1979-10-25

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to put a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the dislocation to agricultural production that will result from the declarations made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of State for Economic Development (Mr. de Cotret), and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) on Friday, October 19, establishing import quotas for chicken without proper consultation with the provincial governments, the Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency, or the provincial chicken marketing boards, and based on a nonrepresentative period of importation, I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy):
That the House instruct the government to properly consult the provincial governments, the Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency and the provincial chicken marketing boards, and then, at the ministerial level, to renegotiate the chicken import quotas with the United States in order to obtain an import quota of 1 per cent of Canadian production, as recommended by the Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency and based on the GATT principle of a previously representative period from 1969 to 1973, and that if the U.S. does not agree to the revision, the matter be placed before GATT arbitration in Geneva.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion could be debated at this time only with unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to introduce a motion on an urgent and pressing matter, namely, the decision of the Department of Supply and Services to terminate the contract
for the weather observation and recording services and closure of the weather station at Geraldton, Ontario.
The Geraldton weather station is one of the top three in Ontario and serves a large area between Thunder Bay and Kapuskasing. With the opening of a new airport at Geraldton next month, air traffic will increase significantly and the closure of this weather station presents a problem for aviation safety in the area.
Therefore, sir, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Andras):
That this House direct the Postmaster General and Minister of the Environment, and the Minister of Transport, to intervene personally in order to prevent closure of the Geraldton, Ontario weather station which would jeopardize air safety in the area.


Mr. Speaker:: The introduction of such a motion for debate, pursuant to Standing Order 43, can be done at this time only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to move a motion under Standing Order 43 regarding an extremely urgent and pressing matter.
As the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) stated when in opposition, the Atlantic region is the hardest hit when the government increases its interest rate to record levels, causing increased unemployment, extensive bankruptcies and economic stagnation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That this House condemns the Minister of Finance for his betrayal of Atlantic Canada and urges his immediate resignation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

October 25, 1979
[ Translation]


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I request the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion dealing with an important and urgent matter.
In view of the increasing housing needs of the old in Canada, in view of the fact that there are not enough housing units for our senior citizens, and in view of the alarming number of retired people on endless waiting lists of existing homes for the aged, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane):
That the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie), when he brings down his budget in November, allot additional, considerable and the required funds for a larger number of housing starts to meet the needs of our senior citizens with a view to achieving the double objective of reducing our seasonal unemployment to a large extent and reducing the ever-growing number of old people in need of decent housing.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. John Evans (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the current plight of small business in the Ottawa-Carleton region, and of the drastic implications for these small businesses as a result of this government's plans to cut 60,000 jobs from the public service, and in view of the fact that the federal government is about to sign the Eastern Ontario Rural and Economic Development Subsidiary Agreement with the government of the province of Ontario and to exclude the Ottawa-Carleton region from assistance under this agreement, contrary to the expressed desires of the province, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Pepin):
That this House instruct the government to amend this agreement prior to signing, so as to allow small businesses in the Ottawa-Carleton region to qualify for assistance.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for debate could be done at this time only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

O)


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Earlier this week, a behind-closed-doors kangaroo court In Prague, Czechoslovakia, convicted five human rights activits to a total of 19'/2 years in jail. In view of the fact that both Canada and Czechoslovakia, amongst other countries, are signatories to the Helsinki Agreement, which in this case has once again been grossly abused, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray):
That this House express its very strong concern to the government of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic for allowing its so-called courts to neglect the basic decencies of human rights and, further, that the Secretary of State for External Affairs request of the Czechoslovak government that it abide by the Agreement signed in Helsinki in 1975 by both countries and repudiate the decision of that court so as not to further undermine the Helsinki Agreement orginally intended to protect and support human rights activities around the world.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for discussion at this time, in accordance with the terms of Standing Order 43, can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion on an urgent and pressing matter.
In view of the fact that Quebec Premier Rene Levesque wants a "yes" to his referendum question, that we do not yet know the wording of the question, although we know for sure that it will be ambiguous, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Etobicoke North (Mr. MacLaren):

October 25, 1979

That the House urge the right hon. Prime Minister to "resurrect" the proposed federal referendum legislation in order to protect all Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: The Elouse has heard the terms of the motion put by the hon. member. Under 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.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to move a motion of the utmost urgency.
Given the plight of 69-year old Dimiter Kolev, who is imprisoned and in failing health in a Bulgarian concentration camp for the offence of campaigning on behalf of an opposition political party, and given the refusal of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Miss MacDonald) to meet with Mr. Kolev's son, Stefan, who is in Ottawa at this time, on the grounds that she lacks a basis under international law to intervene on his behalf, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan):
That this House urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs to meet with Stefan Kolev forthwith as a First step in a campaign by the Government of Canada to secure the release of Dimiter Kolev from detention, consistent with the gospel of human rights espoused by the Secretary of State before the United Nations last September.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate at this time, pursuant to Standing Order 43, can be done only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SPEAKER OF SASKATCHEWAN LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
Mr. Speaker:: Before beginning the question period, may 1 ask hon. members to join with me in signalling the presence in our gallery of a distinguished visitor and my distinguished counterpart from the province of Saskatchewan, Mr. Speaker J. E. Brockelbank.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. How could the minister have agreed to the advice of the governor of the Bank of Canada to raise interest rates yesterday to 14 per cent, when the governor today told the finance committee he was unable to give to him or the committee his forecast of the effect of this interest rate increase on such matters as jobs, economic growth, mortgage rates, housing starts and small business?


An hon. Member:: Resign.


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for giving me the opportunity to say that 1 support absolutely the statement that Governor Bouey made to the committee this morning.
While I have not got the transcript of the committee proceedings here yet, I certainly can tell him this, that the move that the governor recommended-and which I accepted and which 1 accept responsibility for-is one taken after very serious consideration. Because I believe, and the governor believes, that it is in the long-term interest of this country and the Canadian economy, the Canadian people and the small business community whom we represent on this side of the House and whom we are concerned about, that this policy be adopted and that the battle against inflation and the battle to retrieve our economy from where the hon. gentleman's party left it, this is the only way we can proceed today.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Minister of Finance. I want to start by saying that the Prime Minister, speaking as leader of the Progressive Conservative Party to the Canadian Construction Association last March 2, said:
Record high interest rates work against confidence because they work against growth-
He went on to say:
Interest rates must come down if we are to get the Canadian economy growing at its full potential. It would be the policy of the Progressive Conservative government to gradually bring these interest rates down.
In light of these commitments I would ask the minister how he and the Conservative government can do just the opposite and agree to these record high interest rates.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is right on: that is our policy and that is what we are going to do. We are going to bring these interest rates down when we have got inflation in Canada under control and when the other western industrialized countries have it under control. We are going to bring the interest rates down when the huge trade deficit of over $7 billion left by the hon. gentleman's government is

October 25, 1979
Oral Questions
brought under control and when the budgetary deficit of $11 billion is brought under control.
Our policies are aimed, Mr. Speaker, at bringing interest rates down as soon as economic conditions permit. That is what we are dedicated to. What prevents us now is the record left by the hon. gentlemen opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The hon. minister's policies are just the opposite. He is following the policies of the Mad Hatter in Alice going through the looking-glass.
I want to ask the minister if he will bring in a budget immediately which will state the government's fiscal policies to deal with the country's needs in the face of these high interest rates and the very high increases in energy prices his government is promoting and agreeing to, or is he going to continue on a course of vagueness and evasiveness indefinitely, a course which he has been following and the government has been following for the past five months?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, if it is the Mad Hatter and looking in the looking-glass, the hon. gentleman only has to look in the glass himself to see the Mad Hatter, because he was associated with the minister of finance who also had to agree to interest rate increases because of the shape that his government brought the economy to.
As far as the budget is concerned, I am very anxious to bring down the budget. One matter that is preventing me is this, that there are a number of pieces of legislation left over from the Liberal budget of November, 1978. We cannot bring in our own budget until they are cleared up, because we cannot have our own ways and means motions before the House until that legislation is cleared up. So if the hon. gentleman would co-operate to put through the remnants of their own budget, left shamefully from November to March without any action, then we would bring down our budget. I am very anxious to bring that down and get Canada on a new course and to protect us from the effects of the last budget.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INCREASE IN INTEREST RATE-EFFECT ON MORTGAGE RATE
Mr. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance. On October 18, 1978, as reported at page 238 of Hansard, when in opposition the minister said:
These people are being crucified with an II Vi per cent mortgage rate-
Would the minister make the judgment now that, as a result of his policies and his government's policies we have the mortgage rate going up to 14>/2 per cent, the people of Canada are not being crucified but are being drawn and quartered by an unmerciful government that no longer has a care for those ordinary people? Does he realize the housing industry is in severe recession; building starts are down 30 per cent?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Order.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I will give the hon. gentleman this opinion that, yes, people are being crucified now with high interest rates because of the record of that last ten years.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: But, Mr. Speaker, the crucifixion they are having now will be a lot less than they will have in a year or two's time if we do not run this economy properly. That is what our program is dedicated to achieving.
The hon. gentleman should read the statement of Governor Bouey today and see why interest rates have had to continue to go up, and why they have gone up in the United States, and see how serious this issue is.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance. In the statement of Governor Bouey where he said that he has been making recommendations, is it not true that it is this Minister of Finance who is agreeing with those recommendations, and is it also not true it is this Minister of Finance who refuses to take any action whatsoever to help the consumers of housing who are facing a 30 per cent increase in carrying costs? Is it not this Minister of Finance who refused to take any action to stimulate the housing market, and is it not this Minister of Finance who acquiesces with the minister of housing, whose only action in the housing field is to take people to jail?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, 1 suppose 1 should be devastated by that question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: I introduced into this very House, Mr. Speaker, just two days ago the mortgage interest and property tax deductibility bill that is going to help stimulate our housing industry-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: That is a joke.


John Carnell Crosbie: -and help the Canadian home owner, whom the hon. gentleman opposite left unaided and who opposed that measure in the election. I call on the hon. gentleman to whip through this mortgage interest and property tax deductibility bill so he can help the home owners he says he is so concerned about.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
October 25, 1979


INCREASE IN INTEREST RATE-AUTONOMY OF CANADA IN SETTING RATES
Mr. Bob Rae (Broad view-Green wood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I realize that being Prime Minister is never having to say you are sorry.
Can the Prime Minister reconcile two statements that he made? The first statement was one he made in this House February 13, 1979, that Canada should not be a follower of the United States interest rate policy, but should be a leader in its own interest rate policy. The second statement of the Prime Minister at that time was that the high interest rate policies of the Liberal government were leading Canada to the most expensive monetary policy in its history.
Could the Prime Minister explain to this House whether things have now changed to the extent that this is no longer true, and how does he reconcile these statements and the statements that were made this morning by the governor of the Bank of Canada and in the House today by the Minister of Finance?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the position of the Government of Canada as expressed by the Minister of Finance is that this government has a heavy obligation upon it now to show leadership, which the former government refused to show-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You will go to 15 tomorrow.


Charles Joseph Clark: -in dealing directly with the very tough economic decisions that have to be faced. That is the only way, by taking tough decisions now, that we can avoid much more difficult problems for Canada in the future.


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, in one of his "Elliott Ness" statements the other day, the Prime Minister said that inflation was public enemy No. 1. If that is true, will he please explain to the House the logic of increasing energy prices to the world level, the logic of the mortgage interest tax credit of which the Minister of Finance is so proud, and is clearly inflationary, and the logic of high interest rates which the Hon. James Gillies, in his previous incarnation as a critic of the government, said were causing inflation? How does he square the circle which he has presented to the House of Commons these past three weeks?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I should not let go uncontested the suggestion about energy prices which, of course, reflects speculation on the part of the hon. member. Once again, the purpose and the view of this government is that what we have to do, if we are going to restore confidence in the Canadian economy and take serious steps toward reducing inflation and, in time, reducing interest rates, is to face tough decisions now. That is what the governor of the Bank of Canada is recommending. That is the advice with which this government agrees and on which we are acting.
Oral Questions


Bob Rae: It is the same advice the governor has been giving for a long time, and both of the old-line parties have been following it. I would like to ask the president directly-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: God forbid!


Bob Rae: I would like to ask the Prime Minister directly to give the House a clear statement on whether it is the policy of the Government of Canada to restrict credit and cause a recession. If it is, how does he square the circle this time? How does he square that with a statement in the House last week that it is the intention of his government to get the economy working again? How can he do that and have the highest interest rates in Canada's history at the same time?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it is the policy of this government to avoid recession in this country, to restore confidence in this country, and to get enough confidence in the economic policies of the Government of Canada that we can begin to move the country toward a reduction in interest rates, a reduction in inflation and a general sense of confidence in not only the strength of the Canadian economy but in the determination of the Government of Canada to deal directly with the tough problems this government inherited from the former government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS CONTRIBUTIONS OF CROW'N CORPORATIONS TO PRO-CANADA
Mr. Fabien Roy (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, last October 10, I asked a question of the right hon. Prime Minister concerning the policy followed by the previous government, which was to allow Crown corporations to subscribe generous amounts to the Pro-Canada committee. I should like to ask-


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Fabien Roy: I understand the nervousness shown by the official opposition about the question. Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister, who had said then that he would examine the matter and report back to the House, whether he is now ready to inform the House of the decision taken by his government on this matter?


Charles Joseph Clark: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is the position of the Canadian government that a Crown corporation should not subscribe to a campaign pertaining to a referendum in the province of Quebec. We are now preparing-


An hon. Member:: Guidelines!

October 25, 1979
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: No, not guidelines, but criteria and perhaps also some changes to be brought to the Canadian legislation. 1 have already written a letter to the presidents of two Crown corporations, namely Air Canada and the CN, to explain to them the position of the Canadian government.


REQUEST MINISTER TABLE COPY OF LETTER SENT TO TWO CROWN CORPORATIONS
Fabien Roy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question. Considering that the Prime Minister is referring to a letter he sent to two presidents of Crown corporations, I want to ask him whether he would agree to table a copy of that letter before the house. 1 would also like to know whether specific directives have been given with relation to a drive to raise funds in the name of other corporations.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not have those letters with me today, but I will probably have them tomorrow and I will table them. I should add that no specific directives have been given to the other public servants referred to by the hon. member.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Langelier):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

The government seems intent in cutting off its nose to spite its face. On one hand it is raising the bank rate, and thus mortgage rates, to unprecedented levels, and then threatening legal action and a tough policy for people who default on their mortgages, on the other. Does the government seriously propose to take people to court for mortgage defaults caused by its own high interest rate policy?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to assure the hon. member that this minister does not wish to be unduly harsh on anyone, particularly if part of the cause is high interest rates. On the other hand, it would appear that there were some unfortunate conditions and policies which have placed CMHC in the position where to fail to enforce ordinary legal remedies would not be in the best interests of the taxpayers of this country.


MEASURES TO ASSIST MORTGAGE DEFAULTERS
J. Gilles Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.

After only three months, the additional charge due to the mortgage rate increase on a $50,000 mortgage is $1,700. What does the minister intend to do to help people who cannot assume this additional charge because they live on a very tight budget?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, it is not only Canadians who have particular problems with housing who need assistance; the problem is wider than that. The government is not unmindful of what has to be done, but I would say that some of the policies which have been introduced, including the tax credit on mortgage interest and municipal taxes, will alleviate the unfortunate effects of these high interest rates.
It is all very well to say it does not affect everyone, but neither do child tax credits help childless couples. You do not see too many young people benefiting from old age pension cheques, either. It is not that simple.
[ Translation]


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT IN FAVOUR OF CONSTRUCTION OF RENTAL HOMES
Mrs. Celine Hervieux-Payette (Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I wonder if he is aware of the fact that the property tax deductibility bill will greatly encourage the conversion of apartment buildings into condominiums. As the rental housing sector has deteriorated and its share has been reduced by 32 per cent since September, have any provisions been incorporated into the act to prevent the conversion of apartment buildings into condominiums and to encourage new starts in rental homes to protect tenants who are often senior citizens or small-income families?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: There are measures which would be very helpful for the kind of Canadians to whom the hon. member refers. She will get the exact details of the legislation, along with everyone else. We are looking for ways to address this problems but, again, as she will understand, it is not possible to do as much in the way of housing policy as we would like. There are many in this chamber who would favour some sort of shelter program: some of the provinces have already begun to act along these lines; but we cannot do everything at once.
October 25, 1979


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of Privy Council.
A few days ago the minister indicated in the House that the D'Avignon report had been referred to a cabinet committee on the public service. Could the minister advise the House whether a special study group or committee or task force has been set up within his department to review the Public Service Employment Act and the Public Service Staff Relations Act? If he can confirm that such a committee exists, would he be prepared to table the guidelines which this committee will follow, and name the members of this committee?


Hon. Walter Baker (President of Privy Council and Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, there is no task force set up within my department to study the D'Avignon report, although I must say I am looking at the recommendations myself and there are officials within the government who are looking at them as well.
It is my intention to take the matter to the cabinet committee on the public service as soon as I am in a position to do so.
I should inform the hon. member that later this week I shall be sending to each of the public service unions a letter indicating my interest in getting some feedback from them with respect to the report. I am doing the same in the case of the Public Service Commission, and if the hon. member or any hon. member has any helpful suggestions to make, I would certainly welcome them as well.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question will be addressed to the President of the Treasury Board. This morning, the Comptroller General appeared as a witness in one of our committees. One theme which 1 think is common to both the D'Avignon report and the Lambert commission report is that training and development for both employees and managers in the public service should be increased in order to help these people create a more productive, efficient and effective public service.
How does the President of the Treasury Board reconcile these recommendations, which are made in both reports as well as by the Comptroller General, with the fact that departments in government right now have been forced by Treasury Board to cut back by 50 per cent funds allocated for training and development; and how, in the hon. gentleman's own department, has he coped with these cuts on the financial managers, the people we most need today with new techniques in management? How will he keep training these people so that they can effectively enforce the methods proposed by the Comptroller General?
Oral Questions


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (President of the Treasury Board):: should like to assure the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier that we have no intention of cutting back on the training process which is available within the public service to assist people in being re-employed within the public service.
As to the suggestion that there have been cutbacks in some departments to the extent of 50 per cent, I would appreciate it if the hon. member would inform me in specific detail what he is referring to, whereupon I will look into it.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for CMHC. In view of the fact that today's interest rates will mean an increase in mortgage rates from the current 14 per cent level to 15 per cent, an increase of some 3 per cent since this government came to power, can the minister tell the House what action he is taking to prevent additional thousands of mortgage defaults under CMHC, the number of which, I understand, totals around 31,000 and which are taking place in Canada today due to the government's high interest policy?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has asked a very interesting question. I think that if he studies the matter, he will understand that the people who are defaulting on mortgages at the present time are defaulting on money borrowed at much lower rates of interest in previous years, not because of today's interest rates.


CAMPAIGN PLANK TO REDUCE COST OF HOMES
Simon Leendert de Jong: My supplementary is to the Prime Minister. During the election campaign, on April 11, the right hon. gentleman promised to cut the cost of buying homes by some 20 per cent, yet we have seen mortgage rates increase from 11 per cent to 14 per cent; in fact, they have increased some 25 per cent to 30 per cent annually.
Can the Prime Minister explain to the House why he has reversed his promise to the Canadian people, making it almost impossible for the ordinary person to own and purchase a house?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat alarmed that so many of those fellows over there have been reading so many of my speeches. They may well end up crossing the floor.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: My undertaking during the election campaign was to introduce a program which would reduce the effective cost of housing to Canadians. We shall be doing that with the tabling in this House of the tax credit proposal.

October 25, 1979
Oral Questions TRANSPORT


ICEBREAKING SHIPS IN THUNDER BAY
Hon. Robert K. Andras (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport: I have given him notice. It has been the practice, for the purpose of expediting grain handling-a matter of concern to us all-to station an icebreaking ship in Thunder Bay in advance of the freeze-up. I ask the minister, now, if this practice is to be continued. The Alexander Henry is the icebreaker which has been used in the past and although it is better than nothing, we really need a larger vessel like the Sir John A. Macdonald.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. It will be the intention of the department to dispatch the Alexander Henry to Thunder Bay for this season.
I might add that the vessel is currently undergoing repair in Quebec and that it should be ready to sail by the middle of November, or the end of November-somewhere around that period. I might also say that it will be equipped with an air-cushion icebreaking bow which will improve the effectiveness of its operation.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to put to the Minister of Finance. Because the spread between the U.S. and the Canadian inflation rate is 4 per cent, and in view of the fact the governor of the bank said this morning he had to move because of the anticipated rate of inflation which he related very much to the increase in the price of energy, did the Minister of Finance tell the governor of the bank before the increase in the interest rate what the increase in oil prices in Canada would be next year?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the governor of the Bank of Canada knows as much about any projected increase in energy prices as does the hon. gentleman opposite. The point being made by the governor of the Bank of Canada was that the difference between the inflation rate in Canada and that in the United States-the American rate is now some 4 per cent ahead of us-is due to the fact that they have been experiencing higher inflation costs for the last 12 months as their gasoline and oil prices have gone toward the international level.
This is something we have yet to come to, but we must come to it so that we can get it behind us and get the economy working and expanding for the future. That is why energy prices were mentioned at all. On a comparison of our inflation with the American rate, when we take out energy factors our rate is just about as bad as theirs.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: How can the governor of the Bank of Canada anticipate the rate of inflation if he does not know what the increase in oil prices next year will be? He spoke at length this morning about this factor and its moving him to suggest to the Minister of Finance that the anticipated rate of inflation will be much higher next year than it is today.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the governor, in his statement today, gave several reasons why he believes the inflation rate is going to be higher next year. The money supply has been expanding quite rapidly, despite higher interest rates. Food prices are increasing, and there will likely be an increase in energy prices, which all hon. members know is coming. We do not yet know how high they will go, but an increase in energy prices is coming.
We are importing inflation from the United States; 70 per cent of our imports are from the United States. Wages and salaries are starting to increase. For all these reasons, the governor sees a strong push toward further inflation in Canada. We are determined that we are going to stop inflation in its tracks in the next year or two and get our economy back on its feet again.


Mr. Trudeau:: Wrestle it to the ground?


