildren. We should take it out and use it. It is a lot better than cutting down our forests, not planting trees to replace those we have cut, and leaving blueberry bushes and raspberry bushes for future generations. This gold could be used to build up our currency.
The reason we are not in a good position in the world today is because we have no manufacturing industry. What we have is the tail end of the American economy. There is no research or development.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Arnold Peters: Well, we do have a couple of scientists in some of our plants. The hon. member probably knows where there are one or two good ones. 1 know there are good scientists in the research and development station at Petawawa, but what the hell are we doing with them? It is the government's

intention to get rid of them, and that is what the ministers have done with almost every company in Canada. If they get a good patent here, they will take it home and maybe even take the inventor as well or perhaps leave him on the unemployment rolls in Canada. We have a long way to go before we can develop the research and development that will establish a viable manufacturing industry in Canada.
We also have a long way to go to establish a country that others will look at and see that it is financially stable and sound. All we are doing is balancing our trade with our raw resources. We can sell off the last of our timber in British Columbia, in northern Ontario or in Quebec; we can give away our raw materials in our mining industries. Nickel is a valuable commodity, not just to establish currency with, but it is a commodity used in almost all manufacturing throughout the world. We do not sell it as a manufactured commodity, however, but as a raw material. This generation is giving away the last of our birthright in order to try to balance our trade and retain our position in the world.
We will grow more trees if we are lucky and we will grow more wheat if we are lucky, but there comes an end to the amount of land available for trees and cereal grains. We do not even pick peaches, pears and grapes in Canada; we buy them from the United States. I was in the Niagara Peninsula in the last fruit season and you could buy Canadian grapes or Canadian pears and peaches there, but in Toronto I found most of them had come from the United States, not from Niagara. We are destroying whatever heritage we have of natural resources.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The parliamentary secretary on a point of order.


Mr. Andres:: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member should be a little more correct in the statements he makes. I happen to be from the fruit growing area and I am a fruit grower myself. Every pound of fruit that was grown in Canada was sold to Canadians and was supplemented by American imports.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point I was making. We used all we had in Canada but we did not have enough even for the Canadian market and had to import fruit from the United States. I said that by the time you got to Toronto, which is 50 or 60 miles from the hon. member's area, you found that commodities in the supermarkets were American. We do not have enough fruit. We make wine out of our grapes. We do not sell grapes here; we import them from California.
We can go into any little confectionery store in Toronto, Ottawa, Winnipeg, or Vancouver and on the shelves there will be commodities from 50 countries. You would have to search very hard to find any Canadian commodity. At Moosonee, a tourist trap in my part of the country, you can pick up a souvenir like a totem pole or a little bear supposed to be carved from soapstone. When you turn it over you find it was
October 24, 1978

manufactured in Japan. We are not going to compete in that field, Mr. Speaker.
We are giving away our basic resources in order to try to float our economy. It is one hell of an expense. When we borrow money, that is a hell of an expense too when every man, woman and child, and every old age pensioner in Canada, owes over $7,000 and we pay 10 per cent on that debt. There are very few countries with the resources to make that possible.
We have some resources, Mr. Speaker, so why are we not in the market? I am talking about bringing gold to a stage where it is .999 per cent pure-I am not suggesting we fabricate it, and I am not suggesting we ask people to go into the jewellery business. I am suggesting that we treat gold as a natural resource and start producing it to balance our payments. It would not be hard to raise $7 billion if we started to mine.
In my area there are several mills. One in particular is now operating at some capacity and is making considerable money. It is interesting that the miners with that company receive one cent per dollar every time the price of gold goes up. It does not amount to very much because they started at $50 or $60, which was considered to be the top. But now each of those miners gets well over $125 because of that one cent per dollar every time Canadian gold goes up. That mine is doing very well.
Kerr Addison has been closing for years. It is one of the largest mines in North America. Not long ago a newspaper article indicated that the life of the mine had been extended for another two years. I suggest they could have extended it for ten years if they had been sure of any stability in the price of gold. That company could mill 5,000 tons per day but it is now milling less than 700 tons per day. If the minister put some money into a consortium he could pick up the other 4,000 tons at a number of small mines in the area which we would operate. He could lease them and pay the owners a royalty per ton. If he did this on a large enough scale we could then afford to repair and rebuild for an increased milling capacity.
Then there is the mine known as the Upper Canada. God only knows who owns it, but the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources should be interested in it because he was one of the people who shut it down when he set up the petroleum corporation. He had a couple of partners and one was the main shareholder. When that partner needed money he took the money that was necessary to operate that mine and bought more stock in the petroleum company. He is dead now and I guess it does not make any difference to the petroleum industry, but it made a difference to the 300 or 400 people who were laid off. That mine is still in operating condition and if we had a consortium we could pick up that mine.


Mr. Corriveau:: Oh, oh!


William Arnold Peters: My friend over there is making a lot of noise. He should not laugh about mining in Quebec because the situation there is identical with the situation in my area. I know his part of Quebec quite well. Throughout the whole shield there is mining potential and possibilities. It is con-
Borrowing Authority Act
sidered that there are ten or 12 mines in the Val d'Or area that could be operated if a consortium was put together with a management team. There are a lot of unemployed people in the hon. member's area who used to work at Noranda and Val d'Or and they would go back there again if they were given the opportunity.
The government can ignore this if they want, and I can tell you why they do. A few years ago they were totally blinded by the United States. The United States said to the International Monetary Fund, "We are no longer going to need gold; gold is not going to be considered a commodity." The United States removed the right to redeem paper for an equal amount of gold, so gold was downgraded and everybody was terrified. I am not suggesting it should not be but I am suggesting that there are very few countries in the world who want that, including those poorer countries that we are now selling gold to out of the International Monetary Fund in order to provide them with the means for development. They do not want United States dollars for that gold, nor do they want the gold to be sold; they want the actual gold to take home and put in their treasury so that money can be issued against it. Even the underdeveloped countries are not stupid. The United States always thought they were but they are not stupid. We are certainly finding that when we deal with them in the manufacturing field. In many cases they are quite right.
I honestly believe that we could have a gold mine industry with 3,000 or 4,000 people working in it within a matter of six months if the government gave the necessary leadership. This will involve the provincial governments because it involves leases and-


