1979-10-26

Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau), pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 and as a matter of urgent and pressing necessity:
That the President of the Treasury Board take immediate steps to increase the allocation of manpower to the Canadian Employment and Immigration Commission so that the serious problems of overworked officials and lengthy backlogs in the Canadian immigration offices around the world can be eliminated, and so that the illegal inflow of immigrants can be better patrolled, together with fuller screening to ensure that foreign criminals and foreign government agents not be admitted to Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FISHERIES
Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to propose a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the seriousness of the problem resulting from the decision of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. McGrath) to allow trawlers of 100 feet or more to take 6,000 metric tons of cod in the 4T area of the Gulf of St. Lawrence as of November 1, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bujold):


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the hon. member's motion. 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.


CULTURAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
This being the first anniversary of Arts Day, and considering that another Canadian success story, the world renowned National Film Board, an institution which has brought Canada international recognition, winning five Oscars and 40 Academy nominations and many other awards, an institution which has recently lost 125 skilled artists and technicians and which is in desperate straits because of an effective 25 per cent cutback imposed by the previous government, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell):
That the Secretary of State seek approval from his generous colleagues on the treasury benches for an immediate $1 million transfusion of supplementary funds in order that Canadians not lose this 40-year old cultural resource through a lingering death caused by financial starvation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

October 26, 1979


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent necessity concerning the 1980 Olympic Games to be held in the Soviet Union. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton):
That this House affirms its belief that the Olympic Games must always be above the field of political ideologies of any kind whatsoever, and that it therefore request an explanation from the government of the Soviet Union on the apparent infringement of human rights by the proposed banishment of all Moscow children between the ages of seven and fifteen from that city during July and August of 1980 for the apparent, expressed concern that visiting outsiders would contaminate their minds with ideas contrary to ideology taught in Russian classrooms.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The introduction of such a motion for debate would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[DOT] (ino)
[ Translation]


CANADA WORKS
Mr. Raymond Savard (Verdun):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering the large number of senior citizens who have taken advantage of the services made available through several Canada Works projects in the constituency of Verdun and in almost every Canadian constituency; considering that the provinces of Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta were entirely excluded from the program; and considering that the funds made available to Quebec have been reduced in comparison to last year, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Blainville-Deux Montagnes (Mr. Fox):
That the House direct the government to review immediately the criteria for the allocation of funds to ridings so that the funds benefit those with the most pressing needs.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. 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.


PENSIONS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), I move:
That this House urges the government to review all the employee pension plans that come under its jurisdiction, and to take the necessary steps to provide that in all cases the pensions of surviving widows-or of surviving widowers where applicable-will be not less than 75 per cent of the contributor's pension, and that the eventual goal be a full 100 per cent pension for either survivor, in accordance with the principle of equality between men and women.


Mr. Speaker:: Introduction of such a motion for debate at this time would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Pierre Deniger (Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the new policy announced October 19 which unfairly permits large, foreign car rental companies to qualify as Canadian in the allocation of booth space at Canadian airports, and considering that booth space for foreign car rental agencies has already been generously supplied, and in view of the statements of legitimate Canadian competitors whose existence is threatened by this policy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Dionne):
That the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications be authorized to examine and report upon the effect of this policy on Canadian car rental companies, and that its implementation be suspended for 60 days until the committee has completed its recommendation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
October 26, 1979


NUCLEAR DEVICES
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that United States intelligence services have reported that the government of South Africa has exploded a nuclear device in the atmosphere, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
That this House demand that the government of South Africa discontinue all nuclear testing.


Mr. Speaker:: Introduction of such a motion for debate at this time can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PENSIONS
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis):
That the government recognize the desirability that all Canadians in similar financial circumstances be treated equally, and that to this end all widows with little or no income and who are between the ages of 60 and 65 receive the same access to federal pension benefits as are presently accorded or are to be granted only to those widows whose husbands have died at a certain age.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board, who always told us about his concern for the private sector and for privatization.
Oral Questions
Will he really do something to help the private sector, especially small business, to cope with the serious problem and the concern that the government's policy of high interest rates has created for Canadian business?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member for Windsor West that we constantly have under review various measures that would help the small business sector in this country. I am very, very pleased that at last the hon. member is becoming alerted to the sad consequences of the deficits his former government ran up in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, last December 13 the President of the Treasury Board, speaking in this House on behalf of the Conservative party, said, "For every one-half point the interest rates go up, it costs businesses $375 million."
Does he realize this means the Conservative high interest rate policy has already cost Canadian business over $2 billion? Why is he abandoning the promises he made before the election to bring down interest rates? Why is he not doing anything to help Canadian business, especially small business, instead of giving us this empty talk?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, again, as the hon. member knows as a former ex-cabinet minister, it is not primarily the responsibility of the Treasury Board to take such measures as he is referring to.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: But I can assure him that this government is the friend of small business in this country-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -and if ways and means can be taken to assist the small businessman, they will certainly be taken.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, if the Conservative government is such a friend to small business, why, according to press reports, is John Bulloch, president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, expressing fear that a downturn of consumer spending due to the Conservative high interest rate policy will leave small retailers with large inventories of unsold goods, and thereby increase the number of business bankruptcies?
Why has the government taken no steps to help them deal with this problem and just given us this talk? What estimates does he, or his colleague the Minister of Finance, have of the number of business bankruptcies anticipated because of the Conservative high interest rate policy?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, again I would'reply to the hon. member who raised similar questions at the finance committee meeting yesterday, I understand, that when that information is

October 26, 1979
Oral Questions
available-as I have already indicated-we will certainly make it available to members of this House.
In short, we have explained-certainly my colleague, the Minister of Finance, has explained-why interest rates are rising in this country and I cannot understand why the hon. member persists in indicating that it is this government's fault, as opposed to his own former government's fault.


Mr. Chretien:: If you do not want to talk responsibly, get out.


GOVERNMENT POLICY ON LEVEL OF CANADIAN DOLLAR
Mr. Arthur Phillips (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister said, yes, people are being crucified now with high rates but they will be better off in a year or two as a result of this policy. I must say this reminded me very much of the American general in the Vietnam war-


An hon. Member:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. member have a supplementary question?


Arthur Phillips: The question is this, Mr. Speaker. Since the minister has said that high interest rates are needed to prevent the dollar from falling, and to combat inflation, can the minister answer the question which the acting minister refused to answer two days ago as to what the government thinks is the appropriate level for the dollar-90 cents, 85 cents, or 80 cents? What does he believe is the appropriate level?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, while it may be that some people are being crucified by high interest rates, obviously the hon. gentleman has not been, because he looks quite well.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: You are getting tired already, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: As a result of our policy, and with the steps we have taken now that will improve the economy, the people who are suffering now will be rising again in a year's time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: What about the dollar?


FUTURE POLICY RESPECTING INTEREST RATES-EFFECT OF OIL PRICE INCREASES
Arthur Phillips: Mr. Speaker, since the government is planning to raise the inflation rate to over ten per cent next year by raising the price of oil sharply, I ask the minister, can we look forward to even higher interest rates for a prolonged period of time and many more crucifixions of individuals and small businesses in the next year or two?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, what we can look forward to is that this government is going to do what is right in the long-term interests of the economy of this country. The steps that are being taken now have to be taken now because of the weakness of our present economy and because of events that have occurred over the last few years.
The steps that have to be taken now are going to be painful for a short time. There is no way of trying to improve our economic situation which is not going to be painful to many people now. We are confident that taking these steps now will mean that in the next few months and in the next several years Canada will realize its inherent strengths which have been pointed out by forecasters and economists such as Mr. Grant, of Wood Gundy, who said that "Canada has a lot of pain to go through in the next five years. However, we probably have the strongest economy among the western countries and we are best equipped for survival." With the right policies now, we will succeed.


CREDIBILITY OF GOVERNMENT IN FACE OF ECONOMIC SITUATION
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister which goes to the root of the central question of government, that is, of credibility as a whole. Given that the Canadian economic reality just before the May election with high inflation, high unemployment and a low economic growth rate was precisely the same as it is now-as was acknowledged by governor Bouey yesterday- can the Prime Minister explain to the people of Canada why he thought it was appropriate, given that economic reality before the last election which has not changed, to promise low interest rates then but to implement high interest rates after the election? Do we not have a very serious credibility problem here?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, to deal with that question which the Leader of the New Democratic Party has raised for three days in a row, and to give him an answer which remains the same and which I hope will be clear to him: when this government came into office it found an economic situation which was more severe than we had anticipated.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herb Breau: The Minister of Finance just said it was the strongest in the western world.


Charles Joseph Clark: It was more severe than we had anticipated. This was as a result of the mismanagement of the former government.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: You are the government now.


Charles Joseph Clark: The former minister of finance, who was shunted aside to federal-provincial relations in the hope he would be quiet, says that we are the government now. The problem is
October 26, 1979

that they were the government then. They created a series of problems with which we have to deal and which require the kinds of policies we are now following.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knows that answer was utter rubbish. There has been no change in the economic reality from the time before the election as it pertains to the present time, and the governor of the Bank of Canada acknowledged that yesterday before the committee. No amount of rhetoric from the Prime Minister will get around that. The five principal chartered banks in Canada, whose profits last year amounted to almost a billion dollars, up some 33 per cent from the year before, have now announced their intention to raise their rate to Chargex holders to 21 per cent-a further gouging of the public on top of these profits. Will the government take concrete action with the banks and stop this new act of gouging on their part?


An hon. Member:: Usury.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, that question was raised by a member of the New Democratic Party some days ago and directed to the Minister of Finance. He indicated that we would not take the action recommended by the NDP. I repeat that answer.


John Edward Broadbent: The Prime Minister said in the House a few days ago that inflation was public enemy No. 1. He has ruled out a subsidy on bread prices, ruled out a subsidy on milk prices, cancelled his election promise of a tax cut for middle and low income taxpayers, and today reiterated that they are not going to do anything about exorbitant bank profits. What, precisely, does he intend to do for the ordinary person in this country?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, what we intend to do for what the Leader of the NDP calls the ordinary people in this country is to face, now, the tough decisions which exist for the Government of Canada either to face or to ignore. They were ignored in large measure by the former government. We will not ignore them: we will face them head on. That is the only way we can bring order, growth and confidence to the Canadian economy and assure our future.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF THE GOVERNMENT LEADER IN THE YUKON TERRITORY
Mr. Speaker:: Before continuing the question period, 1 invite hon. members to join with me in signalling the presence in our gallery of a distinguished visitor in the person of Mr. Chris Pearson, the government leader in the Yukon territory.


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


UI25)   REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE STUDY OF SUGGESTIONS TO ASSIST UNDERPRIVILEGED AREAS
Hon. Pierre De Bane (Matapedia-Matane):: As the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion is absent, Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister-


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot tolerate being treated in this way! There is a time-honoured tradition established in this House and I should like it to be adhered to.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member for Bellechasse rises on a point of order at this moment, I shall consider him at noon today. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I do not accept being treated this way. I do not accept our being treated as though we had not been elected.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please! The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane.


Pierre De Bané: In view of the absence-


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, there is a question I want to ask and I want to ask it now.


Pierre De Bané: As the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion is absent, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Considering that the Prime Minister has stated on several occasions-


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I insist on being respected and recognized in accordance with the tradition of the House! I do insist-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I should like to remind the hon. member for Bellechasse-and he is fully aware of this anyway-that hon. members may not rise on points of order during oral question period. That is to conform with the recent practice of proceeding with question period without any interruptions, i understand very well that the hon. member for Bellechasse should seek the opportunity to put a question. Yesterday, I recognized him so that he could put a question after that of the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) and today I shall recognize him again later in the period because he is an hon. member just like all other hon. members. Still, it is always up to the Chair to choose the order in which hon. members will participate in the oral question period. I shall now recognize the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane
&0074-42

October 26, 1979
Oral Questions
once again. The hon. member for Matapedia-Matane has the floor.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: 1 did not rise on a point of order, but to be recognized as tradition would have it, and I insist upon it. 1 do not want to be disrespectful, but I insist that I be recognized; I think it is quite normal.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Matapedia-Matane has the floor.


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister who has repeatedly stated his intention of having all hon. members participate more actively in the business of the House. As the Standing Committee on Regional Economic Expansion will be meeting next week, would he agree to having the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, the Minister of Finance and the President of the Treasury Board appear before the members of the committee so that all its members can make suggestions on the means that should be taken to help the underdeveloped areas of Canada, and so that those suggestions can be reflected in the budget speech promised by the Minister of Finance?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, that is a suggestion 1 would be prepared to discuss with the ministers. However, it should be stressed that there is some problem with the ministers' schedules, particularly the Minister of Finance, because he has several bills listed in his name in the House of Commons. Considering the principle and the possibility of all hon. members in the House of Commons having the opportunity to make positive suggestions on regional development, I find the hon. member has made a suggestion which is really valid for the government. So we want to try to find some means to meet such an objective.


INQUIRY WHETHER MEETINGS WILL BE HELD AT HIGHER LEVEL WITH PRESIDENT OF GM ON ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW PLANTS
Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. I thank the right hon. Prime Minister for his positive attitude. Considering that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion recognized last week in this House that there was, to use his expression, a serious imbalance between Ontario and Quebec as far as location of the automotive industry is concerned, and considering the investments already announced by Ford and GM, can the leader of the government tell us whether he himself or other cabinet members intend to meet GM's head soon and what proposals the government can make to the company to correct that anomaly?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. Prime Minister.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, a meeting will take place between, on the government side, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and the Minister of State for Economic Development, Senator de Cotret, and the representatives of General Motors on Monday, October 29. I cannot indicate the exact position the government will want to take in the discussions but the meeting has been requested by the government to discuss a plan with General Motors.


REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS
Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the right hon. Prime Minister.
In the Speech from the Throne, the government said it intended to expand the role of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. In light of that statement, can the Prime Minister assure the House that during the current fiscal year and the next there will be an increase in the budget of that department?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I regret telling the hon. member that I do not have the figures in my hand right now, but I will consult with the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion to determine exactly what the situation is concerning the various sectors of economic development.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I want to present a motion pursuant to Standing Order 29 in order to be recognized, and I ask that the motion be put to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Roy) rising on a point of order? The hon. member for Beauce.


Mr. Fabien Roy (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I refer to Standing Order 29 which says that when two or more members rise to speak, Mr. Speaker calls upon the member who first rose in his place. I am not too sure but I believe a motion may be moved so that any member who has risen "be now heard", or "do now speak", which motion shall be put forthwith without debate. I want to move that the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) be heard now.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member for Beauce and the hon. member for Bellechasse are fully aware that motions may be moved only during periods specifically reserved for that purpose. They referred to Standing Order 29 concerning the rules of debate. But this is oral question period, to which the rules of debate do not apply. Moreover, a motion cannot be introduced during oral question period. That is understood.
October 26, 1979


REQUEST FOR GREATER CLARIFICATION ON ROLE OF MINISTER
Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question.
How can the Prime Minister state in the Speech from the Throne, that the mandate of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion will be strengthened, when he has just told me that his government has not taken any decision at cabinet or at Treasury Board level, without necessarily giving me the exact amounts that his government intends to spend, until the end of this fiscal year and during the next, through the Department of Regional Economic Expansion?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not have with me today the exact figures from the budget of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. The hon. member has raised another matter. He suggested that the only way to have an efficient regional economic development policy is to spend money. In our view, a more efficient way of ensuring economic development is for the government to consider all the implications of every action aimed at regional economic development. That is the policy of our government, which I am forced to recognize is a change from the policy applied by the former government with which the hon. member is associated.


AGREEMENTS SIGNED WITH NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of any new agreements which are being signed with the province of Newfoundland, and whether these agreements will follow that provincial government's priorities totally?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any agreements which are being signed with the government of Newfoundland. That is not to say that there are not agreements which are ready for signature and which might be within the specific knowledge of the minister who, unfortunately, is away from the House, in Nova Scotia.


DISCUSSIONS WITH NOVA SCOTIA ON STEEL INDUSTRY
Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to take advantage of this series of questions on regional development to ask the Prime Minister about discussions which have taken place between his government and the government of Nova Scotia with respect to the steel industry in that province, with which the Prime Minister is familiar.
The Prime Minister may recall that at the request of the government of Nova Scotia, the former government allocated the sum of $50 million for rehabilitation of the plant. I would like to find out whether that obligation is still in existence and
Oral Questions
whether that money is still available to the government of Nova Scotia for the rehabilitation of the plant.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, 1 regret that, once again, I am not able to give as detailed an answer as the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion could give. 1 do not know the exact state of the discussions between the government of Nova Scotia and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, except that there remains a continuing commitment on the part of this government to aid in the strengthening of the steel industry in Cape Breton.


REQUEST GRANTS BE GIVEN TO ASSIST ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW INDUSTRIES IN QUEBEC
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Drummond):: 1 have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Around 1975 the Department of Regional Economic Expansion signed a subsidiary agreement with the province of Quebec under which eight cities in the province of Quebec were to be selected as sites for regional industrial parks, and the infrastructures are in the process of being completed in those eight cities, those eight industrial regional parks.
Is the Prime Minister prepared to go along with that policy so that industries will get grants to fill those industrial parks which, in certain cases, are white elephants, and to that end is the Prime Minister prepared to state clearly in the House today that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion will have an increased budget because he is not a member of the inner cabinet but, rather, a member of that scattered outer cabinet which meets only about once a month and does not seem to have all the influence he would require to implement the principles he states publicly?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not want at this point to go into the organization of the government. We now have some 30 ministers with influence whereas there was only one in the former government.
As to the specific question of the hon. member, once again I will have to consult with the minister responsible to find out exactly what the situation is with respect to the commitments that were made or are being made by the government. 1 believe the hon. member knows there will be a meeting between the representatives of the Government of Canada and the representatives of the province of Quebec, on November 5, to discuss priorities in the economic development of Quebec which both levels of government could pursue together.

