1979-12-13

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing and urgent necessity.
Being aware that respect for minorities is, in any parliamentary system, a guarantee of its quality; considering the alarming rate of assimilation of Francophones outside Quebec in a Canada advocating linguistic equality for its two founding peoples, considering the necessity for Canada to convince all provinces of the necessity of recognizing the linguistic rights of its citizens, and considering the historic judgment delivered today by the Supreme Court of Canada concerning constitutional respect for linguistic rights, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin):
That the Canadian Parliament urge the government to implement a very strong, bold, untiring and fair linguistic policy by convening immediately a federal-provincial conference to convince the still wavering provinces of the necessity of entrenching basic rights in a renewed constitution, including linguistic rights for all Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, such a motion can be presented for debate only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
[ English |


EXCISE TAX ON NATURAL GAS AND GASOLINE MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. In preparing his budget, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) neglected a major area of potential government revenues-an export tax on natural gas. As the matter now stands, the natural gas industry gets $1.85 more per 1,000 cubic feet for exported natural gas than it gets for the gas it sells in Canada. That $1.85 premium provides the industry with $1,850 million a year in additional revenues, and with the 40 per cent increase in exports recently announced that figure will continue to grow. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans):
That the Minister of Finance revise his budget by imposing an export lax on natural gas that will remove the considerable incentive to export which is built into the present pricing scheme, and permit the government to reduce its excise tax on gasoline while maintaining its increased revenues.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion can be presented for debate, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


GASOLINE EXCISE TAX REBATE FOR HANDICAPPED PERSONS- MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter not only of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43 but because I believe there has been a slight oversight in the preparation of the budget which, I am confident, was unintentional on the part of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) and his colleagues.
In view of the fact that the government's budget eliminates the excise tax rebate on gasoline for the handicapped, which will increase their gasoline cost by 25 cents per gallon, compared with an 18-cent per gallon increase for the rest of us, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
That this House rescind the cancellation of the gasoline excise tax rebate for handicapped persons and reinstate their eligibility for a full rebate.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion can be presented for debate at this time, pursuant to Standing Order 43, only by unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?

December 1 3, 1979


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Fabien Roy (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity-a motion which, hopefully, will be unanimously supported.
In view of the fact that Canada is currently facing a difficult economic and financial situation, that interest rates are higher than ever before in the history of our country, that the chartered banks stand to gain most from this situation and accumulate scandalously high profits, that these institutions are not required to submit individual reports by regions or provinces, and that the chartered banks enjoy exclusive rights and privileges with regard to granting credit to the Canadian society, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the House recommend to the government the establishment of a royal commission of inquiry into the Canadian banking system.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that 900,000 women over the age of 65 in this country are below the poverty line, and in view of a persistent and increasing wage gap wherein the average wage of a woman is 60 per cent of that of a man-a figure which represents only in part the deprivation of women in Canada-and in view of the need for a whole arsenal of support systems for women wishing to work outside the home, including child care facilities, retraining centres, secure unemployment, maternity and pension benefits,

I move, seconded by the hon. member for Timmins-Chapleau (Mr. Chenier):
That the Prime Minister, on recognizing the urgency of this pressing national issue, act unilaterally to replace the topic of women as an agenda item before the first ministers' meeting next week.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43, this motion can be introduced only by unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent necessity concerning the angry reactions, particularly this morning, from Moscow concerning the deployment of further nuclear missiles by the United States and NATO allies in western Europe, and at the same time the existence of a restricted British intelligence document, ten pages of which are in my possession and which I intend to give immediately to the Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. McKinnon). I move, seconded by the hon. member for York North (Mr. Gamble):
That the Canadian government request the government of the United Kingdom to make public a document entitled "Soviet Military Doctrine and Order of Battle", approximately 100 pages in length, detailing the entire plan of the Soviet armed forces for military action, including nuclear, against the west and. Finally, that this should be done particularly to put a stop to the Soviet Union indulging in the old habit of the pot calling the kettle black.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LIGHTING IN CHAMBER FOR TELEVISION BROADCASTING
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before commencing the oral question period, may I point out to members something which they may not have noticed. We are undergoing in the House an experiment with lighting. There has been an installation of lights high in the ceiling on one side, in the hope of being able to relieve the severity of the lighting that is placed lower down. This is experimental only. I should not, I suppose, add that the technicians hope the experiment will last more than one day. In any case, the experiment is there and the technicians have asked me and our colleagues in the House to evaluate this
December 13, 1979

experiment to see whether it is better than the more severe lighting lower down.
Oral questions.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, I shall direct my question to the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations.
Today, Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled on two historic cases concerning the protection of official languages in Quebec and in Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, that judgment demonstrates the protection our federal system could give us concerning the rights of minorities and basic liberties. My question to the minister is the following: During the negotiations on the constitution, is he now going to insist on having the rights of minorities, and basic liberties, protected in the renewed constitution?