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: There is consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order please. I definitely heard a no on the right hand side.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate the new member for Eglinton (Mr. Parker). Earlier I was pleased to accede to the request of his leader and allow him to make his first speech in the House on the day of his first sitting. I wish him a long and successful career in federal politics and I am convinced that the entire country will derive benefit from his talents.
Having said that, I would like to comment on Bill C-7 even if in the past some members have accused the members of the Social Credit Party of Canada, to which 1 belong, of often

October 24, 1978
Borrowing Authority Act
referring to money in their comments. Heaven knows we have been hearing about it for some time. Heaven knows that this small Bill C-7 which may appear insignificant-it has two pages at most-is deemed by the public as being of very minor importance.
However, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-7 includes a request by the government to the Parliament of Canada to increase its borrowing authority by the fairly large sum of $7 billion for the current fiscal year. This is a small bill but it has serious consequences. The estimates for the current fiscal year already provided for a deficit amounting to something like $11.5 billion; moreover, through Bill C-7, the government is asking parliament to give them an additional borrowing authority of $10 billion for the period beginning March 31, 1979 and ending April 1, 1980.
In both cases, it is stipulated in the bill that such loans will be used for public works and general purposes. However, Mr. Speaker, we are not told what are those general purposes. Is it to extend the Old Age Security Act to cover people who are between 60 and 65 years old? Is it to offer financial aid to the provinces so that in turn they can help municipalities where the property tax is too heavy for homeowners who can hardly finance the construction of roads, water works and sewers? Is it to increase funds for RRAP and the Canada Works program? There is no mention about it in the bill. But, in a question I put last week to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), I pointed out that the program was good but that it did not provide enough money for the provinces and the owners of homes in need of repair, so that in the end the program does not give the results we had hoped for. With regard to the Canada Works program whose budget was slashed by 20 per cent to 30 per cent, the situation is really deplorable at a time like this when unemployment stands at an extremely high level.
1 know of municipalities in my riding where the rate of unemployment is something like 58 per cent. Those are not my figures but those of people who were hired to make surveys and collect them; the manpower centres supply them to us.
Mr. Speaker, adding the figures in clauses 2 and 3 of the bill, we find that we are dealing with loans totalling $17 billion. That is why I said a moment ago that the bill is indeed very heavy, though it does not cover much paper. The interest on the increase in the national debt is roughly $18 million a day, which represents $6.5 billion for the current fiscal year. With these recent borrowings, we might have to pay even larger sums of money in interests, which will further increase the financial burden of the taxpayers.
Mr. Speaker, when an individual, a family or a corporation makes debts larger than he or it should, he or it goes straight to bankruptcy, and the same can be said of governments. How could it be otherwise? Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote some

figures so that the Canadian public, who have a right to know what is going on, can think about it and help parliament change what has to be changed if we are to improve the situation.
Has Canada's debt gone up or down in the last few years? Has the burden of our net national debt increased or decreased? We have to ask these questions and we have to get answers.
If so, would it not be urgent to change the way we finance the public sector? Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is the duty of this parliament to examine closely the alarming progression of the national debt. At the time the confederation was formed, on July 1, 1867, the national debt stood at about $75 million. Later on there was the cost of Canada's involvement in World War I as well as various other small undertakings that had occurred in the meantime, and also the economic crisis which lasted for ten years and was brought about by the crash at the New York stock exchange on October 24, 1929, exactly 49 years ago today, which is a sad anniversary but still an anniversary. The crisis was not triggered by Providence but by human beings, because the stock exchange is controlled by human beings, it is manipulated for one's own profit, it is operated by human beings, Mr. Speaker, and those who have a memory for facts must recall that during these ten years our country was poverty stricken, a great many Canadians experienced very serious difficulties, and this in an affluent society. I have known farmers in my area who did not have enough income to pay their debts, yet their stables were full of animals, their fields were producing bumper crops, but they were unable to pay, despite all the things they could sell, despite this plentifulness, there was nothing they could do, trade was paralysed, while in the cities, my God, people were dying of hunger because of a lack of distribution.
Afterwards, Mr. Speaker, our country's debt grew. Over 72 years our debt amounted to $3 billion, for 72 years, until 1939. By March 31, 1968, Canada's debt had reached $33 billion, and during that period there was World War II and other smaller conflicts like those in Viet Nam and in Korea where Canada participated, and we had to pay.
As of March 31, 1977, Mr. Speaker, nine years later, the national debt, as published in Hansard following a question I asked and which was answered on June 5, 1978, the net debt is estimated at about $67 billion and the way things go, I expect that by March 31, 1979 it will have soared to approximately $80 billion.
Mr. Speaker, we will not be able to continue to finance the public sector by this method without running the risk of leaving the next generation with a legacy of debts whose interest charge will paralyse economic progress and cause division between the various provincial and federal governments. That is not the way to ensure harmony in Canada. I have already said it in this House: it is the difficulties that governments have to find the money they need to meet their
October 24, 1978