TRANSPORT
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Transport. It is with regard to a very serious accident and tragedy, namely, the accident in connection with the destruction of a railway bridge across the Peace River, in northern British Columbia, the result of which is the isolation of the entire northern section of the BCR from the main line.
I would like to ask the minister if he is aware of this problem. I am sure he is. If so, will the Government of Canada be prepared to join with the province of British Columbia in planning a strategy to mobilize other modes of transportation during the time the bridge is repaired? Second, would the government be prepared in the usual manner to join with the province and share the cost of this disaster?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I certainly share the concern of the hon. member about this disaster. I am not aware of any representations which have been made by the provincial government to our government or, indeed, to my department. My understanding is that meetings have been held between the officials of the railway companies, government officials and shippers.
It is my further understanding that a decision has been made to put in place a prefabricated bridge at Pine River which will be installed within a period of a week or ten days.
October 25, 1979

This will go a long way in alleviating the difficulties created as a result of the burning of the bridge.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Carlo Rossi (Bourassa):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Solicitor General 1 shall put my question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Is an investigation taking place at present, or going to take place, following the escape of two dangerous inmates who were held prisoner in a federal institution in Quebec, and what measures does the government intend to take to avoid such incidents and protect people?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, 1 regret to say that I am not in a position to answer the question of the hon. member. Later today I will see the Solicitor General and seek a precise answer to the two questions put by the hon. member.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Serge Joyal (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. Considering that when the Prime Minister was sitting on this side of the House he expressed several times his intention and agreement to refer the report of the Commissioner of Official Languages to a joint committee of the Senate and the House, and considering that that commitment has been renewed in the Speech from the Throne delivered last October 9 by the Governor General of Canada, is the Prime Minister prepared to refer immediately to a joint committee of the Senate and the House the report tabled by the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada in March, 1979, and not wait for the tabling of the next report which will be presented to the House in March, 1980?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I share the hon. member's interest in the discussion of Mr. Yalden's report by a parliamentary committee. 1 would be prepared to agree to a referral of the last report for consideration by such a committee without waiting for the presentation of the next report.


Serge Joyal: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question. Could the Prime Minister say whether he
Oral Questions
intends to refer that report to a committee of the House or whether it will be sent to a joint committee made up of representatives of both Houses?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we intended to set up a committee of this House, but I would be willing to consult the hon. member and other members, and if there is a consensus to set up a joint committee made up of members of the House of Commons and of the Senate, it would be acceptable to the government.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the serious nature of the illegal walkout by air radio operators, and in light of the crash at Cranbrook, can the minister inform the House what action he is taking? Will he involve himself within the scope of his responsibilities to bring this serious situation under control in so far as air safety is concerned?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to point out that under the provisions of the collective agreement, designated employees are obligated and required by law to carry out certain prescribed functions. The fact that employees are not doing that indicates that they are breaking the law.
Reference has also been made to the fact that there have been some alleged violations of safety and security. These alleged violations have been brought to my attention, and they are being looked into. Officials of my department have investigated all the incidents which have been reported, and they have indicated that there has been no substance in so far as any alleged violations of safety and security are concerned. There are slowdowns and some cancellations. About 15 stations are not operating at the present time, but essentially all operations are safe, although somewhat abnormal. Safety and security are not being compromised, according to the reports I have been receiving from my officials.


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, in view of the seriousness of the safety aspect of this whole question, will the minister indicate to the House that he will at least consult his seatmate, the Minister of Labour, to see if some action can be taken to alleviate this serious safety concern of the travelling Canadian public?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I understand that a mediator is meeting individually with both parties. Of course I will consult my colleague, the Minister of Labour. I will consult, also, my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, because we view this as a very serious matter.

October 25, 1979
Oral Questions


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my question to the Prime Minister. It might normally go to the Minister of Finance, but he looks rather unhappy today so I will direct it to the Prime Minister.
The latest increase in interest rates means that small businesses in Canada will have to pay somewhere between 16 per cent and 20 per cent in order to carry on business. In view of the current astronomical-some might prefer not to exaggerate the situation and say "increasing"-level of bankruptcies in small businesses, can the Prime Minister indicate any special measures his government is planning to assist thousands of small businesses from going under due to the government's current high interest rate policy?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the lot of the Minister of Finance is not a happy one when he succeeds a Liberal government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: I have had the unhappy experience twice. I am very unhappy with the present high interest rates and their effect on small businesses, because we are the party which represents and cherishes small business in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: But, Mr. Speaker, we say to the small businessmen of this country that the action we take now is action calculated to help them in the longer term, and that we will have thousands more flourishing small businesses when we get over this period of temporary high interest rates.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Minister of Finance that his party enjoys the support of small businesses, and many of them. Also, I would like him to realize that his particular tax policies are well accepted, the give-aways of about $20 billion a year, by the big businesses in this country.
I do not know how long he will have the support of small businesses, if this sort of thing is allowed to continue.


INCREASE IN INTEREST RATE-EFFECT ON EMPLOYMENT
Mark Willson Rose: I should like to switch my questioning to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Since small business is a traditional source of employment, especially in regions of underdevelopment, can the minister say what his department will do to ensure that further economic stagnation will not continue in the have-not areas of the country?
Further, will he urge his cabinet colleagues to bring in a special winter works program to help the thousands of unem-

ployed and the increasing unemployment we will experience undoubtedly this winter due to this high interest rate policy?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that high interest rates are not in the best interests of regional economic expansion either. But it is something we have to live with.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: To the extent of the resources available, we have tried to compensate for them in various fields. I will take what the hon. member said as a representation, and I can assure him that we will be trying to maximize the resources of regional economic expansion. One way we can do this more efficiently than in the past, hopefully, is to get greater co-operation with line departments and to focus economic development themes in a more unified way.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Alex Jupp (Mississauga North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. The Minister of Transport and the Ontario minister of transportation and communications recently released a joint discussion paper on major intercity passenger transportation issues in southern Ontario.
Would the minister give his assurance that no expansion of the Toronto international airport will proceed without consultation with the municipal authorities and, further, would the minister assure us that the lands at Pickering and the adjoining lands will be maintained to protect the long-range option for the development of a major airport at Pickering?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: 
CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, 1 will direct my question to the Prime Minister.
In view of the statements by the governor of the Bank of Canada that the prospects for economic activity and employment in the months ahead are less than ideal, and in view of the fact that the year-on-year rate of increase in the consumer price index has now reached 9.6 per cent, even with the lull in the rising price of food, can the Prime Minister say whether his government is considering any special measures to protect consumers with low and moderate incomes against rapid increases in the cost of the necessities of life?


Charles Joseph Clark: Yes, Mr. Speaker, without getting specific as to the measures which are being considered, I can assure the hon. member that such measures are being considered, with the goal in mind of trying to ease the particular burden of price increases upon lower income Canadians.


An hon. Member:: Give us some examples.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Davenport.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, my question has just been answered.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Jim Fleming (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare: it falls in line with the further increase in interest rates.
As a result of this steady increase in the interest rate, has the minister ordered a study of the impact of those increases on the poor, the working poor and those on social assistance? If he has done so, has he brought those studies to the attention of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the governor of the Bank of Canada? If he has not, why not?


Hon. David Crombie (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the effects of interest rates, and indeed economic conditions generally, of course, are always of concern to me and my ministry with respect to the effect on low income Canadians. As a consequence, that is why the provinces have particular roles to play when it affects those sectors of the population, the people at the low income level.
In November we will be holding a preliminary meeting, and later on a general meeting, with respect to all matters relating to the welfare part of the ministry. At that time the effects of
Oral Questions
these conditions will be dealt with not only by me but also by other ministers of the provinces.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Mr. Speaker, can I ask the minister whether he has discussed with his colleagues in cabinet, or in any other forum, or whether he has been asked by them, to consider the impact of the increase in interest rates? In other words, in his responsibility for health and welfare and all the implications of that, had his advice been sought by the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister before those interest rates were increased?


David Edward Crombie: Of course, the responsibility in that regard is my own. So my own response to it, Mr. Speaker, was to bring it to their attention, which I did.

[Translation)


PROPANE GAS SHORTAGE FOR DRYING AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Paul-Andre Masse (Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that some propane gas retailers in the Montreal area are now experiencing difficulties in getting their supplies from the refiners, and in view of the fact that it seems that the supplies they were entitled to are being diverted towards the United States and that because of this situation some farmers are unable to dry their crops, will the minister tell the House if he intends to make representations to the refineries so that eastern retailers, and in particular those of Quebec, are supplied on a priority basis, thereby enabling farmers to save their crops?

Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member on what is apparently his first question, and to tell him that in fact the matter has been raised concerning a shortage in terms of propane. There have been discussions with the National Energy Board, which establishes the level of propane exports.
Members of the propane industry now are indicating that the problem is essentially one of transportation logistics. Sufficient propane is available, but difficulty has been experienced in lining up the tank cars to move the propane. The board now understands that assistance from a variety of other propane suppliers will alleviate the situation and reduce the problems with respect to the supply of propane.


Paul-André Massé: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary. Could the minister give the House the assurance that there is no link between the percentage increase in export sales of



October 25, 1979
Oral Questions
propane and the lack of that commodity in eastern Canada, particularly in Quebec?


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, I think the first part of my reply answered that particular supplementary.

[ Translation]


THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
Mr. Gilles Marceau (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice, but since the senator-minister does not sit in this House, 1 will put it to the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations.
At the last first ministers' conference, the previous government, in its desire to decentralize power, agreed with the unanimous consent of the provinces to surrender to them the authority in matters of marriage and divorce. Will the minister tell us if his government intends to carry out this transfer very soon and hence do away with the scattering of jurisdictions?


Hon. Bill Jarvis (Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I am just coming out of a conference with my provincial counterparts responsible for constitutional matters which was held last Monday and Tuesday in Halifax. This government's position is the same as that taken by the former government. In Halifax, I took the same stand and I think we just about all agree on it now.
I believe there will be a meeting of four ministers in November and I hope to settle that issue before the conference of first ministers. I am not sure I can do so, but I am hoping.


NARCOTICS
Gilles Marceau: Mr. Speaker, since the minister is in such good spirits, I should like to ask him whether he intends to introduce, on behalf of his government, as early as this fall, a bill to reduce the penalties in the case of simple possession of marijuana as well as a bill creating the office of ombudsman, and whether he has looked into their financial implications?


Robert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, that bill is now the responsibility of the Minister of Justice, who, in fact, is now in the process of consulting his cabinet colleagues. 1 am not sure whether or not

that bill will be introduced during this session, but it is a policy we are now looking at.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: My question is to the right hon. Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, and it is on the 14 per cent rate of usury in this country. I think the Prime Minister knows that the increase in the rate of usury, or the rate of interest in this country adds immensely to the farm debt, and the farmers need money to expand their farm operations, buy equipment and purchase land and if they do not get it we may have some shortages in the production of food.
The question 1 want to ask the Prime Minister is the following: can he give us a commitment today that it is not the intention of the government to privatize the Farm Credit Corporation but, instead, expand its financing to provide loans to farmers at lower interest rates?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we are very much interested in helping Canadian farmers, through a variety of means which are under consideration by this government, to expand their operations and to secure a position in which their security as operators will help this country to develop the very real resource we have as a food-producing nation.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is learning very rapidly from the Leader of the Opposition. I want him to answer the question. Can the Prime Minister give us a commitment today that he will not privatize the Farm Credit Corporation but, instead, will expand it and make sure we have more money available to farmers at low interest rates? Will he give us the commitment that he will not privatize the Farm Credit Corporation?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly not planning to privatize the Farm Credit Corporation.


POINT OF ORDER
Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport and Multiculturalism):: Mr. Speaker, my point of order has to do with a question asked by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier) which appears at page 551 of Hansard for yesterday. It arises from a difficulty in the
October 25, 1979

translation of the supplementary question, or from the rapidity with which the hon. member asked it.
I should like to make it very clear that there is no plan to approach the provinces to share in any damage claims, as 1 indicated yesterday, because the corporation has not received any claims by wholesalers. I say that just to clarify the answer to that particular supplementary question.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Pinard:: Mr. Speaker, this being Thursday, I should like to put a question to the President of Privy Council (Mr. Baker) about the business of the House. Can he give us the order of business for tomorrow and next week? I should like to ask him to be as specific as possible to spare us asking the same question every day, which we unfortunately had to do all week.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, 1 will be as specific as I can, and in that specificity 1 will emulate the House leader of the opposition when he was in my position.
We will continue today with Bill C-10, which is the measure to revise the supplementary borrowing authority for the fiscal year 1979-80. When that is completed, and I hope that will be today, we will move to Bill C-4, continuing the debate on the bill with respect to the Federal Business Development Bank. Because it is a short bill, only one clause, following that we want to move to the Municipal Grants Act. We believe it is quite important to get that bill started, and 1 am sure that view is shared by the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton.
Hopefully we can proceed tomorrow with the bill to amend the Breton Woods Agreement Act and the bill to revise the Bank Act. As hon. members know, the bill to amend the Bank Act has been the subject of extensive hearings before the parliamentary committee which has virtually concluded its deliberations, and we ought to have no difficulty in dealing with it. If there is any time left on Friday we will deal with a motion on the order paper in my name in respect of televising the proceedings of the committees of the House of Commons. 1 assume there is no disagreement in that regard, and if there is agreement I might call it earlier than late Friday.
Moving into next week, we will be dealing with the tax bills. We will be introducing the property tax credit bill the Prime Minister referred to in the course of the question period, and we will hopefully be dealing with the following bills, and I will give hon. members an extensive list so they will have them in mind: Bill C-2, respecting the Department of Labour, Manpower and Immigration; Bill C-7, regarding two-price wheat; Bill C-8, occupational training; Bill C-9, livestock feed assistance; and Bill C-12 dealing with the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act amendment. That will be followed by Bill
Business of the House
C-13, a measure to adjust the accounts of Canada, and Bill C-15, relating to freedom of information. I understand there may be some disposition to deal with that quickly. We will then deal with C-16, an amendment to the Petroleum Administration Act. Bill C-17 we intend to introduce tomorrow; it is a bill respecting the commissioners of internal economy which was dealt with in the Speech from the Throne.
I wanted to give hon. members that extensive list so they will have these items in their minds. Our purpose, however, will be to begin the week with the tax bills that will be standing in the name of the Minister of Finance, as the Minister of Finance says it is important that these bills be dealt with before he can introduce his own budget.


Yvon Pinard: Could the President of Privy Council indicate to us clearly whether he intends to proceed with the uninterrupted study of a bill until it is passed at the appropriate stage or whether he intends to shift from one bill to another, notifying us only the previous day? In other words, if we begin to consider Bill C-2 next Tuesday and do not complete second reading, are we going to continue with the study of that bill on Wednesday or is the President of Privy Council going to advise us at the last minute that there will be another bill to consider the following day?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I will do my best to better the example of previous years with regard to that matter. I indicated the balance of the legislation for this week, and I clearly indicated that it was our intention to start with the tax bills next week. The Minister of Finance has indicated to the House the importance of completing those bills. It is my intention, to the extent that this is humanly possible, to stay with those bills until they are completed. I am as anxious as the Minister of Finance to clean up those things that have been hanging around since the budget of 1978.


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Speaker, first may I ask the government House leader whether he can give a more precise answer than he gave me last Thursday in respect of the bills to amend various pieces of veterans legislation? They have been mentioned in the throne speech; the Minister of Veterans Affairs has told us they are coming and the President of Privy Council says they will be dealt with soon. Can he tell us when they will be on the order paper and how soon we might proceed with them?
The other comment I wish to make, and I do this with all the friendship and goodwill there is between us as Commanche Drive neighbours, is that I hope he will really stay with the proposal that he has just announced to proceed with certain legislation.
We have been told several times that once we got through various pieces of legislation we would go to the tax bills, but each time the tax bills are put off and something is put in their

October 25, 1979
Business of the House
place. Several times, including today, the Minister of Finance, in almost a fit of temper, said that we cannot do all the fine things the government has in mind until the opposition quits dragging on the tax bills. There has been no dragging on the tax bills because they have not been called.
The government House leader has said today that the tax bills will be called for Monday, and if he means that, 1 hope that he will say so, that we will start the tax bills at three o'clock on Monday and stay with them until they are finished. Some of us who have been around the House for a while are accustomed to the schedule being changed, but some of my new colleagues think that we are crazy in jumping around the way we do from day to day. I believe that they are right, and I suspect that some of the ministers have been told the same thing. I ask the government to not play it both ways, by telling us that we will not get any good legislation-and I am still looking for it-until we get away from the tax bills and then not calling the tax bills.


Walter David Baker: 1 thank my friend, Mr. Speaker, for his neighbourly advice. We do intend to call the tax bills next week and to continue with those bills along the line which the Minister of Finance indicated was important to him from the point of view of the budget. I recognize the difficulty with respect to shifting, but sometimes that is necessary. I do not like it any more than the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and 1 will try to avoid it as much as possible.
I must say, though, that I am impressed with what has happened with Bill C-6. It has gone to committee. We have dealt with the Post Office Act. I think we are starting on the right foot, and I would like to see it continue.
With respect to the veterans bill, I cannot give the hon. member any different information than what I gave him last week. I think that I attempted to tell him that it was a matter which we regard as important as well. I shall certainly bear in mind his representations in the spirit in which he presented them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do something before November 11. [Translation]


Mr. Lachance:: Mr. Speaker, considering the unanimous wish expressed by the spokesmen for the opposition on Bill C-15, the freedom of information bill, and given the fact that the minister himself said that he hoped that bill will be enacted before Christmas, and considering the litany of bills he put on the legislative menu for next week, before proceeding with the study of Bill C-15 could I call on him to be so kind as to put that Bill C-15 on the priority list so that it can be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, so that the necessary comments on it can be made and so that it comes back eventually before the House to be passed before Christmas?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I too am very interested in that bill, and I am glad to see that the hon. member is also interested. I do need some agreement from the other side with respect to the progress in legislation. I am prepared to sit down and discuss any proposals in dealing with these tax bills and other bills with the other side through the usual channels, so that we can allocate a certain amount of time upon which we all agree to those bills. I am quite open on that matter.
I should alert hon. members to the fact that there is a reference on the order paper now dealing with the nuclear investigation committee. There were four select committees announced in the Speech from the Throne on subjects which I think will be of interest to all hon. members. When we get down to discussing these matters, I would like to discuss a fixed time within which we might consider them, giving a reasonable time for debate so that the committees of the House can get working as well. I thank the hon. member for his suggestion.


POINT OF ORDER
[Stage Direction]
MR. MacKAY-HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS-CLARIFICATION OF ANSWER DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, earlier in the week when being questioned by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) on the matter of home insulation, I indicated to him in my answer that home insulation had recently been classified under the Hazardous Products Act. I should have been more accurate and for the record I would like to inform the House that it was cellulose insulation which has recently been classified under the Hazardous Products Act.


PRIVILEGE
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, while I was away yesterday there was a point of privilege raised by an hon. member due to a misapprehension. At no time have I refused to appear before the House of Commons finance committee or refused to appear before the committee if I were summoned, before the governor of the Bank of Canada. The finance committee has never asked me to appear before Governor Bouey.
I had my representative tell the finance committee that in my view it would be better if Governor Bouey appeared first.
It was the governor's request that he appear before the committee first; he was anxious to have the matter go forward because he felt that any delay would have a bad effect on the

October 25, 1979

financial community here in Canada, the financial markets and the like. Therefore, 1 had suggested through my representative to the House of Commons finance committee that it would be better if Governor Bouey were to appear first and I appear after the governor.
It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot appear before the House of Commons finance committee when I am out of town. As far as this week is concerned, I had a previous engagement to meet the four western provincial ministers of finance on Wednesday. I could not appear before the House of Commons finance committee on such an important matter on Thursday without having some time to be briefed. In my brief experience on the finance committee during the previous Parliament, it always accommodated itself to the fact that the previous minister of finance would try to arrange his schedule in order to appear. The committee knew of the busy schedule which the minister of finance keeps, so they tried to accommodate him when he was in town and not here in the House with all his legislative responsibilities.
So, Mr. Speaker, I am not in defiance of any committee of this House, nor do 1 intend to be in defiance of any committee of this House. If the House of Commons finance committee had ignored my suggestions to them and had told me that they were inviting me to come to the committee before Governor Bouey and would not consider anything else, what option would 1 have as a member of this House but to go? I would have therefore gone as requested, but it would have been unreasonable.
If hon. members opposite are upset because I am supposed to have refused to go before the House of Commons finance committee, they have nothing to be upset about. I hope that my explanation will put their minds at rest. 1 am and always will be a humble servant of the House of Commons finance committee and of this House.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the President of Privy Council (Mr. Baker) would clarify which minister will be reporting to the House of Commons concerning the northern gas pipeline. A statement from the Prime Minister's office a few days ago indicated that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Senator de Cotret, would be responsible for this project, but it did not indicate which minister would be responding to questions within the House. Nor is there an indication in another statement from Senator de Cotret whether this matter has been delegated to one of his junior ministers here in the House. I find it passing strange that the largest private enterprise project in Canadian history would be turned over by a minister here in the House to a minister not present in the House. 1 would like to know who will be responsible for this matter in
Privilege-Mr. Rodriguez
situations such as appearing before the Standing Committee on Northern Pipelines. Could the President of Privy Council clarify that matter for me, please?
Hon Walter Baker (President of Privy Council and Minister of National Revenue): Mr. Speaker, I would assume that the minister responsible will be appearing before the committee, if that is what is concerning the hon. member. If there is any question which I have missed, I would be happy to discuss that matter with him.


Maurice Brydon Foster: The matter of questions in the House.


Walter David Baker: With respect to answers in the House, I can be responsible for those answers, subject to whatever change may follow.


PRIVILEGE
Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the question of privilege spoken to by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) if I am not mistaken, and if my memory serves me correctly, he just told the House that he was never invited by the finance committee to appear before the committee before Governor Bouey. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke) is present in the House, and he is the chairman of the finance committee.


John Carnell Crosbie: I never said that.


Bob Rae: Hansard will have recorded what the minister said, but that is my recollection of what he said. The clear understanding at the meeting of the steering committee was that the Minister of Finance would appear first. We then went away for the weekend. When we returned I read in the notice of the next meeting that on Tuesday night we would be considering the future program. I immediately phoned the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra and asked what was happening, because I had understood that on Tuesday night we would be considering estimates. At that time the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra said, and I am quoting him from memory, "Crosbie wants Bouey to go first."
That is what the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra told me. Is the Minister of Finance telling this House that he did not have conversations with the member for Vancouver Quadra, at which time the hon. member had a moral obligation to tell the Minister of Finance what the unanimous wishes of the steering committee were? Is the Minister of Finance telling this House that he did not express some concern to the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra about the order in which people would be presented to the finance committee?