Hon. Bill Jarvis (Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations):: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to say that I, for one, have not yet read the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, but half an hour ago 1 spoke with officials in my department who did read it. I am not sure what consequences this decision may have.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think we should delay the proceedings until the technical problem is solved.
After a delay of 30 seconds:


Mr. Jarvis (Perth):: Second, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that a meeting of the standing committee on the constitution will be held on January 23 or 24 next, 1 believe. This topic will be on the agenda, as a priority, with four or five other matters. I told the House some two or three weeks ago that this question is a priority with this government.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, would the minister agree that of all the benefits of our federal system, none is more evident than the one we see in the judgments rendered today, namely, the capacity of federalism to protect fundamental rights from the jurisdiction of any one legislative authority? In view of that self-evident proposition, could the minister assure the
Oral Questions
House that he and his government share that fundamental philosophy?


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in saying, as a member of the government, that I share that philosophy: I doubt that there is a person in this chamber who does not share it. 1 might ask the hon. member to agree with me on one point related to the judgments. On my first briefing I did not perceive a direct implication on federal laws arising from these judgments. I would ask the hon. member to be a little patient, because there may be implications that on first reading one does not see.
I have instructed my officials to analyse the decisions. I emphasize that the decision was a very strong one-a unanimous decision of a nine-person court-and, as a lawyer, I appreciate its significance. I would ask the hon. member to be patient until I am advised of the implications that might flow, not necessarily on policy but in terms of federal legislation, from the decision.
[ Translation]


SUPREME COURT DECISION-DISCUSSION WITH PREMIERS OF MANITOBA AND QUEBEC
Mr. Robert Bockstael (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, my question is directed to the House leader.
In view of the historic decision brought down today by the Supreme Court of Canada, which recognizes the rights of the Francophone citizens of Manitoba-

-will the Conservative cabinet urge the Prime Minister to contact the Premier of Manitoba to discuss ways and means of implementing the decision of the Supreme Court as it affects the citizens of that province?


Robert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, I certainly accept the hon. member's question as a representation. I would not be hesitant, if I were to ask the Prime Minister to contact the Premier of Manitoba, to ask him also to contact the Premier of Quebec.


REQUEST THAT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BE GUARANTEED
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations or to the Acting Prime Minister.
In view, once again, of the historic decision brought down today by the Supreme Court of Canada on the constitutional respect for linguistic rights, is the government willing to recognize that the present laissez-faire policy toward the provinces in linguistic matters has been called into question now by

December 13, 1979
Oral Questions
the Supreme Court of Canada, and is he willing, today, to guarantee all Canadians the same constitutional rights that are granted the citizens of Quebec and Manitoba and, in particular, those of Ontario and the provinces where we are now a minority threatened with extinction?


Robert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I should like to say that ours is not at all a laissez-faire policy. I have pursued the work initiated by the former government on the constitution by using the sector approach which includes languages, communications and other topics. The work is progressing. The next conference will be held next month. Language is on the agenda. Our policy is not one of laissez-faire. We are trying to make the progress the former government tried to achieve. With regard to Ontario, I have little to say because I do not know what the consequences will be of those court rulings. I recognize that it is an historic decision, the consequences of which will be very important, so I think I should wait till I receive the report of my legal advisers before commenting further.


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT RECOGNIZES TWO
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the major implication of this decision is that we need a national leadership. 1 would like to know whether that national leadership will come from this government. That is the question I put to the minister. Also, last November 23, again in the absence of the Prime Minister, I asked this government whether they recognized the equality of both founding peoples. The Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport and Mul-ticulturalism answered, and 1 quote: "We on this side have always realized that this is a bilingual country and a multicultural society." In view of this ambiguous answer by the minister, I would like to ask the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations whether he can assure the House that the definition of the two founding peoples differs from that of multicultural groups, and that his government recognizes the equality of both founding peoples while respecting the major contribution of multicultural groups?


Robert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has put two questions to me. First, the leadership came on May 22. Second, I said, for instance to the Federation des francophones hors Quebec, that there was a difference between the two peoples and other minority groups. As 1 see it, the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport and Multiculturalism did not confuse the situation.