obligations and carry out their responsibilities toward their people that divide Canadians; that is the heart of the problem.
Mr. Speaker, it is written in Bill C-7 that the borrowed Funds will be used for public works. I am in favour of that because public works are likely to boost the economy, provided they are financed the right way-that is not the way it is done now as we have to pay five times the value of the work done to get it done once. I happened to have in hand a letter from the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation about a housing construction program in my constituency.
We, as members of parliament, are the ones who approve the funds needed by the CMHC to administer a housing program. And from time to time the CMHC enters into agreements with the Quebec Housing Corporation and as late as January 1977, the CMHC loaned $960,000 to the Quebec Housing Corporation for the construction of 40 housing units. But what is wrong with the system is that the Quebec Housing Corporation, through the provincial government, will have to tax Quebeckers at a rate of $4.93 for every dollar paid, which means that those people, who are Quebeckers, will have to pay for 200 housing units whereas only 40 units will be made available to the public.
Mr. Speaker, this is only an example of what is going on, and the same thing happens when the federal government builds, let us say, the Bank of Canada building across the street, the bank of all Canadians. Let us say the government will get the $50 million from chartered banks, either in bonds or otherwise, in order to put up that building, and will agree to reimburse $50 million over a 50-year period, and this at 10 per cent or 12 per cent interest rates. In other words, we would pay the cost of five of those buildings in order to get only one.
No doubt, Mr. Speaker, that I will be asked: What then is the solution you would suggest? The solution is this: to provide financing for the public sector, the federal government should use the services of the Bank of Canada. Some will say: But you will create inflation! You will put a lot of money into circulation regardless of the reality.
But, Mr. Speaker, what difference is there between putting $50 million into circulation after having borrowed it from financial institutions and putting that same amount into circulation after having borrowed it from the Bank of Canada? What difference does it make in terms of inflation? None whatsoever. But there would be a difference, for instance, in the public debt for, instead of paying 10 per cent or even 12 per cent interest the government would pay administration charges and that would not deprive the banks of their privilege to serve the private sector; on the contrary, they could better serve it and make the advance payments it needs to continue operating.
Mr. Speaker, that financing method must absolutely be changed, otherwise we are heading towards ruination. Public works! But they are necessary, and at the same time they would distribute money to the consumers; they will not buy out
Borrowing Authority Act
the Bank of Canada, but will have the money to buy consumer goods.
The Minister of Finance sitting on my right knows full well what I mean: He is the one who introduced a bill last spring inviting the provinces to cut their sales tax and give consumers more purchasing power. He did recognize at the time that Canadian consumers needed were purchasing power to buy more goods produced in Canada, to stimulate the economy of our country.
Mr. Speaker, there are also many things to be done all along the St. Lawrence, on both shores of the river. There are wharves going to ruin, others that must be preserved and others that cannot be maintained, depending on their future usefulness. When the municipalities come with their requests, the government says: We do not have any money for that. Retaining walls have also been built along the river. There are wharves like that in my riding everywhere. They are left to go to ruin. Private lands are in danger of being swamped over by the waves and when you ask the federal government to repair those works which cost Canadians a lot of money, there again they find all sorts of excuses to say that it is not the responsibilities of the federal government, go and see the provincial government. And when you do just that you are told to go and see the municipal government. Away you go to see the municipal government. They say: Well, we would like to but we do not have any money to finance that project. So everything goes to ruin because of a shortage of funds. Mr. Speaker, are we short of materials to provide those public services? Are we short of machinery? Are we short of workers to put the necessary materials together for those public utilities people could use? No. We have all that. What is missing? The dollar sign. The authorization to be able to carry out the work.
The Government of Canada just made a loan of $35 million to Cameroun for the extension of a wharf in the port of Douala. That is quite recent. That is a news published in today's Le Devoir. I have nothing against lending money to countries to improve their situation. The government made a 50-year interest-free loan with ten years of grace. About that, I once heard the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) answer a question put by my colleague and say: It is not interest-free, Canadians are paying the interest. That takes the cake, not only do we pay interest on our own borrowings but we have to pay interest on the handouts we make to foreign countries. That is nonsense! The government's classical answer is that those countries to which we are lending money will be buying Canadian products. Well, that is the least they can do.
I remember that during World War II I was a candidate in some by-elections and one general election. I heard such statements as: Canada lends money interest-free to England. Then, the ministers told us: Yes, but they buy our eggs, they buy our agricultural products. If a salesman were rich enough to advance enough money to his customers to empty his shop they would come and empty it, of course. But once the war was

October 24, 1978
Borrowing Authority Act
over, when we stopped lending money to England, they stopped buying our products. I hope that the countries which take advantage of our generosity will not play the same trick on us so that one day we will be stuck with the debt without having the market.
Mr. Speaker, I have here a long list of the loans made to different countries which was issued on June 28, 1978. If you look up Hansard for June 28, on page 6830, you will see that with the exception of a single country, all these loans were granted interest free and provide for repayment in 50 years and seven or ten years of grace. For all practical purposes, this is nothing else but a gift.
You will say, Mr. Speaker, that we have to be human and understand that others have urgent needs. I agree, but I would like to emphasize the fact that money is considered as the true source of wealth and that it is given more rewards than the work of man. The construction worker employed on the site of the bank of Canada will be paid only once for having installed a tile and the necessary fittings and for having put some parts together. On the other hand, the capital borrowed to build this project will be rewarded five times. Dollar capital is rewarded five times and human capital or work capital is rewarded only once.
Mr. Speaker, this reminds me that one day not too long ago I had a discussion in a public service with a colleague who is familiar with financial matters and who argued that money is the true source of wealth. For my part, I argued that true wealth is in possessions. I gave him the following example: Two men go on a hunting expedition; one of them is an expert in financial matters, his wife loves him and believes that he is right; the other is a worker, perhaps a farmer or an industrial worker. The wife of the financial expert does not forget to go to the vault and to take two $100 bills to put in his wallet, while the wife of the worker takes two loaves of bread, a pound of butter and a few fruits and put them in a packsack. The two men leave for their hunting expedition in great humour. They do not have a very good sense of orientation. They do not have a compass. Night falls and they have to sleep in the forest. The next day is cloudy and foggy, and as they do not have the sun to guide them, they spend that day and the next one in the forest. I therefore asked my friend which one of the two was the wealthier? Was it the one who had two $100 bills in his pocket or the one who had bread and butter in his bag? He admitted that it was the one who had bread. I told him: "Sir, you are intelligent. Why is it that when you are in the woods, you can reason sensibly, and that as soon as you leave, you are unable to reason and lose all sense of proportion?
Mr. Speaker, in our country we have organized our society like this: the constitution provides for three levels of power, the legislative power which we represent in this House, the executive power which is the cabinet, the Minister of Finance, all his