October 25, 1979
Privilege-Mr. Rodriguez


John Carnell Crosbie: To settle that point, Mr. Speaker, the point I made was that 1 have not refused to go before the House of Commons finance committee. The House of Commons finance committee originally suggested, after I had written and told them what days I was available on, that they wanted me to appear before Governor Bouey. I sent back a message-I was not speaking to them myself-to say that Governor Bouey would wish to appear before me and I agreed with him, and I would like Governor Bouey to appear before me. It was my preference. 1 did not say it was not my preference that Governor Bouey appear before me. Therefore, the members on the House of Commons steering committee who belong to my party-presumably the other members were unreasonable and did not agree-voted to change the House of Commons finance committee invitation so that they invited Governor Bouey first.
The point I am making, Mr. Speaker, is that I have not refused to go before the House of Commons finance committee and I do not refuse to go. Because I am anxious to get before the House of Commons finance committee, I will go there next week as planned.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are other members who want to participate in this non-point of order. I ruled yesterday when it was first raised with respect to the business of the committee and with respect to dealing with a steering committee report and how that report is formulated, but more important, how it is taken into consideration by any committee, that that is the business of the committee.
It is always the function of a standing committee to accept or reject or otherwise deal with in the whole committee any steering committee report. The steering committee report, as is well known, has no validity in and of itself unless some action is taken upon it by the committee.
More important than that, it is a clear and well established point that this House does not sit in a procedural court of appeal on the proceedings of the standing committees. The matter was first raised as to whether or not invitations had been extended. Whether the report of the steering committee was accepted or rejected or acted upon or followed properly in the standing committee is, in fact, none of the concern of this House and I think it should stay that way.


Mr. Herbert:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point of order deals directly with the record of Hansard and an apparent desire on the part of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) to correct what is recorded in Hansard where it says "I will appear", and then he added "after the governor of the Bank of Canada has been heard by the committee."
The statement he has made just now appears to imply that he wants Hansard corrected. I should like to know if that is what he means or did he-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
[Mr. Rae.J


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) raises a point of order as to whether or not the Minister of Finance asked for a correction in Hansard. The minister did not ask for a correction in Hansard.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table in both official languages certified copies of PC 19792783, which is the order in council establishing acting prime ministers, ministers and their first and second acting ministers, to replace the one that I filed two or three days after the House began, to bring the record up to date. If it would be convenient, I would have no objection at all to having it attached to Hansard of this day.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.
[Editor s Note: For document above referred to, see Appendix.]


WAYS AND MEANS
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 60 I wish to table two notices of ways and means motions to amend the Income Tax Act and to amend the Excise Tax Act. I would ask you to designate orders of the day necessary for the consideration thereof.


Mr. Speaker:: Motions. The hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer) on a point of order.


Mr. Speyer:: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I tried to be recognized with respect to tabling of documents. I take it that time has now passed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is seeking to table a document in his capacity as a parliamentary secretary. Perhaps he might want to consult with his House leader to see whether or not that properly could be done tomorrow.
October 25, 1979


MOTIONS TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have received two applications this morning pursuant to Standing Order 26. Both relate to the question of interest rates. The first was given to me by the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Andras) and the second by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae).
The hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, relevant to that notice of motion which we gave you this morning, pursuant to Standing Order 26,1 move that this House do now adjourn for the purpose of debating a specific and important matter affecting the nation's economy, namely the increase yesterday of Canada's interest rates to 14 per cent, the highest level in this country's history.


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, I intend to move the following motion this afternoon. 1 ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), to move the adjournment of the House under the provisions of Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing an important and specific matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the latest increase in the bank rate announced by the Bank of Canada last night, pushing interest rates in this country to record levels at a time when economic growth is declining and economic stimulus is needed, and specifically the approval by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) of yet another interest rate increase at a time when the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs is attempting to determine whether such monetary policy is in the best interests of the Canadian economy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Both hon. members, as 1 indicated, gave me notice this morning, in proper form pursuant to Standing Order 26, which gave me the opportunity to consider the matter. Both have now read, as is proper within the terms of the standing order, the motion which they wouid propose, or at least the reasons for which they would propose to move the adjournment of the House, as is the proper form pursuant to Standing Order 26, to consider a matter which in their opinion, pursuant to subparagraph 16(a), may qualify as an emergency.
I do not have to go to that paragraph to set aside these applications at this time. Subparagraph (5) reads as follows:
In determining whether a matter should have urgent consideration, Mr. Speaker shall have regard to the extent to which it concerns the administrative responsibilities of the government or could come within the scope of ministerial action-
Order Paper Question
Here are the important words:
-and he also shall have regard to the probability of the matter being brought before the House within reasonable time by other means.
Obviously, it would be impossible under the terms of that section to ignore the fact that on one of the first days of this session, upon an application, as I recall, by a member of the official opposition pursuant to Standing Order 43, a motion was put before the House to have this matter of interest rates referred to a standing committee of the House. That motion was put and upon unanimous consent it was adopted.
As a result of that vote of the House the matter is now before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, which is meeting to consider this matter. In fact, only today reference was made to the fact that a meeting was held this morning and that a witness testified there. Several questions have been directed to the attendance there by the governor of the Bank of Canada, and in turn the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie). For me to ignore that the House is now considering that matter in that forum would seem to me to run entirely contrary to the sense of paragraph (5) of Standing Order 26. I therefore do not think it would be proper to use Standing Order 26 in this way while the matter is being considered by a committee of the House.




[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Kilgour (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 299.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


FEDERAL CHARTER-NUMBER OF CORPORATIONS IN EACH PROVINCE
Mr. Herbert: What is the number, by province, of corporations that have a federal charter?


Hon. Allan Lawrence (Solicitor General and Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Newfoundland	88
Nova Scotia	367
Prince Edward Island	185
New Brunswick	258
Quebec	39,980
Ontario	14,475
Manitoba	1,288
606

October 25, 1979
Income Tax Act
Saskatchewan	323
Alberta	2,030
British Columbia	1,014
North West Territories	109
Yukon	14
Total	60,131


Mr. Speaker:: The question enumerated by the parliamentary secretary, No. 299, has been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


John Carnell Crosbie: that a ways and means motion to amend the Income Tax Act, laid upon the table Tuesday, October 23, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


INCOME TAX APPLICATION RULES, 1971
John Carnell Crosbie: that a ways and means motion to amend the Income Tax Application Rules, 1971, laid upon the table Tuesday, October 23, 1979, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

John Carnell Crosbie: that Bill C-17, to amend the statute law relating to income tax and to amend the Canada Pension Plan, be read a first time.


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

John Carnell Crosbie: that a ways and means motion to amend the Customs Tariff, laid upon the table Tuesday, October 23, 1979, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

John Carnell Crosbie: that a ways and means motion to amend the New Zealand Trade Agreement, 1932, laid upon the table Tuesday, October 23, 1979, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

John Carnell Crosbie: that a ways and means motion to amend the Australian Trade Agreement Act, 1960, laid upon the table Tuesday, October 23, 1979, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

John Carnell Crosbie: that a ways and means motion to amend the Union of South Africa Trade Agreement Act, 1932, laid upon the table Tuesday, October 23, 1979, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

John Carnell Crosbie: that Bill C-18, to amend the Customs Tariff and to make certain amendments to the New Zealand Trade Agreement Act, 1932, the Australian Trade Agreement Act, 1960 and the Union of South Africa Trade Agreement Act, 1932, be read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
October 25, 1979

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, October 23, 1979, consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie that Bill C-10, to provide supplementary borrowing authority for the fiscal year 1979-80, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, when I noted that it was ten o'clock on Tuesday, October 23, 1 was saying that one of the main reasons why I wanted to speak about Bill C-10 was that even though this bill looked quite simple since it only authorizes the government to borrow some money, it was still quite important as it mentions confidence in the economic and fiscal policy of the government.
And when there is reference to that, Mr. Speaker, attitudes should be mentioned, and our position in the official opposition, the position of other members, is that of defending oneself against the attitude of ministers.
Mr. Speaker, 1 was saying that one of the reasons why I am taking part in this debate is indeed the attitude of the Minister of Finance on October 23, when early in the day he answered a very simple and polite question put by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) pursuant to standing orders. The Minister of Finance today tried to give explanations, and I recognize his humility. If he wants to remain as humble, he might very well have less difficulty in the future having such simple bills go through.
On this subject, I would like to say we would like to help his House leader and the Prime Minister, who indicated they wanted reform in the House of Commons, not only in our structures but in the attitude of the government in the House. It is for this reason among others that 1 am acting today to teach a small lesson to the Minister of Finance. He tried to explain this away by stating he never refused to get involved with the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.

It is very nice for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) to find his humility all of a sudden and become a humble member of this House by saying that he never refused an invitation from the Finance committee to attend its sitting. That is not the issue. First of all, the issue is the attitude of the Minister of Finance with regard to members on this side of the House and with regard to the finance committee. His attitude in sending to the committee his parliamentary secretary, who is a new member of this House-one cannot blame him because he does not understand the traditions of this House and the sensitivities of hon. members-I cannot understand. He sent his parliamentary secretary to a finance committee meeting last Tuesday evening, Mr. Speaker.
Borrowing Authority


Mr. Kempling:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are discussing a borrowing bill, are we not? What do the remarks made by the hon. member have to do with the borrowing bill?


Herb Breau: You will find out.


William James Kempling: Let us get on with the business.


Herb Breau: Do I have the floor, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yes.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, I will ignore the intervention made by the official government whip because I do not believe it is relevant enough for me to spend much time on it.
A new member of this House is parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance. What I am saying is relevant because we are talking about the attitude and behaviour of the Minister of Finance and we are now discussing a bill brought forward by him. Therefore, the House of Commons and Parliament is being asked to approve the policies of the Minister of Finance and decide whether or not we give him the authority to borrow $7 billion. In my opinion, it is crucial that we examine and criticize the attitude of the minister.
What does the minister do? The steering committee had decided-and please note that the Conservative party had a majority in the steering committee-to invite the Minister of Finance to attend the committee meeting. The hon. member for York East (Mr. Ritchie) had this to say at the meeting of the committee on Tuesday evening:
Mr. Chairman, some indication of what we are going to be debating has already been given, although earlier today 1 did not know that would likely be the case.
"Earlier today" meant when the steering committee met and drafted a report. At this time the committee was considering the report of the subcommittee. The hon. member went on to
say:
As you all know, at the time that this report was being prepared by the steering committee one of the prime actors-
And the prime actor had to be the Minister of Finance. The hon. member went on to say:
-to which it referred was unaware of what it was going to say, and he had some opinions on it which he has since indicated. I would like to give some of the reasons for those opinions if I might.
The parliamentary secretary went on to explain to the committee that, because the Minister of Finance did not wish to come before the committee, he was going to change his mind. After the steering committee had made a report the Committee went on to force a vote and voted against its own subcommittee report. That is what the Conservative party did last Tuesday evening.
The Finance minister called him his representative; he said his parliamentary secretary had changed his mind. I am not concerned about the substance because 1 thought the Minister of Finance's substantive reason for not going before the committee, while I disagree with it, was reasonably good. But why did the Minister of Finance not have the courage to let the

October 25, 1979
Borrowing Authority
steering committee make a decision? Why not let committees of this House operate with some independence, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) said they would? Why did the Minister of Finance not allow the committee to invite him, then write a letter and say: No, for such and such reason 1 do not think I should go?
Let the committee and this House of Commons judge his conduct, instead of going behind-derriere les coulisses-the halls of Parliament in a private meeting with his parliamentary secretary and telling him to go to the committee and change his mind. That is not the way Parliament works.
1 must say to the Minister of Finance that I was impressed by some things the Prime Minister has said about reform in Parliament. For 11 years I have been a private member in this House. I have never been part of the cabinet. Therefore, I was happy to see the Prime Minister recognize that reform of Parliament did not only deal with its structure but with attitude. He stated his government would have an open attitude toward Parliament and would respect members of Parliament and give them an opportunity to obstruct. During the throne speech debate he stated members of Parliament would be given an opportunity to be independent, that they would have some degree of automony and would be able to force the government to do certain things.
I wish to deal briefly with something the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker) said on Tuesday evening regarding my participation in this debate. I quote from page 539 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, we will be proceeding with amendments to the Post Office Act tomorrow. I presume we will not have the intemperate display of obstruction we observed from hon. members just a few moments ago, given the fact that what the House is really doing now is dealing with the former government's own bill. It is like spanking your mother; it is not supposed to be done.
This bill is not the former government's bill. The hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) explained that on Tuesday. Last winter the former government asked Parliament to increase the borrowing authority of the government to $10 billion. The Conservatives said that could not be done before a budget was presented and as a result the bill was split. The Minister of Finance now has to come and ask for a $7 billion authority because he and his colleagues forced the government to split the bill. The former government then asked Parliament for an authority of $3 billion.
On June 4 this government took office and at that time there was an ample cash balance. There was no need for a borrowing authority. There is now a need. Therefore, I do not accept that this is the doing of the former government.
I appreciate that the Minister of Finance wanted to be humble today and explain that he really did not want to refuse an invitation by the committee. The committee should be allowed to do its work. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke) is in a very difficult position because of the actions of the Minister of Finance. That member is a very competent chairman of the finance committee. Members on

this side supported his election. When he sat on this side of the House he was a very hard working member. He is a professional chartered accountant, a man who can really do a good job in the sense that the Prime Minister says he wants to reform and thereby give more independence to members of Parliament.
The Minister of Finance has humiliated this man, having him vote against his own steering committee report. The minister will learn that is not the way to deal with the steering committee or the finance committee. Nor is it the way to deal with members of Parliament, as he did the other day with the hon. member for Vaudreuil. In his explanation today, the minister tried to say that it was not so bad. However, as recorded at page 504 of Hansard the hon. member for Vaudreuil rose during a legitimate debate. We had just agreed to give unanimous consent to a motion to cut off the study of estimates in committee. The hon. member for Vaudreuil stated that now that the minister had changed his mind and we on this side were being co-operative, would the minister accept his responsibility for fiscal policy and appear before the finance committee. The jolly old Minister of Finance then became arrogant. This is what he said:
Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is talking through his hat. I have not refused to appear before the finance committee. I am quite willing to appear before the House of Commons finance committee .... I will appear when I am in town and after the governor of the Bank of Canada has been heard by the committee.
Who the hell is he, at three o'clock on Tuesday afternoon, to decide who the finance committee is to invite? The finance committee only made its decision close to ten o'clock in the evening. The minister was being arrogant with Parliament. If the finance committee was going to invite him, was he going to say no? The minister went on to say:
There is no one opposite whose questions I hesitate to answer. When I come before the committee I hope the hon. gentleman is there to ask a few questions.
The minister comes here and says that he is the boss and will appear before the committee when he is in town. I will not accept that. The hon. member for Vaudreuil and this party will not accept that arrogance. The Prime Minister wants to reform Parliament and the President of the Privy Council wants the business of this House to run smoothly. Therefore, we have to signal something here. The Minister of Finance tried to bully members of this House, even those of his own party. He had his parliamentary secretary do that. And he has answered a private member in a very arrogant manner.
I firmly believe that what the Prime Minister said about the attitude of the government is very important. Over the 11 years that I have been here, the House of Commons has run on mood and attitude. The structure does not matter. If the mood is good, legislation goes through. However, that is not the case when the minister tries to get tough. Therefore, because of what the Minister of Finance has done, and in order to teach him a lesson, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vaudreuil:
That the debate be now adjourned.
October 25, 1979


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 25, such a motion is not debatable. I therefore will put it to the Elouse. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the quickest way to evacuate the House is for me to get up to speak.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: 1 obviously do not have the charisma of the hon. member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien) or the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), Mr. Speaker, but I could not resist getting up to speak for a few moments on a bill that is presented to the House by an old friend, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie)-old "Scrooge MacCrosbie" over there who is bound and determined, now that he is on the treasury benches, to do all he can to make things tougher and tighter for the ordinary people of this country.
I have spent a lot of time reading old Scrooge MacCrosbie speeches made when he was sitting in opposition. He spoke then of the inflation rate being too high and how it was hurting little people, how the interest rate was too high and was hurting ordinary people, how the high interest rate was hurting the maritime provinces and Newfoundland. He said that when he got into government he would wave a magic wand and remedy all these problems. All of a sudden he is in government and he has turned into a real Scrooge. He is tightening the screws on the treasury.


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

October 25, 1979
Borrowing Authority


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Saint John (Mr. Ferguson).


Eric W. Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, the words "old Scrooge" do not seem to sit very well with me as a new member. I wonder if this is really parliamentary language.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Well, Mr. Speaker, I see you are not going to rule on this but if you did I would change the word to "clown".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I have learned all these things from watching the Minister of Finance when he was in opposition, listening to his rhetoric and reading his speeches. It strikes me as strange that there would be such a conversion on the road to Damascus as we have seen by this minister across the way. Before the election he and his party were the progressive party; after the election they became the Conservative party. Perhaps we can now call them the regressive Conservative party, Mr. Speaker.
Just before the debate the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) remarked to me that perhaps the new name for the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) should be "R. B. Clark" because of the economic policies he is following in this nation which perhaps are leading us into another recession that might be even more serious than the great recession. But it strikes me as rather strange that the Minister of Finance should pick as his first bill to introduce to the Canadian Parliament and the Canadian people a bill to borrow $7 billion. It is especially strange because the Conservative party spent so much time in opposition talking about the national debt being too high and how it would wipe out the national debt. It said it would not have deficit financing, yet the first bill that has been brought into the House is a bill to increase the national debt.
I did some research to see whether or not the Conservative party really believes in reducing the national debt in Canada. I looked at what some Conservative party governments were doing in comparison to other political parties across Canada. For instance, in Alberta, which has a Conservative government, despite its wealth the average per capita debt in 1976 was $1,880. But in the province of Saskatchewan, which has had a NDP government for years-and we are always being accused of having grandiose schemes; even an Alberta friend of mine accuses us of that once in a while-its per capita debt was only $980.
Then we have wealthy Ontario, where "Big Billy" is now dancing and fighting against "Little Joe". With about 40 years of Conservative governments, what was the per capita debt in Ontario? It was $2,059. And what about Newfoundland, where the Minister of Finance cut his teeth and did his training? Under that tremendous leader, Joey Smallwood, and later on under another tremendous leader, Frank Moores, the per capita debt in that province was $3,274. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that those statistics show where the Conservative party really stands. It will not keep the debt where it is. It will increase the national debt in this country and put an even larger burden upon the children of the nation who will be growing up, working and living here in the years ahead.
I ask why. Why is Scrooge MacCrosbie doing this? Why is this guy, this gallant Newfoundlander who is taking food from the children and making it difficult to put clothes on their backs, doing this? He says, "Well, we have to borrow money; we have to increase interest rates." Interest rates are the highest ever in this country. The rate is 14 per cent. They are the highest ever in the country. He says, "We have to do that because we have to support the Canadian dollar; we have to borrow that money so we can pay off the debts which the previous government ran up."
We are borrowing money to pay off our debts. We are increasing our debt so we have to borrow even more money to pay it off. That is like taking an enormously obese person and trying to remedy his obesity by feeding him with candies and cake. This government is making the problem worse by borrowing more and more money in order to pay off the debt which the Liberal government for years and years ran up. Unfortunately, my friend from St. John's is following and pursuing exactly the same course as his predecessors.
Why do we have the problem? Why does the dollar drop? Why is the Bank of Canada increasing the interest rate? I think the reason is relatively simple. The dollar is a reflection of our economy. It is a mirror. When the Minister of Finance gets up in the morning he looks in the mirror and sees himself. So too is the dollar a mirror. It reflects the economy of this country. The currencies of Germany, Japan, France and Switzerland are strong because the economies of those countries are strong. They are strong because they have had some sound economic planning. They have done their own things. They have manufactured their own goods and they have made the best possible use of the manpower and skill they have. Yet in this country we have not been doing that at all. Just look at the outflow of money in dividends and interest from Canada because of the tremendous foreign ownership that we have. I hear some Conservatives interjecting across the way, defending once again the policies of the former Liberal government, I suppose.


Mr. Benjamin:: No difference.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: But I look at the facts. It seems the hon. member is concerned about being in bed with the Liberal party. I suggest if he goes to bed with the Liberal party he had better keep a firm hold on his pyjamas.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: We are speaking from experience.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: 1 do not know which interjectors are easier to handle, the one from my own caucus or the ones from across the way.
[Mr. Ferguson.1
October 25, 1979

I am trying to be serious. In 1977, for example, there was an outflow from Canada of approximately $240 million in the form of dividends and interest because of foreign ownership and foreign equity. In 1978 that figure increased to over $2 billion. I say again $2 billion. So we have a government across the way that is borrowing more and more money to pay off all these debts. It is allowing more and more foreign ownership in this country. It intends to privatize more and more firms and turn over more and more control of our economy to private and foreign hands. We see this as having a negative effect on the economy.
We in this party say that we need a real change in Canada. We need an economic and an industrial strategy to start doing our own things. We need to take control of our economy by processing our own goods from our own raw materials. We need to start to manufacture the things we are using. We need that industrial strategy. Unless we have it we will have more of the same thing. This means a sagging dollar, more and more borrowing, more and more foreign ownership and control and more and more increases in the bank rate.
I suggest that we do nationally what is being done in the province of Saskatchewan, that is, to plan the economy, to take control of resources, to develop them for ourselves, to keep the profits from those resources at home and to keep the jobs in processing those resources in the hands of Canadians instead of having raw materials processed elsewhere. The province of Quebec is devising an economic policy based on cheap hydro power from the James Bay plants that are coming onstream. Even before the days of James Bay, hydro rates in Quebec for industry were 50 per cent cheaper than they were in Ontario and 100 per cent cheaper than in many parts of the United States.
May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: Order, please. 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 Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Veterans Affairs-Prorata pensions for certain widows-Introduction of amending legislation; the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen)- Public Service-Review of personnel management and the merit principle-Application of principles in report; the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Cyr)-Fisheries-Cod quotas in Gulf of St. Lawrence.
It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's
Foreign Economic Boycotts
order paper, namely notices of motions, private bills, public bills. There being no items on the order paper under the heading "notices of motions (papers)" and "private bills", the House will proceed to public bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The first item of business is notices of motions (papers). As you have correctly stated, there are no items on the order paper at the present time under notices of motions (papers). I do not think this point should be lost as there are over two dozen notices of motions for the production of papers that have been on the order paper since the start of this session. The government has introduced an access to information bill. The government does not seem inclined to produce either the papers or to account for the fact that it is not introducing those papers.
I just want to bring that to Your Honour's attention. The first item of business should have been consideration of the item "notices of motions (papers)". There is no consideration of such a motion because of the inaction of the government in producing papers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: I say to the hon. member for Vaudreuil that there has been no transfer of motions to the order paper at this time. Therefore, order No. 1 in the name of the hon. member for Esqimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) will stand at the request of the government. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: Shall item No. 2 in the
name of the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: The House will now proceed to item No. 3.