October 26, 1979
Oral Questions


BEAUFORT SEA-EXPLORATION DRILLING BY DOME PETROLEUM
Mr. Peter Ittinuar (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to my friend, the informative Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. My question concerns the decision by on-site and regional engineers to suspend drilling by Dome Petroleum in the Beaufort Sea due to the environmental risk of heavy ice build-up. This decision was overturned by Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development officials in Ottawa, thereby undermining the authority of the local engineers.
Can the minister tell the House on what basis the decision of local authorities was reversed, and did a telegram from Dome Petroleum to departmental officials in Ottawa have any influence on this decision?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, 1 share the hon. member's concern in terms of protection of the environment in Canada's north.
Under the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, a field officer can suspend operations on the drill sites in the Beaufort. That communication is then passed on to the regional engineer in Yellowknife. Due to the build-up of six-inch ice in the drill area, it was recommended by the field officers that operations be suspended.
1 should indicate to the hon. member and to the House that at the time of the order, drilling was not taking place. In fact, they were production-testing and the area was completely encased. The order went to Ottawa. After discussion, not only-as the hon. member has indicated-with Dome but also with the regional officer in Yellowknife, the order was modified in order that the production-testing be completed. We need approximately two days, or a maximum of five days- that is the window we need-and then the well would be suspended for the winter period.


Peter Ittinuar: My supplementary is for the Prime Minister of Canada. Does his Minister of the Environment, who is not here today, unfortunately, stand by his earlier stated concern over our lack of preparedness in case of a major oil spill in the Arctic, and was his department consulted by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development about this latest decision concerning drilling in the Arctic; and what are this minister's concerns?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to answer the question fully. I have spoken with my officials today, and I am not satisfied with the communication which took place in terms of the incident to which the hon. member has referred and with the fact that there was a lack of communication between the Ottawa office and the various departments and our field officers
This morning I have given instructions that the communication system be examined and improved in order to avoid the indecision and also the apparent conflict which has taken place.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. John Thomson (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The 1978-79 annual report of the commission indicates that in addition to $71 million of unemployment insurance overpayments found by the commission, the Auditor General found $290 million.
Can the minister indicate to the people of Canada what he is doing to ensure that these unprecedented overpayments are halted immediately?


Hon. Ron Atkey (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: The overpayments in question, as reported by the Auditor General, were overpayments in the calendar year 1978 and, of course, are of great concern to me and to this government.
I should say that the new Government of Canada has taken three specific steps to deal with this very serious problem. The first step is to constitute a new record of employment which will ensure greater accuracy in the filing of information by employers in Canada. The second is to institute a report of hiring procedure on a pilot project basis to ensure that there will not be continuing instances of abuse by some employees who collect unemployment insurance at the same time as they acquire new work. The third thing that this new government has done is to establish an on-line computer system which will be operational in Ontario and the west by the summer, and in the Atlantic provinces by next fall. This will ensure greater accuracy in the compilation of data and will ultimately lead to a rather sizeable reduction in the rather large overpayments which now exist.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, so that the Prime Minister may catch his breath, I shall ask my question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On Wednesday, some of my Liberal colleagues echoed in the House the concern of businessmen who export to Arab countries about the situation resulting from the proposed transfer of the Canadian embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. I must say that certain Progressive Conservative politicians have also
[Mr. Clark. 1
October 26, 1979

expressed such a concern, namely Mr. Stanfield, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and the Minister of State for International Trade. He stated:
Trade negotiations with the Arab countries are seriously affected.
And he added on Wednesday:
-we hope that the whole matter will be clarified shortly.
In view of the foregoing, and with a view to protecting our foreign trade as always, I ask once again whether the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs could not dissociate the problem of moving the Canadian embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem from the general government policy review on the Middle East. It seems to me that such a dissociation is possible, and I strongly urge that this be done as soon as possible, as the Minister of State for International trade suggested, in the interest of our foreign trade.


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to send the hon. member a copy of the terms of reference which were handed to Mr. Stanfield at the outset of his mission, which include a broad look at the relations that Canada has with the Middle East and include, of course, the question that was put there in the first place and which the hon. member mentioned, that of the move of the embassy.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Mr. Speaker: A short supplementary.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


INQUIRY WHEN GOVERNMENT WILL MAKE DECISION CONCERNING MOVE OF EMBASSY
Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, 1 am of course quite aware of this document, but it states very clearly:

We are now not working to deadlines.

My question is this: How long shall we have to wait before knowing the government's decision on a matter which is obviously quite urgent? What is it that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs want to know that they do not know already? They know quite well that foreign trade is seriously affected since the minister confirmed this recently. They are also well aware that Canadians do not agree with this policy. What more does the government want to know?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will be aware that
Oral Questions
Mr. Stanfield has already completed a good part of the study he has undertaken. It is his intention to visit with provincial ministers across the country in order to ascertain their point of view and to visit as well the countries of North Africa.


An hon. Member:: Will he visit the Middle East?


Miss MacDonald:: In that connection, he intends to have his study completed before the end of the year and to report to the government at the beginning of the new year.


INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC BOYCOTTS
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. First, I want to welcome the commitment of the government to introduce the international economic boycott legislation early in 1980, especially in view of the government's failure to honour certain other commitments.
I want to ask the Prime Minister whether the hon. member for Ottawa West was stating government policy when he assured us all yesterday that it would not be a mild piece of legislation that was going to be introduced.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet had the pleasure of reading the speech made by the hon. member for Ottawa West. I read his speeches regularly and attentively and look forward to having the opportunity to do so this weekend. But this government does not introduce mild pieces of legislation.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, if the government knows that the legislation will not be mild, why does it claim to be waiting for the Stanfield report to make up its mind about what legislation to introduce? If it does know that it intends to introduce effective legislation, why does it not do that now and thus relieve the uncertainty to which my colleague referred?


Charles Joseph Clark: We intend to introduce legislation which, while not mild, is informed.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is about the case of the Bulgarian dissident which I raised under Standing Order 43 yesterday and which did not receive unanimous consent from the opposite side of the House.
Would the minister please tell the House why she agreed to intervene in the case of Ida Nudel, a Soviet dissident, yet refused to intervene in the case of a Bulgarian dissident, Dimiter Kolev, whose son is a Canadian citizen?

October 26, 1979
Oral Questions


Flora Isabel MacDonald: As the hon. member knows, I have intervened in a number of cases. Following his representation and those of others, I did, indeed, contact Bulgarian officials to look into the case of Mr. Kolev. I was advised by Bulgarian officials that Mr. Kolev is in prison because of possession of a false passport which, as the hon. member will know, would also be an action not condoned in this country.
While I would understand the reason for his trying to obtain such a passport, it does not allow any legal ground on which I can proceed to intervene in another country. On humanitarian grounds, however, I would inform the hon. member that we have made representations to the Bulgarian government that all necessary medical attention be given to Mr. Kolev, and also that he be relieved from any physical responsibility.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have questions for the Minister of Transport. In view of the efforts by the private grain trade, the CPR and a number of Conservatives in recent years to destroy the Crowsnest Pass rates, and in view of reports that the hon. member for Lisgar, the chairman of the task force set up by the minister, said yesterday in his report to the minister that he will be requesting that the Crow rates be reviewed, I would ask the minister whether he has received the report from the hon. member for Lisgar; does it contain any such recommendation; will he make the report public; and will he assure the House that if the hon. member for Lisgar did say that, it will not be government policy?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the Crowsnest Pass freight rates is a matter on which I have received representations from interested parties in the grain trade, producer organizations and, indeed, members of the NDP. In so far as the report of the task force is concerned, I have not yet received it. I expect it will be in my hands within a couple of weeks or so. It would be my intention to make that report public.
I have not seen the report, so obviously I cannot tell the hon. member whether there is any reference to the statutory rate; but I can assure the hon. member that matter was not within the terms of reference or the task force mandate.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that three successive royal commissions said the Crow rates should be retained, and in view of the fact that the Hall commission- which made the definitive recommendation-recommended that the Crow rates be retained and the nation as a whole pay the railways the difference between the Crow rates and the compensatory rate, does the minister realize that the differ-

ence between the Crow rate and the compensatory rate is 13 times the Crow rate and the commercial rate from Wakaw to Vancouver, which would cost farmers another $1.73 a bushel? Will the minister urge the government and his Prime Minister, and quit being obstinate and stubborn like his predecessor, to have-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance dealing with the difference between the real, prime interest rate and the inflation rate. At no time in the last five years has the real interest rate spread between the United States and Canada exceeded 3 per cent. It now exceeds 5 per cent. Will the minister look at this significant difference to see whether interest rates are really too high in this country?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. gentleman opposite, that interest rates are too high. I would like to see lower interest rates. The point is that there is no reasonable alternative at this moment. I am quite prepared to look at what the hon. gentleman wants me to look at, the difference in the real interest rates between the U.S. and Canada. That is constantly being reviewed and looked at, in any event. I would ask the hon. gentleman to remember that our inflation rate and the U.S. inflation rate, once you take out the energy factor, is pretty much the same.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. I understand he is now considering a change in government policy which does now allow duty-free shops for land travellers at border points such as Windsor. Would he tell the House whether he is prepared to announce a decision on that and, if not, when he might be in a position to do so?


Hon. Walter Baker (President of the Privy Council and Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, legislation has been on the books to allow that since 1975, and I often wondered why the former government did not do it.
I wish to inform the hon. member, however, that at cabinet yesterday approval was given to the principle of providing duty-free shops at land frontier border points, and in a relatively short period I will be announcing the criteria for applicants. I want to thank the hon. member for giving me this opportunity of announcing new government policy.
October 26, 1979


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Public Works, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. I would first like to congratulate the Prime Minister's government on the position it has taken with regard to the secondary French language school at Penetanguishene.
1 understand that $100,000 has been invested to improve the premises. Does this represent support in principle by the Prime Minister's government for the creation of a separate secondary French language school in Penetanguishene?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, what this represents is a decision by the Government of Canada, which we had the opportunity to discuss on an informal basis with the government of Ontario, to make repairs to a public building that was in need of repair.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, would the repairs have been made in the absence of the requirements of the school, because I understand the repairs were made to enable the building to be used for the functions of a school? Therefore, I would again ask the Prime Minister if this is not an endorsement of the existence of such a school.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking me if the government knew what it was doing when it made the repairs. The answer is yes.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. It follows from the answer given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs to my colleague from Ottawa-Carleton about the consultation that Mr. Stanfield intends to have with the provinces. Can the Prime Minister tell the House what kind of consultation he had with provincial premiers before he promised during the campaign to move our embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I understand that consultation with the premiers is not a problem for Liberal spokesmen since they have no opportunity to speak with the premiers. However, 1 believe that if this is a serious matter, if Mr. Stanfield wishes to consult the provinces, I do not have to discuss with him the need for such consultations as the decision is up to him. He can hold such consultation by phone or in person.
Oral Questions


Maurice Dupras: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. I ask the Prime Minister what kind of consultation he had with the premiers before the election and during the election campaign when he made that promise to move our embassy. I am not interested in knowing how Mr. Stanfield will consult the provinces. 1 want to know what consultation he had himself before making that promise?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, before the election I could not, like the leader of the hon. member, speak officially as government leader with the premiers. Of course, during the election campaign I was closer to the premiers than the opposition leader because they were pleased to see me. But as to whether or not I made the decision to discuss every item of our electoral platform with each premier, indeed not, because we are a federal party and as such we make our own decisions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Because of some time used in considering points raised during the course of the question period so far, we shall continue the question period for a few minutes. 1 would think that we could appropriately conclude the question period by recognizing the hon. members for Vancouver-Kings-way, Sherbrooke, Spadina and Kenora-Rainy River.


CULTURAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State. May I say that the minister comes to his office with a very good reputation amongst the artistic community. I hope he can keep that reputation and obtain some money from the President of the Treasury Board.
Since we did not beat the Americans in the war of 1812 with words only, what actions, if any, will the minister take to save the dying National Film Board and to stop this terrible situation which was pointed out earlier by the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank the hon. member for his kind remarks. I can assure him that I am very much aware of the increasing difficulties encountered by the National Film Board, particularly with regard to the very substantial cuts which took place in the budget last year.
I have already had meetings with the commissioner of the Film Board and with my own officials to see if we cannot work out a much more effective, immediate solution to their problems in order that their outstanding work-which was referred to in the motion presented by the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody-can be pursued. I think that the Film Board is

October 26, 1979
Oral Questions
an outstanding landmark of cultural achievement for this country.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the minister still has not told us whether he is prepared to give them any money, which is the bottom line.
The National Film Board employs Canadian artists and is made up of 100 per cent Canadian content. Yesterday, the minister advocated to the Canadian Broadcasting League a policy of going into pay-television. Will that policy not mean more Americanization and fewer jobs for Canadian artists in the long run?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the whole intention of this government, with respect to the development of this new marketing system of pay-television, is to ensure that there is adequate development of the Canadian production industry. I happen to know, from earlier representations, that the National Film Board itself is very much interested in the possibilities in terms of the board's enhanced activities in this area, which will certainly be one of the matters very much under consideration.

[ Translation]


LOTO CANADA
Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport and Multiculturalism. Since Loto Canada has been transferred to the provinces and the minister seems to have already completed his tour across the country and met with his provincial counterparts, could he tell this House when he intends to make public the final agreement and the specific terms of that agreement?


Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport and Multiculturalism):: Mr. Speaker, I expect to bring the final agreement to the House right after the first of the new year.


PETRO-CANADA DISTRIBUTION OF REVENUE IF CORPORATION SOLD
Mr. Peter Stollery (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. Many Canadians believe that the only reason the government is proposing to sell the profitable parts of Petro-Canada is in order to pay for the housing mortgage credit scheme.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Peter A. Stollery: Could the Prime Minister tell the House if the government has, indeed, conducted studies to see how much revenue would be collected by the government if, in fact, the profitable parts of Petro-Canada were sold?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, many Canadians believe that if we were to put on sale the hon. member who has just raised a question, we would not yield great profits to the Government of Canada, although we might to the House.
There have not been any of the kinds of inquiries to which the hon. member has referred. I would be very interested in receiving from him the evidence on which he bases his assertion as to the belief of Canadians.


Peter A. Stollery: Mr. Speaker, I will not raise a question of privilege at this time, because I know that they cannot start until after the question period is finished. 1 think that the kind of insulting answer which the Prime Minister has just given to me is unacceptable.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Peter A. Stollery: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman: if, in fact, this is true-and I can assure him that a great number of Canadians believe it is-would the Prime Minister consult with his Minister of Finance, in view of the fact that we now have Shylock interest rates in this country, in view of the fact that the housing tax credit is only applicable to a small number of Canadians, and consider abandoning his proposal to sell the profitable parts of Petro-Canada and his proposal for an unequal tax program and, instead, give a tax credit or tax cut to all Canadians because of the high interest rates in this country?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, 1 was trying to answer, in what I thought was a humorous way, what I thought was a humorous question. Obviously, my humour was not interpreted humorously by the hon. member.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Non-existent.


Charles Joseph Clark: I want to assure him that I intended no insult. The opposition House leader, who is an expert on these matters, tells me that the humour was non-existent.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That's right.


Charles Joseph Clark: Relative to the particular question put forward by the hon. member, no, I do not intend to withdraw the tax credit proposal. We will be making an announcement in due course-in two or three weeks, I would hope-in relation to the government's decision in response to the task force on Petro-Canada. We intend to review that report very seriously.
I would genuinely hope that all members of Parliament who are interested in bringing the institutions of government closer to the people of Canada, and who are interested in giving Canadian citizens a broader opportunity to play a direct role in the country, will also consider the task force report.

October 26, 1979


REPORTED POSSIBLE WITHDRAWAL OF EAST COAST EXPLORATION BY MOBIL OIL
Hon. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It concerns a statement that is alleged to have been made by the president of Mobil, one of the oil companies exploring off the east coast, to the effect that he was thinking of withdrawing his company's activities there.
Has the minister been in touch with the president of Mobil, or has Mobil been in touch with the minister, to ascertain what the difficulties are and whether they are thinking of withdrawing from this exploration?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I have only this week had discussions with representatives of Mobil, and that particular intention was not drawn to my attention. I am not aware of any intention on the part of Mobil to withdraw its explorations from offshore-New-foundland. If the hon. member has any information in his possession to that effect, I would be glad to receive it.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, in that case,
1 would suggest that the minister might want to go back to Mobil and ask them if there are any questions, dealing particularly with the situation which they now face in terms of the jurisdictional problem.
The difficulty here is that there is jurisdictional ambiguity between now, when the jurisdiction is under the authority of the Government of Canada, and potentially when it will come under the government of Newfoundland. There is a problem here, as I understand it, in terms of "grandfathering" in the obligation which Mobil has taken with respect to the Government of Canada.
Would the minister go back both to Mobil and the government of Newfoundland to ascertain if there are any jurisdictional problems, and with a view to assuring that these ambiguities will be cleared up as swiftly as possible?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, questions relating to regulatory matters and offshore drilling in Newfoundland were discussed between myself and the representatives of Mobil. According to my recollection, they did not indicate that there were any great problems in that regard.
Concerning our relationship with the province of Newfoundland, we intend to carry on in co-ordinating with them the matter of regulatory authorities and the terms of federal and provincial jurisdiction. I am sure that we will be able to carry on in a proper spirit, as we have in the past, with respect to these matters respecting the provinces of Atlantic Canada. Obviously, there will be problems in terms of jurisdiction, but these are matters which can be resolved between us in the spirit of co-ordination and co-operation to which this government is dedicated.
Privilege-Mr. Stollery


Mr. Speaker:: I have a notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Berger).


PRIVILEGE
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, some questions were raised in this House earlier this week concerning a government lease for a building at 219 Laurier owned by a company that belongs to my family. Some hon. members called for an investigation so that "the people of Canada may be assured it was not in fact political patronage".
I should like to inform this House that our dealings and my involvement in them prior to any thought of becoming a candidate were entirely proper. At the time I became a candidate in March I resigned as an officer and director of this company-of our companies, I should say-and had no further dealings whatsoever with respect to this matter.
I think, if I may say so, that it is outrageous that assertions or insinuations were made in this House and in newspapers without any attempt whatsoever to obtain the facts. I find that 1 and, more important to me, my father who has led a life of distinguished service to the people of Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec and Canada, have had aspersions cast upon us for no reason. I must say that for a young man entering politics it is not encouraging to be subjected to slurs of this nature. 1 would wonder how responsible people are going to be attracted to government if they are subjected to treatment of this kind. Do we expect people to live in a vacuum, to have no interests anywhere?
The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Nielsen) has indicated that the matter is currently under inquiry. I should like to say to this House that I welcome this inquiry and indeed I invite him to make his findings public.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have received a notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery).