colleagues and the Prime Minister, and the judiciary or the judges who examine our acts when taxpayers are not satisfied, who scrutinize our legislation and decide who is right and who is wrong. Above all this, Mr. Speaker, there is another level of power, about which the public knows generally nothing, least of all how it operates. It is the monetary power, the power to mint the credit of the nation, the power to influence the circulation of money and credit, the power to establish the duration of the circulation of financial credit, the power to require the repayment on terms fixed in advance failing which the product of your work will be seized. It is also the power to submit governments themselves by spelling out repayment and demanding as a guarantee the power that all governments have, that of taxing the citizens.
And, Mr. Speaker, this situation does not prevail only in Canada but every hon. member should have the time to read about this. I find it very interesting.
It was published in France, and I quote:
In France, money is where it is not needed and not where it is needed.
We could say that conditions are exactly the same in Canada. In the review dealing with monetary power, the following comment appears, and I quote:
The government and the banker of course are old pals. The government needs the banker who can provide his own credit. The banker needs the government because he must be under the cover of law and order.
Mr. Speaker, it is exactly like that in Canada. There is no difference. Things happen exactly like that and the article is entitled The real counterfeiters. Fet us speak of the loan that the government would like to obtain. Bonds will be issued. Some of them will be bought by our chartered banks and under the law, it is legal. The bankers who will purchase those bonds will merely create the necessary money. Why is the government unable to do such an operation through the Bank of Canada? We should have good accountants in that institution! This is why the government is- in a quandary and finds it difficult to do precisely what it wants to ensure the proper development of our society. Mr. Speaker, that situation is not news. In 1931, His Holiness Pope Pius XI denounced the power in the hands of private institutions. He said that this power is particularly noticeable among those who are the absolute masters and keepers of the money and mint the nation's credit as they see fit. He added that they control the economic blood of the nation to the extent that, without their permission, no one can even breathe. Nothing has changed since then because governments and parliaments, including ours, do not take the necessary steps to put some order in this field of activity.
Mr. Speaker, I want to catch the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien). When we were considering Bill C-56, I promised him I would give him a copy of a bill which was studied by the American Congress and which gave the American government full power to control the money supply. I kept my word. I gave the bill to the President of Privy Council and
October 24, 1978

asked him to pass it on to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance promised me he would consider it very seriously. I know he is a busy man, I know he is an overburdened man, but I still hope he will at least have enough time to take a look at it and that he will draw his inspiration from it when he will prepare his budget speech which he is supposed to table in the House in the near future.
Mr. Speaker, these are proposals which I consider serious and useful. I would just like to give the House an idea of what is the very substance of that bill of which I already gave a copy to the Minister of Finance. Here is what its introduction says:
To give Congress the constitutional power to issue money and control its value; to guarantee a minimum income to every American based on a stable and equitable assessment of the dollar whose value should always be high enough to allow the public to buy at will the goods and services that American industries and businesses can make available to them; put an end to the practice by which certain groups of individuals use and create bank deposits with fractional reserves.
This is exactly what is happening in Canada under the Bank Act, and specifically section 72. That is the basis of our system. I would like to reassure bankers, who may be watching us on television, that 1 am not personally attacking them. I respect them, they are human beings. They inevitably do great service to society, but it is the very system which the act of parliament grants them that I am attacking, because it gives bad results. We know what those results are, I just enumerated them: doubling our debt in nine years and increasing it from $33 billion to $67 billion. That is not a normal system. That a government be forced to go down on its hands and knees before financial institutions in order to obtain the funds necessary to administer the country, that is not normal. An individual or a company may be forced to accept such conditions because that is the private sector, it is the pressures of supply and demand, the pressure of competition. Mr. Speaker, I see that it is getting late, but I would like to quote the comments of a taxpayer published in the Wednesday, October 11, 1978, issue of the Journal de Montreal. Sometimes we think that people do not observe us, that they are indifferent to what leaders do, but here is what this man says in an article entitled "The world is heading toward disaster," and I quote:
Yes, you, our leaders, open your eyes, look around you and what do you see? Only depravation. The world is literally heading toward disaster. Animals and plants are disappearing, and you only think of wars and elections. For Heaven's sake, wake up! I think Canada, and indeed the whole world, should invest to save animals and trees. Look at the baby seals, the geese, the whales, make an assessment of the situation and you will see it is disastrous. Wake up and save the world! Be proud of being human beings, but show it. I hope that I have opened your eyes and that you are going to take the steps which are necessary.
It is signed by Christian Beauclair of Montreal.
Mr. Speaker, of course we have in our society leftists and rightists, and we have people who claim to belong to the centre right, and so on. But those who claim to belong to the centre right should examine their conscience.
Borrowing Authority Act


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a point of order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Alastair William Gillespie: Pursuant to Standing Order 75c, I wish to ask the House-[DOT]


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: On a question of privilege-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please.
[ Translation]


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I recognized the minister who seeks the floor on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: No, we have privilege here.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Alastair William Gillespie: Pursuant to Standing Order 75C I wish to advise the House


Some hon. Members:: Question of privilege.


Paul Wyatt Dick: The question of privilege is on this side.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Alastair William Gillespie: 1 have the floor, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: 1 understood the minister to have sought the floor on a question of privilege. I am informed now that he rose on a point of order. Since questions of privilege take precedence over points of order, I recognize the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn).