FOREIGN ECONOMIC BOYCOTT REQUESTS REPORTING ACT
Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre) moved: that Bill C-203, to provide for the reporting of information relating to foreign economic boycott requests, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.

October 25, 1979
Foreign Economic Boycotts
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the first period in this Parliament for private members' public bills. I am honoured and lucky-because it partly results from the official lottery held by the Speaker-to be able to speak on the first private member's bill and to have my bill respecting foreign economic boycotts be the bill for consideration in this first hour.
I am particularly happy to be able to do this because I am delighted to recall for the government and members opposite commitments made in the last Parliament by members of the Conservative party, including its leader, and during the election campaign by the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark), to take seriously, as he put it, bills put forward by private members. This is such a bill. Too often in the past it was the practice for private members' bills to be talked out and not permitted to be referred to committee or be discussed. 1 hope that in the spirit the Prime Minister showed before the opening of this session this bill will indeed be referred to committee for consideration. I look forward to that consideration.
There are other members who may want to speak on the bill and a lot will depend on my being brief. I will be as brief as possible in order to give those members a chance to speak without the bill being talked out at six o'clock and so that it can be referred to committee instead of dropping to the bottom of the list. I hope that will not happen.
I have good reason to be confident that will not happen because Bill C-203 ought to look very familiar to all members of the House. It is an exact copy-both the French and English are identical-of Bill C-32 which stood on the order paper at the conclusion of the last Parliament.
Bill C-32 had a very special procedure associated with it and a very special history. In the closing days of the last Parliament, that bill was accepted by members of the opposition who are now the government. Their official party position was in support of that bill. Therefore, we have the government committed in advance to support Bill C-203, not only in principle but in effect every word in the bill. I say this because they indicated they were prepared to give their unanimous consent to dealing with that bill in one day and seeing it passed.
At the same time my own party, the Liberal party, was also in favour of the bill. I am glad to be able to report that my party remains committed to what was Bill C-32 and is now Bill C-203. Therefore, the two principal parties are in favour of it.
Furthermore, in the last Parliament the NDP indicated that they too were in favour of this bill. They would have given it the three readings in one day. Therefore, what we have before us is not an ordinary private member's bill but one which was a public bill of the government at the end of the last Parliament. It had been unanimously accepted by all parties in the House. It did not proceed as all parties would have wanted because two or three members, certainly not more, withheld the unanimous consent which was required to deal with the bill under the special procedure being proposed by the then House leader.
This bill does not need to be discussed very much before reference to committee, but I do want to say a couple of things

about it. First, I know that it is not entirely satisfactory to many members in the House. The government proposed four amendments which I did not include in the bill because I did not want to alter it from the state it was in when it had unanimous consent. I too had proposed some amendments to Bill C-32. I would still like to see some amendments when it gets to committee and we discuss it. I did not put my amendments into it because I did not want to diminish the unanimity this bill had when it was on the list of government bills.
I read in the newspapers, and members opposite can speak about this, a statement attributed to the House leader that the boycott legislation no longer has the high priority the government indicated it once had. I want to take a moment to urge the government not to consider Bill C-203 as part of the issues being dealt with in connection with the move of the Canadian embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem or with the Stanfield mission.
The bill refers to the Arab boycott and it derives from events in the Middle East, there is no doubt about that. However, it is an entirely internal piece of legislation that has to do with the civil rights of Canadians. It does not have anything to do with the relationship between Canada and countries in the Middle East. It has nothing to do with the conflict. Is has nothing to do with the primary boycott, which is the business of Israel, not Canada, the business of the Arab countries, and not directly the business of this Parliament.
Bill C-203 is designed to do what my earlier bill which received unanimous consent and party approval was designed to do, simply to assure that the Arab boycott had no internal application in Canada to diminish the civil liberties of any Canadians. That is the issue. The issue is not the resolution of events in the Middle East.
I recall the Prime Minister saying he believed the move of the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem would contribute to bringing peace to the Middle East. I have a text of those remarks. I did not agree with him. Events have shown it was a regrettable decision that he reached. However, we are not going to consult with parties in the Middle East, as Mr. Stanfield is doing, regarding the civil liberties of Canadians within Canada. I do not think Mr. Stanfield asked the PLO whether the civil liberties of any groups of Canadians should be protected. I do not believed he asked the Prime Minister of Israel or the President of Egypt about that. It has nothing to do with issues between parties in the Middle East. It has everything to do with the civil liberties of Canadians.
The tertiary effect of the Arab boycott would require companies complying with the boycott to discriminate against their employees, customers and suppliers on the ground that they were Jewish. I look forward to hearing the support of all members for the protection of civil liberties on something as fundamental as that.
Since, there are others who wish to speak on the bill, I should like only to remind members that in its present form this is a reporting bill. It is not a bill which requires trade not
October 25, 1979

to take place, it is not a bill which prohibits the entering into of contracts and so on. It simply requires that Canadian enterprises which are asked to comply with an Arab boycott as a condition of conducting business should notify a government agency. It is a very mild piece of legislation. I have indicated what its direction is, and I have indicated that I would be ready to consider amendments when it reaches committee. In that spirit I urge the government to follow the policy it indicated it would follow, that of not automatically stamping out private members' bills, by allowing this bill to proceed to committee for consideration.
Finally, I note that according to the order paper the bill, if passed, stands to be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. It was my instruction that it ought to be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, which I think is the more appropriate committee since it deals with civil liberties legislation. I do not want the bill to be held up on that account but, if appropriate, I might at a later stage seek Your Honour's consent to have the bill referred to that committee.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) for having the wisdom to resurrect this bill from the order paper of the previous Parliament and present it as a private member's bill.
As far as the draw is concerned, I was there when the draw took place and it is rather interesting that the first two bills were stood and the hon. member's bill is the first to be presented in this Parliament in private members' hour. I would have preferred that the hon. member's bill had been drawn further down the list because that would have allowed time for certain changes the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) is contemplating in the conduct of private members' business.
I have a great deal of sympathy for this bill. I believe the hon. member for York Centre knows my views on the whole area of boycotts, and economic boycotts in particular. I took a month's trip through the Middle East in the course of which I visited several Arab countries as well as Israel, and on my return I produced a paper for the Prime Minister on the subject of economic boycotts. In fact, I myself put forward a private member's bill in the last Parliament dealing with this subject, but unfortunately it was not in a position to proceed and never saw the light of day.
When this bill of mine was put forward, the internal details of the measure were not presented. I withheld them on purpose. I held them back as long as possible while I was awaiting a call from the desk to tell me that the bill was likely to come up and be sent to the printer. This was a conscious procedure because I know this was a very delicate subject then, as is the case today. I delayed the internal content of the bill from the printer's hands in the hope, first of all, that the central issues would be resolved. I had a great deal of hope when President Carter and Mr. Begin got together; I thought that they and the President of Egypt were really going to make a lot of progress in a hurry. Perhaps I was over-optimistic at that time.
Foreign Economic Boycotts
In trade and commerce we like to see the least possible amount of regulation so that trade is allowed to move in normal fashion. I found varying degrees of concern. I found, first of all, that the Canadian companies which were on the boycott list had apparently been drawn from an old issue of the Directory of Directors put out by the Financial Post and that many of the companies listed were no longer in business. Others had been merged and consolidated and their names had been changed, so the list was not very accurate.
When I talked with officials in Iraq and Syria I found varying degrees of concern-the feeling in no way resembled that which I encountered among business people I talked to in Cairo. The attitude seemed to be: if we want what you have, we shall find a way to get it regardless of any boycott. For example, if hon. members would look at the original boycott list they would see that the Ford Motor Company is listed. Yet the Ford Motor Company today has a plant in Cairo where it produces trucks and tractors. We have had an ongoing concern with the progress of events in the Middle East, and with that in mind the Prime Minister, as everyone knows, has sent Mr. Stanfield over to look not only into the proposed move of the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, but into the whole matter of the boycott.
It is the intention I believe, from the information I have, to introduce a bill dealing with this subject in the New Year. I do not know whether the content will differ greatly from that which the hon. member has outlined. I look forward to having his co-operation and input at that time because I know he has a deep concern with these matters, as we all do. But I must tell the hon. member now that it is our intention to talk this bill out today because we believe the report to be presented by Mr. Stanfield will have an impact on whatever legislation we bring forward in the New Year. Thus, while I have a great deal of sympathy for the hon. member's intentions and appreciate his bringing the bill forward, we cannot at this time refer it to a committee.
From my experience, people engaged in commerce have always considered themselves above the politics of a situation. In fact, if one looks to history one finds that the traders have usually preceded the diplomats. The problem which arises here is that actions taken by certain countries in the Middle East appear to be transgressing the civil rights of Canadians. The hon. member may be interested to know that my first experience with this so-called boycott was when some people who were selling for cash to a Middle East country found that the enforcer of the boycott was actually the bank through which they were doing business. I found it surprising that they had a sale. The deal was completed and they had not complied with any of the boycott requests. They stayed clear of them. They said, "No, we don't want to sign that," but when it came to collecting on the letter of credit and getting their money, in order to get their money they had to sign some documents or they would not have been paid. That was what sparked my interest in the whole matter.
614

October 25, 1979
Foreign Economic Boycotts
My own view is that we should proceed something along this line: we should respect the human rights of Canadians in this matter. I would prefer to see a bill in which there is no reference at all to any particular ethnic group. In other words, I do not want to see a statute on our books which refers to Arabs, Jews or any other racial group. I think it would be wrong. I think we should look at it in this sense: we should prefer to see a prohibition on the transmission of any information regarding a Canadian citizen's racial origin, religion, political affiliation or the racial origin, religion or political affiliation of any Canadian director, employee or officer of any company.
I would like to see this prohibition put into any legislation dealing with trade and commerce. In other words, in a commercial transaction between a Canadian company and a company outside Canada there should be a prohibition in Canadian law against any mention whatsoever of an individual's race, religion, political affiliation or anything of that nature. If we leave it as open as that, that would pretty well cover the situation.
We recognize that a state of war exists, theoretically, between Syria and Israel, Iraq and Israel and some other Arab countries and Israel. That is a fact, we recognize it, and they have a right to say who they do business with. If they do not want to do business with a certain nation, they have a right to a primary boycott. They have a right to say which shipping lines come into their ports. They have a right to be suspicious of a shipping vessel which stops at a port of their theoretical enemy, and they have a right not to allow that ship to go from the port of their enemy to their own port without serious restrictions. However, beyond that we should prefer to see the whole matter as free and open as possible, because commerce finds a way to handle these matters. I think that if we leave it there we will be able to serve Canada best.
I am upset when I read reports about what is going on in the Middle East. I think some of the statements made in Canada by people who are not very well informed on events in the Middle East tend to inflame the situation. Constantly keeping the matter in the headlines works against a solution. I am a great believer in quiet diplomacy. I have a great respect for people of the calibre of Mr. Stanfield. I know he has a great and deep feeling about the difficulties in the Middle East, and I know he will bring in a report which is detailed and comprehensive. It will be something upon which we will be able to base some solid and meaningful legislation which will be fair to all concerned.
This subject is charged with emotion, and I think we reach a time in these things when we have to cool our feelings, sit back and look at them calmly and coolly and listen to the wisdom of those who have been there, gathered details and listened to the wisdom of our embassy people and our trade people. Only then should we put together and bring forward a piece of legislation which would help us deal with this problem as we go down the road.
I do not think we are going to solve the problem totally. There will always be some people inside and outside Canada who disagree with what we do. I note that many states of the United States have brought forward anti-boycott legislation. The United States has brought forward anti-boycott legislation. We could rush into this right now, but perhaps after we have read the report which will be made by Mr. Stanfield we will wish we had let matters rest for a few more months.
This matter has been on the table for a long time. It was on the table for the previous government for a long time, and we urged several times that it be brought forward. We talked about it very seriously in our caucus. I think the hon. member will agree that we really should wait and hear what Mr. Stanfield has to say. I do not think that waiting for another 90 days or 120 days will be too difficult for us. I know the Prime Minister is greatly concerned about this matter. Several of my colleagues have expressed their concerns several times. I know that the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Wilson) is very concerned about potential losses of trade in the Middle East.
I talked with our trade people in Iraq, in Syria and in Egypt about the boycott, and they all told me more or less the same story. They said that every time the subject of boycott legislation is raised in the House of Commons, whatever trade negotiations are going on between Canadian companies and companies in the Middle East come to a standstill. In other words, the fact that we are even thinking of introducing boycott legislation causes many deals just to stop. The fact that we are talking about this causes a slowdown in negotiations or causes them to be stalled. It was two years ago now, but when I was in Iraq I believe there was a contract being negotiated for aircraft refuelling equipment and tanks in a system. One of the members of the government of the day, the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), asked a question about when the government was going to introduce antiboycott legislation. He also asked a supplementary. At the time I was told that two days later there was knowledge of the question in Iraq, and the deal which was being worked on came to a halt. The parties were ready to sign a contract but they came in and said "It's all off'.
The whole matter of legislation and its introduction is being used as a tactic in commercial negotiations, and that is a tragedy in itself. I think the wise position would be to wait for the report of Mr. Stanfield.


Mr. Prud'homme:: An ambassador extraordinaire.


William James Kempling: My colleague says he is an ambassador extraordinaire. I have a great deal of confidence in him, and I know he is going to make a report on which we can draft some meaningful legislation. That is all I have to say about it. I commend the hon. member for bringing it forward. I just wish it had been a little further down the list so that perhaps we could have got together with him on it and made some changes. But such is the way the draw is made. He has come forward with it at this time and, while we have sympathy for

October 25, 1979

his position, I hope we can talk with him at the time our legislation will be brought forward, and get his support.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, in making his remarks, the hon. member opposite referred to me and said that he was sure I would agree that the matter was a difficult one and that it should be given more consideration. I want to assure the House that I do not agree with that assertion. As 1 proposed the bill, it is totally a matter of civil liberties within Canada. That is all it touches. I cannot understand why consultation should be necessary to determine whether we should protect the civil liberties of Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: Order, please. I think the hon. member is participating in debate.
[ Translation]


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. 1 shall be brief. At the beginning of this debate, we asked if it was acceptable to proceed with Bill C-203, but I think you also said that such was the government's request. It seems this is not completely accurate because the government did not request such a decision from you, sir. I would suggest that Bills C-201 and C-202 are not ready for discussion at this point, and ask whether hon. members would be agreeable to discuss the bill put forward by the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), with unanimous consent, pursuant to Standing Orders 18, 19 and 49, and the finding by Mr. Deputy Speaker of December 5, 1977.

In a word, Your Honour, I think it was a misunderstanding that we proceeded with this bill at the request of the government. As members know, the government can do this but twice in a session; that is my understanding. Therefore I would ask Your Honour to ask hon. members to agree unanimously that we proceed with this bill now, rather than at the request of the government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: The hon. member has asked for unanimous consent.


Claude-André Lachance: On the same point, Mr. Speaker-


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is a nice way to take up time.


Mr. Thomas H. Lefebvre (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, we all realize why the parliamentary secretary has been asked to do this. He mentioned it in his request, so that the postponement is not put under the request of the government. Under the rules, if these bills are asked for twice in the name of the government, they cannot come back.
We will agree with this, provided the Chair and members of the House realize that from time to time there may be members on this side of the House who will have bills in the order which come up for discussion when those members are away for very valid reasons. 1 should remind the House that
Foreign Economic Boycotts
we would expect the same courtesy from the parliamentary secretary, who cannot divorce himself from his duties in representing the government. Therefore, we would agree, but I hope the Chair and the House remembers that it could happen to members of the official opposition or of the other parties as well.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: Is there unanimous consent that the record shall show Bill C-201 and Bill C-202 have been stood by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: The record shall be changed to record the two changes as requested and approved.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) I did not know whether to laugh or cry, because his recounting of the history of this bill was very selective, to say the least.
It is true that Bill C-203 is exactly the same as Bill C-32 which was introduced in the last session of the last Parliament by the then minister of industry, trade and commerce, Mr. Horner. Also it is true that at one point there was agreement on the part of opposition parties to let the bill go through. I will not thrash old straw as to why it did not go through, but the only reason there was agreement to let that bill go through, without extensive debate on the part of a number of opposition members, was that we knew very well the then government had no real desire to get anti-boycott legislation on the books.
The bill introduced by the government of the day was the most to which that government would agree. What that bill did in the last Parliament, and what the bill now before us does, is simply to require individuals or companies, which co-operate with countries involved in boycott operations against Canadian citizens or Canadian companies, to report it to the government, and the government would make it public. There would be no penalty, there would be no censor except publicity.
In the last session we agreed to let that bill through quickly because it was the best we could get. I know the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) was unhappy with the meagreness of that bill, and I assume the hon. member for York Centre was unhappy. Now that he is no longer a member on the government side, I would have thought he would have brought forward a bill which would really do the job. The bill before the House does not really do anything.
I recognize that we are dealing with a very difficult situation. One cannot live in the late 1970s and not realize the tremendous power which oil-producing countries have in our modern industrialized world. One just has to look at the difficulties in which the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) and his government have become involved as a result of the Prime Minister's pledge, when he was leader of the official opposition, to move the Canadian embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. We recognize the difficulties. It might sound like hindsight, but I say to the government whip who has spoken on this

October 25, 1979
Foreign Economic Boycotts
bill that 1 wished at the time, and I still wish, the then leader of the official opposition, the present Prime Minister, had not made that proposal.
I hope I am wrong, but everything I have read to date, and the speech I heard by the government whip today, confirmed my fears that because of the very active opposition of the Arab countries to the proposal to move the embassy, hostility will be expressed in the same manner and to the same degree if there is a proposal to implement real anti-boycott legislation. I hope I am wrong and I hope time will prove me wrong, but I am afraid the government will backtrack on the kind of approach it had when in opposition. The government whip shakes his head. I will be the first one to congratulate those on that side if time proves me wrong.
Let us just spend a few minutes considering why we need boycott legislation. I want to say to the government whip that we agree with him completely when he suggests that legislation should not single out any country or any group of countries. That was not the case in the old Bill C-32 proposed by the then minister of industry, trade and commerce, or Bill C-203 proposed by the hon. member for York Centre, or the case in respect of my Bill C-288. My bill is quite a way down the list and I think it is a much better bill. I do not say that because I have any pride in its authorship. Indeed, it is almost word for word the same as legislation enacted by the province of Ontario, which now has Premier Davis, and has had a Conservative government for more than 30 years.
I agree with the government whip that no legislation should single out one country or any group of countries. If we are going to have legislation of this kind, what we want is legislation that applies to everybody in the same way. What we want is legislation which protects the rights of Canadian individuals and companies, and protects them from being discriminated against because of race, colour or creed, or because they do business with one country or another.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, let me say that we are discussing this kind of a bill because there is an Arab boycott against Israel. That boycott has existed since the creation of the state of Israel in 1948; and since 1973 and the sharp increase in the price of oil, together with the fact that Arab countries control so much of the world's oil supply, that boycott has become much more formidable. It operates at several levels.
The primary boycott is a direct boycott of Israel by the Arab states, by which they refuse to do business with the state of Israel. Canada is not involved in that boycott and has no role to play in it. That is their business, Mr. Speaker.
The secondary boycott is an attempt by Arab states, firms and individuals to pressure firms of other countries, in this case Canada, to refrain from dealing with Israel, or to end certain relationships with Israel, as a condition of trade with Arab states, firms or individuals. This, in effect, compels a Canadian boycott of a country with which Canada has friendly relations and against which Canada has not itself authorized a

boycott. We say that is improper if carried on by another country. Another country should not be interfering with the rights of Canadian citizens or companies.
The tertiary boycott is an attempt to prevent firms of other countries, in this case Canada, from dealing with firms of their own or other non-involved countries because of the latter firm's relationship with Israel, as a condition of doing business with Arab states, firms or individuals.
The secondary and tertiary boycotts constitute direct interference in Canadian economic affairs by the extra-territorial application of Arab laws and regulations. That is what so many people in Canada object to, and we feel that no country has the right to tell us what to do.
As far back as 1975 the then prime minister expressed the views of most Canadians, here in Parliament, when on May 8 of that year he said:
I think it is sufficient to say that this type of practice is alien to everything the government stands for and indeed to what in general Canadian ethics stand for.
Having said that, the then government completely ignored the feelings of the prime minister and simply refused to take any action to implement those feelings and views expressed by the prime minister. Repeated requests for such legislation were ignored or turned down. Requests that companies involved or co-operating with a boycott by the Arab countries should have that information publicized were turned down. It was not until the dying days of the last Parliament, when seized with the realization that there was an election coming and they might have to account to certain groups for their failure to act, did the then government bring forth a bill, to which the hon. member for York Centre has referred and copied.
What does that bill do, Mr. Speaker? That bill simply says that any government or any company in Canada which cooperates in a boycott with another country-we are talking about the Arab countries, but it would be true of any other- should be required by law to report that co-operation to the Government of Canada which would then publicize it. We know from experience that even if we required that, there would be no penalties. Companies would be free to do that. They would get a little bad publicity, but many Canadian companies are used to bad publicity. They get bad publicity when they are found guilty of breaching the anti-combines law. They get bad publicity on many occasions. The desire to make a profit would, I am sure, persuade many companies and many individuals to get involved and co-operate.
It is clear that the former government's frequently reiterated commitment to combatting boycott-related discrimination has become a charade. In the three or four years since the former prime minister stated that the boycott was alien to everything the government stood for, concerned groups and individuals attempted to persuade that government that firm and explicit policies were needed to prevent serious infringement of Canadian sovereignty and human rights. That government contented itself with meaningless statements and some halfhearted policy guidelines which served to obscure the issues and confuse the corporate community. Instead of showing
October 25, 1979

more courage, that Government of Canada chose to dodge the issue.
We have to face up to the issue. I am not suggesting for a moment that this is an easy problem. In fact I know there would be some retaliation on the part of some Arab states.
When we talk about real legislation, I should point out that the bill on the order paper in my name is almost identical to a bill enacted by the legislative assembly of Ontario, brought forward by a Conservative government, which I have been told is modelled after similar legislation in the United States. The United States has had legislation on its books for a number of years now which prohibits American companies from co-operating in the boycott against the state of Israel.
What I am suggesting to the government whip is that if similar legislation has been enacted by the United States and by the province of Ontario, this Parliament should do at least as much. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to this bill going to the committee if that would permit some real discussion. I hope that after the government gets the report it has asked Mr. Stanfield to make, it will not forget the arguments it put forward when in the opposition. 1 hope that the government will not renounce those principles of equity and justice which the present Prime Minister expressed so eloquently when he was leader of the opposition, and that we do not get another waffling or sweeping under the rug like we got from the former government.