HOME HEATING FUEL-LACK OF SUPPLY FOR INDEPENDENT DISTRIBUTORS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the outset that my colleagues and myself agree entirely with the ruling given today by the Supreme Court of Canada. We must at last recognize the rights of minority groups in all provinces.
Is the minister aware that Ultramar, a British multinational oil company, has cut off the supply of home heating fuel to at least 50 independent distributors in Ontario and Quebec in recent weeks? If so, what he has done about it?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the supply to independents 1 took a number of initiatives this summer and fall to increase the supply to them. There is a tight situation. My department does monitor the situation and the cost on an ongoing basis. We are continuing to look at the situation to see whether any sort of assistance can be given. I wrote to all the refiners and terminal operators this past summer, indicating to them that it was this government's policy and issued a directive to the companies that they should treat independents in a fair and equitable manner. The responses that I have had from all the refiners and operators that responded to my telex indicated that they understood this principle and were prepared to comply with it.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully suggest to the minister that he check this out, because at a meeting this morning with representatives of independent distributors from the province of Quebec and the province of Ontario I was informed that the cutting-off process is continuing and a number of them are in danger of going completely out of business.
In this context, since these gentlemen brought to my attention their concern about the actions of Ultramar in this respect, and since there have been serious allegations that Ultramar just recently diverted oil supplies intended for Canada and sold the same supplies on the spot market, has the minister investigated that situation and, if so, what can he report to the House?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has any specific information with respect to diversion, I wish he would bring it to my attention, with all the details connected with it, so that I could investigate the circumstances that he brings to the attention of the House. If there is any such report, naturally I and my department will follow it up with respect to the kind of information that is obtained. If any diversion has taken place, I will advise the hon. member that it has taken place on the basis of the information I receive. I repeat, if the hon. member has any specific information I wish he would give it to me so I can follow it up.

December 13, 1979


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to send the information to the minister about the dealers who have been cut off completely and also the allegation that a shipment intended for Canada has been sold on the spot market, specifically to Algeria, which country has been mentioned as the destination of the ship that was originally scheduled for Canada.
The final question I would like to ask, in the absence of the Prime Minister, is that in the House on Monday the Prime Minister assured me that he would check with the National Energy Board to see if the NEB was still considering export permits for home heating fuel. I wish to ask the minister if that checking has been done. More specifically, has the government taken steps to ensure that no more home heating fuel will be exported from Canada this winter?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, through my office, has in fact checked with the NEB. He will be providing the hon. member with a full and detailed explanation of the circumstances. 1 can assure the hon. member that recent applications with respect to the export of home heating fuel have not been accepted. There have been three over the course of the last month or so. I understand that three exports did take place during the course of last summer, with respect to summer heating fuel as opposed to winter heating fuel. A full and detailed explanation will be given to the hon. member by way of a letter, so that he can assess the information.


THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations. Now that the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled certain sections of Quebec bill 101 ultra vires and unconstitutional, what does the government intend to do to settle the legality of the other sections?
Will the minister make a commitment to this House to continue assisting the actions of individual litigants right up to the Supreme Court, in the same way as the previous government assisted Mr. Forest? I have in mind, in particular, the actions that are now before the Supreme Court by the Quebec Home and School Association, the Protestant School Board of greater Montreal, and the Devine case. Will he make a commitment to this House to continue supporting financially those actions right up to the Supreme Court of Canada?


Robert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, I thought that commitment had already been given by the Secretary of State in response to a question some weeks ago. Certainly that continues to be the policy of the government.
Oral Questions


TRANSLATION OF ALL MANITOBA STATUTES
Hon. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations. In view of the historic decision as it affects the province of Manitoba, will the minister get in touch with the premier of that province, Mr. Sterling Lyon, to offer him what translation facilities and technical expertise can be spared by the federal government in order than he can begin the historic job of translating all Manitoba statutes passed since 1890, some 89 years of statutes passed only in English, so that they can quickly and speedily be translated into French in conformity with the decision of the Supreme Court?


Robert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, I am not convinced that that is the implication of the decision. The hon. member may be right. 1 ask him, please do not misunderstand, but on the basis of my preliminary briefing I am not sure that the decision extends that far. It may be significantly more narrow and may relate to the legal process rather than to all statutes. As the hon. member will know, on the exact point that he raises there is litigation pending: if I am not mistaken, it is the asbestos nationalization case.
I apologize, but as the hon. member knows, the decision is only a very few hours old. I am not sure that is the implication. Once I have received the advice of the government's legal advisers, I will be in a much better position to respond directly to the hon. member's question.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Judd Buchanan (London West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Defence. There is growing concern that we are not being given full and complete information on the proposed F-18A fighter aircraft. Has the minister seen the report of the past week which was prepared by the General Accounting Office in the United States government and which states that the F-18A program is in difficult straits due to major cost overruns, deficient performance, severely delayed delivery dates and, of extreme importance, deliberate concealment of information needed to redress these difficulties?