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to rise on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


An hon. Member:: You don't have a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Each hon. member will be recognized in turn. I recognize the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar first.

October 24, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Hnatyshyn PRIVILEGE


MR. HNATYSHYN-CHANGE MADE TO OFFICIAL REPORT
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The question of privilege on which I rose at the earliest possible opportunity before ten o'clock-I see the clock is moving now to that point in time-relates to what I understand to be some question about the "blues" which have been changed with respect to the comments made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) this afternoon, a statement he made in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, we in this House should observe the integrity of our record, Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar might have a very valid point of argument, but I think it should be presented at the proper time. Perhaps he could give notice now that he will raise a question of privilege at the proper time later.

Is the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) rising on a question of privilege?


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, most respectfully on a point of order. I was still entitled to-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order or on a question of privilege?


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: First I would like to raise a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member foi Bellechasse on a question of privilege.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I had the privilege to continue my remarks, Mr. Speaker, because the time allotted to me had not expired yet. I had only a few minutes left and I hoped to conclude by ten o'clock but given the circumstances, I must call it ten o'clock and I will continue tomorrow.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. I said before I recognized the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) and the hon. member for Bellechasse who wanted to rise on a question of privilege that I would also recognize the three hon. members who asked for the floor. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) on a question of privilege.


Alastair William Gillespie: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier).]


Alastair William Gillespie: Pursuant to Standing Order 75c-


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


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


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) on a question of privilege.


MR. KNOWLES (WINNIPEG NORTH CENTRE)-IMPROPER USE OF STANDING ORDERS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege related to the rights of members of the House. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) was trying to get the floor while a member of the House still had the floor. He had no right to do that. It is against the privileges of the members of this House. Now he is trying to give notice of a motion after ten o'clock, notice of which can be given only during the regular sittings of the House. It is now after ten o'clock, and it is Your Honour's duty to call for the debate on the adjournment motion.


Yvon Pinard: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I call your attention to Standing Order 40(4) from which we can infer that even after ten o'clock business of the House may be dealt with, even before the "late show" has started.
Mr. Speaker, when the minister asked to be recognized on a point of order, he was perfectly entitled to do so, since he did not mean to present a motion but to make an announcement. There is nothing in the rules, on the contrary, which prevents a minister from rising from his seat before ten o'clock on a point of order to make an announcement. That is exactly what the minister was trying to do. It was not yet ten o'clock then, and even if it is now past ten o'clock, this is due to delaying tactics by some opposition members, Mr. Speaker. Under, I repeat, Standing Order 40(4), business of the House may be discussed at this stage, and what the minister wants to do is make an announcement which happens to deal with that very subject. In view of the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I ask that he be heard in keeping with the rules and his own right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that I had something to do with Standing Order 40. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) quoted Standing Order 40(4). It does not give authority to present a notice of motion. All that Standing Order 40(4) permits is that after ten o'clock, during the late
October 24, 1978

show period, there can be questions and answers concerning the future business of the House.


Yvon Pinard: That is the hon. member's interpretation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the minister wants to announce that tomorrow he will give notice of a motion to be put the next day, he can do so. But to stand up and try to give notice after ten o'clock, and thereby assume that he has the right to present that motion tomorrow, is a complete and utter violation of the rules.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the government wanted to do this, it should have done it on motions earlier today. It could have been done any time today when it had the right to get the floor. But the minister cannot do this after ten o'clock. The argument that he was on the floor at ten o'clock is completely invalid because the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) had the floor, and his time was not exhausted. The minister rose on a point of order. What point of order? What has my friend done wrong? Nothing at all. This is a complete violation not only of the spirit but of the letter of the rule under Standing Order 75C. I think Your Honour should now call it ten o'clock.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Ministre of Finance):: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. Minister of Finance.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I believe the minister was quite right. He had obtained the agreement of the Chair who had given the floor to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The opposition uses tactics not to recognize this. The Chair had decided to give him the floor before ten o'clock, and ever since that ruling opposition members have been trying to prevent the minister from exercising his right to speak on a point of order and to give a notice as provided under Standing Order 75C. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that he had the floor, that he has the right to put his question, because it is assumed it is not yet ten o'clock. His right to speak was taken away from him in a way not provided for in the Standing Orders.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on this same point of order simply to reinforce and support the position put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Anyone in this House who rose under the guise of a point of order in order to move a new item of business or present a motion in the House, would provide Your Honour with all sorts of problems in the future.
Adjournment Debate
I have personally at various times attempted to move a motion which I felt was legitimate and might receive the unanimous consent of the House, and the Chair has ruled that I could not obtain the floor for that purpose under the guise of a point of order. The fact of the matter is that the minister cannot do this unless he gains the floor in the normal course of the debate. I think that is the essential ingredient. If the minister has the floor in the normal course of a debate, he is then entitled to say what he wants and may move a motion that is appropriate. However, it is my understanding that it is completely contrary to the rules for a minister to attempt to pirate in a motion under the guise of a point of order.