Mr. Ken Binks (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to congratulate the hon. member who has introduced the bill, and to tell this House how much I sympathize with the reasons which give rise to it. If this matter is as important as 1 believe the proposer in all sincerity says that it is, then it is my view that it would be most advantageous to wait until the government brings in a similar bill, to which the hon. member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling) has already referred.
There are good reasons for waiting. If this bill is as important as the proposer says that it is, 1 find it difficult to understand why he would call it a very mild piece of legislation. If this matter, which has been before the press and the House for a number of years, is important, then it is not a very mild piece of legislation. Certainly if it is as the hon. member says, that it is primarily a matter of the civil rights of the citizens of Canada, then there is no way that it is a mild piece of legislation. I am sure that there is not a member in this House or a citizen of Canada who is not sympathetic to the subject matter of this bill, and who would not like to see the matter corrected.
This government is committed to dealing with this matter through legislation in 1980. When it does so, it will not introduce a mild piece of legislation simply because this matter does affect the civil rights of all Canadians. It will not be, as the hon. member has said, a recording bill. What use is a bill which affects the civil rights of all Canadians if it is a recording bill? I would have thought that someone proposing a private member's bill would speak on the matter with some
Foreign Economic Boycotts
feeling, if the bill is so important, on the simple basis that he who asserts must prove. However, the hon. member rose in the House and denied that he wanted the bill given more consideration, and 1 believe he even told this House that he wanted the bill sent to committee so that it could be amended.
It would seem to me that any member who introduces a bill for serious consideration in this House would not want that bill amended and that he or she would have given serious consideration to what they wanted in the bill.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, the hon. member is imputing improper motives in my introduction of this bill. I introduced it in the form that it was on the Order Paper in the last Parliament for very particular reasons which I have stated, and none of which had to do with any feeling on my part that the bill was satisfactory in the form that it was introduced, but all of which had to do with the fact that this bill had received the unanimous agreement of the parties in this House. So, to suggest that 1 did it for any other reasons is unreasonable, and inaccurate.


Kenneth C. Binks: Mr. Speaker, if I have directly or indirectly imputed any improper motive to the hon. member, I withdraw it. 1 did not mean to say that he was insincere. Certainly I have a constitutional right to point out that any member who introduces a bill usually speaks with greater fervour about some of the conditions recited in it.
There is another reason why this bill should be looked upon somewhat askance by this House. The question of the economic boycott relates to what has happened over the past six months in this country and to our foreign policy, and is of such a delicate and sensitive nature that it would be irresponsible not to wait until the Hon. Robert Stanfield makes his report. Regardless of what is considered to be separate from the matter that Mr. Stanfield is dealing with, there is no way that it would be inseparable in the public mind.
I agree with what the hon. member for Burlington said when he suggested that there are means by which international commerce can satisfy whatever trading aims that commerce may have. We might ask ourselves if there is any way that the provisions of this bill, even if amended by committee, could hope to do what it sets out to do. There is no way whatsoever that what Mr. Stanfield has been asked to report would be dissociated from this bill in the public mind, and certainly not in the points of views of those countries which have been upset by this matter, which was originally thought to be a matter of domestic politics in this country. It was a principle of French foreign policy, and the most urgent thing to do-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: It is now six o'clock and the hour provided for consideration of private members' business has expired. The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) on a point of order.


Mr. Friesen:: Mr. Speaker, I want to be on record as saying that this is the first time in my career in this House that I have

October 25, 1979
Borrowing Authority
agreed entirely with the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). Now I have to go out and take a valium.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
[English)

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie that Bill C-10, to provide supplementary borrowing authority for the fiscal year 1979-80, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, before the dinner hour I had a few minutes to talk about the bill that is before us today. I was concerned that the Conservative party across the way is borrowing too much money. It has not started off with its priorities straight in terms of the bills it is bringing before this House. My particular concern was the high interest rate policy of the party.
In its five months of government the Conservative party has become known as the high interest rate party. I see a friend of mine from Saskatchewan nodding in agreement. 1 believe his riding is Kindersley-Lloydminster. He confirms that the Conservative party is the high interest rate party. I am sure that his constituents will be interested to know he is confirming that his party is the high interest rate party. I will be in Prince Albert very shortly where an interesting activity will be taking place. I will make sure the people there know that the Conservative party is the party of usury. It has set the rate of usury at 14 per cent in this country. It seems to be proud of that, Mr. Speaker. I do not think it is necessary at all.
In my riding, and right across the country before the election, that party talked about the interest rate being too high, the inflation rate being too high, and that we had too many unemployed. "If the interest rate is increased to slow down the economy there will be more unemployed," that is what they said. But once it came to power the Conservative party did a double take, and increased the interest rate. It

watches the inflation rate going up and does nothing at all. It does nothing about the high rate of unemployment. Because political parties do double takes like that and break their word, this is a reason why there is a lot of cynicism about this place and about the political process in general.
I am concerned about the effect that the government's high interest rate will have on farming and on food prices. In the Toronto Star for October 12, 1979, a headline reads, "Interest rate increases will boost costs of dairy products and meat, official says". Another article has as its headline, "Food-price boost seen over interest-rate rise".
The Cattlemen's Association are saying that the high interest rate means that consumers in this country are paying about 18 cents a pound in interest rates when they buy a pound of meat. In other words, 18 cents of what they are paying goes to pay interest. The same thing is true for other farm products.
I am concerned that Canadian farmers have a real debt problem. Farmers are caught in a real squeeze. They will have to borrow a lot of money and because interest rates are high it will be very difficult for them. Perhaps they will not borrow some of the money they need to maintain efficiency on their farms. Perhaps they will not buy new equipment, repair their equipment, expand their operations, or purchase items they need to produce food. Later on this could create shortages of some food products which will further drive up prices charged to consumers. I am concerned too that this will put a lot of farmers out of business.
I know the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) is buddy-buddy and has a love relationship with a lot of the large corporations. And he is very familiar with large corporations, I know that. It is much easier for large corporations to cope with high interest rates. AH they do is reinvest a lot of their profits and they do their own financing. On the other hand, a small company cannot do that; neither can a farmer nor a fisherman. If a farmer needs to borrow money now he will have to borrow at a high interest rate.
I want to remind the House that we are not dealing here with a small segment of the population at all. In the year ending 1977 the total outstanding credit for farmers was approximately $10,400 million. My guess now is that that Figure is probably past the $12 billion or $13 billion mark. These Statistics are from Agriculture Canada. And there were lower interest rates then; so what is going to happen now that the interest rate is very high?
There are other statistics that affect farmers. We find, for example, that the total borrowed by farmers for farm needs in 1979 is estimated at approximately $8 billion. That is a lot of money, $8 billion. About 60 per cent of that, or roughly $4.5 billion to $5 billion, is for short-term loans. The Farm Credit Corporation has a low involvement in short-term loans. Most of these loans come from banks or from supply company credit. About 27 per cent or 30 per cent, or approximately $2 billion, is in intermediate term loans from 18 months to ten years, but most of it is for less than ten years. Again, most of this is from private banks and lending institutions. Only 10 or 12'/2 per cent, or approximately a billion dollars, is in long-
October 25, 1979

term loans. Most of this, of course, is from the Farm Credit Corporation.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) announced a few weeks ago that another $50 million was being added to the capital budget of the Farm Credit Corporation. Let us not forget that the bank rate since January 1 has gone up by some 2% per cent. This increase in the prime lending rate will mean that the actual cost of interest to farmers will be about $200 million per year. That is an additional cost in interest rates alone.
That is exceptionally high, and will mean a lot of very serious problems for the farmers of this country. It comes at a time when the government should be trying to ensure that young farmers have the money to stay on the farm and that they have, as an objective, food self-sufficiency in this country. The Department of Agriculture can tell you that if we take away grain and oil seeds, our deficit in food production last year was about $1.8 billion. That is very severe. If you are not going to produce more food, you make cash more difficult for the farmers to obtain.
1 appeal to the sanity of the government to stop its ridiculous policy on interest rates. Perhaps ministers have no sanity.
I do not know. If they have any left, I appeal to them to roll back the bank rate and ensure that farmers can get loans from the Farm Credit Corporation. They need loans to expand their operations. These must be at a much lower rate than today. Loans are needed by farmers in order to build farms, renew their equipment, remain efficient and produce food for the Canadian people at a reasonable cost.
Something that concerns me very much is that the spread between the rich and the poor of this country is widening instead of narrowing.

I read in the newspaper Tuesday, I believe, that the poverty rate substantially increased in Canada in 1978. The average wages of Canadian families went up by 6 per cent, but it should not be forgotten that the inflation rate of our country last year was 9 per cent. With such an inflation rate, the real wages of the average Canadian family have been reduced by 3 per cent. In spite of that, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance with the governor of the Bank of Canada has raised the interest rate of the Bank of Canada to 14 per cent-highest ever in the history of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, there are in Canada today many families living below the poverty level. For example, in 1977 there were in Canada 659,000 families living below the poverty level and last year there were 7,000 more. That is 666,000 Canadian families. As for individuals, the situation is the same. In 1977,
842,000	individuals were below the poverty level and last year or the following year there were 886,000. However, in spite of that, as I said, the Minister of Finance has just raised the interest rate to 14 per cent.
Borrowing Authority

That is the highest it has ever been in Canada. He is getting off to a very bad start as a new Minister of Finance, particularly when you read his old speeches where, before the election, he was very concerned about keeping the bank rate down.
I wonder how many backbenchers in the Conservative party really support him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: One or two over there are having difficulty. I see three members who applaud the Minister of Finance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I am really happy. Only two applauded the Minister of Finance, and about 15 are applauding me. The Minister of Finance should look over his shoulder because the long knives might be coming out very soon. I am interested in knowing where the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) is. I hear he has some very interesting comments to make about the bank rate.


An hon. Member:: What about Edmonton West?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Perhaps, too, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). I know quite a few members of the Conservative party who came here full of vigor and enthusiasm who are not very happy with the Minister of Finance for raising the bank rate. Perhaps the true colour of the Conservative party is starting to show. The Minister of Finance who represents the big boys, the corporations, is an extreme right winger. Perhaps the true colour of the Conservative party is coming through.
I will be very interested in seeing some of the new backbenchers getting up in this House to tell us exactly where they stand. The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) has already stated that his party is the high interest rate party. I would like him to get up in this House and tell us the philosophy behind that statement, so the Canadian people can get directly from his mouth that the Conservative party is for the fisherman, home owner, or the person who wants to build a house-the average Canadian. The Minister of Finance is more than just a bit of a hypocrite when he introduces policies like that, considering his past record as a critic in the opposition.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, this week we have been treated to an extraordinary example of the attitude of the new government toward democratic parliamentary operation. It is fitting that we should have this opportunity in this House on this borrowing authority bill to be talking about a new government's approach to open government. An extraordinary situation we have found coming from a man who was probably the number one outspoken critic of the previous government for what he termed their arrogance. It was he more than anyone else who liked to talk about the arrogance of the former prime minister, yet this week we have seen an attitude that goes far beyond anything that can be termed

October 25, 1979
Borrowing Authority
plain arrogance. 1 was even searching for a word that would adequately describe the attitude of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) toward parliamentarians.


An hon. Member:: Impossible.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Because we have been treated to some stale jokes, maybe a word like pomposity is the best way to describe the attitude of the Minister of Finance. I find it almost impossible to believe that a minister would reach so far down to try to get his own way, to try to control what are and always have been accepted as independent committee activities.
By our tradition, the committee has been master of its own fate, yet we saw a deliberate attempt to interfere with the committee operation, I believe rather foolishly a futile attempt because, in the long run, it will not help either the Minister of Finance or the present government. Unfortunately, as one of my colleagues commented, it has seriously embarrassed members of his own party. It must have particularly embarrassed the chairman of the finance committee whom I might personally term one of the good guys on the other side. There are not many, but he is one of them. In fact the vice-chairman must have been embarrassed too because he voted with the members of the opposition parties in the finance committee supporting what I looked upon as a vote of censure of government ministers who could not find the time to appear as witnesses before the committee. But let me, after those introductory remarks addressed to the Minister of Finance, make some comments on the borrowing bill itself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harold Thomas Herbert: The Minister of Finance has stated in this House that the borrowing authority he has requested in this bill has been reduced by some $3 billion. He says one of the reasons is because the Tories have the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) as President of the Treasury Board, thus inferring spending cuts. But the Minister of Finance then states that the reduction is possible because the government is using unused borrowing authority carried over from previous years. I find there is a little bit of conflict between those two statements simply because the fiscal year is now some six months gone. Government cash balances in this six-month period have dropped by nearly $4 billion and new net borrowings in the same period amount to nearly $3 billion. Thus, some $6.5 billion has been used up by the government in the first six months of this fiscal year. The Minister of Finance himself admitted that the figure was in the order of $5.5 billion, and I suppose between the Minister of Finance and me we shouldn't quibble about a billion dollars. Adding to this amount the $7 billion requested in the authority bill gives us a total for this fiscal year of some $13 billion, far greater than the $10 billion requested in the last Parliament by the previous government.
This increase in borrowing authority, the $6 billion-$5'A billion, $61/2 billion, depending on the way we count the figures-plus the $7 billion in the bill can only be attributed to

one of two alternatives, either an increase in spending over that anticipated by the previous government, or a decrease in revenue from that originally forecast. Or, of course, it could be a combination of the two.
However, it occurs to me that there is another possibility. The Minister of Finance could be padding his borrowing authority in order to take care of an increased deficit caused by unwise, unwanted, and ill-conceived spending programs. As one example, 1 refer to that incredible folly, the mortgage interest deductibility program which, by the minister's own conservative estimates, will cost the nation $2.3 billion in a full year. Add the inflationary factor and the probability that each and every spending estimate is on the low side, and we can anticipate in a few years an unconscionable and totally discriminatory give-away from the public purse of three or four billion dollars a year. Using the minister's low estimate, the cost to each and every taxpayer in this country will amount to 15 per cent of the personal income tax they presently pay, that is, 15 per cent more to be paid, or the elimination of an opportunity to reduce taxes by 15 per cent.
The tragedy of the plan is that the cost must be borne by every taxpayer in the country whether they own homes or not, and whether their homes are mortgaged or not. Every taxpayer, tenant, pensioner, single family head, as well as the wealthy, everyone who pays tax will be contributing 15 per cent of their personal income taxes to those who have mortgages on their homes.
We acknowledge that mortgage interest rates are now too high. As a builder I am well aware of the problem which present high mortgage rates present. We know that construction costs are making it extremely difficult for lower and middle income level persons to buy their own homes. But there are a multitude of better ways to help those who are really in need, without resort to a give-away program which could be so costly for renters, pensioners, and those who have strived for years to pay off their mortgages. It is this total irresponsibility on the part of the present government which is to blame, together with the attitude of the Minister of Finance that, come hell or high water, election promises are going to be kept, no matter that only 2 per cent of the population voted for the Tories because of their mortgage interest deductibility program, no matter that Quebec French-speaking residents will receive scarcely more than half the per capita amount received by their English-speaking fellow Canadians who have mortgages on their homes.
The Minister of Finance is going ahead despite the advice of senior departmental officials and is, by so doing, building even larger future deficits which are going to require even larger requests for borrowing authority than that which is contained in this bill. Of course, there is another alternative. The minister who was responsible for social programs until he was transferred or demoted-I don't know what the reason was- would cut old age pensions. Pensions or mortgage interest deductibility? Could any person of sane mind opt for a campaign promise at the expense of the poor?
October 25, 1979

A moment or two should be taken to consider another of the Tory election promises which is both highly discriminatory and ill-conceived-the measure introduced in this House on Monday to extend the supplementary pensions of widows aged between 60 and 65. This popular piece of legislation has a relatively small price tag attached to it and 1 suppose, when we are talking in billions in the present borrowing authority bill, the few million dollars involved to help widows and widowers is not a particularly large item. On the surface, this legislation is not likely to be criticized. What I want to do is to illustrate again just how discriminatory and unjust is the Tory approach to popular government.
Take, as an example, three widows of the same age, say 60 or 61, living side by side in similar small apartments. None of them ever worked when they were raising families, and none of them has any appreciable income. However, only one of those widows will benefit from the legislation which the government introduced on Monday. Why? The widow in apartment No. 1 was 59 when her 65-year-old husband died. The husband of the widow in apartment No. 2 died before his 65th birthday. Only the widow in apartment No. 3 is entitled to a pension, and the other two ladies must ask for welfare from the provincial government in order to live. It is surely infinitely preferable that all persons in similar circumstances are treated alike. It is this discriminatory attitude of the Conservative government which I find to be so abhorrent.
Let me ask what has happened to the budget of the new Minister of Finance? The Tory government could not have found too much wrong with the budget of the previous government. It is reintroducing the measures contained in that budget and taking some six months to introduce its own ideas. Do the Tories have any new ideas?


Mr. Stollery:: No.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Why are we not given the government's forecasts of revenues and expenditures for this year? I ask this question specifically because of this request for additional authority to borrow funds. Should we not first ask the Minister of Finance what he is going to do with the requested borrowing authority? Was it not a seatmate of the minister's who suggested to the previous minister of finance that Parliament should not blindly hand borrowing authority to the government?
While 1 am referring to the colleague of the Minister of Finance, the present President of the Treasury Board, is it not extraordinary what a flip-flop he has done since the last Parliament? He was the critic who stoutly maintained that our dollar should be boosted to a level of 88 cents to 92 cents U.S. He was the man who stated that it was his party's economic strategy to boost our dollar to that level. Yesterday in the House he suddenly saw the light. The President of the Treasury Board, now in power in the government, said he had no choice but to admit that the fiscal policy of the previous government as it pertained to a floating dollar was the right policy, and that which was being adopted by his Tory party.
Borrowing Authority
What a change of heart from the criticisms he levelled at the previous government right here in this House!
Certainly interest rates are at an unprecedented level. If the Tories were indignant when the rate was 9 per cent, should they not be doubly indignant now that the rate is approaching double that figure? Only this week the prime bank rate in the United States reached 15 per cent, and last night the governor of the Bank of Canada raised the bank rate to a record 14 per cent. What is it going to be like in Canada in the bleak winter months ahead?
At the meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs this morning the governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Gerald Bouey, defended his actions and the actions of the Bank of Canada in his usual, calm, and efficient manner. I have been a member of the finance committee for seven years, and having listened to Mr. Bouey regularly year after year and having tremendous esteem for this man-not necessarily always agreeing with his point of view but respecting his ability-one thing was sure. We knew when Mr. Bouey came to the meeting this morning just about exactly what his position was going to be, what position he was going to be taking, why he was doing what he was doing, and what his responsibilities were.
Mr. Gerald Bouey naturally defended his actions and the actions of the Bank of Canada, and he did so in a very calm and a very efficient manner. However, it was abundantly evident tht Mr. Bouey's statement and arguments related to his specific responsibilities. He said, and I quote: "The government must take the ultimate responsibility for the general thrust of monetary policy". Mr. Bouey went on to add also that the government must explain its policy to Parliament and to the people.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we also thought that. That is why we members of the opposition parties were very anxious to hear from the Minister of Finance in committee. That is why we thought it was he, and he alone, who should explain the general thrust of monetary policy and why he, and he alone, should explain to the people of this country the government's policy concerning monetary policy. Also, interestingly enough, the views of members of all parties were represented in the steering committee report, which was ultimately rejected by the government majority.
I might say here, as I said earlier in my opening remarks, that it is certainly contrary to any rules of this Parliament, and certainly contrary to any past practice, that a minister of the Crown would dictate to a standing committee of this House. I must say, and I have said this to several hon. members opposite, that there have always been difficulties in the past in getting ministers to attend committees, and we are well aware that ministers will always find some excuse for not turning up on a particular date, but it is the manner in which this was handled that I find so extraordinary.
It was not a question of the minister's saying, "I am going to be out of town". In fact, the way it was presented to him was simply, "When can you appear, on what date and at what time?" I suggest that that is about as open an invitation as can

October 25, 1979
Borrowing Authority
be extended to any minister of the Crown. Interestingly enough, the only decision made in the steering committee was that we wanted to see the Minister of Finance first.
Mir. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member. I was hoping he would come back to the subject matter of the motion before us, but I cannot let him continue what he has been attempting to do, discussing the proceedings of a committee of the House. In this regard I wish to refer the hon. member to citation 312 of Beauschesne's fifth edition at page 102 which says:
The proceedings of a committee may not be referred to in debate before they have been laid upon the Table.
I was willing to let the hon. member refer to the committee, but to analyse and examine committee work in detail in the House is not acceptable.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for my digression. If I could explain my digression, it was simply because I had, as Your Honour is well aware, raised this matter personally in the House, and there was a House intervention. However, I accept your admonition and will continue my remarks.


Benno Friesen: Seven years here and he does that.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Nevertheless, in seven years one learns a lot, and one learns to get in one's licks before one is chastised.
To get back to the subject under discussion, we were discussing the relationship between the Minister of Finance and the governor of the Bank of Canada. I think this is relevant to the bill. The Minister of Finance acted and responded in this House in a fashion which I considered-and I have stated this-irresponsible. I suppose this would at least serve as a suggestion of resignation, although the minister probably will not be taking my suggestion. However, the subject of resignation is probably in the mind of every one at the present time. It is causing some consternation in the country. I refer, of course, to the fact that the term of office of the present governor of the Bank of Canada will terminate at a fairly early date.
Personally, I find our present governor to be a man of extraordinary competence, and with that competence he certainly exudes charm and efficiency. If there is any suggestion in the mind of the present Minister of Finance that Governor Bouey is continuing policies of the previous government which he, the minister, might himself find unacceptable, then he should make that clear to Mr. Bouey. I am sure Mr. Bouey would not suffer any loss of prestige or pride from any early retirement.
The point I want to make very clearly, and to reiterate, is that Mr. Bouey stated this morning-and I will not refer to committee meetings because he has made public statements- that his policy is substantially the same as it was last year and the year before. In effect, he has not shown any change of mind. The Minister of Finance and the present President of the Treasury Board have been highly critical of that point of view in previous sessions, and I think it behooves the Minister of Finance to make it very clear to this House whether he now

has done a flip-flop, whether he now agrees that the general approach of the governor of the Bank of Canada, which has not changed over the years, is acceptable to him and that he will be fully and unequivocally supporting the governor of the Bank of Canada. Alternatively, the Minister of Finance should cease attacking the general policy approach taken by the Bank of Canada during the term of the previous government.
There is nothing to prevent the Minister of Finance from bringing down an early budget. He does not have to wait until the end of November.


An hon. Member:: He has to ask the provinces.