MR. STOLLERY-NOTICE OF POSSIBLE QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE
Peter A. Stollery: Mr. Speaker, at this time 1 should like to give notice that when I have had the opportunity to look through Hansard and examine the reply of the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) to me today, in which I believe he used unparliamentary language, I should like to reserve my right to bring to you that question at the first available opportunity, presumably on Monday next.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, on that request to be given the opportunity to consider a question of privilege, let me simply indicate in advance of any evidence

October 26, 1979
Privilege-Mr. Atkey
that may be adduced or any finding to which you may come that if 1 engaged in language that was not parliamentary or indeed if I said something that caused undue offence to the hon. member, I withdraw those remarks without any qualification and express my apology to him.


NARCOTICS
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure that the House, as always, accepts the unqualified and generous withdrawal of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) as exemplary under any circumstances. Certainly it happily lays to rest any possibility of any such tension or grievance in respect of the language used today. I am sure the House welcomes the action of the right hon. Prime Minister.
The hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Atkey) on a question of privilege.


Hon. Bill Jarvis (Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I answered a question put to me by the hon. member for Jonquiere (Mr. Marceau). He asked whether the government was considering measures on marijuana and the ombudsman. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, 1 did not hear his question on the ombudsman and my answer addressed only his question on marijuana. Immediately after question period I explained my error to my colleague the hon. member for Jonquiere, but I would like today to indicate to the House that the government has no intention at this point to introduce legislation on the ombudsman in the near future.


MR. ATKEY-REQUESTED WITHDRAWAL OF REMARK OF HON. MEMBER FOR SPADINA
Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, I very much regret rising on this question of privilege but before the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) leaves the House, I want to raise a matter of privilege which I think is an offence to my privilege and that of all members of this House.
The hon. member for Spadina made a reference to "Shylock interest rates". That, Mr. Speaker, in my submission, is an anti-semitic remark. It offends my sensitivies and my privileges. It is a term which has been adjudged in history, in literature and in contemporary terms an improper remark.
In keeping with the spirit of withdrawal by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Clark), I think the hon. member for Spadina might seriously consider the implications of his remark and a withdrawal may well be in order.


Peter A. Stollery: Mr. Speaker, certainly in the spirit of co-operation I would withdraw the word "Shylock" if it would give offence to any people and substitute the words "loan shark". I hope that will satisfy the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey). "Loan shark" should go into the spot in Hansard and "Shylock" taken out, and I apologize if I offended.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not know if this kind of excessive generosity is going to continue for very long but it certainly suits me.


RAILWAYS
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, it was my intention to present a petition to the House calling for the continuation of the rail passenger service between Capreol and Winnipeg, but in view of the announcement made yesterday by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski)-for which I thank him-that the service will be continued for another six months, I am not now going to present the petition.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I appreciate the very kind words of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid). I should also say that I appreciated the representations that came from him and from the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Penner) as well as the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). I am sure that the announcement will be greeted with a great amount of enthusiasm and will alleviate a number of potential problems that would have been faced by northern residents if the service had been implemented as originally planned.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing
October 26, 1979

Order 41(2), I wish to table, in both official languages, copies of the report of the Northern Mineral Advisory Committee.


YOUNG OFFENDERS
Mr. Chris Speyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), 1 would like to table, in both official languages, on behalf of the Solicitor General, (Mr. Lawrence), legislative proposals to replace the Juvenile Delinquents Act.



HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT


Walter David Baker: for leave to introduce Bill C-19, to amend the House of Commons Act.


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

Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-485, to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is simply an amendment to have commissioners attach full reasons for the changes they are making in any reports that are being made at the time of the decennial revisions. It provides not only the reasons for the changes they advocate but they must comment on every representation that is made. Failure to do so calls for the invalidation of the report.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we might revert to the tabling of documents for just a few moments so the Prime Minister may table some correspondence.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order Paper Questions CROWN CORPORATIONS


TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING PRACTICES CONCERNING GROUPS INVOLVED IN QUEBEC REFERENDUM CAMPAIGN
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the other day the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Roy) asked if 1 would lay upon the table of the House of Commons correspondence between myself and the president of Air Canada and the CNR respecting the practices of Crown corporations concerning groups involved in the referendum campaign in Quebec. I should like the permission of the House to table that material.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Kilgour (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 263, 264 and 404.
1 ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Knowles: 1.	What was the total amount at credit in the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account as at March 31 (a) 1976 (b) 1977 (c) 1978?
2.	What rate of interest has the government paid for the use of this money during the fiscal years ending on the dates noted above?
3.	What amount of interest was credited to the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending March 31 (a) 1976 (b) 1977 (c) 1978?
4.	What was the total amount paid of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending March 31 (a) 1976 (b) 1977 (c) 1978?


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. Balance in the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account
as at:		
March 31, 76 March 31, 77 March 31, 78	CFSA Actuarial Liability Account 2,186,562,695.73 4,270,267,250.56 2,263,362,998.98 4,742,803,872.70 2,333,827,474.93 5,204,825,818.72	Total 6,456,829,946.29 7,006,166,871.68 7,538,653,293.65
2. Rates of interest for:		
(a) 1975-76	1.	Quarter ending June 30, 75 2.	Quarter ending September 30, 75 3.	Quarter ending December 31, 75 4.	Quarter ending March 31, 76	1.6612 per cent 1.6724 per cent 1.7109 per cent 1.7209 per cent(b) 1976-77	1.	Quarter ending June 30, 76 2.	Quarter ending September 30, 76 3.	Quarter ending December 31, 76 4.	Quarter ending March 31, 77	1.7471 per cent 1.7488 per cent 1.7707 per cent 1.7891 percent(c) 1977-78	1.	Quarter ending June 30, 77 2.	Quarter ending September 30, 77 3.	Quarter ending December 31, 77 4.	Quarter ending March 31, 78	1.8102 per cent 1.8204 per cent 1.8372 per cent 1.8508 per cent
October 26, 1979
Order Paper Questions
3. Amount of interest credited to CFSA during fiscal year ending:
March 31, 76 March 31, 77 March 31, 78

85,565,010.91
88,547,963.29
91,476,814.34
Actuarial Account 157.615,710.88 176,486,622.14 198,022,138.53
Total
243,180,721.79
265,034,585.43
289,498,952.87
4. Payments out of CFSA during fiscal year ending:
March 31, 76 March 31, 77 March 31, 78
172,352,486.95
189,680,605.01
207,873,360.29
3. Number of CFSA contributors.
1946	212,692	1955	118,077	1964	120,781	1973	82,4021947	36,535	1956	116,678	1965	114,164	1974	79,9211948	34,762	1957	117,092	1966	107,467	1975	79,6391949	41,676	1958	119,038	1967	105,584	1976	79,7721950	47,185	1959	120,412	1968	101,572	1977	80,5461951	68,427	1960	119,597	1969	98,340	1978	80,0321952	95,394	1961	120,055	1970	93,353	1953	104,427	1962	126,474	1971	89,563	1954	112,529	1963	123,693	1972	84,933


Mr. Knowles: 1.	In each year 1959 to 1978 (a) how many personnel of the Canadian Armed Forces have commenced drawing pensions under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act (b) how many widows have commenced drawing pensions under the said Act?
2.	In each year 1959 to 1978, how many pensions under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act to (a) retired Canadian Armed Forces personnel (b) widows of such personnel, have been discontinued because of the death of the annuitant?
3.	In each year 1946 to 1978, how many service personnel contributed to the pension or annuity account under the former Part V or under the provisions of the present Canadian Forces Superannuation Act?


Allan Bruce McKinnon: 1. (a) Personnel of the
armed forces retired to
1959	752
1960	1,048
1961	1,418
1962	1,343
1963	1,623
1964	2,454
1965	3,419
1966	3,407
1967	2,983
1968	2,787
1969	4,050
1970	4,075
1971	4,267
1972	4,405
pension
1973	3,357
1974	3,478
1975	3,459
1976	3,003
1977	3,124
1978	3,388
in:


Mr. Evans: What is the salary paid to (a) Dr. Elizabeth Parr-Bond, Senior Policy Advisor (b) David Zifkin, Executive Assistant (c) Catherine Ravin, Special Assistant (d) Philippe Gariepy, Special Assistant (e) Tom Sloan, Special Assistant, exempt staff in the office of the Minister of Employment and Immigration?


Ronald George Atkey: (a)	Dr. Elizabeth Parr-Bond	Senior policy advisor to the minister	up to	$47,500(b)	David Zifkin	Executive assistant to the minister	up to	$26,700(c)	Catherine Raven	Special assistant to the minister	up to	$26,700(d)	Philippe Gariepy	Special assistant to the minister	up to	$26,700(e)	Tom Sloan	Special assistant to the minister	up to	$26,700
Please note that in the case of (b) and (e) these individuals have been hired under Personal Service Contracts (Exempt staff budget) for a period less than one year for respective amounts of $14,952 and $13,350.
(b) Widows who commenced drawing pension:
1959	98	1966	263	1973	4411960	121	1967	303	1974	4781961	166	1968	303	1975	4701962	179	1969	371	1976	5541963	207	1970	323	1977	5271964	208 1971 375 1965	283 1972 420 (a) Retired pensioners deceased in:	1978	5741959	91	1966	208	1973	379I960	103	1967	243	1974	5241961	114	1968	295	1975	4961962	127	1969	353	1976	5131963	142	1970	356	1977	5071964 1965	169 190	1971 1972	331 323	1978	384


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
(b) Widows of pensioners deceased in:
[Stage Direction]
1959	9	19661960	12	19671961	17	19681962	19	19691963	26	19701964	28	19711965	34	197239	1973	1245	1974	3056	1975	3950	1976	5852	1977	2824 11	1978	38

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday October 25, 1979, consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie that Bill C-10, to provide supplementary borrowing authority for the fiscal year

October 26, 1979
[Stage Direction]
1979-80, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mrs. Celine Hervieux-Payette (Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, as a new member, and in view of the tremendous responsibility we have in this Elouse to consider supplemental supply in the order of $7 billion, some 7.5 per cent of the total Canadian supply, it is important in my view to consider seriously the situation before passing such legislation. At this point, after reading the legislation and of course without any other information than that provided by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie), I feel this legislation is in a way a blank check for this government.
Since it is my responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to give my constituents an account of this government's expenses and obviously, through Parliament, to take part in the discussion of those expenses, 1 would like to remind the House that we now reportedly have a $12 billion or $13 billion deficit, but with this government in power for six months, I cannot take without discussion that additional $7 billion policy. 1 must say that this government has expressed its intention to give up some income sources like Loto Canada, Petro-Canada and other profit making corporations such as Canadair, and 1 wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether getting rid of those companies, which bring profits to this country, will help reduce our supplementary estimates. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, with unemployment being what it is today-and 1 am referring here to an article by Mr. John McCallum, published in the chartered accountants' magazine, which states that the unemployment problem is as serious today as it was in the 1930s.
Mr. Speaker, in the 1930s-of course, it will be obvious that my knowledge of those economically sad days is derived from what 1 read and heard from my parents-but I must say that, today, when we are asked to pass supplementary estimates of some $7 billion, when government services are being cut right and left, when we are not told what those extra $7 billion will be used for, I can only ask for more explanations, and though 1 am not on the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs I feel that I should, just the same, look into the matter very closely because my constituents are the ones who will foot the bill.
Mr. Speaker, the present government has had 16 years to reflect on the direction to be given our economy. Last year, the previous government managed efficiently and without drastic cuts in the public service to reduce expenditures by some $2 billion. That, to my mind, is good management. In my past experience as chairman of a school board, 1 had to manage a $30 million budget.
On the other hand, 1 think that the principles applying to a local government are exactly the same for the federal government, and it seems to me that, because the deficit is likely to be increased by their tergiversations about Petro-Canada and their promise to give Loto Canada back to the provinces, we
Borrowing Authority
are taking wrong decisions which will only add to the difficulties and the recession in Canada. 1 wonder, Mr. Speaker, exactly what does the Minister of Finance intend to do. The private sector is supposed to co-operate closely with this government. What measure does this government propose to lower this $7 billion figure, since it is a well known fact that a healthy economy would yield additional funds to the government and allow it to lower the deficit? According to the Toronto-Dominion Bank report, the most recent rises in interest rates and especially the payment of a bonus on Canada Savings Bonds will accelerate the debt service which will tower above the 19 per cent rise indicated in the budget. So as a concerned citizen and as the representative of a riding which is home to low income people, I think that it is my duty to remind this government that it is governing in the interest of all Canadians and that every dollar and every cent that is spent by the government must be spent for useful purposes.
1 think that some cuts could be made if the present government, after six months of pondering over and analysing previous budgets, could some day direct its policy in keeping with its electoral promises. I still think that the former government made a praiseworthy effort and if the present government which succeeded the Liberals would analyse these programs one by one, it would then be in a position to see to what extent spending cuts could best be achieved.
1 am referring, Mr. Speaker, to the new steps taken by this government to conduct public affairs. 1 do not know as of yet what is the positive impact of these changes but 1 must say that 1 do not see what benefits will be derived by voting an additional $7 billion, or at least they do not transpire from the Minister of Finance's remarks. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Finance to reconsider the amount and to bring his policy in line with his election promises to restrict government spending to $51.1 billion, since most optimistic economists are now predicting that this government will have to increase its expenditures by $2 billion or $3 billion.
Of course, 1 note also, Mr. Speaker, the increase in interest rate which was announced by the Bank of Canada, and 1 think that such a rate is definitely unfair to the taxpayers of Mercier. We must not let consumers foot the bill for an irresponsible government.


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


Mr. Lachance:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order! The hon. member for Rose-mont is on his feet, but another member was already standing behind him. So, I think 1 will recognize him. The hon. member for Comox-Powell River.

October 26, 1979
Borrowing Authority


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate concerning Bill C-10. My comments will be fairly brief this afternoon, but I do wish to express my concern about the proposal of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) within this bill in attempting to obtain a blank cheque for $7 billion from the people of Canada.
I reflect back to things said during the election, and to a commitment made by the Conservative government. As its members travelled from one end of this country to the other, they complained about the high interest rates encouraged by the previous government. Bitter complaints were made about the deficits run up, what these things were doing to small businesses, how this country had a lack of direction and how throughout the country people lacked confidence in the government.
I would suggest today that these things apply in spades, that as typified by the $7 billion attempt to borrow, we now have the highest interest rates this country has ever seen. These high interest rates, instead of preventing inflation, will be a main factor in the rise of inflation in Canada. These interest rates could in all probability, in an attempt to cure, bring about a far worse disease, the recession that everyone predicts and expects as a result of them. The impact of this borrowing and its complications in the country will be felt in every industry in Canada. I am very concerned about this kind of interest rate and the borrowing that is advocated. It will cause a very serious situation.
The government opposite has often professed to be the friend of small business. I have a very large number of small businesses in my riding, a number of large industries, single industries in the community. When they are cut back, the only opportunity for employment and economic well-being is the base of small business that we have.
The present government's economic policy, reflected by the borrowing bill and a number of other gestures, particularly their move to drive up energy costs, will be felt directly in my riding. Small business must be able to transport its goods. Anything produced there has to be transported to market. The price of the cost of goods in my riding will be driven up, as well as competitiveness, as a result of driving up the price of energy.
I have received numerous letters, phone calls and items of concern from small businessmen in my riding who feel that their friends in government have abandoned them completely.
I am very serious about this. Many of these businesses are not large, employing only five, six or seven people. In order to keep an inventory over the winter, they have to borrow. The bank on a daily basis is switching interest rates, driving them up. In some cases the banks are concerned about whether, with the interest rate and economic confidence that exists, some of these businesses can continue. In fact, it is calling in loans.

This is not based on the viability of businesses in my riding but on a lack of confidence in the moves of this government.
Energy costs and interest rates are causing havoc. I believe the term Mr. Bullock of the Federation of Independent Businessmen mentioned the other day was that it was creating a horror show for small businessmen. This is typified in my riding. It will be interesting to see how they react at the time of the next election to the kind of confidence the Tory government has inspired.
Apart from interest rates and their effect on small businesses as well as the energy problem, the government is requesting a $7 billion blank cheque. That is interesting in view of their claims during the election campaign. Corporate tax deferrals far exceed this $7 billion and future sums the government will have to borrow. In spite of bank profits, they continue to increase interest rates. The banks have been given a licence to shovel money. There is profiteering. There is no attempt to rectify the situation and place fair taxation upon the profits of these banks. We are literally giving away money that properly belongs to the people of Canada and which would remove the necessity of borrowing this money.
The same kind of tax policies prevail with regard to the oil companies. Reports of windfall profits have recently been expressed in the paper with regard to multinational corporations. We have forfeited our obligations to tax these companies which are earning enormous amounts of money. Fair taxation of these companies would remove the necessity to continue borrowing sums such as the $7 billion the Minister of Finance is currently after.
The banks, oil companies and large corporations in this country have been allowed to get away with a tremendous avoidance of taxation. However, knuckle busters from the Department of National Revenue have been visiting households in my riding, people trying to raise children between jobs, and attempts are being made to impose a 90 to 100 per cent garnishee on their incomes.
I recently heard of a family on a dairy farm in my riding with a modest income who have been trying to pay back at a very reasonable amount per month. National revenue officials visited them and stated they would be required to pay 90 per cent of their income. With our tax policies, we do not mind letting off the corporations. However, a taxpayer trying to meet his obligations and look after his family is visited by the equivalent of the Mafia.
This same gang visited 'a business in my riding which employs 100 people, a major industry in a small coastal community in Comox-Powell River. They decided it was time to collect the overdue tax. They went to the business and said they would garnishee the business accounts. The bank justifiably became panicky and decided to close down the company. One hundred jobs were placed on the line because of the kind of tax policies this government is adopting. They were quite prepared to get rid of a small business even though it would have a terrible impact on the surrounding community. If the tax policies of this government or the previous government were in any way equitable, we would not be requiring moves
October 26, 1979

against small businesses and individuals in rural Canada that can be compared to moves the Mafia would make.
I wish to talk about a few other matters I have heard raised in this House. However, I would be repeating many of the arguments put forward more articulately by other members. These facts are well known to members opposite. They are aware of it and it would certainly be repetitive.
1 have listened to the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark), the Minister of Finance, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) and other individuals responsible for this government and its policies. They have been asked whether they were concerned about rising inflation and, if so, would they provide subsidies on bread and milk. The answer was "absolutely not". When asked about the prospect of providing a fair prices review board to control some of the outrageous price increases, the Prime Minister either does not answer or is not in favour of that. He has continuously dodged the question of what they are going to do about interest rates. They keep trying to foist off that problem on the previous government, while at the same time implementing the same procedures of that government. Their remarks are coupled with phrases such as "a lack of sense of direction in this country" and "a lack of confidence". 1 suggest when they again visit the people to seek a mandate, something they do not now have, that that mandate will not be forthcoming.