An hon. Member:: Trickery.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I agree that the word "trickery" covers what the minister has attempted to do. He is attempting to pirate a motion in to terminate this debate, and I think that is unacceptable under our rules.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I have received some guidance from my advisers in respect of the rules. Just before ten o'clock the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) was interrupted. Had the minister waited until that hon. member had completed his remarks he might have been recognized. However, the minister rose on a point of order and the hon. member for Bellechasse was interrupted. I returned to the hon. member who had the floor and he then requested that we call it ten o'clock. As a result, I have no alternative but to now proceed to the adjournment motion.
In accordance with Standing Order 40, a motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been moved. Therefore, the question is that this House do now adjourn.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. After the motion to adjourn is taken the Chair cannot recognize another member on a question of privilege or a point of order. I recognize the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
[Stage Direction]
October 24, 1978
Adjournment Debate

[Stage Direction]
Mir. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier): Mr. Speaker, on February 7, 1978, the Leader of the Official Opposition in a speech to the Junior Chamber of Commerce in Toronto proudly announced a startling policy concerning the personnel of the Public Service of Canada. It will be remembered that Mr. Clark announced that a Progressive Conservative government would enforce an absolute freeze on the hiring of civil servants and that his objective would be to reduce the Public Service of Canada by at least 60,000 jobs in the next three years by not replacing employees leaving their jobs for the many reasons we know, namely retirement, death, departures, and so on.
That freeze coupled with a major cutback are certainly drastic measures, Mr. Speaker, designed to boost the popularity of the Progressive Conservative party by rejecting the odious nature of their economic measures on the public sector and more particularly civil servants. So in the few minutes I have I will be trying to show the danger of such a proposal and caution those who for partisan purposes would like to have Canadian taxpayers believe that if they were in power they would know how to show leadership and come down hard on the backs of federal civil servants by arbitrarily reducing their numbers.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot accept that concept of political machiavelism that the end justifies the means. They are not telling the whole truth when they are spreading this dangerous myth that by reducing the number of government employees through an absolute freeze and not replacing those who resign they will come up with savings big enough to finance a major reduction leading to substantial cuts in taxes. That is just not true.
Among the many questions which will need to be asked and which we are entitled to have answered, the leader of the Progressive Conservative party will have to say which government services will be cut. Does he have in mind the inspectors of the Department of Labour, or perhaps the scientists at the Department of Environment, or even worse, the professional analysts of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion? He will have to tell us which services will be discontinued or reduced. If he is suggesting he is thinking in terms of better manpower utilization, I would remind him that since 1975 there has been a significant decrease in the number of employees, and government managers are now working with a reduced staff that must meet the challenge and go on serving the Canadian people despite their reduced numbers. Moreover, it should be remembered that there is a competitive private sector, and if the workload of federal civil servants keeps growing without pay increases, they may prefer to find better jobs in the private sector. The impact would create problems at
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier).]
the hiring end, with the danger eventually of depriving the public service of competent and hardworking personnel.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, if the Progressive Conservative leader came to power, does he want us to believe he can govern this country without government programs? Will such a potential government be a janitorial government leaving to the private sector the leadership in ideas and services in the eighties, or will they simply be the foreman of the status quo? That government will certainly wish to leave their mark and that of important ministers, put forward government programs, perhaps improve and even better explain, research, expand with the help of civil servants the whole range of existing services, and indeed create new ones.
It is intriguing at this point, at this time of serious disputes between labour and employers, to hear the opposition leader suggest he would replace the right to strike in the public service by a tribunal empowered to deal with disputes bearing on the public interest, his so-called Public Interest Disputes Tribunal which he would charge with solving disputes between labour and management. Is he proposing an agency without civil servants, one administered by computers?
When Mr. Clark talks about increasing employment counselling services to make it easier for the unemployed to find a job, is he trying to suggest that he will not hire qualified counselling personnel to provide this essential service? And finally, when he speaks about taking away the right to strike of federal public servants, is Mr. Clark suggesting that in his relations with federal employee unions, these workers will remain silent and not take part in the debate? This is obviously a proposal that can only incite to illegality, Mr. Speaker, because taking away the right to strike of federal public servants will not solve normal conflicts between employees and employer.
I understand, Mr. Speaker, that as serious and fraught with consequences as these issues may be, they can be considered hypothetical because, in my opinion, even if the Progressive Conservatives came to power they could not implement such a disastrous policy. An analysis of both proposals, that is the freeze and the non-replacement of public servants, shows the ambiguity and the cynicism of the Progressive Conservative leader since he did not explain to the Canadian people how he would implement such a policy. Mr. Clark speaks about the federal bureaucracy. We should know if this definition includes all government services and if it covers not only the employees under the jurisdiction of the Treasury Board, but also all others under federal jurisdiction, that is those employed by Crown corporations such as Air Canada which are responsible to the federal government.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I submit-and I asked the minister about this in the House last week-that it is impossible to administer Canada and provide Canadians with the services to which they are entitled under the laws passed by this House if there is a complete freeze of hiring in the public service and an
October 24, 1978
[Stage Direction]
arbitrary decision to reduce the staff of the public service by 60,000. This proposal is dangerous for the public interest, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Thomas H. Lefebvre (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, 1 must congratulate the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), who has shown once again his continuing concern for his electors, especially those who belong to the Public Service of Canada.
I cannot understand how anyone could pretend to serve the public interest by freezing hiring and simply letting the number of public servants go down haphazardly. The public service must implement the policy and the programs deemed necessary to provide for certain needs of the Canadian people. The number, the qualifications and the competence of the civil servants meet the criteria required to implement this policy and these programs. By allowing random cutbacks in the civil service, we would undoubtedly sacrifice essential tasks which are now being carried out. Since all such activities are linked to certain programs and certain services, these could no longer be maintained and the population would thereby be deprived of program or service which did meet their needs until then.
For instance must Canadian taxpayers accept cutbacks in medical services, in meat inspections, in food and drugs control or air traffic control? Should we let prison guards leave one by one or even all at the same time without ever thinking of replacing them? So the decisions related to the method and the speed with which to carry these cutbacks in programs and services would depend on the unpredictable decisions of civil servants to take their retirement or quit the public service.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this would be like putting the plough before the oxen. Those who leave the public service are not always those which it should be desirable to let go and those who stay are not necessarily the most indispensable elements. It is far better first to take the decision regarding the programs in a more rational matter and then readjust the size and the composition of the public service.