Harold Thomas Herbert: That is exactly it. He has to ask the provinces and get the agreement of the provinces on oil pricing. Somehow I seem to doubt that he will have much success. Probably he will find that eventually they will have to come to some decision, as the previous government did, and impose some sort of policy on the pricing of energy which is good for the nation as a whole.


An hon. Member:: The provinces are writing the federal budget now.


Harold Thomas Herbert: I have a couple of points I should like to bring out before I make my closing remarks. I have never been particularly ultra nationalistic in my point of view. Perhaps in some way that is because I have a large number of multinational corporations in my constituency which are foreign-owned.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harold Thomas Herbert: Nevertheless, that does not get away from the fact that too much of our enterprise in Canada is foreign-con-trolled. I am not suggesting any punitive steps. After all, these multinationals came here freely. They were invited to come here, and they are still being invited. Quite obviously if we are to increase Canadian ownership in the country, and if we are to have more control over our own affairs, then we will have to start tearing ourselves apart a little bit from our association with the United States and its influence on our economy.
We cannot assist the domestic fight against interest rates unless we make some effort at co-ordinating foreign borrowing. At the present time we are a federal state which has given extraordinary powers to its provinces. Generally this is not realized. It is not talked about too much. More power has been given to the provinces than in any other similar country in the world. We are absolutely powerless, at the federal level, to have any say in the foreign borrowings of the provincial governments. Until we find some way-preferably by agreement with the provinces-to co-ordinate our foreign borrowing, then we will be looking at continuing difficulties such as we have experienced in the last day or two with interest rate problems, and the feeling that we must do, in turn, whatever the Americans do.
October 25, 1979

Capital can be obtained more cheaply by the federal government. The borrowing can be arranged in a more orderly fashion. Eventually it will be to the benefit of the country as a whole.
Another measure we should attempt to take, in order to decrease our dependency on the United States and its influence on our economy, is to encourage greater Canadian ownership by encouraging Canadian investors to invest in their own country. There are many ways that this can be done. One is to have the Government of Canada actively participating in segments of our economy which are presently foreign-con-trolled, or substantially foreign-controlled. Certainly the previous government went a long way toward ensuring, for the first time, a domestic presence in an almost entirely foreign-controlled sector of the economy, the oil industry. Now our friends in the government tell us that that was the wrong way to go, that we should not displease our American neighbours who control that segment of the economy.
I wonder what Canadians have to look forward to from the present government. We know about soaring heating costs, and soaring gasoline prices. We have rapidly increasing inflation which perhaps will result in fewer available jobs this coming winter. Of course that will result in substantially increased unemployment. By its policies the government has already sacrificed thousands of Canadian jobs to the order of Conservative policy.
In their campaigns, Tory members promised to stimulate the economy, but what has happened since? We lost out in Argentina.
I should like to say on the floor of the House of Commons that 1 received a telephone call sometime ago from a private company involved in negotiating the sale of Candu reactors. The gentleman wanted to know why the government was directly intervening in the negotiations going on then which undoubtedly would have some disastrous effect on the sale of Candu reactors. It was approximately three or four weeks after that telephone call that the Argentina deal fell through.
Despite the fact that the press has attributed, to some degree, that lost sale to the actions or statements of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Miss MacDonald), I have no doubt that it was the division in the government cabinet between those who were for and those who were against the production and sale of nuclear reactors. The holdup in making a decision and the desire to ensure a "go-slow" until a government policy was finally adopted, perhaps were the real reasons why we lost the Argentinian deal. Also we lost out in Mexico and Japan.
We sure lost out in the Middle East. Again I received a telephone call. This time it was from an executive of Bell Canada, one morning. He said, "Hal, what are you going to do? We have over $500 million worth of contracts in suspense at the present time in the Middle East; it involves thousands of Canadian jobs."
I asked a question in the House of the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Wilson) because we do not have a
Borrowing Authority
minister in the House of Commons who is responsible for that particular area; he is in the other place. The Minister of State for International Trade answered in such a fashion which indicated he was aware of some difficulties, but he was not aware of any cancelled contracts. Then on the following Monday, the next working day, he stated that some $4 million worth of contracts had been cancelled. The point was that the question did not relate to $4 million of cancelled contracts, as serious as that may be. It referred to the $500 million worth of contracts that were in suspense, that were being negotiated, held up, and possibly lost. In my question I also mentioned the fact that, in Iraq, Canadian companies were not even allowed to submit bids. That was particularly difficult in the case of the airport in Tehran.


An hon. Member:: That is $4 million down the drain.


Harold Thomas Herbert: That is correct. The professed intent of the Tory government members during the campaign to stimulate the economy has resulted so far in losses of contracts and jobs to Canadians throughout the world, and obviously has had serious effects on the economy.
In conclusion, I can say only-


An hon. Member:: He is concluding finally.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Perhaps it is just as well, because there are so many things one could bring up that one could talk for hours about what the government has done wrong in the short period of time it has been in office. It is beyond belief that a government, which had so much time without the glare of publicity in the House, could have made such a mess of things from an economic point of view.
I can only say, Mr. Speaker, that we really have no choice with regard to this borrowing authority. It does not involve a matter of us saying we refuse that borrowing authority. We do not know whether the Minister of Finance really needs that $7 billion, but eventually he is going to be able to find some way of putting in programs to use it up, and he will be back for more. I suggest to him that this is the first time he is asking this House for this spending authority. The next time he comes into this House asking for money he will have to present his own estimates on spending, along with revenues, and he will clearly have to indicate how he arrived at a figure such as the present $7 billion, and what he intends to do with that money. I say in all sincerity to him, although he is not listening to me, that I for one will not vote again in favour of a spending authority without getting answers to those relevant questions. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted a moment of indulgence, let me say that it was a year ago that I arrived in this place. I arrived here on October 25, 1978, and for the first time was able to speak in this place. Ironically, the subject on which I spoke was borrowing authority for $17 billion requested by the then Liberal government.

October 25, 1979
Borrowing Authority


An hon. Member:: How much?


Bob Rae: It was $17 billion. I would like to refer members of the House to an interesting speech of that day. It was not my own, although it was very interesting and I commend it to hon. members. They will be able to read it at their leisure. 1 want at this time to refer to the speech of the then leader of the opposition, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Clark). He spoke of many things, including the way in which these borrowing authority bills are presented to the House of Commons. It might be worth-while for the hon. members of the House, particularly new members who are trying to develop a sense of history, to look back and read what the Prime Minister had to say when he was in opposition. He said:
The Minister of Finance, with his absolute faith in keeping secret from the people of Canada information which they have a right to know, even though his officials are probably telling him, refuses to tell this House of Commons what revenues the Government of Canada expects in this fiscal year and, consequently, we do not know how deep the deficit will be. We do not know how much deeper into debt this country is going to be plunged by the incompetence of this government. All we know is that today they are seeking the authority to borrow an additional $17 billion.
He then went on to say, and how familiar these words sound:
We are told there is going to be a budget. They will not give us a date-they rarely give us dates-but sometime in the middle of November there is going to be a new budget. Why is the Government of Canada rushing through this demand to increase its borrowing authority before it gives us a budget? A budget should contain a projection of spending estimates, it should contain a statement of the revenues expected by the Government of Canada, and it should contain an indication of the priorities the government is going to follow. That is coming in three weeks, so why do we have this extraordinary request for an additional $17 billion borrowing authority right now? Why not wait three weeks? What is so urgent? What is being hidden? Why can they not come forward now and give us the information that would be part of a budget or, if they are not prepared to do that, why do they not let this matter wait until after the budget is before the House of Commons?
The Prime Minister went on to say that it was a disgrace for the government to come before the House of Commons and request a blank cheque. He was right then, and the government is wrong now.
We say to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) that he has had a long period of time in which to present a budget to this House. A budget should have been presented in June. Had he presented a budget in June he would have had the opportunity at least in June of getting rid of the Liberal budget measures we are being weighed down with now. He could have presented us with an indication of what he expected revenues to be and why he presents a request to Parliament for $7 billion with no accounting, and with no more indication today than we had on May 22 of what this government intends to do with that money which it is asking us to approve.
I do not care whether it is $17 billion, which was eventually reduced to $10 billion, or $7 billion. The principle is exactly the same, and that principle is that this House should not be so abused by a government as to be expected to give the government a blank cheque when it comes in with these requests, and we should not be expected, as the leader of the opposition, as he then was, said so well, to give a blank cheque to a government that is coming before this House now and asking for $7 billion.
It simply is not good enough for the Minister of Finance to come before us saying he needs the money because he needs the money because he needs the money, and that is exactly what the Minister of Finance has told us. It was gobbledygook we got from the minister two days ago, explaining why he needed the money. He told us nothing about the government's projected spending plans, he told us nothing about tax expenditures, he told us nothing about the revenues which the government is not collecting, and he asked us to give the government a $7 billion cheque with no indication as to what the revenue forecast is or what the spending forecast is.
I am sorry the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) is not here to hear this because he is the man who has been going around Canada as the pillar of fiscal responsibility, the Savonarola of free enterprise, the Rex Humbard of capitalism, the man who is supposed to be the master of the bottom line, and the man who is going to bring, single-handedly, the civil service of Canada to its knees and end big spending in government forever. Where is he? Where is the happy hacker when we need him? Where is the happy hacker when we want to know where we are going to be putting our $7 billion? He is not here.


An hon. Member:: Who wrote your speech?


Bob Rae: I write all my own material, which is more than I can say for some members in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Nobody else would take credit for it.


Bob Rae: I want on this my first-


An hon. Member:: What an admission.


Bob Rae: I will get to the Minister of Finance in a moment.
I have been gentle with him so far during this session. This is the first speech I have had the opportunity to make, as I say, and since this is the first anniversary of my arrival in this House, and the same year in which I made a speech on supplemental borrowing, I could give exactly the same speech again tonight, but I would be depriving members of another variety of what I have to say.


An hon. Member:: We really wouldn't mind.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bob Rae: The points I want to make this evening, and there are only two or three, will characterize the interventions from this side concerning financial, tax, and budgetary matters in the House of Commons.
The first point is that we take just as seriously as the Conservative party did when it was in opposition the fact that questions of supply come to the House of Commons, and the House of Commons should have control of supply. We are tired of the haphazard, sloppy, ineffective, inefficient, dissimulating accounting which has been so characteristic of the Liberal government, and which is in danger of becoming
[Mr. Rae.)
October 25, 1979

characteristic of the Conservative government. We will not accept the principle that the government can come before this House telling us it needs billions of dollars on a supplemental basis without telling us where the money is going and how it is being spent.
The second point we want to make, and which we will make consistently in this House, is that we will not accept any longer the lack of accounting for tax expenditures, and which again has been characteristic of the Liberal government and is in danger of becoming characteristic of the Conservative government.
Even though the government has deprived me of a private member's bill, I am glad to hear that its intention now is to bring in a tax expenditure bill. This matter is a critical feature of our budget, and it is a critical feature of our deficit, all of which has been emphasized in speeches by my colleagues since Tuesday. Some of the prime causes of the deficit in Canada are that our tax policies have been helter skelter, we have one of the weakest corporate collection tax rates in Canada, and our policy of oil depletion allowances, MURBs, tax shelters of all kinds, investment credits and so on, all strike at the very heart of the ability of the Canadian government to raise the money necessary to do the job which it is required to do.
That tax policy, and that system which has a weak, soft centre, is the legacy to the people of Canada from the Liberal party. If anybody wants to know whose pockets the Liberal party is in then we only have to look at the tax revenue system in Canada and there will be no question in anybody's mind as to what kind of support the Liberal party has looked for over the years for its policies.
The weakness of our manufacturing base, our problems with respect to the balance of trade, the fact that we have such a heavy outflow of dividends and interest payments, the fact that we are now sending more interest payments out of this country than we are dividends-which means that our companies are relying more on debt than they are on foreign equity investment-all go together to make up the legacy the Conservative government inherited from the Liberal government. It is the task of the new government, and I am sad to say that they are obviously not equal to it, to turn that legacy around.
That is where the question of interest rates comes in. I would like to refer hon. members to an old speech made by the Minister of Finance when he was speaking on what his party would do if they were the government, with respect to interest rates. I hope that the minister will take a look at Hansard dated Tuesday, February 13, 1979, one day before the St. Valentine's massacre. Of course, the minister will not find much in his speech as it was largely a speech of rhetoric, bombast, and the kind of buffoonery we expect from members of the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Jarvis: You are right there.
Borrowing Authority


Bob Rae: There are always certain wise exceptions to the rule.


Thomas Lefebvre: They will be back here soon, don't you worry. You did not make a mistake.


Bob Rae: I do not have that feeling. The minister in his speech of February 13 did not even mention the syncrolift. I believe it is the only speech which I have read of the minister's that he did not devote to the syncrolift.
1 want to refer to a speech by Mr. Gillies, the former member for Don Valley. Mr. Gillies is now the Rasputin of this government, who, while he was here, complained that the Liberal party did not believe in Parliament, and who showed his faith in Parliament by leaving it and gaining more power by staying outside it. Mr. Gillies said in his speech as it is reported in Hansard, February 13, 1979, at page 3188:
The second thing which the government has done is to raise interest rates. Presumably it does not care about high interest rates, high consumer borrowing costs, high mortgage costs or high costs for starting business. Every economist in this country and, indeed, the governor of the Bank of Canada, has said that a high interest rate policy, given the high domestic economic situation in the nation today, is wrong.
Mr. Gillies was about as accurate about the governor of the Bank of Canada as he was about some other things. Nevertheless, he went on to say:
The last thing Canada needs right now is a high interest rate policy, yet since the beginning of 1978 the bank rate has gone up 50 per cent, from 7.5 per cent in the beginning of 1978 to the current level of 11.25 per cent.
That is peanuts compared to what we are paying in interest rates now. Who would not beg now for interest rates of 11 Va per cent? Every time interest rates go up, mortgage rates and rates in general go up. It is inflationary.
Mr. Gillies then went on to make a number of serious points about the impact of the high interest rate policy, and why it is wrong. I want this to get on the record because I do not want this government to get off the hook, or leave the legacy of the positions they took in opposition, and daily leave them behind them like yesterday's socks. We want to stick those socks on this government and make them live with them. Mr. Gillies went on to say:
Why has the government taken the direction that it has on interest rates? Incidentally, it is interesting to compare the bank interest rates of other countries around the world with Canda's interest rates Here are some interest rates: West Germany, 3 per cent; Switzerland, 1 per cent; Japan, 3.5 per cent, and U.S.A.. 10 per cent. The reality is that the countries with strong economies have the low interest rate structures and a strong balance of payments. We are going in the other direction, because the government argues that we have to keep capital flowing into the country or the dollar will fall even further.
That message has not changed with the ushering in of the present government. The only things that have changed are the faces of the people across the way. The policies are exactly the same.
Mr. Gillies went on to say:
If one looks at the figures, which some people never presume to do, the rise in interest rates has really not caused a change in the rate of the flow of funds. We have the peculiar situation that even though we have moved the interest rate up seven times, it really has not done anything for the net flow of capital.

October 25, 1979
Borrowing Authority
That still applies today. The policy of the Government of Canada has not changed. The policy of Governor Bouey has not changed. At least one can say for Governor Bouey that he is consistent. He has given exactly the same advice to the Liberal government as he is now giving to the Conservative government, and both parties have bought it. 1 think we are entitled to ask why the Minister of Finance continues to hide behind the arguments of the governor of the Bank of Canada and why all those policies, which in 1978 and early 1979 made so much sense, suddenly make no sense.
1 think that we are entitled to ask of our friends in the Liberal party that there should be a special room in this House, a room of penitence. They should not be allowed to come into this House and make statements about the interest rates because they were following exactly the same policies, and buying exactly the same arguments, while they were in government. There is nothing like opposition to give these people a little courage. Where was the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau)? He was sitting down at the end, but where was he when the interest rates went up? He was not doing anything. Where was the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray)? Did he once ask a question in the House of Commons about the high interest rates?


John Carnell Crosbie: Not a word.


Bob Rae: Not a peep, not a whistle, nothing. Suddenly they have gained the courage which comes from merely seeking to take advantage of what they know is a very genuine public preoccupation, the welfare of our economy. The Liberals did nothing about the economy for 16 years, but suddenly they discover it.
Before the Minister of Finance lost his sense of humour and his principles, he would come into this House bouncing with good humour and bounding with poetry. Since he is no longer able to bubble forth with those doggerels, 1 have one for you tonight, Mr. Speaker:
The member for St. John's West Used to know what was best,
But now that he's a cabinet minister His actions are far more sinister.
High interest loans he used to hate,
But now he's known as "Crazy Rates1*;
His answers now are much less merry:
"Don't blame me, I'll have to ask Gerry!"


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bob Rae: I wrote that myself. That is the policy of this government, of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance.
What do we hear about an industrial strategy? We don't hear a peep about industrial strategy. What do we hear about the weakness of our manufacturing base? We don't hear a peep about the weakness of our manufacturing base. What do we hear about the reality of our current account deficit and about the fact that this deficit is growing because our trade is declining, and because our interest rates are going out of the
[Mr. Rae.)
country to beat the band? We do not hear a thing from the Minister of Finance any more. We do not hear any strategies or any proposals. All we hear from the Minister of Finance is justification for the same old policy of tight money, restriction and high credit, which we in Canada associate with Tory times and which have always been indicative of Tory times.


An hon. Member:: Usury.


Bob Rae: You can take the Tories in the Liberal party, you can take the Tories in the Tory party and put them together and you have a conventional wisdom that has produced the highest interest rates in our history, a rate of inflation which is unheard of and which is not generated by excess demand but is generated by cost push in the economy and which has been encouraged by the Minister of Finance.
We have a continued policy of tax expenditure which strikes at the guts of our revenue collecting system. We have the same policy of blank cheques, of coming into this Parliament and asking for authority to borrow $7 billion anywhere in the world, regardless of the time, regardless of the cost, regardless of the interest rate, regardless of our knowing what the revenue forecasts are, and regardless of our knowing what the expenditure forecasts are.
1 say to the people of Canada that they have been tricked, they have been duped, because they thought they were electing a new government. On May 22 they thought they were going to get a new team. They did not get a new team; they got the second team of the old team that was in there before.


An hon. Member:: Same old coach.


Bob Rae: That is all we have, Mr. Speaker, the second team of the same old team.
You can take the Tories in the Tory party, the Tories in the Liberal party, stick them together and what you have is a conventional wisdom that does nothing for the people of Canada, that has increased our deficit, that has dramatically increased inflation, that is causing unemployment, and that fails to take those tough decisions which are necessary in our economy, which are to going to get at the problem of fairness, which are going to get at the problem of a weak industrial base, and which are going to get at the problem of our need to export and provide some kind of economic leadership for our people.
It is a sad day for the people of Canada when they wake up one morning and realize that all they have done is change weathermen. When the hon. member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien) was minister of finance he used to say there was nothing they could do, that there were storms in the United States, hurricanes that were unbelievable, and that members of the opposition knew nothing about how serious the storms were. He claimed there was nothing they could do. He used to sit back and say, "You will just have to batten down the hatches and wait for the storm to blow through, and when the storm is over the sun will come up in the morning and
October 25, 1979

everything will be bright and merry." Instead of one weatherman we have another. The only thing that has changed, Mr. Speaker, is the accent of the weatherman. Nothing else has changed. It is exactly the same philosophy.
Let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, that 50 years ago that philosophy was espoused by the Mackenzie Kings and the R. B. Bennetts. That philosophy was espoused by the Herbert Hoovers, and that philosophy was eventually rejected throughout the western world. I suggest to the Minister of Finance that that philosophy, of our government coming before us and simply telling us there is nothing we can do when faced with the economic situation, that we have no choices, that high interest rates are inevitable, that there is nothing we can do but bite these hypothetical bullets the minister keeps talking about-I say as sure as tomorrow follows today, that policy is going to be rejected by the Canadian people. It is not what anybody wants to hear. It is not what anybody really thinks any more because it does not reflect all that is good and all that is generous, all that is intelligent, and all that is courageous in the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I get the feeling that the previous speaker does not admire the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie).
Not wanting to hold up this bill, Mr. Speaker, as I realize that the purse of the Minister of Finance is empty and he wishes to fill it with somebody else's money, I should like just to make a few remarks which really follow up what the speaker before the last from the New Democratic Party was talking about. He was very critical of the Minister of Finance, and went through his history. He said that the minister really did not know what he was doing. In fact 1 have the feeling, after listening to that member of the New Democratic Party, that he feels the minister would define a floating debt as a boat that has not been paid off!
I want to assure the New Democratic Party that this Minister of Finance knows everything there is to know- everything-about deficit financing. The previous speaker did not really finish what he started to say. He spoke about debt, and went through the per capita debts of many provinces in Canada and the national debt, but he really did not continue to the logical conclusion. Perhaps he does not know the logical conclusion, but he was using a good example.
That hon. member mentioned Newfoundland several times, and the per capita debt there of $3,274. That is interesting, when you realize how important that figure is compared to expenditures of government and what happens to the money. In the province of Newfoundland, with which the Minister of Finance is very familiar, there is a yearly expenditure of $1 billion by the provincial government, and $1 billion by the federal government. That is $2 billion for a half million population-$4,000 for every man, woman, and child in the province. Someone might point out that the per capita debt is only $3,274 and remark that it seems pretty good. But when we analyse debt, Mr. Speaker, and this particular bill which is
Borrowing Authority
before the House to borrow $7 billion, we have to consider the fiscal manoeuvrability of the nation or the province in question. One has to be balanced against the other.
To really examine the situation in Canada and the situation in the provinces as that member from the New Democratic Party did, and refer to the financial experts who analyse this continuously, we should refer to the last report of the Economic Council of Canada which examined the debt positions, borrowing positions, and spending positions of all provinces, specifically four, as it dealt with regional disparity and high unemployment in those particular provinces. The council suggested that some of the burden be lifted from the shoulders of the federal government and placed on the shoulders of the provincial governments to alleviate high unemployment. They also suggested that they use their own fiscal manoeuvrabilities. But in that report the Economic Council of Canada offered the final resolution that each provincial government-except the Newfoundland government-could use its own fiscal manoeuvrability.
To understand why they said that and why it is so important, we must go back to the previous studies, in which they showed that to service the debt alone was a massive problem. They showed, for instance, that the direct and indirect debt less the sinking fund, as a proportion of the personal income of Newfoundlanders, was too high. It was very high. We must then come to the conclusion that, in a situation like that, there is no fiscal manoeuvrability whatsoever-or very little, if any. That is something that must be considered when discussing this bill to borrow $7 billion.
The most important thing to be considered, however, is how that money is spent-what is done with it. In other words, priorities must be established. If we are to believe the Minister of Finance in his recent public statements, then we accept that the government must spend money to increase productivity in Canada-that must be their most important objective.
Politically speaking, I suppose it is a good thing for the Minister of Finance to go down to his own riding of St. John's West, as he did last week, and open a $55 million arterial road that he was partially responsible for getting. I suppose it is politically advantageous for him to turn around next week and open up a $44 million water system for which he negotiated when minister of intergovernmental affairs in the provincial government. It will do his soul good in another couple of months to announce as step one for an outer ring road in the same city a $35 million expenditure. That is fine, Mr. Speaker, politically speaking.
Apart from the fact that there are a lot of municipalities in Newfoundland who believe the old farmer's adage that money is like manure, of very little use unless it be spread, there is the question of the wise use of money and that of productivity. It is not nice at this time of year to see on the northeast coast of Newfoundland incredible dumping of fish every day because it cannot be sold and markets cannot be found. It is bad enough to know that when that Fish is sold, 80 per cent of it goes to the