An hon. Member:: Blame it on the gang of four.


Raymond John Skelly: The gang of four are like saviours compared to this group. We are being asked to approve the borrowing of this money even though we have no idea of how these funds will be applied. I see the Minister of National Defence (Mr. McKinnon) in the chamber. The other day I asked him a question about search and rescue. A great many people have died in my riding and along the coast of British Columbia as a result of a lack of resources to rescue them. Before I vote for any such proposal as this I should like to know whether there is any intention of going ahead with something like a national search and rescue plan. 1 understand many of its aspects have been cut because the government refuses to spend money on it.
I am curious as to where this $7 billion is going. I understand that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) and the Minister of State (Transport) (Mr. Howie) visited representatives of a number of shipping companies in Canada and put forward a proposal to repatriate foreign flag ships owned by Canadian companies, and that in the process they were going to forfeit some income tax. Before we spend any money in that direction, give away more of our taxes to acquire things like this, 1, personally, would like the government to lay before the House a policy on the direction it intends to take the country in regard to merchant shipping. There is no indication of what we are going to do.
According to the throne speech, we are apparently going to relax some of our taxing power in order to repatriate foreign flag ships, but what we need before we attempt to do any of
Borrowing Authority
that is a statement in this House giving some policy direction on how we are going to establish merchant shipping in this country, what we are going to do about maintaining shipping in the Arctic and developing ports. Before we go giving any further tax amounts away and requiring that we have to ask again, after this $7 billion, for another $7 billion, I would like to know where we are going in that regard.
1 should like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me this opportunity to put forward some of my concerns about this borrowing bill and the economy in the country.


Claude-André Lachance: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to take part for the first time in a debate on a bill presented by a government minister while 1 sit on the opposition benches. However, it is less of a privilege than it should be on a measure such as Bill C-10 which amounts in fact to giving the government a $7 billion blank cheque. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, if you have ever tried to imagine what the sum of $7 billion represents. I doubt if Canadians can imagine it either. It is so huge, so extravagant a figure that it remains an abstraction. That figure 7 followed by nine zeros is something absolutely incredible and I am convinced that neither you nor I, Mr. Speaker, will ever have it in our pockets. In fact, if 1 had it, I do not think I would be in the House this morning.
In any event, we are expected now to give this amount of $7 billion to the Minister of Finance to do God knows what, since we have not yet seen the colour of the famous budget he has announced high and low and we do not know when we are going to get it.
This $7 billion authority therefore is the money that this House is going to give to the government, as it can rightfully do, to finance its operations. What operations? I wonder, Mr. Speaker, especially when I consider this new Progressive Conservative government which has made such great promises and painted such brilliant and bright tomorrows to the Canadian public that all hon. members, without fear of making mistakes or being confused by the intricacies of supplementary estimates, should decide, after serious examination, to grant the government the money it needs to finance its priorities.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, after having seen to this date the performance of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) in and outside this House, whether we should thus so easily give him that confidence. During the past three weeks, we have witnessed the sad sight of a government which not only is in deep waters as far as budgetary matters are concerned but also does not know where it is going. We have had the most glaring example when the Minister of Finance refused to appear before the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs to tell the Canadian people about his objectives, those new and famous objectives which the Progressive Conservative government once more promised the Canadian people in the last general election would put the country back on the right
660__________________________________ COMMONS
Borrowing Authority
track and turn the wheels of our economy. He refused to appear, and had Governor Bouey, a qualified official of course whose job is to advise the government and the Minister of Finance, stick his neck out to have it chopped. Mr. Speaker, I am not concerned about Governor Bouey, he is an economist and a distinguished finance man who I am sure is doing his utmost to get us out of this mess. However, Mr. Speaker, it was not governor Bouey whom we wanted to see before the committee on finance so much as the Minister of Finance so that he could explain these new criteria or parameters which will guide the budgetary policy of this government for the duration of its mandate, which I must say, had a very bad start.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that the Speech from the Throne contained all sorts of promises to the effect that the government would introduce a whole set of measures to help our legislative body, the House of Commons and Senate, to make more enlightened judgments about government expenditures. We had been promised a whole set of measures! We had been promised the famous sunset laws through which we could re-evaluate government programs every ten years and go back to the basics regularly and periodically and decide whether these numerous programs, budgets, votes and credits were justified or not. We had been promised a revamping of the estimates format, and we had hoped that the supplementary estimates could have been submitted in the same format.
Finally, we had been promised three-year estimates of government expenditures and projects so that this House could have a more comprehensive view of such estimates and be in a better position to judge the government's general orientation.
We had been promised that the budgetary envelopes would make it easier to allocate the budgets required for the operation of the administrative machine for each major sector of government business.
We have had many promises! But where are those documents, those bills, those mechanisms which were supposed to make us go back to the basics and allow us to make enlightened judgments? Mr. Speaker, in Bill C-10 we have the same formula of a blank cheque for $7 billion and we are asked to decide out of thin air once again, because, as I said earlier, $7 billion is such a large and incredible amount that no one can imagine what it really means in dollars and cents. Once again, we are presented with a bill which will allow the Minister of Finance to decide according to his own criteria and priorities, that is the government's and not those of the House of Commons, what the government will do until a budget is rendered. And this budget, what will it include, when, why, and under which format will it be presented to the House?
Mr. Speaker, I am greatly disappointed with the fact that this renewal which we had been promised with such clamour is unfortunately so very long in coming.
I am one of those parliamentarians who have suffered in the past from the complexity of the estimates submitted to us in committee and from the difficulty in obtaining the required

DEBATES__________________________ _________October 26, 1979
information. No particular government is to blame. That was the way things were, and the tradition being what it is in this august assembly, it is often quite difficult to keep in mind what is essential, the purpose or the main reason for our presence in this House, namely to give the government the financial means to achieve its aims.
I suffered from that, Mr. Speaker, and 1 viewed of course the government's promises as a formula to be discussed, a technical means, a mechanism that would enable us to do our job better. I am disappointed because the new government which promised the Canadian people to make a clean sweep of all those practices, all those old mechanisms and all that antiquated budgetary machinery, is still operating like all the others and is content with obsolete procedures without putting before us, before you, Mr. Speaker, the new proposals they were flaunting so much during the election campaign.
Mr. Speaker, in all probability the Minister of Finance will most certainly get that borrowing authority of $7 billion. There is no other alternative in any case. There is nothing we can do because the government must keep on operating. But having said that, let the government put forward what they promised, let it establish its credibility. Once again, the performance of the Minister of Finance to date has not been good enough to make us feel confident about putting such large amounts in the hands of this surging, sailing government, as I said earlier-


Herb Breau: Winding.


Claude-André Lachance: Winding, indeed, my colleague from Gloucester said the word I was looking for. Winding, that is the proper word for this kind of devious government that comes up with amounts, that changes its direction, that comes up from one day to the next with inconsistencies and particularly that refuses to meet with the elected representatives of the people in a committee of the House to discuss specifically with the Canadian public and before them its general orientation, the great changes it had proposed. Now, Mr. Speaker, there is no alternative, we shall have to give them $7 billion, but I urge the government, particularly the Minister of Finance, to spend wisely this money that the House of Commons is going to give him to keep the government machinery in operation. I urge him to be accountable for that amount he will receive, more accountable than with the kind of devious and evasive answers he gives constantly in the House to the legitimate questions of the opposition parties, whether it is my party, the Liberal party or the NDP. He should give us answers, Mr. Speaker, instead of saying all the time that it is Tom, Dick and Harry's fault, that it is the fault of the previous government. How long is he going to play the same record, Mr. Speaker? One year, two, three or four years? 1 feel he is going to play the same record until the Canadian people are tired of the attitude of the government, Mr. Speaker.
October 26, 1979


Peter A. Stollery: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank you very much for giving me an opportunity-


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 just want the record to show that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) was not here to move his motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I refer the hon. member to another citation in Beauchesne which says that it is not permissible for hon. members to raise points of order to signify to the House the presence or absence of members.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Peter A. Stollery: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to make a contribution to this very significant debate on borrowing authority. 1 think it is worth noting that one of the reasons we are discussing at some length the ability of the government to arrange credit of $7 billion is that none of us has any idea what kind of budget the government will be bringing to Parliament. We are having pretty much of a replay of the debate which took place a year ago. 1 think any taxpaying citizen should look through the House of Commons debates for Tuesday, October 24, 1978 and read the speech by the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie), who was then just the hon. member for St. John's West.
I do not think we should make too much of the fact that the government is floating without any real sense of direction. We cannot comment too much on that until we see a budget, but we can comment on the way the then hon. member for St. John's West went on with regard to this same bill. What day is it today?


Stanley Howard Knowles: October 26.


Peter A. Stollery: On October 26 of this year we have an exact reversal of speeches which were made last year on October 24. At that time the present Minister of Finance was giving a grandiose performance with regard to the collecting of taxes from one John C. Doyle. I gather there has been some settlement of this matter, but as 1 read through the minister's remarks I wondered whether now that he is Minister of Finance he has actually pursued the matter about which he was so accusative of various governments a year ago. We all know the Minister of Finance is a very colourful and entertaining member of the House of Commons. He has had to bear some rather grim burdens for the last little while, which he blames on everyone but himself.
If there is one characteristic of this government about which the public is very aware, it is that for five and a half months we have been treated to a bag of cliches about strengthening Parliament, but we are now seeing the opposite. We are seeing that in many ways. We could read Hansard, specifically the remarks made by the Minister of Finance when he was first elected to the House. 1 am sure that what we are seeing now will be going on for months. On March 9, 1978 the present Minister of Finance was talking about exchange rates, and he asked the then minister of finance the following question:
Borrowing Authority
Is the Minister of Finance now stating the government of Canada has no responsibility for the monetary policy and that only the governor of the Bank of Canada has that responsibility, and does he agree with the governor of the Bank of Canada in his statement yesterday-
My goodness, for years Hansard has been filled with such remarks! We could change the names and reverse the comments, but the questions would be the same.


Mr. Rae:: That is exactly what we have been saying for the past 30 years.


Peter A. Stollery: Members of the New Democratic Party, of course, have other solutions, but we never hear what they are. We hear about things like the West German economy. In West Germany, of course, there are wage and price controls, and that is one of the reasons the West Germans have a low rate of inflation, but the New Democratic Party certainly is not propounding wage and price controls in Canada.


Bob Rae: You don't know what you are talking about.


Peter A. Stollery: There are examples and more examples of questions, comments and debate in which positions have been reversed.
The inconsistent, confused and vague group of individuals who make up the Government of Canada were elected on May 22 because they told the people of Canada that they had new ideas. Where are they?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Peter A. Stollery: Mr. Speaker, I think it should be noted that the governing party does not have very many members in the House this afternoon; I see only one cabinet minister. If this is an indication of what we can expect from this government, they should take notice that as the official opposition we on this side will continually make the following point to the Canadian public. After all the talk about parliamentary democracy, and after all the rather meaningless and inane comments by the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) about returning power to the House of Commons, we find on this parliamentary day only one minister of the Crown present in the House.
I should like to continue the remarks 1 was making just before the luncheon break about the way this government, the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, have continually told us for the last two weeks that all of the problems of Canada were created by the previous government, yet at the same time this government continues those policies of which it says the previous government was guilty. 1 believe that is one reason the Canadian public is disenchanted with this government that was elected on May 22 with a mandate to develop some new ideas. The Canadian public has a right to expect some clear and new directions from this government rather than this

October 26, 1979
Borrowing Authority
repetition of the platitudes and banal comments of the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. Presumably that is why the people of Canada gave that party a mandate on May 22. I suggest this is a very real criticism of that group.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Peter A. Stollery: I hear a word from the "gas works" in the back. If they will be quiet I will continue my remarks.
One can look at Hansard and find the words of the Minister of Finance when presenting a motion under Standing Order 43 on December 8, 1977 regarding the manufacturing sector and an industrial strategy. He made accusations against the government in 1977 in a Standing Order 43 motion of the kind often moved by the present Minister of Finance when he was just the hon. member for St. John's West. That was before he rose to these spectacular heights in high finance, from whence I gather he was chased in Newfoundland. In fact, he remarked last year that in Newfoundland he was known as public enemy number one. In the rest of Canada he is now becoming known as public enemy number two.
We appreciate that minister's sense of humour, but the people in my urban constituency cannot find any humour in the kind of interest rates that are supported by the Minister of Finance, in direct contradiction to anything he said before becoming the Minister of Finance. This government has shown a total lack of new direction, the kind of direction the people expected from the new minister.
We now have a situation where the government and this minister decide, on the one hand, to sell the profitable parts of government enterprise, retain the unprofitable parts, while on the other continue with this increasingly absurd housing tax credit scheme. That is a scheme that is meaningless as far as any kind of incentive to the housing industry is concerned, particularly when interest rates keep going through the roof. I cannot believe that even the Minister of Finance, with his very great wit, can explain away the high interest rates, or explain the importance of this tax credit scheme which will benefit a relatively small group of Canadians. It certainly will not benefit the people in my constituency, who are mostly tenants, and others who have already paid for their homes. Those who will benefit will only benefit to a small degree from this tax break. Surely the minister will reconsider this hair-brained scheme.
The minister is proposing to give a $2.5 billion or $3 billion tax break to one group of people and is totally ignoring those who have to pay these loan shark interest rates that his government supports. No one seems to be clear yet exactly how much this will cost. I have to be careful to use the right word as I certainly would not want to provoke a response, but I have heard it mentioned that the loan sharks in Canada are sending a delegation to the Minister of Finance because of unfair competition by the federal government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Peter A. Stollery: One just does not know what to say when a government promotes this kind of mindless exercise. When we ask members of the government about this scheme, we get the same answers we heard from the previous government. I am sure that members on this side-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Explain.


John Carnell Crosbie: Where were you when the last government was here?


Peter A. Stollery: I was in the last government caucus. In fact, at one time I was the chairman of that caucus.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Peter A. Stollery: I am fully aware of what must be going on in this government's caucus meetings on Wednesday. None of us on this side would ever suggest there were no vigorous discussions in our caucus meetings when we were the government. There were things on which all our members did not agree. We had vigorous discussions and debates. We had double doors on the caucus room, as does the present government, to stop the sounds of our discussions from being heard outside. It would be silly to suggest that the members of a government party like the one in power that endorses actions that produce the consequences that have followed the actions of this government would support those actions unanimously. I wonder whether any of the members of this government party will have the courage to tell us what they really think. Those hon. members actually campaigned during the election as being in favour of lower interest rates.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Some of them must remember their speeches.


Peter A. Stollery: As the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Pepin) says, some of those members must remember the words of their election speeches. We on this side of the House will undertake to review some of the election speeches made by members of the government party on the opposite side, especially those of the men and women who are now ministers.
I think the feelings of many Canadians have been summed up in a letter I had the opportunity of reading when I was in my office during the luncheon break. It was written by a constituent I have not met and was directed to the Prime Minister. This letter says what probably millions of Canadians are thinking. Let me read part of it:
Dear Mr. Clark;
As the new party in power, I was willing to accept and co-operate with different ideas-in other words, give you a chance to prove yourself. As a matter of fact, I welcomed the opportunity for a clean sweep of cobwebs from the last party, a lessening of the deadwood in the top-heavy bureaucratic machine.
October 26, 1979


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter A. Stollery: Paragraph 2 reads:
Now I am disillusioned beyond belief with your latest proposals concerning the so-called return of public corporations to private enterprise. PetroCan was something I had hoped you would reconsider, merely a rash electoral promise like the moving of the Israeli embassy. Our future energy supply is too important an issue to leave with short-term opportunists. Consider the way Exxon delegated our country to have lesser priority for its oil than the U.S.A. We need champions, not uncontrollable multinationals.
Furthermore, you propose to turn over the invaluable and controversial nuclear power industry, Eldorado, to private enterprise. Have you not learned anything from Three Mile Island in the U.S.A.? Must we make all their mistakes?
To add insult to injury, you declare this to be the "deadwood" civil servants you promised to clear out. It is more likely that you are leaving the parasistes in government and clearing out those who are actually paying their own way.
So here we are, discussing a bill that this government has brought to Parliament requesting the authority to borrow $7 billion, a bill which we all know we will have to approve. We will have to do that without hearing anything from the government on its energy policy, its international trade policy-other than failure after failure-or its policy on industrial strategy, which was the subject of one comment by the Minister of Finance when he was in opposition. We have not heard a word about industrial strategy.
It is hard to believe that a government which is raising interest rates to all-time historic highs has not given this House any indication of its position vis-a-vis the referendum campaign of next year and has been so vague regarding anything concerning substantive provincial-federal issues. In fact, their only response has been to give in to the provinces. The two best examples are the offshore resources issue and the Loto Canada issue.
When one looks at the history of the Canadian dollar, one can see that it started to drop following the referendum in 1976. In September, October and November of 1976 the value of the Canadian dollar in relation to the U.S. dollar was at par or $1.01. Following the Quebec election and the victory by the PQ, the value of our dollar in relation to the U.S. dollar was 98 cents by December, and then it went down to 97 cents. By March, 1977 it had dropped to 95 cents. In April, May and June it was 95 cents and then 94 cents.
The minister's reasoning for following the United States in maintaining these very high rates of interest is that he has to protect the Canadian dollar, but in all the comments we have heard from the government, we have not heard any comments of any substance about what the government is actually going to do about improving national government and getting away from increasing provincialism in Canada. This provincialism is having an economic consequence in that it is affecting very clearly the value of our currency, and the value of our currency is apparently a significant factor in Canada's achieving the highest interest rates in its history.
How can we possibly continue without having a serious discussion about just what we are doing with national economic policy and with this trend to provincialism in Canada, so as
Borrowing Authority
to protect our currency and create a climate in which the Minister of Finance does not have blindly to follow the United States in the way in which he once said he would never do.