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that the critic for the Liberal party is now on the distribution list, courtesy of the NDP, of leaked documents from the GAO.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I was made aware of the existence of this draft document last week and realized that the General Accounting Office in the United States plays a very important and real role in their selection of all military equipment in a

December 13, 1979
Oral Questions
critical fashion. They have pointed out the difficulties that the F-18A is undergoing. We had our chief of the project office down there two weeks ago. There are five or six areas, some of which were mentioned by the hon. member, of real concern. We are confident that in four out of the five, corrective action is being taken. There is one other area that we are more concerned about, and we will be reporting back on it later.


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to hear that the Minister of National Defence is also on the receiving list for the reports. The reports seem to indicate that they are having considerable difficulty in keeping the F-16 in the air, and are having even more difficulty in getting the F-18A off the ground. As the minister indicated, the report pointed out that there are structural faults with this aircraft which may well entail some major redesign. There are problems with late delivery of the sub-systems, and many other difficulties.
In light of these difficulties, will the minister indicate to this House that any decision relating to this aircraft and to the choice between the two aircraft will be delayed until there has been a full and complete investigation of these allegations, and the concerns that have been expressed in this House have been allayed?


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, 1 am glad to tell the hon. member that the cost overruns are not one of our serious concerns. The contract that we will have to sign with either company will cover us against cost overruns. They are going to be in fixed 1977 dollars. The report will be studied in great detail. We will not take any precipitative action until we are satisfied that the problems they are having are only the normal problems that any plane manufacturer has when putting a new plane into production.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Last week, Imperial Oil raised the price of gasoline to their dealers by the equivalent of eight cents a gallon. This week they have directed their retailers to increase immediately gasoline by 20 cents a gallon at the pumps, for a total of a 28-cent increase. Diesel fuel has gone up by 35 cents per gallon in the last week and a half. An excise tax official in the Department of Finance informed my office this morning that an oil company has the right to set the price at whatever they feel the market will bear.
Is the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs monitoring this situation in order to prevent Canadians from being gouged by much higher than necessary prices, and also to protect individual service station and outlet operators from being criticized simply because they have no choice but to charge the price that has been dictated to them by the oil

companies, the latter of whom were obviously supported by the present government in last Tuesday night's budget?


Hon. Allan Lawrence (Solicitor General and Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs monitors price increases only from the aspect that there may be a conspiracy to restrict trade or to restrict competition.


THE BUDGET
Fabien Roy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the hon. Minister of Finance.
Yesterday, in reply to a question from the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso, the Minister of Finance spoke of the effect of higher energy prices and also of programs for the maritimes and Newfoundland. We are also aware of the spin-offs on central and western Canada. As the minister said nothing of projects for Quebec, 1 was wondering whether that was just an oversight or whether the minister simply had nothing to announce for Quebec.


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I must apologize to the hon. gentleman that I cannot answer him in his native tongue but, as hon. members know, I am a bit clumsy in that language. There are many things in the budget that will benefit the people of Quebec. For example, 30.3 per cent of the energy tax credit will go to the people of Quebec yet they have 26.7 per cent of the population, and 81.5 per cent of the people of Quebec will benefit from the energy tax credit.
In addition, we have rectified a wrong imposed on the taxpayers of Quebec by the government which preceded us. 1 refer to page 68 of the budget papers. We are going to make a refundable Quebec abatement. We are going to assist Quebec taxpayers, those with low incomes who presently lose the benefit of the existing 16.5 per cent Quebec abatement. From now on they will be paid the amount of that abatement. This is to rectify the injustice done to the taxpayers of Quebec by hon. gentlemen opposite during the past five or six years.


INQUIRY WHETHER AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY QUEBEC WILL BE USED FOR PROJECTS IN THE PROVINCE
Fabien Roy: Mr. Speaker, first of ail I want to tell the minister that he does not need to apologize for not using my mother tongue. Besides, he made a commendable effort in the House and 1 congratulate him on it. But I must
December 13, 1979