October 25, 1979
Borrowing Authority
United States and other countries to be processed into a finished product. That is bad enough, but when you have an action, the first one taken by this government, to cut out and freeze boat building subsidies, and to cut out wharf construction affecting the primary producer, that is worse. It is interesting that the Minister of Finance is able to rationalize those decisions when he asks for $7 billion to be okayed by this House for his borrowing purpose.
It should also be very interesting to find out how the Minister of Finance will rationalize the recent cuts of his bosom pal, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) who decided to cut out filling job vancancies, to cut out term employees from being rehired, to cut out capital expenditures for construction in Newfoundland, which were all across-the-board decisions. I do not know how one can rationalize that when one looks at the figures and realizes that the federal government has spent less per capita on wages and salaries for federal employees in Newfoundland, that is, less per capita than any other province in Canada, and yet the across-the-board cut was taken.
It is interesting that just one week ago the President of the Treasury Board in answer to a question posed by one of my colleagues from Quebec said he was going to re-examine a departmental cut in light of the economic conditions in that hon. member's riding. The President of the Treasury Board said he had an open mind, and he repeated that statement. I thought, as many other members from high unemployment areas thought, that the President of the Treasury Board would then go to work and cancel all cuts in every high unemployment area in Canada, especially in Newfoundland. He had an open mind, he said. Yet, two days after that, he reiterated his policy of continued cuts, non-hiring for job vacancies, and continued the freeze on construction jobs.
It is obvious that the President of the Treasury Board has an open mind, in fact so open as to be totally vacant. It is important for the Minister of Finance to rationalize those decisions that affect those high unemployment areas of Canada, and especially in Newfoundland, when he asks for permission to borrow $7 billion. It would also be interesting for the Minister of Finance and for the government to remember that the people of Canada now believe that as government politicians it is a very good example of those who shake your hand before the election, and shake you after the election.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, in partaking of this debate, I would like to read some items into the record. In many ways I think the bill placed before us by the government is a contradiction of the statement that inflation is enemy number one. We are being asked to provide the government with some $7 billion in borrowing, and yet one of the major causes of inflation is the imbalance that we have in our service charge, being the interest that we have to pay out. This is probably one of the major reasons why the Canadian dollar has fallen in value, and in turn is the major reason why we see the rise in inflation. In fact, going through my notes I notice that Mr. Rob Douglas, when he was director of the now defunct centre for the study of inflation and productivity, said

that an analysis of the impact of the dollar's devaluation on domestic inflation shows that about one-third of the inflation was caused by the dollar's drop.
There is an insanity which seems to be at work here. In order to solve that insanity we just create more insanity. In order to wrestle with inflation, we take the steps which create even more inflation. It is an insane situation, and one I do not think members of this House should support. Obviously members of the government knew they should not be supporting measures of this kind when they were in opposition, but now they seem to go along with the pattern that was established by the former government.
I do not understand why they are caught in this type of rigid reality. I do not understand why they have not been able to introduce some new thinking, or bring some new imagination or put new light on the problems, including economic problems, which this country faces.
For the record I would like to read part of an article written in the Financial Post. Normally I am not a great fan of the Financial Post, but in the October 20, 1979, edition an article appeared posing some interesting questions. The writer suggested that members of Parliament should be asking these questions of the governor of the Bank of Canada and of the government as a whole. The questions read as follows:
1.	Bouey stressed the need to reduce inflation when announcing the latest bank rate increases. But would he have raised interest rates (as he has done three times since the Tories came to power) if the U.S. had not first raised its rate?
2.	Assuming, for now that Canada must generally follow the upward sweep in U.S. interest rates, does Bouey agree with the recent hikes by the U.S. Federal Reserve Board?
3.	What's needed, and how long would it take, to give Canada an independent monetary policy?
4.	How can a credit crunch that especially hurts small business cut inflation? Indeed, how, precisely, will high interest rates make the North American rate of inflation come down? Hardly anyone would quarrel with the idea that money-supply growth is closely related to inflation over, say, five years. But doesn't the high U.S. inflation rate (consumer prices up 11.8 per cent in August from a year ago) have more to do with oil prices and higher food costs than a money supply that's out of control?
5.	How long and deep a recession will it take to cool out inflation? Will wage demands really be any lower even at 8 per cent, 9 per cent or 10 per cent unemployment?
6.	To move inflation down to, for example 6 per cent from 9 per cent, someone has to take less of an increase in profits and wages. Who will this be: Small companies? Large companies? Unionized employees? Other workers? Farmers? Everyone equally?
7.	Even though the bank rate was increased seven times, from 7'A per cent to 11 VS per cent, between March, 1978 and January, 1979, short-term interest rates in Canada for a time fell below rates in the U.S. and the Eurodollar market. Allowing for the various factors that influence the flow of money, does the Bank have any evidence that the lower short-term rates during this period directly prompted a shift of money away from Canada?
They are good questions, and I hope the minister will be able to supply answers. It is the net outflow of capital that is pretty well the major source of the economic problems that we have. In 1975 the balance came in at a $4.75 billion deficit, up 225 per cent from the year before. In 1976 it dropped to $3.8 billion, in 1977 increased to $4.1 billion, and last year was a
October 25, 1979

record $5.2 billion. These deficits have created heavy pressures on the exchange rate, and the Canadian dollar has thus become worth less.
As I pointed out before, the devaluation of the Canadian dollar has become a major reason why we are in an inflation type of spiral. The devaluation of the dollar, the increase in food costs and the increase in oil costs are the major reasons why we are facing inflation, not some monetary policy that the governor of the Bank of Canada was trying to explain to us earlier in the day.
Since Canada is a major importer of food, some $3 billion last year, the loss of value of the Canadian dollar increased food costs. In 1978 the food price index was 216. It hurts the whole economy, increases unemployment and welfare rates and strikes at the viability of many small businesses. For example, in Saskatchewan some 51,000 new jobs were created from January to August, a pretty good rate for Saskatchewan. The premier is quoted as saying most of those increases occurred in the small business sector.
What will higher interest rates proposed by this government do to the small businessman? Banking acquaintances in Regina tell me there has been a general slowdown in business in my constituency because of the increase in interest rates. There is a general fear and sense of insecurity. There is no sense of certainty. There is no ability to predict and plan. How high will interest rates go; 15 today, 16 tomorrow, 17 next week, 18, 19, 20? Is there no end in sight?
The people of this country want some assurance, some predictability, and some leadership. We keep floundering along following the same impotent policies introduced by the former government. This government in its own madness is continuing those. All at once we see members of the former government being relieved of this insanity, and in fact demanding that this insanity be stopped. Why is it this only occurs on the opposition side and never on the government side? It would be better for the people of this country if the government were able to snap itself out of the foolish reality in which it is caught.
Major economic problems result in the over-all balance of payments deficits which cause devaluation and in turn exacerbate other problems such as large price increases. This continues to increase the problem and feeds itself. What caused the imbalance in the first place? We are made to understand the service trade is the major problem, some $5.2 billion last year. What is the origin of that? The origin of that, unfortunately, is the economic history of this country, the type of development that both the Liberal and Conservative governments sponsored.
We have had quick development for the sake of quick development. We sold our resources. We allowed foreign capital to come in and develop our resources. They took the resources out and left us with a debt. Now the chickens have come home to roost. Now we have to pay off the debt.
Let us look at the scope of foreign ownership in this country. StatsCan reported in 1976 that of the 230,262 non-financial
Borrowing Authority
enterprises in Canada, 3,630 or 1.5 per cent were classified as foreign owned. In terms of statistics, 1.5 per cent is not a very large number, yet the 1.5 per cent, the small handful of foreign-controlled corporations, had 34.9 per cent of all Canadian sales, 31 per cent of the total assets, and 46 per cent of the profits generated in this country in 1976. That blows my mind.


An hon. Member:: That wouldn't take much.


Simon Leendert de Jong: The hon. member says that would not take much. Does it not blow his mind that 1.5 per cent of all non-financial Canadian companies that are foreign-controlled take nearly half of all profits in this country? Is that not disturbing? Is it not obvious why we have the type of economic problems that we do in this country? All that profit is sent outside our borders. It is the return on past investments, and that is the price we now have to pay. That is why we have a deficit in our balance of payments, a devalued Canadian dollar, and spiralling inflation.
What is the solution? More borrowing, more indebtedness to foreign banks, more interest rates to be paid? It is the insanity that keeps repeating itself, insanity upon insanity upon insanity. Do we need a crash to wake the government up and make it realize that we are set on a course that will result in a great amount of human suffering? Small businessmen, farmers, working people and old people trying to exist on meagre incomes, living on the edge of economic survival, will be swept under by the forces the government opposite is setting loose.


An hon. Member:: What about Saskatchewan?


Simon Leendert de Jong: The hon. member mentioned Saskatchewan. I did want to close with that. Saskatchewan, a small province of less than a million people, under an NDP government has taken an initiative in tackling this basic economic problem. They have tried to control resources developed in Saskatchewan so that the benefits of those resources stay in the province and stay in this country. That is why the people of Saskatchewan own nearly 50 per cent of the potash. Members opposite might claim that this is communism, and put that government down.
I am reminded of the day when the present Secretary of State (Mr. MacDonald) was in my home city of Regina. When asked what he thought of the takeover of potash by the provincial government, he said the only criticism he had of it was that it took so long. Mr. Speaker, he knew the solution to Saskatchewan's economic problems. But where is his voice now? Where are the voices of those Conservatives who know better? We heard them when they were in opposition. Are they to be stilled?
What sort of force is it in cabinet and in government which makes the voice of reason, understanding and enlightenment silent in a moment of need? Is there some hidden force which obliges people to do things they know do not make any sense at all?

October 25, 1979
Borrowing Authority
In Saskatchewan we are involved in potash and in the development of our resources such as oil. The people have a stake in this development so that when profits accrue they stay in the country and they help with the balance of payments rather than become an irritant and create a problem. The members who sit in this little corner have the solution to the Canadian economic problem, and that is Canadian ownership in which the public and government play an active part. Until we are willing to tackle the basic problem of foreign control we shall go on and on, I suppose, until a crash occurs. Is that what it takes before we learn? I hope not, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, addressing myself to this bill I want to make it clear at the outset that my approach to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) is somewhat different from that of some of the speakers on my left.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope so.


Donald James Johnston: I want to deliver a message of encouragement, of optimism, of hope, even of charity. I have a well-known company in my city-it's head office is in my riding- and I propose to borrow, if I may, a term they use. They have a motto "Steinberg's is on your side". I should like the Minister of Finance to know that many of us are very much on his side as he accepts the difficult challenges which face the country, as well as the many opportunities which lie ahead for Canada in this his first year as minister.
Benjamin Franklin once said that those who gave up an essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserved neither liberty nor safety. That statement is very appropriate for politicians in the late seventies and eighties here in Canada. I say this because we have to make difficult decisions.
In some areas the Minister of Finance has made difficult decisions. In others, though, he has not done so. Fie has, if you like, traded essential liberty, which I would define in certain circumstances as being equated with a sound economy, for temporary safety which in some respects is equivalent to political credibility.
The minister was faced with making a decision on a very difficult problem, that of the mortgage interest deductibility scheme advocated by his party during the election. It is our impression that it was only with great reluctance that the minister put forward even his modified version of that scheme, but that scheme is an example of what I mean, of giving up something which is in the interests of all Canadians, in the interest of a sound economy, in order to purchase a certain amount of political credibility. That is a black mark on the minister's record.
In addition, the hon. gentleman is supporting the position of the government in other economic areas, such as its stand on oil prices. It is an article of faith on the part of hon. members opposite, this thesis of letting oil prices rise to world market levels. I am myself a great believer in the marketplace; indeed,
I am very supportive of the principle of free enterprise. But in the case of oil we are dealing with an international cartel. We

are not dealing with a normal market situation; we are dealing with circumstances which are probably unique in recent history. This being the case, the concept of looking always to the market place is completely out of place in the current economic scheme. It is pushing us into inflation, pushing us inevitably into difficult times. The governor of the bank, according to the statement he delivered, expects an increase in oil prices and contemplates a rate of inflation considerably more than we are presently seeing.
Then there is question of the government's attitude to PetroCan. This is another policy which the minister indicates he supports as an article of faith. I find it difficult to believe that members opposite uniformly support the principle of privatization as an article of faith. As a matter of fact I recall the maiden speech of the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) when he talked about the experiences he had had with Crown corporations. It is small wonder, because we know that the government of Alberta which carries the Tory colours probably has as many Crown corporations as any other government in the country, if not more. So I find it hard to believe that privatization per se should be regarded as an article of faith.
But, again I do support the concept of privatization. Private ownership of the means of production is an article of faith with me. But there are certain areas today in which the private sector cannot be expected to meet the challenges which face society. In an earlier speech I made here I drew an analogy between PetroCan and other kinds of ventures into which governments are necessarily being drawn. Take, for example, space exploration in the United States. Should that be the concern of the private sector? Does anyone seriously suggest that individual investors could invest in a project of that kind from which the rewards, even if they were tangible, could easily be delayed for a hundred years? That is not the kind of investment which private investors in this day and age are prepared to make. I suggest in the case of the energy sector in this country, and for that matter in many countries, that we are dealing with a similar situation.
As a government hon. members opposite have an obligation to make certain kinds of investments which are investments for society as a whole. That is what we are dealing with in the case of Petro-Canada, and I hope that eventually hon. members opposite will abandon some of these articles of faith and look at the reality of Canada and the necessity of having a strong Canadian public company in the energy sector.
We have heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) himself identify our public enemy number one as inflation. Who could disagree? Inflation sets class against class and groups against groups. Everybody is trying to maintain or perhaps increase their share of the national income. Inflation indeed is a social malady, as Carl Beigie recently wrote. It is a terrifying prospect. Panic all of a sudden has beset our own community and other nations, and it must be addressed and arrested. Tough decisions are going to be required to bring that about.
October 25, 1979

I might say that beginning in 1975 the previous government started making many tough decisions. One of the tough decisions was to establish a monetary stance of some kind and to establish targets for monetary growth, and that policy was consistently followed. Another tough decision was to reverse trends which had been established with regard to the expansion and growth of the public service. Those decisions were carried out, but those trends continued, and they were in play and effective on "black Monday", May 22.
Then another area in which the government acted was that of reducing the rate of government spending. This was also a tough decision, finally culminating, on an accelerated basis, in what is sometimes referred to as the August exercise of 1978. That was not a popular decision. It was difficult, and no minister and no government can expect to be popular when faced with that kind of choice. There are always serious trade-offs for those kinds of decisions. The Minister of Finance will be expected to continue in that tradition as he carries out his responsibilities. That is what we are looking to him for. That is what all Canadians are looking to him for.
We are not looking for cop-outs like the mortgage tax credit scheme, and I say that as a member who at one time supported an idea of limited mortgage interest deductibility. But with study came enlightenment, and I know the minister has suffered through the same pangs of realizing that he is faced with a scheme which is not only neutral in its application but also detrimental, particularly in the current economic climate in this country where we are faced with inflation. What kind of scheme do we have? We have one that is likely to put even more upward pressure on mortgage interest rates, and one which all observers conclude is definitely going to put pressure on housing costs and increase housing costs. So the minister did not make a tough decision. He was not prepared to take political credibility on the chin with regard to that decision.
On the other hand, 1 have to be fair in my judgments, and 1 must also say that nobody wants high interest rates. I deplore high interest rates. We have heard the NDP deploring high interest rates. The minister has made the decision to impose high interest rates. I am sure he made that decision with the best of good will and intention. This problem must have been studied. We have Governor Bouey. We have the Minister of Finance. The decision was a tough one. I am not prepared to say at this point that it was the right decision, but I admire the minister for having the guts to step up and say, "We have to make some tough decisions, and this is one of them".
Within the context of the statement by Benjamin Franklin which I cited earlier, the minister has not backed down, but he needs help. He needs help from everybody. He needs help from us, and I hope we are going to be able to play a creative and positive role in helping him to develop the policies which are required to meet the number one problem of inflation.
We see what the minister is doing on the monetary side. We see increases in interest rates. We are not satisfied. At least I am not satisfied that that in itself is going to solve the problem. It seems to me that monetary policy may be somewhat deficient in that we continue to have great liquidity and
Borrowing Authority
do not seem to be curbing credit, but nevertheless he has established his monetary stance and monetary position.
What about the fiscal side? We can look forward to the minister's budget, and we look forward to it with great anticipation, but unfortunately he is on a bad wicket with his mortgage tax credit, and let us hope that the cost of that program, which is estimated to be in excess of $2 billion when it is in effect, will not pre-empt and compromise other programs which the minister inevitably must introduce if he is going to come to grips with the problems which face this country.
I have a number of suggestions for the minister-none of which he will probably accept-and they are not to be introduced immediately in any event, but I do think that the minister has to offer us programs destined to stimulate the supply side of our economy and get more capital-Canadian capital, preferably-into plant and equipment and into research and development. We do not need any greater stimulation of aggregate demand at this time, as this mortgage tax scheme is likely to create. What we need are sound fiscal programs designed to attract Canadian savings into productive sectors of our economy, not into the real estate sector, not into MURBs at this point, but into those areas where we can expect to improve efficiency, produce goods, and supply services at reduced cost. I certainly do not think I am alone in putting that forward as a sound proposal in terms of one approach at the fiscal level to deal with this incredibly difficult problem of inflation.
We hear a lot of rubbish, sometimes amusing rubbish, from our friends on the left. We hear a lot of criticism. Our friends on the left try to put hon. members opposite and ourselves all in the same category, which I do not accept. 1 think there are very major policy differences. Nonetheless, I cannot let this opportunity pass without making reference to some of the extraordinary arguments and propositions I hear coming from my friend, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Rae), who was elected to this House at the same time I was. There is no doubt but that he should know better. 1 see he has disappeared from the House.


An hon. Member:: He is here.


Bob Rae: I am listening carefully.


Donald James Johnston: I read an attack by the hon. member on bank profits, and one thing you must be aware of when dealing with people in the NDP is the extraordinary capacity they have to personify corporations, to the point where you almost expect to meet Exxon on the street.
Any economic analysis-and the hon. member undoubtedly has made one-would substantiate and prove to everyone's satisfaction-it was virtually accepted in the Carter commission report-that you can no more impose a tax on a corporation than you can impose a tax on a dog. Who pays the tax, the dog? Certainly not, and yet a dog is much more capable of paying that tax through work, labour-watchdogging or whatever-than a corporation. The only people who are taxed when

October 25, 1979
Adjournment Debate
a corporation is taxed are the shareholders of the corporation who have to accept a reduced return on investment, or the people to whom the corporation renders goods and services.
With that I would like to come back to the situation with banks, but perhaps I should call it ten o'clock.


An hon. Member:: Right.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. McKinnon) for being here tonight to comment on my question which I asked on Wednesday, October 17, as reported at pages 298 and 299 of Hansard.
Before I get into the question, and certainly before we get any further into this session, perhaps the minister would be happy to join with me in paying tribute to the work which was done in this field by his predecessor, the Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: We all know of the difficulty he had getting money for veterans out of the cabinet of the last few years, but he fought hard and won quite a few gains for our veterans. We all know that there were a number of things that Mr. MacDonald hoped he might yet win, and that leads me to say that I hope his successor will finish the job he tried to do.
On October 17 my question was in two main parts. Principally 1 asked about amendments to the Pension Act which would make it possible for widows of veterans to receive the widow's pension where the veteran's disability pension was below 48 per cent. This is a cutoff which has been most unfair through all the years and for all the decades it has been there. Time and again there have been recommendations by outside committees and by standing committees on veterans affairs that this be changed, at least to the extent of having a prorata pension for widows where the veteran's disability pension was below 48 per cent. My hunch and my feeling is that we are getting closer to it. I hope the minister might be able to give us that assurance tonight. I realize he cannot give us the details until he presents his bill, but if he can assure us that the bill will be coming in soon, that would be deeply appreciated.
[Mr. Johnston.)
When 1 questioned the government House leader today about future business, I said that I hoped something like this could be announced and put before us this year before November 11.
When the minister responds, I hope he will also say anything he can about other measures which ought to be considered. One is to put the basic rate of the disability pension on a basis which ties it to the average income of the five designated categories in the public service. As the minister knows, we tied it to that level some years ago, but provided only for its indexing according to the rise in the cost of living. The result has been that year by year the amount of the 100 per cent disability pension gets behind the composite rate which was accepted as fair. We adjusted it once. Why not put it on a fixed basis so that it will always keep pace with that composite level?
Also there is the question of certain improvements which still need to be made to the compensation for former prisoners of war. I am sure these have been drawn to the attention of the minister. I hope that some time during this session something might be done in that area.
The other very large area where something needs to be done is in revising the War Veterans Allowance Act. This is an old piece of legislation which was brought in back in the 1930s when on the civilian side we had an old age pension with a means test. The war veterans allowance matched that and did something a little better for veterans than what was done for civilians. Times have changed. The old age pension situation is a little better. We got rid of the means test, at least for the basic amount. But some of those old trappings are still there with respect to the war veterans allowance. It seems to me the time has come, especially in view of the other social changes and in view of the years since two or three wars were fought, for the war veterans allowance to be turned into a guaranteed annual income for veterans at a certain age below the age at which ordinary people go on pension.
There are a number of issues of that kind about which I am concerned, and I am hoping that in this session, with the minister's keen interest in veterans, and despite the fact he has got two jobs, he will be pushing hard for the kinds of improvements to which I have been referring tonight. There are others, but I believe I have named the main ones, namely, altering that 48 per cent rule so that widows where the husband's rated disability was below 48 per cent will get a pension as of right; doing something about fixing the 100 per cent basic disability pension so it will stay with the composite level that was agreed upon; improving the compensation for former prisoners of war; and bringing the War Veterans Allowance Act up to date so that it will meet the needs of our veterans today.
1 am happy to welcome the hon. member for Victoria to this important post of veterans affairs, and I look forward to working with him and with other members who are interested in veterans affairs so that we can make some real progress during this session on behalf of Canada's veterans, their families and their survivors.
October 25, 1979


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise at this time to reply to my friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
I cannot add a great deal to the answers I gave the other day, but 1 would not like this opportunity to pass, while we are passing out kudos, without mentioning the sterling work that was done in respect of veterans' pensions by my predecessor, in a fashion, the former member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe, who has now gone to the other place and is a senator. Jack Marshall's work in the pension field has been outstanding. He is still held in very high regard across the country, and is receiving all kinds of requests to make speeches and appearances, and is working closely with me advising me in my portfolio of DVA.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I hope to continue using his services in that regard as well as, and I do not want to say "use", the services of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) because I am sure he is volunteering them. I am looking forward to working with him.
As to the timing of the bill, which was the first part of his question tonight, one of our problems is that this government has so much good legislation it wants to get before the House our drafting crew is falling a bit behind. That is holding us up on this particular bill at the present time.
The bill is going to amend two or three, and maybe four, statutes and, consequently, requires careful drafting. There will be many clauses to it, and they will approach, perhaps sometimes not in exactly the same way as the hon. member would like, the problems he has mentioned and would like rectified. As I said the other day, we are moving in the same direction.
I do not expect it will include the tying in of the basic pension, but 1 will be asking my advisers what the cost would be at the present time of tying the basic pension to the five lowest grades of the civil service. The hon. member informed us it was tied in once before but somehow or other the knot slipped. The fact that the pay of the lowest five grades in the civil service is increasing faster than the cost of living is a problem because a gap appears, and I expect there is a gap again now. The last time the gap was closed was about three years ago. 1 will be looking at that but, as the hon. member knows, we were not left with exactly a bank full of money when we took over. The money is short and we are trying to set our priorities to help those who are the most needy. We are doing that through some of the amendments. The 48 per cent amendment, while it will not cure the problem overnight, is a start in that direction. There will be some movement made in that direction.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There will be something done about the 48 per cent rule?