John Carnell Crosbie: I never said that. You can't find anywhere where I ever said that.


Peter A. Stollery: The minister has said that I cannot find anywhere where he actually said that. One of the charming characteristics of the minister is that he talks a lot when he makes these speeches.


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes, but I never said that.


Peter A. Stollery: He probably talks more, if one were to look through the index of Hansard, than any other member in the entire House of Commons, and he says a great deal of things.


John Carnell Crosbie: You point it out. Where is it?


Peter A. Stollery: The minister has said a great deal of things, and it would take more volumes of Hansard than I have here today to find those comments; but I will be doing so, and I am sure that other members will do so before this debate is over.
1 would like to switch for a moment to trade. As far as 1 understand it, we have "Stanfield the Magnificent" making his way from souk to souk.


John Carnell Crosbie: He is in the souk.


Jean-Luc Pepin: From tent to tent.


Claude-André Lachance: From tea to tea.


Peter A. Stollery: I have a vision, Mr. Speaker, of the former member for Halifax, "Stanfield the Magnificent", going from Levantine capital to Arabian souk. They have an expression in the Middle East, which is a very interesting and complex area, as we all know, and as the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) found out to his dismay, which is, "the word is around the souks". The word that the former leader of the opposition in Canada is "around the souks" is out. As a result, I guess one could call him "Hadji Bob". Has "Hadji Bob" been to Baghdad yet, because if he has it is our understanding that he had his pockets picked by the "thief of Baghdad".
We in Canada were not even allowed to bid on a $4 million or $5 million airport project.


Herb Breau: Billion.


Peter A. Stollery: Four billion bucks down the drain! We have our intrepid traveller making his way from capital to capital, and the sum and substance of it all is nothing, zero. It is also well known that we may even lose the largest project that we have ever managed to promote with Saudi Arabia.


Mr. Wilson:: Even Mirabel wasn't that big.


Peter A. Stollery: The largest project that we have ever managed to promote with Saudi Arabia is in danger, and who knows how many thousands of Canadian jobs are endangered along

October 26, 1979
Borrowing Authority
with it? I think that the story should be told to this Parliament before this government comes to us for borrowing authority, before in fact this government comes to us with a budget, as to just what are the results of these negotiations with the various capitals of North Africa and the Middle East. If "Hadji Bob" is actually having some success, we would like to hear about it, because so far all we hear about is project after project being lost.
One is hard put to give names to this group of characters across the way, but last night I spent some time looking through my copy of "Pickwick Papers". I remember that the former member for Hillsborough, who is now in the Senate, was "Mr. Pickwick" of the House of Commons. Dickens certainly had a better way with names than I have but 1 wonder if we could put some of these names to some of the ministers we have here. For example, who would "Old Lobbs" be or the "Shepherd"? 1 guess the Shepherd would be the present President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens). He would be the Shepherd, the "Rev. Sine Stevens (the Shepherd)". Sitting two doors away from Old Lobbs, the Minister of Finance, is "Angelo Cyrus Bantam, Esq". That could only be our present Prime Minister. You can just see it, Angelo Cyrus Bantam, Esq. trying his best, but his best just is not good enough. Who is "Gabriel Grub"? I will save that for another afternoon. All of these visions come to mind, I suppose brought on by the picture of "Hadji Bob" on a trade mission making his way around the souks.
Because trade and energy are so intimately connected, we cannot leave this subject because we are told the reason we have no budget is that we have been unable to get an agreement with the provincial ministers on price increases for oil in Canada. That again is connected by the fact that we have not really heard from the government yet just what their approach is on federal-provincial relations, other than to just give in to the provinces. It appears to us that what we are doing right now is giving in to the province of Alberta in the area of world oil prices.
I think Canadians are confused about world energy prices because of their effect on the ability of the government to bring in a budget. This is really quite remarkable. What Canadians can understand and what the government does not seem to appreciate is that world prices have continually changed over the last eight years. They have nothing whatsoever to do with the production of a barrel of oil. World oil prices are purely a political decision made by countries who have oil. It costs about 20, 21 or 22 cents to produce one barrel of oil. It is less than a quarter. One barrel is 35 Imperial gallons of Arabian light crude. That barrel of Arabian light crude sold for about $1.80 in 1972, and it has been steadily moving upward, from $13.33 in January, 1979, to $14.00 in April, and now $18.00. I think it has gone up again, but as the price base is Arabian light crude, sometimes the numbers that one hears are not relative to the actual world price.

It is my view that Canadians would like to know from this government-and it is something that they have been unable to find out-just how much they will be paying for heating oil this winter and how much of what they will be paying for heating oil is a completely phony political price that has nothing to do with the production of heating oil.
For about five years we were told by those who are experts that it cost about $8 or $9 a barrel to extract oil from the tar sands. That was the cost of extraction. They did not want to be too specific because there was an enormous capital investment going on. It was about $9 a barrel, I remember that very well. Why must the Canadian taxpayer, the consumer, when he buys a gallon of gas or pays for heating oil have to pay what is a totally political price that has no relationship whatsoever to the cost of the production of that petroleum product? When will we get more specific information on the cost of heating oil?
If there are many people who believe that a lot of jiggery-pokery is going on, it is probably not in the gas you buy for your car so much, because everybody buys gas all the time. Every time you fill up your gas tank the pump registers what you are paying for a gallon of gas. But what you do not recall and have difficulty remembering is what you paid last year for your heating bill. Usually people pay their bills once a month or once a season. Before we have any decisions or agreements by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hnaty-shyn), I believe strongly that there should be a hard look taken at just what is going on in the heating oil department. We should not be diverted by the gasoline question. Of the two important subjects, surely heating oil would have to come first.
The Minister of Finance, charming man that he is, before he comes to us wanting us to give him $7 billion borrowing authority, first of all should be coming to us with a budget giving a clear indication of where this country is going, a lot clearer indication than we had in the throne speech. I never read a throne speech any faster than that one; it took me about six minutes. The substance of it all, I think, was putting the word "multicultural" in the Immigration Act. That was the major commitment of this government in its throne speech.
Before we start authorizing this government to borrow money, we should have a budget. This budget should give us a clear indication of where this country is going financially. It is all very well to listen to cliches about the fact that we must control inflation. Of course we must control inflation. But surely the point is that the cost of controlling inflation should be borne more by those who can afford it than by those who cannot afford it. So far as the housing tax credit is concerned, people who cannot benefit from it are paying taxes and their money is going to people who are in a better position to afford this terrifically expensive fight against inflation.
Words were flying around here earlier during question period. It is all very well for the Minister of Finance to say that everything will be all right in two years. But, will everything be all right in two years? If we are still around in two
October 26, 1979

years, if we have an industrial sector and if our trade balances are genuinely going to improve, will everything be all right? This government took office five months ago and they are saying that five months is nothing; but four and a half months without Parliament meeting is a significant amount of time for a group of men and women who presumably had some sense of direction when they ran for Parliament.
Surely when the Prime Minister wanted to become Prime Minister he had a reason. Surely it did not take him five, six or seven months to tell us why he wanted to be Prime Minister. So far we have not found out. I think the people of Canada are asking themselves why they changed the government and what benefit are they getting for this change, since this government is doing exactly the same things the previous government did when given a mandate on May 22 to go in a new direction. If they are not going to take new directions, 1 do not think we should be approving their request to Parliament. The whole point of the operation is that they are supposed to have some new ideas and they have not. As I said earlier, one can go through Hansard and just change the names.
I do not think that was meant by the people of Canada. They asked for more. How long are they expected to put up with this? When are we going to get a budget that says something? So far all we have is a placebo, one of those funny coloured pills-the throne speech with nothing in it. It has been platitudes, government by cliche and lots of roly-poly jokes. Meanwhile small businessmen are in serious trouble. One can only presume we will see a large increase, not only of bankruptcies of small businesses over the next half year or so, but a decline in borrowing to promote new business, a decline in industrial direction to create new jobs for Canadians.
We have to look at the two major problems because they are interconnected. One is inflation and the other is unemployment. The argument seems to be that inflation will create more unemployment. That is great, but is it true ? One would think that when we have a lower rate of inflation in Canada by four percentage points than the United States, we should be more competitive. The dollar is at an all-time low since the Diefenbaker government. We have a government with no direction as to where it is going. Canadians have a right to expect a newly elected government to give them some sense of direction. It is not good enough for a newly elected group of men and women to sit for five and a half months and give us no indication of where they are going.


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, we have before us a bill presented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) to borrow $7 billion to run the affairs of state. We in the New Democratic Party have some objection to the way the bill was brought in and the explanation given to us by the Minister of Finance as to why he needs this money. The first argument is that it is really a blank cheque we are giving the government. We have no idea exactly how the money would be spent. That criticism has a familiar ring to it because we heard
Borrowing Authority
it from the Minister of Finance when he used to be in the opposition.
I was interested in listening to the minister introduce the bill in the House. In the speech that he gave he waxed quite eloquent and reminded us of the former effervescent member for St. John's West when he was in opposition. It gave me a bit of worry in terms of the levity and lack of really serious analysis that I noticed in the minister's presentation. 1 was particularly struck by the minister's opening remarks. He quoted from Shakespeare and said "Neither a borrower nor a lender be". He admitted he would prefer not to borrow but had to because of the mess in which the former Fiberal government had left the country.
It would have been enlightening had the minister read the full quotation from Shakespeare which, of course, comes from Hamlet, act I, scene III, when Polonius is speaking to his son, Faertes. It reads as follows;
Neither a borrower nor a lender be.
For loan oft loses both itself and friend,
And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry;
This above all, to thine own self be true And it must follow as the night the day Thou canst not then be false to any man-
Had the minister read the full quotation, he would have been embarrassed with the very telling line, "This above all, to thine own self be true". The minister is in an embarrassing position because he is not to his own self true. If we read some of the statements the minister made while he was in opposition, it becomes evident that this is no longer the hon. member for St. John's West that we knew in the Conservative opposition benches.
Was he true to himself then, and is he true to himself now? It was almost a year ago to the day, October 24 last year, when the present Minister of Finance, then the opposition finance critic, stood on this side of the House and ranted, railed and castigated the Fiberal government for doing exactly what he is now doing. I quote from Hansard of October 24, 1978, on this business of bank interest rates, which are closely associated with this whole question of borrowing. The present minister then said:
Where will it end? Where will it stop? How can we have economic expansion in light of these interest rates? What will the small businessman do? What will they do to meet these heavy, additional expenses?
Is it not correct that one of the factors which make us uncompetitive compared to the United States is the much higher interest rates in Canada? Who is considering all this? Who cares?
That question posed a year ago by the present Minister of Finance is just as relevant today. Indeed, when we look at the kind of policy that this Conservative government has been following since its election on May 22, any unbiased observer has to conclude that it is identical to the policies of the previous Fiberal government which got us into the economic mess the Minister of Finance says he has inherited. The rationale the present minister uses for having to increase interest rates and borrow $7 billion is that his hands are tied,

October 26, 1979
Borrowing Authority
that because of the mess the Liberals left the economy in, he has no other course of action.
One of the reasons we are in this economic mess today is that the previous Liberal government followed exactly the same policy. It followed the policy of continuing to raise interest rates. That slowed down the economy and caused more and more bankruptcies, unemployment and inflation for the ordinary consumer. 1 thought Canadians wanted to throw out the Liberals because of the economic mess they were creating. I thought Canadians believed the new Conservative government would change policy and swing things around. Most Canadians are now beginning to realize that the old adage is indeed true-Tory times are tough times.
Just since the election of a few months ago the bank interest rate has gone up to a record high. It is now 14 per cent, which means consumers and lenders are being charged somewhere around 16 per cent by the banks. "Who cares?" I quote the minister s words right back to him. It seems to me that what happened in the election of May 22 is that we just exchanged the black cats for the white cats. They are still cats. They are still wedded to the same economic philosophy which created the problems we have today and which will not get us out of the problems we are in today.
This minister is wedded to advice from the governor of the Bank of Canada, who is convinced that a policy of high interest rates and of foreign borrowing is the only way to proceed in terms of keeping the economy healthy. Where is the health in this economy? Canada, among western countries, has one of the highest unemployment rates, one of the highest interest rates, a very high inflation rate and an economy which has no over-all industrial strategy. We are wedded to the old concept of exporting our raw materials and, hence, exporting potential manufacturing jobs which could be created here in Canada.
It seems that there has been no change. There are new faces on that other side of the House, but they certainly do not have new policies. It is hypocritical of the present government and the present Minister of Finance to argue that they did not realize things were so bad when they were in opposition but now that they are in government they have discovered things are so bad that they have no choice but to proceed with the disastrous economic policies they were condemning only a year ago. That is not good enough. It will not fool the Canadian electorate. What was wrong when the Liberals were in power is just as wrong today. Economic circumstances have not changed. The factors the Liberal government was dealing with are the same factors this government is dealing with. Where are the dramatic changes which could make things different? I do not see them. Therefore, how can the government argue that it cannot strike out with new initiatives and new solutions to the problems it analysed only a year ago?
I think it is hypocrisy of the highest order to argue one thing when you are in the opposition and then when you are in government to reverse yourself because of political expediency
[Mr. Symes.J
and carry on the same policies you were railing against only 12 months ago. I think it points out the shallowness of the criticism the Conservatives made of the economic performance of the Liberals when the Conservatives were in opposition. One can only conclude that they really did not mean it when they said that a high interest rate policy was wrong and damaging to small business and consumers. I think they were only saying it because they wanted to say something different or look different from the Liberals when they were in government. Now, of course, the Conservatives are in government, and their true colours are showing.
When we look at the amount of borrowing sought by the bill which is before us, we see that the Minister of Finance wants to be able to borrow $7 billion. Our criticism is that we do not know what he is going to do with it. What is he going to do with this $7 billion?
When he was leader of the opposition, the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) used that same kind of argument in criticizing the Liberals in the first place.


John Carnell Crosbie: If you don't want to pass this bill, you tell us what you want cut. What part of the $7 billion do you want to cut out?


Reginald Cyril Symes: I hear the minister asking how he can avoid borrowing $7 billion from foreign markets or from wherever it is he has to borrow. Well, I ask him to look at the income tax system as it is presently structured. My latest calculations show that large corporations in this country owe the federal government $12 billion in deferred taxes, taxes which have not been collected by the previous Liberal government nor by this present Conservative government. He is saying he has no alternative, because federal revenues are down so much, but to go out and borrow $7 billion and, of course, pay a very high interest rate which we as taxpayers have to fund. The federal treasury lacks close to $12 billion in taxes which it has not collected from the corporations of this country. This was a deliberate policy.
It was argued that these tax concessions and deferred allowances had to be given to corporations in all sectors of the economy to encourage them to expand and hire Canadians in order to keep our unemployment rate down. It obviously has not worked. We have one of the highest unemployment rates in the industrialized world. Something went wrong, but this government would never think of collecting taxes which have been deferred indefinitely and which accountants indicate in annual reports of corporations are unlikely ever to be collected.
Never do we as individuals have a chance to defer our taxes. Come April 30, the Department of National Revenue wants those taxes; but for corporations the story is not the same. We as individual taxpayers have to bear the burden and make up revenue that this government and its predecessor have refused to collect from the corporate sector, in spite of record profits in certain sectors of the economy. I think the most dramatic recent examples are the profits of oil companies, which are at a record level. Those profits amount to incredible sums, yet their tax rates, depletion allowances and other factors are incredibly
October 26, 1979

low. Despite the millions of dollars of profits Shell has made, Shell does not pay any federal income tax because of the write-offs allowed. The taxpayers of Canada are funding, on the average, about 65 cents out of every dollar that oil companies spend on exploration.
In addition, we give them all kinds of other depletion allowances, etc. Then, as the government does not collect taxes from them at the normal rate, it is little wonder that this government has a revenue problem and has to seek more borrowing authority.
As I have indicated, the minister has changed his tune now that he is on the treasury benches. He is arguing that he has to borrow and that he has to keep interest rates high. What is the rationale behind the high interest rate policy? One of the arguments-and we heard the governor of the Bank of Canada before a committee yesterday reiterate it-is that interest rates need to be kept high so that we can attract foreign capital. What is the result of foreign capital being attracted into Canada? Surely if high interest rates attract capital, not only should Canadian investment be attractive to foreigners but it should also be attractive to Canadian investors. Despite this high interest rate policy we still find capital flowing out of the country. In 1978 the net capital outflow was $2 billion. Something does not gibe here. The argument does not always work. There are other factors at work. The government never likes to talk about this, but when it keeps attracting foreign capital, it also attracts foreign ownership.
Foreign ownership of our economy is, indeed, at the root of many of the problems we face, because as long as 80 per cent of our oil industry is foreign-owned, as long as 60 per cent of our manufacturing industry is foreign owned-one can go through it sector by sector and realize that the majority of it is foreign-owned-how can the national government ever expect to implement policies for the benefit of Canada ?
Endorsement of a high interest policy and dependency on foreign capital are an admission of bankruptcy in terms of any strategy which seeks to regain Canadian control and initiative in the development of our economy. The foreign ownership syndrome into which the government is locked, following exactly the same bias as the previous Liberal government, means we shall never be able to develop a healthy manufacturing industry since foreign ownership is mainly designed to extract raw materials for manufacture into final form elsewhere.
What is happening to our manufacturing sector? In 1953, 26 per cent of all jobs was in manufacturing. By 1979 the proportion had declined to 19 per cent. Do we ever stop to think why there is such high unemployment in this country? In the job intensive sector, manufacturing, employment has gone down. We depend more and more upon the extraction of raw materials and the export of raw or semi-processed materials, and we are providing fewer jobs in Canada. This is reflected in declining employment.
Borrowing Authority
A further consequence is that we have to import foreign goods which are always more expensive in the long run in terms of their effect on the balance of payments; the only way we can get our balance of payments back into equilibrium is by exporting more oil, natural gas or raw materials. Hence the vicious circle continues and Canada goes on suffering from unemployment, a weak dollar, and high inflation.
The policies the minister is following are identical with those of the previous government, and our economy has been in serious trouble for the past decade so 1 cannot see how those policies followed by the Conservatives can extricate us from the predicament in which we find ourselves. The Conservatives are ignoring the structural weaknesses in our economy, the need for an over-all industrial strategy, and the need to help the weaker sectors of the economy regain some strength.
In the context of this very high interest rate I am thinking in particular of what is happening to small business. We see on the order paper a bill in the name of the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Industry (Mr. Huntington) to increase funding for the Federal Business Development Bank. Hopefully, we shall get to that bill later on, because I have some comments to make on it. But this kind of tokenism does not get to the real problem facing small business. The real problem facing small business today is the cash flow problem, the difficulty of finding finance at a reasonably low rate.
The high interest rate policy adopted by the Minister of Finance flies in the face of all the Conservative promises to small business. Small business has always had trouble in ensuring an adequate cash flow. Through its high interest policy whereby 16 per cent or more has to be paid for loans, the minister is driving small firms out of business. Inventories are down because small business cannot afford to build them up in the circumstances. Bankruptcies, which were at a record rate last year under the Liberal administration, are going to be even higher this year because of the high interest policy of the Minister of Finance.
Again and again we see the rhetoric on one side and the economic reality of the policies of the government on the other.
I do not think the small business community is fooled by the bland assurances of the minister or of the Prime Minister that a high interest rate is necessary now because the economic problems have to be solved that way before the Conservative party can carry out its pledge of bringing down interest rates in the long term. 1 wonder how long the long term is going to be. I would be prepared to bet that even if the government survives four years in office the interest rate will not go down. Structural problems in the economy and the monetary thinking of the governor of the bank, supported by the Minister of Finance, indicate that, if anything, the interest rate will continue to rise. This will lead to more bankruptcies and more unemployment.
Economists were predicting a very bad situation for the economy over the winter months late in 1980 before the present government came to power because of the structural weaknesses 1 have described and because of the spill-over of the recession in the United States. We have now embarked on