say, Mr. Speaker, that through our excellent simultaneous translation service 1 noted he deftly evaded my question.
Mr. Speaker, the credits announced are not solely for Quebec, they will benefit all Canadians. There remains a balance of $360 million to $375 million which the federal government will get from Quebec taxpayers. Can the Minister of Finance tell us today, yes or no, whether he is ready to guarantee that the money coming from Quebec will be used for projects in Quebec?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, there are many other benefits I could mention. The provisions of this budget apply to the Quebec small businessman in the same way as they apply to businessmen in the rest of the provinces, and I promise that the taxpayers and the people of Quebec will be treated just as well as, or in the same way as, people in any part of Canada.
The way I look at it is this: confederation is not a question of dollars and cents; it is a question of whether we build up Canada together with the people who come from other countries, and this is what we must continue to do. We cannot measure that in dollars and cents.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PETRO-CANADA POSSIBLE INVOLVEMENT OF CORPORATION IN OIL REFINERY AT COME-BY-CHANCE, NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Fonse Faour (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can the minister tell us whether his department has been approached by the government of Newfoundland concerning the possible involvement of Petro-Canada in the idle oil refinery at Come-By-Chance and, if so, has he instructed Petro-Canada to study the feasibility of its involvement in this project?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: There has been some communication between our two governments with respect to the refinery at Come-By-Chance. I do not recall a specific reference to Petro-Canada, but 1 will refresh my memory as to the correspondence and get in touch with the hon. member.


STEPS TO REDUCE CONSUMPTION OF HOME HEATING OIL
Mr. Tom Lefebvre (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and it relates to a question I addressed to him
Oral Questions
on November 13 while his estimates were being considered in the House.
1 asked him what his government intended to do to help alleviate the impact of the rising cost of heating by fuel oil in areas of Canada where it is not possible to switch to natural gas because it is not available. The hon. gentleman mentioned a new nozzle designed to reduce consumption of fuel oil. I understand the Canadian Standards Association has not as yet even received a proposal in connection with this device. Has the minister anything further to announce to the House to help 30 per cent of Canada's population who face this problem?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The hon. member will recall 1 told him that in our energy package we are trying to bring about a substantial transfer to natural gas. This, in itself, will improve security of supply to those who stay on oil. On the conservation side we shall be taking certain very substantial initiatives. With respect to the retrofitting of oil furnaces, this will be encouraged by tax incentives. In addition, we intend to greatly expand our conservation program through CHIP. So we are taking a number of initiatives which will apply across Canada but which will have special application to those who continue to use oil-burning furnaces.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Surely the minister knows that before the presentation of the budget taxi owners were entitled to a refund of 7 cents on a gallon of gas. Surely the minister is aware that if he does not change his decision, taxi owners will suffer a loss of about $2,000 a year, and in the Montreal region alone about 700 taxi drivers will be unemployed. Could the minister tell me why he did not give taxi drivers a refund of 10 cents on a gallon of gas, as he did to farmers, commercial fishermen and public transport systems?
[ English \


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the general excise tax increase is to apply to everyone. Three exceptions have been made for certain reasons-urban mass transit, farmers and fishermen in connection with work on their farms or their fishing boats-and we cannot allow further exceptions. Taxi drivers will, of course, have to increase their fares to cover their increased costs. There is no way of avoiding this. It has happened in the United States, it has happened in England, in Germany, in Japan, in Italy, in France; we cannot avoid it. I am sorry, but I cannot give the hon. member any other answer than that.

December 13, 1979
Oral Questions


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Louis Duclos (Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Science and Technology.
The budget being totally devoid of measures to increase Canada's effort in research and development, in spite of his party's election campaign promise to give tax breaks of about $125 million to businesses to encourage them to spend more money on research and development, could the minister tell the House whether the government intends to use other means than tax write-offs for businesses, to promote further research and development in Canada?


Hon. Heward Grafftey (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I can inform the hon. member that a few weeks ago we voted an increase of $40 million to universities in support of research and development. It is true that there are no incentives for research and development in the budget. We put down some plans a few weeks ago with respect to incentives for research and development. In the meantime, I can assure the hon. member we are going to act very shortly in the area of research and development with direct help to industry, but not necessarily through tax incentives.
* *
*


FISHERIES
Mr. Charles Haliburton (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The minister has on a number of occasions indicated his desire that hon. members and others should express their views and participate in the making of decisions relevant to fisheries policy, particularly licensing policy.
In view of the fact that departmental studies are under way or completed, can the minister advise when the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry might be asked to examine the proposals of Messrs. Levelton and Sinclair affecting the licensing on our respective coasts?
Hon. James A. McGrath (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has indicated, I have ordered a complete fisheries policy review and I would like very much to include this House in that policy review. To this end I have been endeavouring to have the two reports referred to by the hon. member-the Levelton report on licensing on the east coast, and the Sinclair report on licensing on the west coast-referred to the standing committee where