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


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-PROPOSED STRIKE BY NORDAIR PILOTS-AIR CANADA CONTROL OF NORDAIR
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to follow up a question that I asked in the House yesterday. I put to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) the question whether the government has reconsidered its position with regard to Air Canada acquiring control of Nordair, or does the government intend to take the position that Air Canada should pursue that application? The minister replied in his usual studied and tortuous style, which consists not only of saying two hundred words when one of the words "yes" or
Adjournment Debate
"no" would satisfy, but which also conceals any hope for a reasonable answer.
In view of the answer given, which seemed to imply that the cabinet had not yet reached a decision on a matter which has been before it since June 29, 1978, I would like to ask the following question: Why has the government not taken a decision on this matter as yet? Even for this ridiculously inert and tardy government a decision should have been taken. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I think this government acts as slowly as it thinks, which is below the speed limit in most provinces. It has often been said, Mr. Speaker, that silence is golden and patience is a virtue, but since the members opposite are hardly a gaggle of mutes, I suggest strongly that they finally act like a government and show some leadership. Since it is the government, it surely must face the inevitable task, no doubt unpleasant for them, of taking a decision.
In the proposed Air Canada takeover the facts are quite simple and a decision should have been reached by now. Air Canada proposes to buy Nordair for $25 million. The agreement in principle was the culmination of a number of conversations between the two companies in which Air Canada agreed to buy shares at $11.50 each. It is reported that Air Canada regarded the acquisition of Nordair as a sound business investment.
To argue that the deal would not be good for Air Canada would be senseless since Nordair is a very profitable company with a consistent record of profits and a sound financial position. However, while the acquisition of Nordair by Air Canada may be good for that Crown corporation, it is certainly not good for the Canadian consumer.
My party is against the acquisition of Nordair for many reasons. Firstly, this acquisition would harm air transport competition in Canada. As it stands today, Air Canada controls something like 60 per cent of air travel in Canada mainly due to restrictions placed on other airlines by the Canadian Transport Commission. Since 1970, for example, Canadian Pacific Airlines has been limited to 25 per cent of all transcontinental seats in this country. Its dominant market position and strong financial position of something like $20 million in profit last year enables Air Canada to ignore the consequences of competition. Last year, for example, the airline was able to ground itself for ten days at the mere rumour of a strike without even having to glance a nervous eye at the balance sheet. They knew that people in Saskatchewan-and I have a particular interest there-people in the maritimes-and people in the northern Ontario had no other alternative but Air Canada. Thus, neither strikes nor lockouts or whatever can drive passengers away from Air Canada, and the management knows it. The Conservative party does not intend to further strengthen this dominant position but to open the airways to more competition.
A second argument against the proposed acquisition is that it goes against stated government policy of preserving the essentially regional airlines to service local routes. Air Cana-

October 24, 1978
Adjournment Debate
da's takeover would introduce it to regional routes when its purpose should be national and international. Our party has stated that it would ensure that regional routes of less than 500 miles would be left to the regional carriers.
Thirdly, as the former minister of consumer and corporate affairs has noted, the proposed acquisition might violate provisions of the Combines Investigation Act and those of the National Transportation Act. Of course, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that this government will be overly impressed with this argument as its previous attitude toward the participation of other Crown corporations in unsavoury affairs, such as the uranium cartel situation and the sale of nuclear reactors, has already demonstrated.
A fourth reason for our opposition to the proposed acquisition lies in a suspicion of the motives of Air Canada. Air Canada has stated that its "acquisition of Nordair's highly successful charter organization would be of particular interest to Air Canada, because of the national airline's determination to become more active in the significant and growing area of operations and marketing". It must be remembered, however, that it was Air Canada that opposed the introduction of advance booking charters.
Finally, in times of supposed government spending restraints, and remembering the government's often repeated assertion, more often than not straight from the horse's mouth of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner), that it wants to encourage the private sector, it does appear ridiculous to permit this government body to purchase a profitable public firm.
Our party has not been afraid to give leadership. I have outlined our position on the Nordair takeover this evening. In view of the continuing procrastination and monumental indecision on the other side as evidenced by the answers which I received the other day, I would strongly suggest to this House that it is not for the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to come as he did into the House today and suggest that he is going to kick anyone in the slats, as he so eloquently put it, but for us to do exactly that to awaken this slumbering government.


Thomas Lefebvre: In reply to the hon. member who raised this question, it might be valuable to put on record once again the main reasons why the Canadian Transport Commission did not turn down the application by Air Canada to buy out Nordair. They are as follows:
1.	Pacific Western Airlines acquisition of controlling interest in Transair gave western Canada strong regional carriers under common management and with common objectives. This created a need for strong regional carriers in eastern Canada operating from Montreal to Winnipeg. Nordair is profitable but the level of cash available has limited its dividends. The controlling shareholders wish to dispose of their interest in Nordair.
2.	Air Canada intends to operate Nordair as a separate entity and as a regional carrier under the regional air carrier

policy, the Aeronautics Act and the air carrier regulations. The act and the regulations would require the commission to approve any future merger of Air Canada and Nordair.
3.	It is not in the public interest that Nordair fail or not be able to replace equipment. Nordair's cash flow had not been acceptable to its shareholders and the only alternative acceptable to the shareholders is the sale of Nordair. If sale of Nordair to Air Canada is not approved, then the result would be a period of insecurity and instability with respect to Nordair operations.
4.	The acquisition of Nordair would not unduly restrict competition because there is little scheduled competition between regionals and there is limited competition between trunk carriers and regionals because of the regional air carrier policy. Financial results have not been satisfactory in spite of the limits on competition.
Points have been raised by nine petitioners, some of them very serious points. The government is giving close and careful consideration to all these matters. I can assure the hon. member there is no dragging of feet on this subject. The government is, as usual, taking a matter of such importance very seriously.