Allan Bruce McKinnon: That is right, and as far as the War Veterans Allowance Act is concerned we are going to take some important steps there to cure some of the inequities.
Adjournment Debate Mr. Knowles: Good.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I see that my time is up.


PUBLIC SERVICE-REVIEW OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT AND THE MERIT PRINCIPLE-APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES IN REPORT
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, last week I rose in the House to ask the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) about the curious new rulings which have been made by the deputy commissioner of corrections regarding the disposition of so-called surplus employees at the B.C. penitentiary. I put the question to him that he has added an additional principle to the D'Avignon report in which he now invokes a "reverse order merit" principle. 1 suggest somewhat facetiously, but not entirely facetiously, that if we applied that principle to the administrators of the penitentiary service in the Pacific region, the quality of work would go up dramatically.
I say that because I wonder if the regional director of the penitentiary service in British Columbia has any other qualifications beside the fact that his brother is the senior officer in the Solicitor General's department here in Ottawa. His sidekick, Babalouie, or whatever his name is, worked with him in Kingston. The inspector general who was sent out to do an audit on the work methods and the number of employees there, was as effective as sending lettuce by rabbit. I wonder if the man who is in charge of the penitentiary has any other personal interests except the fact he is a retired man from the military and feels that this is a good way of supplementing his military pension. One does not get a very sanguine picture of the administration in the Pacific regional district.
Specifically, 1 have been dealing with the case of a constituent of mine who has ten years of service at the penitentiary and who held a senior position in his classification. This man was acting supervisor of that area for two years. He has taken the management course offered to him by the penitentiary service. He also received a letter from the acting director general of the Public Service Commission saying, "we hope that you will soon be getting a promotion".
However, when the previous government instituted a firing policy of 5,000 employees, the B.C. penitentiary service decided to do an audit and to check on these employees and, lo and behold, this man who has ten years service is the first to go, or at least almost the first to go. I wonder why? An evaluation was done on him, but when he asked to see that report, he was refused. He appealed it and his appeal at the regional district was turned down, whereupon he appealed to the commissioner here in Ottawa. This is what the commissioner had to say with regard to the force reduction committees. They:-
-assess the qualifications of persons so identified and rate them in accordance with the reverse order of merit principle.
He says rates them, he does not say dismisses them. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark when there is that kind of evaluating going on in the public service. My question to the

October 25, 1979
Adjournment Debate
President of the Treasury Board was to the effect: how long can we have a public service when we have that kind of assessment being done on the public servants? What kind of sense of security will there be in the public service when that kind of chopping is going on? Everyone will be wondering who will be next.
Perhaps one of the liabilities of this gentleman was that he was one of the 16 hostages at the time of the Mary Steinhaus-er affair at the penitentiary. Perhaps he knows too much of what is going on inside the penitentiary. It may be that one of his liabilities is that he had the audacity to protest some of the decisions made at the penitentiary regarding staff and the lack of promotions to officers.
It seems to me that any administration that tries three times to hire a person and put him in an acting supervisory position when that person does not have the qualifications is hardly the kind to qualify for judging this person, who has all the necessary qualifications on paper, who has the experience necessary, and who has done the things asked of him. But he is released. As I say, something is wrong in the state of Denmark.
Two things are wrong with the disposition of this case, according to the act. First, he was not allowed to see his assessment. It was secret; he never saw it. When he complained, they made another one. Finally, he appealed to the deputy commissioner. The act says that he is supposed to receive a response from the deputy commissioner in 30 days but, Mr. Speaker, it took 95 days for that response to get back to this individual.
I suggest that if the D'Avignon report is dealing with the merit principle-and I say this in all seriousness and not at all facetiously-the regional director, his deputy, the man who is in charge of the penitentiary, ought to be subjected to that principle of reverse order of merit that they are now invoking with respect to this employee. In that way the system in the specific regional district would be cleaned up in a hurry.
I have sent notices to the Solicitor General (Mr. Lawrence) regarding some of the activities which are occurring in the hiring practices, and some of the inequities that the employees feel are carried on. It is time that we invoke the merit principle in order of merit and keep those people who have seniority, who have proficiency, and who have shown consistency in their work patterns-keep them, and deal with the administrators who are perpetrating this act of injustice on the employees.


Mr. Scott Fennell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question touches on an issue which is of great importance to us, that of the application of the merit principle in the hiring and dismissal of public servants. I should like to review briefly where we stand at the moment.
The Public Service Employment Act, in respect of lay-offs, states that where the services of an employee are no longer required because of lack of work or because of the discontinu-

ance of the function, the deputy head, in accordance with regulations of the commission, may lay off the employee. The specific regulation concerned is section 33.IB of the public service employment regulations. Where two or more employees are employed in similar positions and one must be laid off, the deputy head must lay off the employees in order of merit. The order of lay-off begins with the employee lowest on the list. This is known as the "reverse order of merit" and should ensure that the best employees are the last to be laid off.
The government recognizes the subjectivity involved in this process, and would be pleased to draw to the personal attention of the Chairman of the Public Service Commission any cases such as that referred to by the hon. member where it is felt that the process may not have been implemented fairly. The minister will meet to review the situation with the chairman in the near future. I would encourage all members to write the minister with details of these cases as soon as possible. The government does not accept that abuse has necessarily occurred, but believes the matter to be of such importance to the fair practice doctrine which underlies government employment that detailed scrutiny of its operations by members of the commission is clearly justified.
As we all know, the D'Avignon report on the review of personnel management and the merit principle was tabled in this House recently. This will provide an opportunity to hon. members and the government to themselves consider the broad application of the merit principle within the federal public service, with a view to safeguarding its continued and even expanded application throughout the federal departments and agencies of the Crown.


FISHERIES-COD QUOTAS IN GULF OF ST. LAWRENCE
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, on October 17 I put questions to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. McGrath) about supplementary cod quotas in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the matter of allowing boats 100 feet and over to fish in those water. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in the previous government prohibited boats over 100 feet from fishing in Gulf waters to preserve the stocks for Gulf-based coastal and deep sea fishermen. That measure allowed New Brunswick and Quebec fishermen to increase their catches in the past two years. As an example, Mr. Speaker, Quebec catches increased 30 per cent a year in the past two years.
The minister said there were consultations with the Atlantic provinces and Quebec at a meeting held in St. John's, Newfoundland, in mid-July. According to my information, supplementary cod quotas in the Gulf of St. Lawrence for the years 1979 and 1980 were discussed but the committee never agreed to let trawlers 100 feet and over in the gulf. The representatives of the province of Quebec suggested at that meeting of the Atlantic Groundfish Advisory Committee a supplement of
10,000	metric tons of cod. No province expressed objections to the increased quotas.

October 25, 1979
The minister was informed by the advisory committee on July 11 that a supplement for boats over 100 feet could be challenged by certain provinces and, of course, coastal fishermen. Here, Mr. Speaker, is an excerpt from the minutes of that committee, and 1 quote:
Cod stocks in area 4T seem in better shape. Members are generally in favour of an increase in the current TAC (total authorized catch); however, the possibility of a TAC increase and allocations to boats over and under 100 feet bring out contradictory opinions-
A few days later, the minister received a working paper entitled "The Minister's Briefing Notes," in which the civil servants bring up the same problems. I quote:

If the quota is increased by this amount in 1979, the inshore fleet segment will be happy. However, knowing that the scientific advice suggests we can increase by as much as 13,000, the offshore segment will be most vocal in their objections. Conversely, allowing the large vessels to catch up to this amount of fish in 4T (an area currently excluded to vessels greater than 100 feet) would be totally unacceptable to the inshore fishermen,... and such a policy would be violently opposed by the provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick, and P.E.I.
Mr. Speaker, the inshore fishermen are against increased quotas for vessels greater than 100 feet, and rightly so. For them, and those who work in the processing plants, their families, the towns where they live, access to those resources is indispensable.
In his press release of August 27 advising the fishermen of higher quotas, the minister took them by surprise, and especially the governments of Quebec, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, by authorizing vessels of more than 100 feet, which belong to big companies, to catch 6,000 additional tons in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and that, to the detriment of inshore fishermen.
Mr. Speaker, a few days after making his decision on August 27, the minister stated at a conference on northern cod, and 1 quote:
Our policy, my policy on this matter is simple and well-defined. Coastal fishermen have priority access to this resource.
You will certainly agree, Mr. Speaker, that this minister wears many hats.
Like several other members, Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether the hon. minister has one policy for the coastal fishermen of Newfoundland, another for those of New Brunswick, another for those of Quebec, and finally another favouring large companies. Indeed, why did he authorize vessels greater than 100 feet to catch 6,000 metric tons of cod in the Gulf when no, I repeat, no favourable recommendation to this effect was made by the Atlantic Groundfish Advisory Committee or in the working paper that he received from his officials?
Adjournment Debate
Mr. Speaker, the government has often boasted that it could come to an agreement with the provinces on any subject. I can therefore not understand how the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans can decide to let trawlers of 100 feet or more into the Gulf of St.Lawrence knowing that the provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, as well as the coastal fishermen of the Gulf, including those of Newfoundland, have expressed disagreement about his new policy. Mr. Speaker, the minister has unilaterally made a decision which is unacceptable to eastern Canada.
Since this new policy will have unfavourable effects on the fishing industry of Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, as well as Cape Breton Island, I ask on behalf of my colleagues from eastern Quebec and eastern Canada that the hon. minister postpone his decision until the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry has studied the matter.


Mr. Thomas Siddon (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Gaspe for outlining these problems.

I am pleased to comment on the issue raised by the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Cyr) and, in so doing, to establish the facts and events as they happened. The management of all the Atlantic groundfish fishery is based on recommendations made by the Atlantic Groundfish Advisory Committee. The provinces, the industry, and the fishermen's associations are all represented on that committee.
At the July 11, 1979, meeting of AG AC, the possibility of increasing the 1979 total allowable catch for the southern Gulf was discussed. Scientific advice indicated that there was room to increase the total allowable catch by some 13,000 tons over the 36,000 already allocated for that fishery. Following that meeting, further consultation with representatives of vessels under 100 feet indicated that they required 4,000 tons to carry their fishery to the end of the fishing season. This means in effect that 9,000 tons were left to be allocated, and representatives of vessels over 100 feet were quite anxious to have all that quota. However, in order not to affect the 1980 total allowable catch and to be on the safe side, the Minister of Fisheries decided to authorize the allocation of only 6,000 tons to the larger vessels. These vessels will not commence fishing until after November 1.
I think it would have been irresponsible for the minister not to allocate at least part of the recommended increase, when the scientific advice suggested this could be done in accordance with sound conservation principles. The hon. member would probably have criticized the minister if he decided not to allocate that quota. In allocating Gulf stocks, the minister has made it clear that the priority should go to the small inshore fleet. However, one must not confuse priority and exclusivity.

October 25, 1979
Adjournment Debate
The hon. member should also recognize the very important benefits of employment which will accrue to those shore based industries which will process this increased quota. I wish to emphasize that consultations were held and that all parties were consulted before the decision was made. It is clear that no amount of additional consultation could have resolved differing views. Therefore it was the minister's responsibility to make the final decision on the basis of those consultations and the best scientific advice available.
It should be noted, Mr. Speaker, that trawlers based outside the Gulf have always fished from this stock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: Order. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.
October 25, 1979


APPENDIX
[Stage Direction]
(See p. 604)

[Stage Direction]
The committee of the Privy Council, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, advise:
1.	that in the absence from Ottawa of the Prime Minister or in the event of his being unable to perform the functions of his office, the next senior minister named in schedule A to this minute who is a member of the House of Commons, is in Ottawa and is able to perform the functions of the office of Prime Minister, be authorized to act for the Prime Minister.
2.	that in the absence from Ottawa of a minister whose name is set out in column II of an item of schedule B to this minute, or in the event of that minister being unable to perform the functions of his office, the minister whose name is set out in column 111 of the item be authorized to act for the minister named in column II in respect of the office set out in column I of the item;
3.	that in the absence from Ottawa of the ministers named in columns II and III of an item of schedule B to this minute, or in the event of both of those ministers being unable to perform the functions of their office, the minister whose name is set out in column IV of the item be authorized to act for the minister named in column II in respect of the office set out in column I of the item;
4.	that in the absence from Ottawa of the ministers named in columns II, III and IV of an item of schedule B to this minute, or in the event of all those ministers being unable to perform the functions of their office, the Prime Minister or, if the Prime Minister is absent from Ottawa or unable to perform the functions of his office, the next senior minister named in schedule A to this minute who is in Ottawa be authorized to act for the minister named in column II in respect of the office set out in column I of the item;
5.	that where an office set out in column 1 of an item of schedule B to this minute is vacant, the minister whose name is set out in column III of that item be authorized to act in the office of the minister whose office is set out in column I of that item; and
6.	that where an office set out in column I of an item of schedule B to this minute is vacant, in the absence from
Ottawa of the minister whose name is set out in column III of that item, or in the event of that minister being unable to perform the functions of the office set out in column I of that item, the minister whose name is set out in column IV of that item be authorized to act in the office of the minister whose office is set out in column I of that item.
Certified to be a true copy-Copie certifiee conforme
Marcel Masse
Clerk of the Privy Council-Le greffier du Conseil prive SCHEDULE A
LIST OF MINISTERS TO ACT FOR THE PRIME MINISTER IN HIS ABSENCE OR IN THE EVENT OF HIS BEING UNABLE TO PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS OF HIS OFFICE The Honourable Walter David Baker,
President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of National Revenue The Honourable Flora MacDonald,
Secretary of State for External Affairs The Honourable John C. Crosbie,
Minister of Finance
The Honourable David S. H. MacDonald,
Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of Communications
The Honourable William Jarvis,
Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations The Honourable Sinclair McKnight Stevens,
President of the Treasury Board The Honourable Ramon John Hnatyshyn,
Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources The Honourable Roch La Salle,
Minister of Supply and Services The Honourable James A. McGrath,
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans The Honourable Erik H. Nielsen,
Minister of Public Works The Honourable Allan Frederick Lawrence,
Solicitor General of Canada and Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs
The Honourable Lincoln Alexander,
Minister of Labour
The Honourable Donald F. Mazankowski,
Minister of Transport The Honourable Elmer M. MacKay,
Minister of Regional Economic Expansion
638
[Stage Direction]
October 25, 1979
The Honourable Arthur Jacob Epp,
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development The Honourable John Allen Fraser,
Postmaster General and Minister of the Environment The Honourable Allan McKinnon,
Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs
The Honourable John Wise,
Minister of Agriculture The Honourable Ronald George Atkey,
Minister of Employment and Immigration The Honourable David Crombie,
Minister of National Health and Welfare
The Honourable William Heward Grafftey,
Minister of State for Science and Technology The Honourable Perrin Beatty,
Minister of State (Treasury Board)
The Honourable J. Robert Howie,
Minister of State (Transport)
The Honourable Steven Eugene Paproski,
Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport and Multiculturalism
The Honourable Ronald Huntington,
Minister of State for Small Businesses and Industry The Honourable Michael H. Wilson,
Minister of State for International Trade
October 25, 1979

[Stage Direction]
COLUMN I
[Stage Direction]
COLUMN II
[Stage Direction]
COLUMN III
[Stage Direction]
COLUMN IV
[Stage Direction]
OFFICE
[Stage Direction]
MINISTER
[Stage Direction]
ACTING MINISTER
[Stage Direction]
SECOND ACTING MINISTER
[Stage Direction]
1.
[Stage Direction]
Agriculture
[Stage Direction]
John Wise
[Stage Direction]
D. F. Mazankowski
[Stage Direction]
William Jarvis
[Stage Direction]
2.
[Stage Direction]
Employment & Immigration
[Stage Direction]
Ronald George Atkey
[Stage Direction]
Lincoln Alexander
[Stage Direction]
W. Heward Grafftey
[Stage Direction]
3.
[Stage Direction]
Energy, Mines and Resources
[Stage Direction]
R. J. Hnatyshyn
[Stage Direction]
J. Crosbie
[Stage Direction]
M. Wilson
[Stage Direction]
4.
[Stage Direction]
Science and Technology
[Stage Direction]
H. Grafftey
[Stage Direction]
A. R. Huntington
[Stage Direction]
P. Beatty
[Stage Direction]
5.
[Stage Direction]
External Affairs
[Stage Direction]
Flora MacDonald
[Stage Direction]
Allan McKinnon
[Stage Direction]
M. H. Wilson
[Stage Direction]
6.
[Stage Direction]
Finance
[Stage Direction]
John Crosbie
[Stage Direction]
Sinclair M. Stevens
[Stage Direction]
Walter D. Baker
[Stage Direction]
7.
[Stage Direction]
Fisheries & Oceans
[Stage Direction]
James A. McGrath
[Stage Direction]
John Allen Fraser
[Stage Direction]
Elmer MacKay
[Stage Direction]
8.
[Stage Direction]
Indian Affairs and Northern Development
[Stage Direction]
Arthur Jacob Epp
[Stage Direction]
John Wise
[Stage Direction]
W. Heward Grafftey
[Stage Direction]
9.
[Stage Direction]
Industry, Trade and Commerce and Economic Development
[Stage Direction]
Robert R. de Cotret
[Stage Direction]
Michael H. Wilson
[Stage Direction]
R. Huntington
[Stage Direction]
10.
[Stage Direction]
Justice and Attorney General of Canada
[Stage Direction]
Jacques Flynn
[Stage Direction]
William Jarvis
[Stage Direction]
Erik H. Nielsen
[Stage Direction]
11.
[Stage Direction]
Labour
[Stage Direction]
Lincoln Alexander
[Stage Direction]
Ronald George Atkey
[Stage Direction]
D. Crombie
[Stage Direction]
12a.
[Stage Direction]
National Defence &
[Stage Direction]
Allan McKinnon
[Stage Direction]
Flora MacDonald
[Stage Direction]
R. J. Hnatyshyn
[Stage Direction]
12b.
[Stage Direction]
Veterans Affairs
[Stage Direction]
David Crombie
[Stage Direction]
L. Alexander
[Stage Direction]
13.
[Stage Direction]
National Health and Welfare
[Stage Direction]
David Crombie
[Stage Direction]
David MacDonald
[Stage Direction]
S. E. Paproski
[Stage Direction]
14a.
[Stage Direction]
Postmaster General &
[Stage Direction]
John Allen Fraser
[Stage Direction]
Lincoln Alexander
[Stage Direction]
Perrin Beatty
[Stage Direction]
14b.
[Stage Direction]
Environment
[Stage Direction]
James A. McGrath
[Stage Direction]
D. F. Mazankowski
[Stage Direction]
15a.
[Stage Direction]
Privy Council and
[Stage Direction]
Walter D. Baker
[Stage Direction]
William Jarvis
[Stage Direction]
Flora MacDonald
[Stage Direction]
15b.
[Stage Direction]
National Revenue
[Stage Direction]
R. Huntington
[Stage Direction]
Sinclair M. Stevens
[Stage Direction]
16.
[Stage Direction]
Public Works
[Stage Direction]
Erik H. Nielsen
[Stage Direction]
Roch La Salle
[Stage Direction]
Elmer M. MacKay
[Stage Direction]
17.'
[Stage Direction]
Regional Economic Expansion
[Stage Direction]
Elmer M. MacKay
[Stage Direction]
Arthur Jacob Epp
[Stage Direction]
John C. Crosbie
[Stage Direction]
18.
[Stage Direction]
Secretary of State of Canada and Communications
[Stage Direction]
David S. H. MacDonald
[Stage Direction]
S. E. Paproski
[Stage Direction]
Walter D. Baker
[Stage Direction]
19.
[Stage Direction]
Solicitor General of Canada and Consumer and Corporate Affairs
[Stage Direction]
Allan F. Lawrence
[Stage Direction]
Roch La Salle
[Stage Direction]
Ronald G. Atkey
[Stage Direction]
20.
[Stage Direction]
Supply and Services
[Stage Direction]
Roch La Salle
[Stage Direction]
Erik H. Nielsen
[Stage Direction]
Elmer M. MacKay
[Stage Direction]
21.
[Stage Direction]
Transport
[Stage Direction]
D. F. Mazankowski
[Stage Direction]
J. Robert Howie
[Stage Direction]
James A. McGrath
[Stage Direction]
22.
[Stage Direction]
Treasury Board
[Stage Direction]
Sinclair M. Stevens
[Stage Direction]
Perrin Beatty
[Stage Direction]
John C. Crosbie
[Stage Direction]
Friday, October 26, 1979