they would form a reference so the committee can involve itself directly in this policy review.
Unfortunately, the official opposition has not co-operated with us to that end, in that they have not been able to agree on the order of reference to the committee. I am hoping that they may, perhaps, find it in their hearts during the Christmas season to allow one of our motions under Standing Order 43 to pass so that the committee can get on with its study.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In light of the fact that this government owes the Manitoba Indian Brotherhood $270,000 for third-quarter core funding, and that although the MIB has settled their internal difficulties this government has still refused to give them the money which it owes them, would the minister tell us when he will give the money to this organization, so that it can pay its phone bills and pay the salaries that are owing, before Christmas as well as make sure that this organization can work on behalf of the Indian people of Manitoba?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. member for Churchill that the point he makes, that the Government of Canada owes the Manitoba Indian Brotherhood that amount of money, is not correct. I had a meeting with representatives of the Manitoba Indian Brotherhood today, along with my colleague, the Secretary of State. We agreed this morning that tomorrow at nine o'clock, representatives of the MIB and representatives of the two government departments would sit down in Winnipeg to look at the bills that have to be paid immediately, as well as to establish a very clear plan of action in terms of how repayment can be made as well as future operations of the MIB covered. That was agreed to this morning and the plan will go forward.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, it is the second time in the House that the minister has told me meetings will take place. I hope that these meetings will really take place.
My supplementary question is addressed to the Secretary of State. Since his department owes the Manitoba Indian Brotherhood over $250,000, and that amount is owing, will the minister confirm that he has refused to pay this money; and will he also confirm that he has ordered his junior minister, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, not to pay the money owed by that department?


Hon. David MacDonald (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I am not in the habit or ordering anybody, and certainly none of my colleagues. I think the hon. member should understand, as I am sure he is well aware, that there has been a very difficult situation with
December 13, 1979

respect to both the organization of the Manitoba Indian Brotherhood and their financial situation.
What my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and I have tried to do today is to work out a plan that is both sensible and helpful in the situation. I think it was a very useful meeting with the representatives and the chief this morning. Tomorrow there is to be a full-scale meeting, and I believe that by the end of the day tomorrow we will be well on the road to putting things in order so that the MIB can function effectively.


EMPLOYMENT
Ursula Appolloni: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Does the budget proposal to allow men to gainfully employ their wives represent the sum total of the entire employment strategy for women long promised by the Conservative government and, if not, when can the women of Canada hope that the minister's many previous pious utterances on this subject may acquire some substance?


Hon. Ron Atkey (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: The point to which the hon. member has referred in the budget address of my colleague, the Minister of Finance, is an important one, but she well knows that it is not by any means the only commitment to the employment of women that this government has made and will be making. I suggest to the hon. member, through you, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member stay in the House later this afternoon, when she may well hear further details of the employment strategy of this government relating to women.


THE BUDGET
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Finance. The Prime Minister said in the House in 1975, when he was still member for Rocky Mountain, that an excise tax on gasoline is "very unfair", "inequitable", and would be something that would "hit the little guy".
I want to ask the minister why the government is imposing a tax increase of 18 cents a gallon that, to use the Prime Minister's own words, is unfair, inequitable and would hit the little guy, since even when the proposed refundable tax credit is fully phased in, it would return less than half-perhaps a third-of the amount collected in excise tax, and the full credit would not be paid at all to taxpayers, to the little guys of this country, until two years have gone by.


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


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, in 1975 the hon. gentleman's government imposed a 10-cent excise tax on gasoline-8 cents less than the tax we are planning to impose in our budget-without any tax credit relief to the Canadian people; and when they did that I did not hear the hon. gentlemen moaning, groaning, wailing, gnashing their teeth and spilling crocodile tears as they are now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INQUIRY WHETHER WOODSMEN WILL RECEIVE TEN CENT EXCISE TAX REBATE ON GASOLINE
Hon. Pierre De Bane (Matapedia-Matane):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
1 would like, first of all, to thank the hon. Minister of Finance and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion for having included in the budget the suggestion made by my colleagues and myself concerning tax incentives for the Gaspe peninsula and the Atlantic region.
1 would like to ask the hon. Minister of Finance whether the rebate for farmers, fishermen and local public transit systems will also apply to forest workers. Let me explain: as you know, these workers are either full-time farmers who work as woodcutters occasionally or full-time lumbermen. In my area, the North Shore-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member ask his question?


Pierre De Bané: Will forest workers benefit from this 10-cent rebate on the excise tax as well as the farmers who also work as lumbermen?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the exemption applies to farmers in connection with their off-highway activities, to fishermen in connection with the operation of their fishing vessels, and to urban mass transit systems. It does not apply to forest workers. We had to ask everyone to bear an equal part of these increasing costs, the same as do forest workers in the United States and other countries who have to bear these increased costs which are, due to a vanishing resource, becoming more and more expensive.