October 26, 1979
Borrowing Authority
a record high interest rate policy and it would seem to me that this prediction will come true in a much more dramatic and negative way, and that we shall move into a deeper recess.
As hon. members know, the government is wedded to moving the price of energy up, in a dramatic way. The current thinking is at least $4 a barrel. Again, this is going to add to the inflation rate and will probably, using the figures from the last first ministers' conference, if they move up the price of oil to $4 per barrel, throw another 80,000 Canadians out of work, reduce the growth of the gross national product by at least 1 per cent, and move up inflation by 2 per cent. All this has the makings of a serious economic recession, yet I do not detect any sense that that is the direction in which we are moving. I do not detect any concern on the part of the Minister of Finance that the policies he is pursuing will inevitably lead us into that severe economic downturn.
We get assurances that the budget is to be somehow a cure-all for the problems the Conservatives have inherited from the Liberals. I cannot see it, because if one accepts the logic that the Liberal policies contributed to the economic mess in which we now find ourselves, how will the Conservatives get us out of that mess by using the same kind of policies?
I am dismayed at the hypocrisy of the minister and his cabinet colleagues saying one thing in opposition and then, when they get into government, doing exactly what they have criticized.
For these reasons we oppose this kind of borrowing policy and high interest rate policy which we think will be disastrous to the Canadian economy, not only in the short term but in the long term.
[ Translation]


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the bill introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) which asks for an additional borrowing power for the fiscal year 1979-80. I would be inclined first of all to answer the previous speaker, the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes), who referred to the economic performance of the former government and seemed to suggest that the actions of the former government and those of this government were almost similar. It is quite a different record as the Canadian people will realize.
After scarcely a few months of this new government, inflation has never been worse in Canada, the Canadian economy has never been in such a bad way, interest rates have never been higher and the concrete measures taken by a Canadian government to solve our economic problems have never been so weak. I think that our party which is now the official opposition will have the opportunity to return to power and take steps to correct the economic conditions. I think that the performance of a socialist party in British Columbia or in Manitoba has really not convinced anyone that they had the proper

policies to meet our needs. But enough of that. I wish instead to deal this afternoon with the Minister of Finance's proposals which I find surprising, to say the least. On October 23 last, the Minister of Finance made a speech that bordered on buffoonery. I realize it is not very amusing to be Minister of Finance nowadays. I realize also that his leader, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Clark), in spite of all the good advice given to him by economists in the Department of Finance and economists from the business and academic world, I repeat, in spite of all the good advice given to this government, the right hon. Prime Minister and leader of the Minister of Finance persists in going ahead with his mortgage interest deduction program which will cost billions of dollars to Canadian taxpayers to no purpose, implementing a program which will actually not benefit housing at all.
I know the Minister of Finance has tried to convince his colleagues, and particularly his leader, not to go ahead with that wasteful expenditure, but he had to submit to his leader's orders and to endorse this measure which will squander public funds in Canada. I understand why he jokes his way around the difficult and thorny questions relating to the Canadian economy every time he rises in the House instead of dealing with them in a serious and responsible manner. That is why his speech of October 23 is much more of a joke than a serious, factual and positive statement of the measures this new government intends to take in order to solve the economic problems facing all Canadians. At the end of his speech, the Minister of Finance went as far as to say, as reported at page 507 of Hansard for October 23, and I quote:
Therefore, I appeal to the hon. gentlemen opposite-
That is, members of the opposition.
-to help pass through the House their debristheir debris. This is how he speaks about this bill asking for the authority to borrow an additional amount of some $7 billion. The Minister of Finance dares call that debris. He goes on to ask us to support and pass this bill-
-so that we can get on with our bright new future for Canada, with our own budget and with the affairs of this country, as the people of Canada showed on May 22 they wanted us to do.
1 say to the minister that, on this side of the House, we are quite willing to deal with what he called the unfinished business, but we consider this to be a particularly important and significant measure which must not be dealt with lightly and which calls for some $7 billion in additional borrowing authority for the fiscal year 1979-80. I must say I am amazed to note that what hon. members of the Progressive Conservative Party are saying now is quite another tune from their claims when they were in opposition. Why is this bill, one of the very first to be introduced to us, calling for additional borrowing power? Why? This political party which is now in power used to claim that the Canadian government was spending too much, that government spending had to be reduced, that a balanced budget was to be our goal. Well, in one of his
October 26, 1979

first moves as a member of the government, the Minister of Finance, instead of tabling a regular budget has decided to seek an additional borrowing power of $7 billion; there is no consistency between what the hon. gentleman used to say when he was a member of the opposition and what he is now saying as the new Minister of Finance. And it is more serious than that, Mr. Speaker. What makes it worse is that the new government that enjoyed the support of Canadians on May 22 has waited an unprecedented five months to call Parliament after the election; such a long delay had never been seen in the whole history of Parliament. When it was in opposition, this political party used to boast it was ready to act and form a new government on one hour's notice, that it had a whole array of measures on ice that were best suited to Canadian interests. Just imagine! That same party waited 5 months to face the House and, when finally it did, all it could deliver is a wishy-washy Speech from the Throne that is neither fish nor fowl, that contains no financial and economic commitments and, to top the lot, seeks additional authority to borrow another $7 billion. And they ask this without giving any explanation, and this is quite serious in my opinion, Mr. Speaker. In reply to the Minister of Finance, one of my colleagues in the House, the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), in a brilliant and timely speech-


Bob Rae: What do you mean brilliant? This is too much!


André Ouellet: -reminded this government that when the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens), the hon. member for York-Peel, was the opposition critic and was sitting on this side of the House, he said he could not allow the former government to borrow large sums without knowing everything about estimated expenditures and revenues and budgetary deficit. Of course, as the hon. member for Windsor West rightly noted, the Minister of Finance took care not to give any clear explanation about what he plans to do. And no more than the Progressive Conservatives, when they sat on this side of the House, would give the government a free hand to borrow large amounts of money without providing any explanation, do we now, as the true official opposition in this House of Commons, intend to allow this new government to borrow such large amounts as $7 billion with no explanation other than a semi-facetious and humorous speech made by the Minister of Finance on October 23 last.
I congratulate my colleagues, the hon. members for Mercier (Mrs. Hervieux-Payette), Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) and Spadina (Mr. Stollery) who spoke earlier today. I have been impressed by their serious approach to public affairs, especially in the case of the hon. member for Mercier who was newly elected to this House and who made a brilliant speech and gave evidence of her seriousness and desire to serve well not only the people whom she represents in the Canadian Parliament, but also all Canadians, who are entitled to more respect and more information from the Minister of Finance.
Borrowing Authority
What we regret, Mr. Speaker, is that we are asked to pass this borrowing authority while a budget should have been introduced instead. We should be informed of what the budgetary forecasts are concerning the economy. We do not know what the government will have to say in its budget about the economic situation and the agreement on the price of oil. The government has been in charge for five months now. Ministers have been in the opposition for years and presumably they were preparing themselves to assume power. They had all the time they needed to get ready and bring forward original solutions to present economic problems. Especially on the fundamental problem of oil pricing, they had all the time they could have needed to consult with the provinces and to reach a decision which is of vital importance for all Canadians. If the rumours are true, if the price of a barrel of oil is going up by some $4, the economic implications of this move will be tragic and unacceptable for all Canadian consumers. I cannot accept that this government leave us in the dark.
After five months, this government has not had the elementary decency to tell us what the price of oil will be. The Minister of Finance hides and does not even dare appear before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. He should have been its first witness but he did not even show up. At this point in time, Mr. Speaker, the only public statement he made to the hon. members in this House was his speech of October 23 in which he did not deal with anything serious but only made jokes.
Will he appear before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs? 1 hope he will. In any event, Mr. Speaker, we, on this side of the House, will speed things up and see to it that he discharges his duties fully by appearing before our Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. It is inconceivable, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Finance should have shirked his responsibilities by not showing up before that committee; it is really quite incredible, Mr. Speaker, that at a time when he is asking the House to grant him authority to borrow $7 billion, he should not even be in the House to fight for his bill and hear the parliamentarians say what they think of his bill. Where is the minister? I point out to you that he is not at his seat. I also point out once again that he is hiding-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Oh, come off it! What utter nonsense!	,


Mr. Kempling:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe the rules clearly show that it is not proper for a member to mention in the House that another member is not in his seat. I would think the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) should know that, having been a minister of the Crown. He should recognize that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) is at a cabinet meeting and will be here shortly before four o'clock.
670

October 26, 1979
Borrowing Authority
[ Translation]
Mir. Ouellet: I am very pleased to learn that the Minister of Finance is at a cabinet meeting. I accept the hon. member's remark and I forgive the Minister of Finance for having been forced to be absent. However, I hope that in the discussions in the cabinet meeting he will be able to make concrete decisions which he will submit to Parliament as soon as possible, because since the beginning of the present session we have been unable in fact to ask the minister the questions we wanted to ask him, and in particular to hear from him what policy the government intends to follow in the economic field.
It was too easy for him to hide behind the governor of the Bank of Canada. It was too easy for the Minister of Finance to say that it is the fault of the previous government, that things are bad. Those explanations are all too simple and easy; they do not correspond at all to the present situation. What the Canadian public wants to know is what he is going to do now that he is the Minister of Finance and what the new Prime Minister is going to do now that he is the Prime Minister. A few months ago they told us that they had the solutions to all the problems, and that it would be easy if only they received a mandate from the Canadian people. Interest rates would drop, inflation would go down, the dollar would go up, unemployment would be lower, the sun would shine on a brave new world if only the Progressive Conservative Party could take over the government. Well, the people have been had. They have elected this new finance minister, this new Prime Minister and we find that not only did they fail to come up with concrete proposals but one of their first measures is to ask us, in this House, to borrow some $7 billion more. And what for? We do not know since he did not tell us, since he did not go before a parliamentary committee to answer questions from the members. All we know is that he will sink Canadians further into debt. We will have an additional debt of some $7 billion thanks to the good work of this finance minister.
Mr. Speaker, 1 cannot accept this situation and 1 tell the members of this government, you have had time and opportunity to take decisions in the best interest of Canadians, and every time you had to deal with a specific case, you missed the ball and struck out, to use baseball parlance.
And now on to the contract we were supposed to sign with the government of Argentina. Of course, the new minister, the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson), came to the House to apologize and explain to us that, unfortunately, this contract had been lost and consequently the government would lose jobs and this would obviously cause a major loss of revenue for Canada.
Strike two, the famous Foothills project. Thanks to the lack of concern, the lack of responsibility on the part of the ministers in this new government, the government of the United States could not know what was actually the position of
[Mr. Kempling.J
the Government of Canada. And, once again we realize this country struck out and this project will not take place and will not bring the economic benefits we were hoping to get for all Canadians.
And just recently, again, we learned that General Motors would not be coming to invest in a plant in Montreal. Strike three. This government, once again, in a short time bit the dust on three issues most important for the economy of this country, the creation of jobs in Canada, economic stability, and those lost revenues which might, in fact, explain why the Minister of Finance now has to come before this House and ask for an additional borrowing authority of $7 billion for the fiscal year 1979-80. If that is the kind of performance this government is capable of, if every time it gets involved in an issue it has only a negative impact on the economy of this country, at the rate at which we are going it is not $7 billion that the Minister of Finance will shortly seek from us permission to borrow but maybe $20 billion or $30 billion. 1 find that unacceptable and I ask the Minister of Finance to introduce his budget at the earliest to meet the present needs of the people, especially the low-income groups who suffer infinitely from the increasing cost of living. It is unacceptable to see this government more concerned with setting a price for oil that is going to suit large corporations, and particularly the producing provinces, but that is going to cause irreparable harm to all Canadian consumers.
There is talk of a $4 increase-I do not know what the increase will be-but I have this to say, Mr. Speaker. Whether it is $2, $3, $3.25, $3.50, $3.75 or $4, I think it will be too much and it will be unacceptable for the good interest of Canadian consumers. They are playing hide and seek now concerning the increase in the price of oil. There are secret meetings in the backrooms of large oil companies and in the offices of the energy minister of Alberta and of a few other Conservative organizers, probably, but 1 say this, whatever the price of a barrel of oil, whatever the amount of the increase, I think it will be too much because Canadian consumers are already being smothered with the inflation we have in Canada. The Canadian consumers are being crushed by this Minister of Finance who is letting the interest rate increase inconsiderately. The interest rate is now at 14 per cent and soon will reach a level of 15 per cent and even 16 and 17 per cent. And when I mention these rates, of course-


An hon. Member:: You would have done exactly the same thing!


André Ouellet: I am talking not only about the bank rates, but also about the prices that will have to be paid by the small consumer, the modest customer who will have to borrow money to buy the car he needs to go to work, and who will perhaps have to pay a 17 or 18 per cent interest on a loan in order to get it. Not only will he have to pay an interest rate that is unacceptable, excessive though lawful, proposed, toler-
October 26, 1979

ated, and even accepted in a complacent manner by this Minister of Finance, but this same government will come back very soon to tighten the rope around the poor Canadian taxpayer's neck, because, of course, he will have to buy gas if he is to use his car to go to work. Not only will he have to pay usury rates on his car loan, he will also have to pay an unacceptable rate on the gallon of gas he will have to buy to go to work.
Those are the direct consequences of this government alone, the Progressive Conservative Party which just came into office. We did not allow this. I heard a member from the New Democratic Party suggest we did the same. Under the Liberal government interest rates did not reach 15 per cent, and if we were now in office we would not tolerate 15 per cent rates. Were we now the government, we would not allow such disgraceful increases in the price of oil. This is a Progressive Conservative government. They should have all the blame for those unjustified and unacceptable increases in interest rates, the cost of living and very soon the price of oil, the price of heating fuel, the price of gas Canadian consumers have to buy. Mr. Speaker, I have this to say: the Minister of Finance needs a better budget, a much more serious budget than what he has indicated until now in this Flouse, because he will not remain very long as Minister of Finance. The people themselves will rise and send back into the opposition that bunch of dimwits who have given the people nothing positive since they were elected. There are a government that is adrift, a government that is carried away by events, a government without any concrete measures to deal with economic problems.


Bob Rae: Will the hon. member who just spoke allow a question?


André Ouellet: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Bob Rae: Among his suggestions at the beginning of his remarks, because later he went another way, he mentioned he shared the concerns we have expressed in this party about information lacking in the bill put forward by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie). I would like to ask him a simple question. In what way does this bill differ from the other bills that were introduced by his Liberal colleagues, and especially by the former minister of finance, the hon. member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien)?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I would refer the hon. member to the speech made in this House by the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), who dealt with the matter on October 23 last. He clearly showed there was a world of difference between the legislation introduced by the former minister of finance and the new legislation by the current minister. I suggest the hon. member should improve his education by reading the remarks made by the hon. member for
Borrowing Authority
Windsor West. They deal very eloquently with the matter, and very clearly explain there is nothing similar between the two.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I want to participate in this debate particularly because 1 know that the Creditiste members will return. They are interested in this kind of a bill and will want to take part in the debate.
We are being asked in this country to raise another $7 billion by way of borrowing, much of that borrowing from outside of the country, Mr. Speaker. I listened with great interest to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) introducing this measure and I listened while he ridiculed the previous government and to his assertion that all of the responsibility for the $7 billion borrowing need was the fault of the previous government. I have just now listened to a cabinet minister in the former government who was so little interested in the operation of the finances of his own government that he told my colleague, the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae), that if he wants to find out anything about it he should ask the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray). The hon. member for Windsor West was not allowed to participate in that cabinet for some time. All of this must confuse the country no end.
Where is this money coming from that we are going to raise? Would it not be wise, instead of raising $7 billion, to curtail some of the expenditures? This was a suggestion made by my colleague, the hon. member for Sault St. Marie (Mr. Symes). Immediately the Minister of Finance asked the question how? There are lots of ways we could do it. Although it would hurt the Conservative party and the Liberal party, but not my party, one way would be to get rid of the other place. That is the place where politicians are pensioned off who have never really served in a political sense except as that of bagmen. It would mean that we would have to do something about several of the cabinet ministers who would no longer be able to serve there. This would save a great deal of money. It would save a great deal now, and the expenditures for which we must borrow in another land would be saved, as well as the interest that must be paid on the borrowing. There are indeed many ways we could save money, many of them which this government does not intend to carry out.
It has been interesting listening to members of the new government speak because, in operation, there is very little difference between a Conservative and a Liberal. It is no more easily ascertained than to look at the zeal being expressed by the present government members in supporting the budget and the financial arrangements of a previous government. This government had four or five months but it did not bring in a new set of estimates. Not one penny was changed; nothing was changed.
One could say that it would cost thousands of dollars to reprint the estimates to put them into line with the thinking of the new government. Sure it would. It might cost $100,000. Is the government of the day telling me that in those estimates that it criticized as widely, violently and as strongly as we did, although probably not in so many areas, that it could not save

October 26, 1979
Borrowing Authority
the price of the printing? Now there is the exhibition of the finance minister defending the financial arrangements of a previous government rather than having any of his own. One of the ways to save money obviously is in the estimates of the previous government that have already been partially spent.
There are, of course, other ways. It seems to me that one way is to keep the interest rate down. The present government follows the same pattern as the previous one did. It is saying that we need, as the governor of the Bank of Canada said to the committee the other day, to maintain an interest rate higher than the American interest rate so that we can do business in Canada by importing foreign money.
We are not importing foreign money, we are exporting Canadian money. We export more dollars than we bring into this country. We are a net exporter of dollars, not importer. If that were cut out, the government would not need to borrow this money. This would equalize the $7 billion it wants to borrow and the $7 billion it gives away to foreign markets. If we did that, we could eliminate the need for borrowing this amount of money. Not only would that affect the present deficit, but it would hold for a number of years to come.
We have slavishly gone along with the idea of raising our interest rate every time our American neighbours do so. The Canadian public are told that in terms of the manufacturing industry, multinational corporations, in terms of oil and so on, that we need to have a continental policy. We tell them we must follow that policy and, if the Americans raise their interest rate, that we must do the same. The same applies to the price of oil. We are told that if the multinational corporations do something in one country, they should be allowed to do the same in this country, under the same circumstances. That is not really true.
While we go out of this country to borrow money, we have always balanced our payments. We have always been able to balance our payments. We have always maintained our standard of living by robbing and raping our resources. The manufacturing sector of this country has never carried its share in the production of wealth in Canada. It has flowed from our mining industry, forest industry, and agricultural industry.
Mir. Kempling: Oh, oh!