POST OFFICE-ALLEGED LOCK-OUT OF RETURNING STRIKERS
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the reason I am rising tonight to take part in this adjournment debate is that Canada is in the midst of a postal strike which is causing serious disruption to our people. Delivery of family allowance cheques, social security cheques and accounts due to small businessmen and farmers is being withheld or delayed, and the over-all consequences for Canadians who are not involved in the strike in any way except as innocent third parties are tremendous.
The government used this situation as justification for asking parliament to legislate an end to this strike. Members of my party supported the government in this action. The post office provides an essential service; its activities are as important as those of any other single service throughout the economy and there is no way we can allow our people to continue to be victimized by these interruptions and stoppages. I urge the government to do its utmost to get the CUPW workers back on the job.
I hope the government will take full advantage of the provisions of the law which are available to ensure that members of the union who are on strike illegally return to work. If these measures fail, I believe that some of the 900,000 Canadians who are without jobs today should be given an opportunity to provide this essential service.
The reason 1 rise tonight to participate in this debate is that the government has spoken out of both sides of its mouth in this instance. In introducing legislation to legislate workers back to work last week, it indicated that the post office was an essential service and that Canadians could not afford to have
October 24, 1978

this essential service disrupted. That is a position with which I agreed, and the people at the post offices at Fergus and Orangeville in my area of Canada agreed with that very directly. Indeed, in the case of Orangeville during the last great postal disruption the workers stayed on the job, kept the post office open and provided service to some 12,000 homes which were served by the Orangeville post office and by the various subpost offices which are fed through the Orangeville post office. For their efforts they found themselves blacklisted by the union, and it was only recently that the local in Orangeville was restored to full union participation.
Leading up to this strike the members of the local at Orangeville took a look at the situation. They decided that in the national interest it was essential that this public service be kept in operation. They felt they had an obligation to the communities they served to stay on the job and to keep the mail flowing, and they voted in a very responsible way. They decided to stay on the job. In addition to that, they decided to write to some 94 different locals across the country to urge their workers to stay on the job. They signed the letter "from proud Canadians" and gave their names. In response to those 94 letters they received some 19 replies, of which only four were not favourable. It was clear from the responses that there was a strong sentiment in favour of keeping the post office open and working for Canadians.
Post office workers in Orangeville and Fergus reported for work on Monday and Tuesday of last week, and they kept service going for members of the communities served by those post offices. However, what was their reward for doing so? Their reward was to be told on Tuesday afternoon that they were not to report for work on Wednesday.
The Post Office Department denies that those workers were locked out, but there is only one word which applies when postal management, as a result of a labour dispute, decides not to allow people who want to work to report for work. Management locks them out. Management locked the doors of the post office and told its workers that they could not come in and that they could not keep the service going. Having crawled out on a limb to provide an essential service to Canadians, these dedicated and patriotic Canadians found that post office management decided to saw that limb off. I referred to that in the House of Commons last week as a disgraceful betrayal by post office management of those dedicated workers. If anything, those words are too generous to postal management, who decided to lock its workers out.
What were the results? The first was that, having jeopardized their relationship with their union, having run the risk of retaliation from people who were unhappy with the stand they took, and having decided to keep service going for the many thousands of homes in the communities they served, they found that the doors were locked by Post Office management, that they were refused work and that they were told to go home without pay.
Surely these workers deserve better. Surely Canadians deserve better. If there is one lesson to be learned from this, it is that if postal management and the government decide in the
Adjournment Debate
future that they want to ask dedicated public servants to put themselves on the line, to make sacrifices in the national interest and to set an example for the rest of Canadians-the type of behaviour necessary if we are to deal with our pressing economic and social problems-then it is incumbent upon the post office and the government to ensure that these people are not left alone out in the cold. These workers and Canadians as a whole deserve much better.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to point out that on October 19 last the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty) misled the House. Knowing the hon. member, I am sure he would not do so intentionally. He said then and he said tonight that postal employees in Orangeville, Ontario were locked out and sent home without pay. Similar allegations were made by his colleagues, the hon. member from Oakville and the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall).


Henry Perrin Beatty: He will not be the hon. member for Oakville until after the election.


David Michael Collenette: In misleading the House 1 think the hon. member is demonstrating a trait of Conservative members in recent weeks. They have been taking extreme licence with the facts and contributing to the climate of apprehension throughout the country regarding this urgent matter.
With some patience the minister explained in the House that there had been no lock-out as this term is understood in labour relations circles. Perhaps the hon. member for Welling-ton-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo does not fully understand the term "lock-out" as it pertains to management-labour relations. The minister said that employees were sent home for lack of work. Such action is known universally as a "lay-off', not a "lock-out".
I hasten to explain that lay-offs are general practice when there is no work for employees to perform. The post office has laid off employees when there have been legal strikes, but it is not the practice of the department to lay its employees off when some members are on an illegal strike. Before the passage of Bill C-8, the strike of CUPW workers was legal. After the passage of Bill C-8 it was no longer legal and employees who wished to work were encouraged to do so. Even though, I am sure, the distinction is quite clear to the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo, he persisted in referring to what he called the disgraceful policy of lockout, and he reiterated that comment tonight.
Later, in response to a question from the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey), the minister further clarified the situation. Having consulted with his deputy minister and been assured that no cases of lock-out had occurred, the minister said:
There have been no "lock-outs" anywhere in the country, and therefore any employee who comes to work will be received and paid.
446

October 24, 1978
Adjournment Debate
The minister went on to say that all post offices had been instructed to inform employees that they are welcome to come back to work and they would be paid. This statement has been repeated by the minister and by the department many times since. It has appeared in newspapers across the country and has had nationwide radio coverage.
Lest there be any doubt left in the minds of any members of the House, lest there be any doubt left in the minds of any
postal workers, let me state again: the post offices are open to receive their employees. Employees who wish to return will be welcomed and they will be paid.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.35 p.m., without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, October 25, 1978