BROADCASTING
Mr. Bob Lane (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. In view of the fact that the Liberal party convention was booked into the Winnipeg convention centre prior to December 6 of last week, and in

December 13, 1979
Oral Questions
view of the fact that a recreational vehicle dealers show was booked into the centre for March 20 to 23 and was asked, on December 6, to cancel their show because the CBC said they would not televise the convention if they could not get in two weeks ahead of time, would the minister advise the House, first, why the televising of a political convention by a Crown corporation takes precedence over a private enterprise program and, second, can he tell me whether the corporation will reimburse the recreational vehicle association for their brochure printing out of their $4 million budget?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I would assume, Mr. Speaker, that both recreational events can be looked after adequately, but I will check with the corporation to see whether or not there is a problem with this location.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House will recall the slight delay at the beginning of the question period. The last question to be recognized will be at five minutes past three o'clock.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Peter Ittinuar (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In light of the fact that the Yukon and the Northwest Territories are totally dependent on oil as an energy source, and whereas the severe climate makes residents of these territories the highest consumers of heating oil in the country, will the minister agree to revise the budget to include measures that will cushion the impact of rising oil prices on northern residents?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member no doubt knows, the measures announced in the budget have no effect: there is no excise tax involved with respect to heating oil. With respect to the question of future increases in oil and gas prices and their effect on the people of that area, certainly that is something we can take into consideration. If there were to be a program to assist in that area, the difficulty is boundaries because, of course, there are northern areas of Canada right across the whole continent; there are areas which are more south that arc just as cold as the far north, and other problems of that nature.


Peter Ittinuar: Mr. Speaker, the minister allowed super depletion allowances for frontier packages in exploration, yet he is deplete of answers for northern residents.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Ittinuar: On October 29, 1979, the minister told the House that he was very sympathetic to the economic problems of northern residents. Today I received a telegram from Yellowknife, in the western Arctic, which is a Conservative riding-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. member wish to put a supplementary question?


Peter Ittinuar: Can the minister explain why oil prices are being cushioned in the Atlantic provinces while residents of the Arctic are left to fend for themselves?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I can only suggest that the hon. gentleman wait until the full plentitude of our energy program is outlined.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Did the minister say "platitude"?


John Carnell Crosbie: They do not like this, Mr. Speaker, because they are afraid we might do something that they will be happy about.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: The proceeds from the energy tax will be used in many ways to help in the area of conservation and energy alternatives generally.


THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
Mr. Denis Ethier (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I have a document in my possession indicating that the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations recommended, at one of their caucus committee meetings, that they put forward proposals regarding symbolic actions the government can implement to promote the concept of a renewed federalism.
[ Translation]
My question is as follows: Could he assure the House that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court he will stop speaking about symbolic action and will very soon do something concerning renewed federalism?


Robert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, 1 believe that we have taken concrete action as a government since May 22 and that some of our other initiatives are also important for Canadians. We have made some progress. 1 am not sure which document the hon. member has in his possession, but 1 would like to see it. 1 think
December 13, 1979

the hon. member will agree that other things such as symbols are also very important.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State and Minister of Communications. It concerns the antiquated and scattered facilities of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in the city of Toronto.
Would the minister please indicate to the House and to the nation whether the government is considering an appropriate allocation of funds within its present financial program to permit the CBC to construct a single, modern facility in Toronto and when a decision on the project can be expected; and would he not also agree that the construction of such a centre would create many badly-needed construction jobs in metropolitan Toronto?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member well knows that the question of new and improved facilities for the CBC in Toronto has been a matter of concern to the corporation for many years. Of course, it is an issue of great expenditure, and I know the corporation is working toward eventually establishing such facilities. But 1 cannot indicate in more precise terms whether that is likely to happen with greater speed this year.


FINANCE
Mr. Jacques Olivier (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. I would like to remind him that a few weeks ago, in answer to my question, he said he would help those persons who really need help in Canada. Therefore, I want to ask if he deliberately forgot to announce in his budget that he would raise the minimum wage, set at $2.90. Can the minister tell us if he intends to raise this minimum wage, which is now set at $2.90, or does he simply intend to go on making the rich richer and the poor even poorer by his decision to lay the burden of taxation on those who always end up paying, namely, the medium-income people.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the present minimum wage is one that was left with us by the last administration. I am sorry to hear that the hon. member is
Business of the House
disgusted with it: he never expressed that view when he was a member of the other government.


An hon. Member:: Of course he did.


John Carnell Crosbie: This is an issue which is under review by the Minister of Labour. I am sure that he will bear every consideration in mind, including the callous disregard of the last government to do anything about it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


POINT OF ORDER
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, as one of those who raised some concern about the light levels, I want to say that the experiment is a success, and I hope Your Honour will keep the light levels down as they are now.