William Arnold Peters: If the hon. member doubts that, that may partly explain the bad shape we are in. His small companies may have done very well, but they do very little in terms of the total national economy. The parliamentary secretary may disagree if he wishes, but every time there is an ad in my area from the forest products industry, it points out that 27 cents out of every dollar produced in Canada comes directly or indirectly from the forest industry.


Mr. Huntington:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to remind the hon. member that the information he has just given to this House is erroneous. Forty-two per cent of the GNP is a business component and 25 per cent of that comes

from businesses that have sales of less than $2 million, or 2.5 million people employed in the labour force sector which serves that business component. Of 6.6 million people, 42 per cent of them were employed in small business.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I think the minister has made his point.


William Arnold Peters: He made a point, but it does not apply to anything. Small businesses are in the mining industry. They are also in farming. Many farmers consider themselves to be small businessmen.
I do not take credit for the figure 1 mentioned. It is the forest industry that stated 27 cents out of every dollar in the economy of Canada is directly or indirectly from the forest products industry. I presume some small businesses are involved in that. There are very few major businesses in the forest products industry. It proves my point.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Your point is erroneous.


William Arnold Peters: We allow our American neighbours to set the price on everything, including oil and hydro. If we need more money, we rob our resources and export them in as raw a form as possible. This country should take an independent point of view. Because I live on the North American continent, I do not consider myself an American citizen or to be involved in the American economic milieu.
The hon. member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling) keeps telling us that he is doing very well. I do not know if he is using American technology, research and money. The hon. member gives us the impression that he has developed some leadership and prominence in his industry. He may be a leader in his field, but it must be a small field. He must have a good staff because it has run without him for years.
There is absolutely no justification for raising interest rates in Canada. When the government gets into the field of raising $7 billion, it means the rest of the Canadian economy has to scratch. In many cases it does not have the collateral the Canadian government has because of our resources. That is because we still have forests, mines, and agricultural potential that has not been squandered. This can be put up as collateral to borrow from foreign banks.
Interest rates continue to rise because our American neighbours are in a severe economic bind, having put up more than can be supported by their collateral. Because there are $240 billion worth of Eurodollars floating around destroying faith in the American economy, that is no reason for us to raise our bank interest rates and create a similar situation. The banks are making a huge profit. They do not need to raise the interest rate in order to make more money for themselves. The oil companies do not need to raise their prices because they, too, are making a profit.
May I call it four o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
October 26, 1979

Pensions


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being four o'clock, this House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Item No. 1 standing in the name of the hon. member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pem-broke (Mr. Hopkins). Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Stand at the request of the government. Item No. 2, the hon. member for-


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is not at the request of the government. I think everyone knows that we want to deal with the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). The others are allowed to stand by unanimous consent of all members. That is certain.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it agreed by unanimous consent that all orders up to order No. 6 shall stand at the request of the government?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order.


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


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I think I have to make myself clearly understood. I believe the Chair said that the House would hear the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) at the government's request. 1 do not think that is the case. It is at the request of the members of this House that the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will be heard. 1 think the Chair said it was at the government's request, but that is not correct. Are the other-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: This has to be corrected then. It should have been by unanimous consent.


PENSIONS
Stanley Howard Knowles: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan to provide for the pensions payable under these two acts to be available at age 60 to all persons who meet the other requirements of the said acts and who are not in or are prepared to withdraw from the labour market, and also to provide for the basic amount of the pension payable under the Old Age Security Act, at age 60 for those not in the labour market and to everyone at age 65, to be increased to $350 per month, for this basic amount to be escalated each year by an amount that will enable pensioners not only to keep up with rising living costs but to share in rising living standards, and also to provide for the elimination of any means or income test from the Old Age Security Act, so that the full pension thereunder will be recognized as the established right of all our people.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in saying a few words on the motion you have just read from the chair I should like to begin by saying two things which may seem inconsistent or contradictory. I assure you they are not. On the one hand I should like to express great pride in what Canada has done in the last 50 years or so to improve the lot of our senior citizens. On the other hand I present this motion and I raise this subject again because I think there is so much we still need to do for our older and retired people.
If I may return to my first comment, I do feel very happy with the changes we have effected in the last 50 years. It is not necessary for me to tell my colleagues in this chamber how old I am. I sometimes point out I am 71, so members do not think I am 81 or 91. My real reason for making that statement is to establish my credentials for talking about the situation in which older people have found themselves for the greater part of the twentieth century. I still remember what a stigma it was when the old age pension came into being for persons to be on that pension. The amount was pitiably small, only $20 a month, and it was payable only at age 70. Further, there was such a severe means test attached to it that if a person was on the pension it meant he was really one of the miserably poor.
I have on occasion told of the experience 1 used to have as a young minister on going into the homes of people in my congregation and finding therein old folks, grandma and grandpa, of whose existence I was not aware. Why? Because they had no clothes suitable for wearing outside the home, for going to church or going anywhere. That was the condition of the old folks not only prior to the introduction of the old age pension but as long as it carried with it a severely restrictive means test. But thanks to my predecessor, the late J. S. Woodsworth, and those of us who have followed him in this House, a fight was carried on in the forties and fifties and we got rid of the means test.
We have done other things for older people. We have increased the amount of the pension, we have established hospitalization plans, medicare, and senior citizens' apartments. But I still feel very strongly that the thing we did that was most beneficial was getting rid of the means test from

October 26, 1979
Pensions
what was then the entire pension and from what is still the main part of the pension so that no stigma is attached to it.
Members of the older generation, the generation to which I am proud to belong, are not ashamed to be on a pension. They are glad to show their identification cards and be recognized as part of today's senior citizen group. This is largely because we went for the principle of universality, because we decided we ought not to give pensions to older people just because they were poor but because they are people, because they have played their part in building up the life of this country and deserve a pension in the years of their retirement. I am pleased, too that the efforts, mainly from this quarter of the House, have resulted in other things 1 have talked about such as hospitalization and medicare for seniors before these benefits were available for others, senior citizens' apartments, and many things in terms of recreation and so on which are now provided. This is good.
I was pleased to hear the new Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Crombie) use the word humanity the other day. He talked about a certain element of humanity that is in our legislation respecting older people. I am asserting today, as I have before, that the main aspect of humanity in our legislation is the recognition of older people as persons and not just as poor people who should be the object of our charity. My plea is that whatever review takes place of our pension programs we should not lose sight of that central element of humanity, and that we keep it there.
I know all the talk there is about selectivity and let's-make-the-money available-to-those-who-need-it-most, and so on, but the minute we start saying to older people "you get pensions if you can prove you are poor", we take away some of the dignity we have given to senior citizens by what we have achieved in this country in the last 50 years-I use that figure because it was in 1927 that pensions first became payable under the first act in this sphere, an act that came into being because of the pressure exerted on Mr. King by my predecessor, the late J. S. Woodsworth.
Well, it is a tremendous and existing story, what we have done. As 1 say, I run into people now in my constituency, particularly some older men who are by themselves and who are living in senior citizens' apartments, and who say to me that in physical terms, in terms of comfort, life is better for them today than it was in their working years. So, we have done well. But let us not retreat from that by going back on the principle of universality, by going back on the proposition that Canadians are entitled to decent and dignified retirement in their older years, not on the basis of their poverty but on the basis of their being persons.
Having made the plea that we not lose any of the gains we have won, 1 move on to say that even with all of the assertions 1 can make about how much better things are today than they were for my parents or grandparents, the fact of the matter is that our older people, in the light of today's standard of living,

in the light of what is needed today and in the light of what is available today, are having a difficult time.
Every study and every report which is made on the condition of older people comes to the conclusion that something must be done to improve their lot. I am hoping that in a day or so we may see that Lazar report, about which a motion of mine under Standing Order 43 was passed the other day. The word is that it recommends quite a number of things which should be done both by governments and out in the private sector. However, the point I make in reference to that is that there is not a study anywhere, whether it is by a social agency body in one of our metropolitan cities, whether it is by the Canadian Council on Social Development, whether it is by departments of the federal government or departments of the provincial governments, whether it is by the trade union movement or what have you, which does not say that improvements need to be made.
One of those improvements is a very simple one, that the rate of the pension should be higher. That is why, in my motion as it is before the House today, I suggest that it should be a minimum of $350 a month. Before any one says, "Where is the money coming from?" and before anyone says, "Why give that to the wealthy, those who do not need it?" I remind hon. members that those arguments have been answered many a time.
Where will the money come from? It is not something which has to be saved up. It is not something which has to be borrowed through the kind of legislation we have been discussing here for a couple of days. Pensions are paid out of current income, out of current production, and all we are saying when we decide that a certain amount should be paid in the form of pensions to our people, is that a certain percentage of the wealth society is able to produce in 1979, in 1980, in the decade of the eighties, shall go to our senior citizens.
Those of my generation who are over 65 represent about 8 per cent or 9 per cent of the population of this country, but the amount which comes to the 2 million people who are over 65 is running at about 4 per cent of the gross national product, so today's senior citizens are not getting the share which should be theirs. 1 am speaking for my generation, and I say that any arguments about piling up debts for the future are sheer nonsense. What counts, and what has to be looked at, is the capacity of society to share what we now produce so that the young will get what they need, so that working families will get what they require, and so that senior citizens will get theirs as well.
As for the argument that paying pensions on a universal basis means that some who do not need it will get it, the answer to that is in the income tax structure. It is not enough now that we charge older people who may not need the old age security payment, but that could be jacked up, and I say it is far better to do it that way, to take it back in taxes, than to apply a needs test first, because every time you apply a needs test, you are invading privacy and saying to individuals, "You will get this money only if you can prove that you are poor".
October 26, 1979

The minute you require Canadians to prove that they are poor, you are robbing them of their dignity, a dignity which we gave them in the early 1950s when we said that old age pensions are for everyone who has reached the required age.
In addition to increasing the amount of the pension and extending the principle of universality, I believe very strongly that the time has come to make pensions available at age 60. I do not argue that they should be paid to everyone at age 60 the way they are to everyone at age 65, but I do argue that both old age security and the benefits under the Canada Pension Plan should be available to persons between 60 and 65 who are out of the labour market. Thus far the only people in that age bracket who get anything in the way of a pension from the federal government are spouses who get the spouse's allowance. I need not take time to go into that today because I spoke about it last Monday when that legislation was before us. I believe that the principle of saying to women in that age bracket, "You get a pension only if you can prove your attachment to a man, alive or recently dead", is totally wrong.
I would accept a needs test in that area before I would accept a marital test, but I think even better would be a work test. If people are out of the labour market they should be able to apply for and receive both old age security and benefits under the Canada Pension Plan.
Incidentally, if we went in that direction, there are many people, particularly in the heavy industries in my constituency, who find that racket pretty hard to take, and they would retire early and open up jobs for younger people. I urge strongly that this House move in that direction.
Hon. members are aware from the speeches that 1 keep making and have been making-not in all of my 71 years have I been talking about this, but for many of them-


Jean-Luc Pepin: Almost.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I see my friend, the hon member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Pepin), smiling at me about the years. I simply tell him that the very day 1 was born, June 18, 1908, was the day when this House debated at second reading and passed the Government Annuities Act, which was the first piece of legislation providing anything looking like a pension for the Canadian people. With me it was a birthright right from the beginning to be concerned about pension legislation. That concern leads me into the position of women, as I have just said, and I presented a motion today under Standing Order 43 calling for women, when they are survivors of their husbands, to get the same pension the husband would get if he survived his wife. I just cannot buy at all any longer that if a man and wife live together, build up their estate and their equity and go on pension, under the normal rules if the wife dies first the husband lives on a 100 per cent pension but if the husband dies first she lives on a 50 per cent pension. It is just utterly unfair and completely lacking in any respect for the position of women.
By the same token, pensions for veterans need to be improved. I still think they should be a little ahead of the rates and provisions we make for the civilian population and at an
Pensions
earlier age. Also by the same token I think we should be doing much better for the widows of veterans. I am hopeful from what the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. McKinnon) said to me in the late show last night that something is going to be done in that area.
Public service pensions need to be improved. So do those of retired RCMP personnel and those who are retired from the Canadian armed forces, as well as pensions for the blind and disabled. Outside of these pensions which come directly under the government, there are such pensions as those of the Canadian National Railways and Canadian Pacific, and then there is the whole question out there in the private sector of requiring private sector employers to meet the same kinds of standards we are trying to set for the public sector. That includes indexing. In some quarters that is an offensive word, but if we agree that people in their working years have the right for their incomes to go up to keep up with the cost of living or to keep up with the rising standard of living, it is completely wrong and unfair to say that when you are retired, "Do not expect that any more."
Whether we are talking about retired public servants, retired personnel from the RCMP or the armed forces, retired railways workers or people retired from private industry, that principle of indexing so that pensions enable people to keep up with the cost of living is one which we must pursue, if we believe, as I think we do, judging by the rhetoric I hear in this place, that our older people are not just cast-offs. They are not just there until the day they die but are still persons, are still Canadian citizens with all the rights and privileges pertaining thereto, if I may use a phrase that 1 use sometimes when I wear another hat.
I welcome this opportunity to make this case again today. It is good to see a few members present who were not here in the last Parliament, so I do not feel that everyone who has listened to me has heard this speech a dozen, 50 or 100 times.


Mark Willson Rose: It is one of my favourites.	,


Stanley Howard Knowles: My good friend, the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose), says it is one of his favourites. He has been away for five years and he is enjoying it like an old song from days gone by.
I am prepared to admit that we should not take all the credit over here. We take all we can. But I am prepared to admit that the generation that came to maturity in the 1930s was a generation that resolved we would do something better in the social field, something better for older people. For a while every organization, all the political parties and all the churches asserted that we must move in this direction. There was consensus which came to fruition in the legislation that is now on the books. But it took some of us to do the prodding and the pushing to get it done, and that is what I am still doing.
If hon. members say I am too futuristic when I talk about a high pension on a universal basis, when I talk about widows getting just as much pension after their husbands die as

October 26, 1979
Pensions
husbands get after their widows die, I say that I remember long ago being back here in the last row arguing for the removal of the means test, and some friendly Conservative sitting nearby said to me, "That is a good speech, Stanley, but it will never come to pass." Well, it did. We got rid of the means test; we improved the lot and the dignity of our people. We can go on doing it, and I hope that this House of Commons in this Thirty-first Parliament has the will to do it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Paul McCrossan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am most honoured to join the ranks of the many who, in the past, have debated a motion to increase the old age security pension and to lower the age of eligibility. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has, with this motion, again demonstrated his unswerving dedication to older Canadians.
I support his motives, as I believe do all hon. members in this House. Let me say that as an actuary I have long been concerned by the inadequacies in our pension systems, both public and private. Let me also say that my government cares about senior citizens. We would like the retirement of every Canadian to be totally secure and fulfilled. We have, over the years, pressed for and supported changes and improvements in our social programs that would help reach that goal.
The most recent evidence, as the hon. member indicated, of this government's commitment to older Canadians was the introduction, on October 17, of a bill to amend the spouse's allowance provisions of the Old Age Security Act. If approved, this bill will allow us to amend what was one of the most poorly designed pieces of legislation ever to be introduced into the House. We condemn the practice of creating false expectations, of giving a spouse's allowance to an OAS pensioner's spouse, and then withdrawing it arbitrarily with wanton disregard for that spouse's emotional state and financial circumstances.
I spoke a moment ago of the quality of retirement that we would like to see for older Canadians. By "we" I do not mean we, the government, nor we, the members of this House. I mean we as Canadians-government and citizens. It is together that we must strive to realize our objective.
In looking today at these proposed changes to the Canada Pension Plan and the old age security program, I am reminded of misconceptions that often give rise, or at least relate, to suggestions such as those contained in this motion. I would not suggest that there was any such misconception on the part of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre when he formulated these proposals, but I do think it might shed some light on this debate if we looked at these for a moment.
[ Translation]
The first concept to which I refer is that the problems of senior citizens can be solved by merely increasing the basic old age security pension. Without mentioning the cost of implementing the formula, I consider this as a rigid perception of the issue: all pensioners need the same retirement income and

the state assumes all responsibilities. I urge hon. members and all Canadians, particularly older citizens, to examine carefully and seriously with me what the implementation of such a measure would cost. The hon. member would like to raise to $350 the basic old age security benefits, but he does not ask himself if Canadian taxpayers are prepared to pay almost twice the cost of the existing old age security program, which means annual expenditures exceeding $9 billion. This amount does not include the huge cost of benefits paid because the eligibility age will have been lowered and the means test abolished, as is also recommended in the proposal of the hon. member. Those $9 billion will have to be paid not just for one year but year after year and this amount will continuously increase. I do not believe that our economy or the Canadian taxpayer have the financial means to pay for it, or that senior citizens wish to impose such a heavy burden on their children and grandchildren. In fact, everyone has different retirement needs. It depends to a large extent on the income level you had during your active life and on your standard of living. This is why the retirement system in Canada has undergone the changes we have seen.
The government, rather than merely implementing a single program to meet all the income needs of retired people, preferred to develop a three-fold formula. This formula recognizes both public and individual responsibilities concerning retirement and faithfully reflects, I think, the values and attitudes of Canadians on that matter.

But let me once again stress that it would be completely irresponsible to increase our deficit by over $4 billion at a time when our deficit exceeds $10 billion. Day after day we hear from hon. members opposite about their concern over the fact that interest rates are too high. Increases of this magnitude in government spending would seriously impair at this time the financial credit of the country.
As I was saying, we have a three-tier pension system in Canada. The bedrock of the system is the old age security program. This is a pension scheme that provides basic benefits to everyone who meets the requirements of age and residence in Canada. In addition, a guaranteed income supplement is made available to OAS pensioners who have relatively little income beyond the basic pension. This benefit is income tested to ensure that the largest benefits go to those with the lowest income, a concept supported by the House in the recent introduction of the child tax credit. In addition, of course, is the spouse's allowance for the spouse of an OAS pensioner who is between 60 and 65 years of age, in order to ensure that low income pensioner couples have an adequate income to meet their basic living needs. Our hope is that hon. members will agree that we will no longer deprive the spouse of this assistance at a time when it is needed most.
The next level of the system is the Canada Pension Plan. The CPP is a compulsory, contributory, and earnings related social insurance program. Thus, rather than being a flat rate universal benefit, the CPP retirement pension is related to the
October 26, 1979

career earnings upon which the CPP contributor and his or her employer have made contributions. Together, the CPP and OAS programs have the effect of providing Canadians over the age of 65 with benefits that guarantee a basic amount of income to all pensioners, and at the same time provide income that is related to their earnings prior to retirement.
As well, the pensioner's income from OAS and CPP is protected through cost of living indexation from the effects of inflation. Thus the first two tiers give the pensioner a solid base of real income on which to build the third tier, which consists of private income sources such as pension plans, investment earnings, and registered retirement savings plans.
In this regard I should touch on another misconception about our national retirement programs in Canada. That is the idea that these benefits should go beyond basic needs and by themselves provide whatever level of security and comfort in retirement might be desired. Such an idea ignores the basic responsibility, and the right of the individual, to make personal provisions for his or her own retirement.
It is one thing for the nation to wish to ensure that everyone has enough to live on. That is a proper and necessary concern for government. But to go beyond that with even the most charitable motives and try to provide completely for every individual through the largesse of the state has far-reaching implications. If we begin to discourage individuals from saving for their own retirement and encourage them to look to the government to provide everything, then we may be destroying initiative and self-reliance. If we allow unions to think that the public programs will look after all retirement needs, then they will quite rightly ignore pension benefits in collective bargaining and concentrate instead on direct pay increases.
This leads directly to another misconception about pensions in Canada, and that is the belief that any and all improvements in the system must come in the public sector. It seems that every time the problems of pensioners arise, the solution that is offered is an increase in old age security or Canada Pension Plan benefits. The suggestion that perhaps there could be improvements in other areas, such as private pensions, is usually brushed aside. With our current severe financial difficulties we must look at all parts of the pension problem to consider the most effective solutions.
Perhaps it is time we realized that not only is it possible to expect improvements in private pensions, but that there may be more room in this area to make improvements than there is for increasing public benefits which result directly in an increased burden on the taxpayer. Private pension plans are widespread and numerous. They are intended, ostensibly at least, to ensure that the employees of both private and public employers can look forward to a secure income when their working career is over.
Enormous amounts are tied up in these funds and the total invested in them is growing at the rate of several billions of dollars annually, yet there is evidence of many problems with these plans which I will outline later.
Pensions
Another area where retirement income can be affected is that of personal savings and encouragement to increase these savings. The growth in registered retirement savings plans in the past few years is testimony to the fact that people will put money aside for retirement if they are given the proper encouragement to do so. Literally billions of dollars are now being placed in these plans every year, and the money invested will in large part be used to improve the future income of retired Canadians.
The success of RRSPs suggests that other areas in the private sector, such as private pensions, could be made more effective in providing Canadians with retirement income. Yet the member opposite seems to have ignored private plans as a source of adequate pensions. The Canadian Labour Congress has in the past advocated that private pensions be replaced by a vastly increased Canada Pension Plan. Instead, perhaps we should be looking at these private plans more deeply to see if they cannot be improved and strengthened.
As I mentioned, certainly it is quite evident that there are problems with the pension industry at the moment. One of the major difficulties is that pensions simply do not cover enough of the Canadian work force. Even though the percentage has been rising the figures published by Statistics Canada at the beginning of 1978 indicate that only about 44 per cent of the labour force is covered by a pension plan. Admittedly, the percentage is considerably higher if we include only the fulltime workers, then about 54 per cent of the full-time labour force was covered. Nevertheless, on a national scale any objective observer would admit that there are too many people without such coverage.
Furthermore, many of those persons who are ostensibly covered by pension plans will not be entitled to benefits. Instead, because they will change jobs at some time in their career, in a large number of cases they will lose the entitlements they have accrued because their pensions are not adequately vested.
Even if they retain the entitlement, they usually will not be able to transfer the credits into a new pension plan. This year the pension industry made a start in providing a mechanism for transfer of pension credits between plans. It is a start that should be encouraged directly by government.
These two major problems of vesting and portability may mean that only the employee who spends a major portion of his working years with a single employer currently stands a good chance of retiring with an adequate private pension. Even then the adequacy of the pension may erode very rapidly because some pension plans make no provision for inflation. The real value, that is, the purchasing power of these benefits will only remain stable if the inflation rate is low.
It is a major objective of this government to lower inflation. However, the high inflation experienced in the recent past has dealt a severe blow to the fixed incomes of these pensioners and has caused many to lose confidence in pension plans in general. The government will encourage post-retirement adjustments against inflation. I hope personally to be able to assist in putting our own plans for the public service and forces
678

October 26, 1979
Pensions
on a sound financial basis, a basis which will serve as a model for pension plans to cope with this problem.
There is another problem as well with survivor benefits. Widows in general are not adequately protected by the private pension system, and often, as is pointed out in studies, they are left in dire straits. We must encourage the rapid growth of survivors' benefits in pension plans.
Clearly, then, there is room for improvements in the area of private pensions, improvements that will eventually affect the incomes of a very large number of Canadian workers and their dependants. The whole area of pension adequacy is one of high priority with this government. As hon. members are aware, it was announced in the Speech from the Throne that we will ask Parliament to establish a committee to review the retirement income needs of Canadians in the 1980s.
Along with the performance of the private sector, there are specific areas of our public pension system that are of grave concern to us; the plight of many old age pensioners, the lack of protection provided for women, the position of the disabled and handicapped, the protection offered to the families of deceased persons, the need for greater flexibility in the age of retirement, and the maintenance of the purchasing power of benefits.
We are all aware that a great deal of research and study has already been done in these areas. We will draw upon the work that has already been done and review it in light of our own priorities. We will add to it what we learn from our consultations with Canadians, with the pension industry, with provincial governments and special interest groups.
An interdepartmental review on pensions that has been going on for the past three years will shortly be available to us. We will as well refer to major provincial studies such as the Quebec Cofirentes Plus study on pensions and the Ontario Royal Commission on pensions. I hope that as a member of this new government I can bring a fresh perspective to the pension area. If our review indicates the need for major overhaul of the pension system, 1 hope we will be free to develop and carry out such an overhaul.
I have one other reservation in reviewing the proposals contained in this motion, and that is in respect of the advisability of lowering the retirement age. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has suggested that OAS and CPP benefits be available to any retired person who is more than 60 years of age. However, it is not certain that the majority of people want to retire at 60, or that society can afford to assist the minority who want to retire early in doing so. This may become even more clear if predictions about the changing age structure of our population prove out.
The time may come when we will have to think in terms of raising the retirement age, or at least of encouraging people who want to continue working to do so. We may find, much to our surprise, that such an idea would be welcomed by many older Canadians and that our entire society would benefit as a result. We will be particularly interested in the findings of the
[Mr. McCrossan.J
Senate Committee on Retirement Age which is now in progress.
There is one other common misconception, Mr. Speaker, which I should mention so that members may give careful consideration to the implications of this motion. That is the view that the Canada Pension Plan is funded through the general revenues of the Government of Canada. Of course this is not the case. The CPP is financed entirely through the contributions of Canadian workers and their employers. Already there are indications these contributions may have to be raised during the life of this Parliament.
Consequently, when we consider lowering the eligible age for CPP benefits to age 60, we must remember that we would be requiring CPP contributors to raise their contributions so that some may receive their retirement benefits five years earlier than others. We know that some workers are forced by ill health to retire before age 65, but I should point out that in many such cases CPP disability benefits may be available. I wonder, however, whether it is fair to ask those contributors who continue to work to age 65 to subsidize those contributors who chose to retire at an early age.
In summary, I recognize the concern of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre for the plight of the elderly. However, his solutions are completely impractical financially at this point in time. That is not to say that nothing should be done, however. We will have to change the CPP in the next five years. We must deal with the problems of portability, vesting, survivor's benefits, and protection against inflation in the private sector. We must deal with the problem of a lack of coverage for many employees in the private sector. These problems, the problems of the aged, are real and serious. However, it is my belief that the solution outlined in this motion is not the proper one.
[ Translation]


Mr. Marcel Ostiguy (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on the motion by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), which is most welcome in this year of 1979, and especially after the elections of May 22 which brought this government into office, because the election platform they circulated throughout the country had a commitment to lower the pensionable age to 60 for all Canadians.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Crom-bie) just tabled legislation, Bill C-6, which will bring very little change to that election promise made last spring by the Progressive Conservative Party. Long before that, my party which was the administration for a number of years amended old age security by lowering the pensionable age from 70 to 65. Of course, deficiencies remained. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre made his motion, and the people I meet regularly in my constituency remind me of that deficiency, which is the following: among people between 60 and 65, most
October 26, 1979	_______COMMONS DEBATES
of them, at least the greater majority are women who cannot join the labour force because of their physical condition or cannot find work, and they have no alternative but to ask for welfare, which is not altogether normal.
In his motion the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre proposes that the pension be paid to all Canadians aged 60 and over. This may be going far, as was explained by the hon. member who spoke before me. Monetary factors and the ability of Canadians as a whole to pay should at any rate be considered.
A minor amendment, as I said earlier, is proposed in legislation that will come later, giving the spouse or rather maintaining the spouse's allowance after the husband dies. This means, Mr. Speaker, that in the case, for example, of a woman aged 62 whose husband aged 66 gets pension she is entitled to the spouse's allowance, and when her husband dies the pension will still be coming to her. But what do we do for the other person, the person I was referring to a moment ago, who most of the time is a woman between 60 and 65 who cannot join the labour force? I suggest this is what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre should have emphasized in his motion, in order that Bill C-6 be amended to give more help to that group of Canadians of both sexes.
It would have been possible of course in this bill which is soon to become law to phase down the pension; it should be remembered that it was the previous government that brought the pension down from 70 to 65. That government intended to phase down that pension gradually by reducing it year by year, that is down to 64, then 63 and so on until the age of 60. And by the time all those people who are entitled to the guaranteed income supplement get that pension, it is an expenditure, but if you look at it from the other side, it is not a real expenditure because, of course, those who will be retiring at the age of 60 will be making room on the labour market for younger people, people between the ages of 40 and 60, young people coming out of universities and arriving on the labour market now and who really have difficulty in finding a job. People between 40 and 60 regularly have that problem, and when they do not have a job, they have no other choice but to go on unemployment insurance and they are paid unemployment insurance benefits ranging between $100 and $180 a week depending on the salary or the stamps that were paid.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I say that on one hand it is a payment, if you want, that would be made to those people when we ask the government to give that pension at 60 but, on the other hand, it is a saving and I do think that in a country as vast and as beautiful as Canada when the economic climate is doing well, the social climate of course feels the effect-and 1 am not the first one to say that.
Mr. Speaker, there is another point I would also like to deal with. With respect to the motion by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in anticipation of the bill that will come later, I noticed earlier a release issued by
Pensions
the Minister of National Health and Welfare which says that all people living alone applying for the annual guaranteed income supplement must have an income below $3,528 for a single person and $5,904 for married couples. Mr. Speaker, today with an income of $3,528 for a person living alone you must figure out the cost of living and think about the various government programs, including the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation which is putting out residential construction programs for retired people with a rent between $225 and $250 a month. If you figure that out, at $225 a month, that makes about $2,700 to $2,800 a year for rent alone. That is one item. Then you must add service costs. And what about food costs considering the increase in the cost of living and all the increases this government is letting go by and that consumers and Canadians have to pay now? Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we should certainly increase this minimum or this maximum of $3,528 for single people and the ceiling of $5,904 for married couples. When a businessman or someone else applies for the guaranteed income supplement, it is unthinkable that they be told that if they have an income of $3,528 they are not entitled to the guaranteed income supplement. I think that this is unfair and unacceptable for Canadians and shows once again the irresponsible attitude taken at the present time by this government towards Canadian men and women.
Mr. Speaker, 1 listened earlier to my colleague, the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), when he spoke of the neglectful attitude of this government as concerns interest rates, the oil price increase, lost business and contracts abroad, the rising unemployment rate, and so on. When the price of oil goes up $1 a barrel, the cost of living index jumps by 5 per cent. Senior citizens and retired people are of course also affected by higher interest rates. They must suffer the consequences of oil price increases. They must suffer the consequences of the borrowing of this government which adds to the debt of each individual Canadian.
Mr. Speaker, this bill. Bill C-6, should be amended. For my part, 1 plan to attend the committee meetings and suggest amendments so that I may represent effectively the people of Saint-Hyacinthe riding. Once again, I am glad to support the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, but 1 do not agree with him that basic pensions should be raised to $350 a month for every Canadian man and woman. Mr. Speaker, I believe that this would be going too far. However, it remains that there is a group of Canadians who really need this increase. Others have other sources of income. Of course, every Canadian man or woman is now entitled to the basic pension. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, I was happy to hear the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre say earlier that he was not speaking for himself because even though he did not tell us his age, we can see that he does not need any guaranteed income supplement. I am thinking of young people like yourself, Mr. Speaker, like myself and like my colleague for

October 26, 1979
Pensions
Mercier (Mrs. Hervieux-Payette), who will be very happy when they reach the age of retirement to have a decent pension on which to live.
Mr. Speaker, as I was saying earlier, I visit friendship groups and golden age clubs in my riding almost every week and we meet women between 50 and 55 and maybe more often between 60 and 65; these women cannot consider going back on the labour market. It is unthinkable. It would be irresponsible and disrespectful to ask them to go back on the labour market. These people must be provided for in the bill so that they should be allowed a pension enabling them to live in this country to which they have given their work, their time, their life and their health.
Since they are not entitled to any benefits, Mr. Speaker, we must take action or initiate programs to provide for their needs. Mr. Speaker, that just about covers everything I had to say for now, and 1 hope the government will consider the motion of the member for Winnipeg North Centre and that the backbenchers will convince the Minister of National Health and Welfare that his bill does not go far enough. That is only a small part of the promises and the brain-washing the men and women of Canada were subjected to when they were told during the election campaign that a Progressive Conservative government advocated a pension or intended to amend the law so that every Canadian aged 60 would receive a pension.
They now realize that it is unthinkable since, as we saw today, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) is asking for the authority to borrow an additional amount of $7 billion. Of course, Mr. Speaker, that situation can be blamed on the irresponsibility, the inefficiency of the people across the way. We need only think of all that was lost recently. The hon. member for Papineau mentioned it earlier. Whether it be the Foothills affair, the Candu affair negotiated with the government of Argentina, or even the problems born out of the promise to transfer our embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, we know for a fact that many Canadian companies are losing contracts in the Middle East; naturally, every time a Canadian industry loses a contract, it means that much less money in the pockets of the taxpayers.


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to participate in this debate initiated by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), even for a few moments. It is a special pleasure for me because he

initiated it. Certain members of this House, both past and present, highly respect those whose memories will linger on long after we leave here, such as the late right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). But indeed in that same class in my opinion is the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. He will be remembered for two things. One is the contribution he has made to the procedural aspects of the House, and second, the great deal he has done for the disadvantaged of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bruce Halliday: That is not to say that the rest of us are not concerned. 1 am sure the hon. member will agree that we too have concerns for people in this country.
I want to remind the House that as recently as in the last month or so we have seen the government indicate concern for elderly people in the same way as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has. We have initiated not only Bill C-6, which has been before us this week at the same time as this motion, but also we have word in the Speech from the Throne that the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) intends to set up a special committee of the House to look into the problems of the disabled. The Prime Minister is indicating in these moves that we are concerned not with taking just an age limit and arbitrarily saying that at that given age we will help people, but rather we will identify people who really need help. That seems appropriate in this age of financial stress that Canada is under right now and so well indicated by the questions raised in the House over the last few days.
One area that particularly intrigues me about the arguments brought forward not only today by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-I have heard them often before so I am almost tempted to say "methinks he doth protest too much"-relates to the means or income testing and the concept of universality that the hon. member has brought to our attention. 1 am not taking issue with those concepts particularly, except that I might suggest there is a little inconsistency in the motion before us today. In the last sentence the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre suggests this:
-and also to provide for the elimination of any means or income test from the Old Age Security Act-
The hon. member thinks he is eliminating income testing, but he has introduced into this motion a new form of income testing, namely, if one is working and earning any income, one does not benefit. I object to that because that is inconsistent. There is another inconsistency in that we have moved away from the concept of income testing. Indeed, all Canadians have pride in their country-
October 26, 1979


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. It being five o'clock p.m. this House stands
Pensions
adjourned until Monday next at two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, October 29, 1979