An hon. Member:: Perhaps it is a success over there, but not back in this corner.


Mr. Speaker:: As I indicated to the House earlier, we are experimenting with a set of lights that are higher up which hopefully will produce the same illumination with less glare. We will try it for a short while.


An hon. Member:: It does not improve the view.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom).


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rise on a point of order with respect to business of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Cape Breton High-lands-Canso (Mr. MacEachen) seeking the floor on the regular Thursday question of House business?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville has given me notice of a question of privilege which I gather does not arise out of the proceedings today but out of previous proceedings. Therefore, perhaps it is appropriate to recognize the regular Thursday point of order on House business first and then hear the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to ask the President of the Privy Council what the business will be for the

December 13, 1979
Business of the House
remainder of the day. In the unlikely event that the House will be sitting tomorrow, would he consider the appropriateness of continuing with the budget debate until all outstanding motions or amendments are disposed of?


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I do not share the same pessimism as my hon. friend about our being here tomorrow. As a matter of fact 1 was going to inquire, if the light is so nice on that side, if we might experiment with the light on this side-


An hon. Member:: Come over here.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: -so that we would have the advantage of lights on both sides of the House as we proceed toward Christmas next week.
I should like to indicate our intentions with respect to the legislative program into the balance of this week and next week. Tomorrow-


Some hon. Members:: What about today?


Walter David Baker: Tomorrow it is our intention to call Bill C-20 for the one sitting day allotted under Standing Order 75C for Committee of the Whole stage. Beginning next week we will commence third reading of Bill C-20 and passage at all stages of the main estimates.


An hon. Member:: What about today?


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Speaker, with respect to House business, 1 wonder if I may ask the President of the Privy Council if he plans to make any further statement to the House, either on statements by ministers or at some point, concerning the status of those income tax forms which we were told have been put in the mail. In view of the fact that I know of no one having received his income tax form, can the minister say whether there is any plan about that? Will he be making any statement to the House on that matter?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, certainly 1 will make some inquiries with respect to the position. If I had had some notice of the hon. member's intention to ask me that, I could have given the information. I will make some inquiries with respect to that matter and I will report back to him. Perhaps we can talk about that later.


Mr. Rose:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if 1 might ask a question of the President of the Privy Council in his capacity as government House leader. For some months now we have had a motion on the order paper for the creation of a Senate-Commons committee to inquire into nuclear energy. I wonder whether the House leader would be kind enough to give the House some indication as to when he might be calling that?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions among the parties in respect of the
[Mr. MacEachen.J
appropriateness of the terms of reference. I know the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody has taken part in that discussion and has indeed written to me. We are taking this up and, as a matter of fact, a ministerial meeting is being scheduled for tomorrow to review the representations of the hon. gentleman. It is my intention, if we can settle the terms among us all so that they would be acceptable, to take that matter up as soon as the House returns in January.


Mr. Guay:: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the House leader. In view of the fact that we are going on with the regular business of the House, I would like to point out that motion No. 9 under my name and dealing with the re-establishment of Canadian merchant marine should normally be debated next Monday at five o'clock. I would like to know if the right honourable Prime Minister or the minister responsible will be present in the House to state his position in clear, unequivocal and specific terms, with respect to a Canadian merchant marine?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I know how important the hon. gentleman's question is to him and, indeed, to members on this side of the House. I want to assure him that there will be a person here to indicate clearly the government's position, which I think is already known to the hon. gentleman.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) on a question of privilege.


Mr. Nystrom:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to stand the question of privilege until tomorrow, if 1 may, please.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There seems to be some particular subject which hon. members have a great desire to discuss today. I wonder if I might invite them to do so behind the curtains or in the corridor so we can hear the business that is on the floor of the House.


PRIVILEGE
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, it was drawn to my attention a few moments ago that on Tuesday the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bujold) raised a question in respect of the operation of Open House Canada and its unfair utilization of Canadian Pacific Airlines as opposed to Air Canada.
This matter is somewhat complicated, Mr. Speaker, and I do not want to get into detail here on the floor of the House. I think it is perhaps fair to point out, however, that there is no positive pursuit of any policy in respect of Open House
December 13, 1979

Canada that favours one airline over another. Indeed, Open House Canada tries to achieve maximum effectiveness of both airlines.
There has been some problem during the course of the summer in respect of the central travel service of Air Canada, which I think is what led the member to believe there was some direct bias in favour of the direct travel service of Canadian Pacific. Just so the record can be clear, the member indicated some figures on Tuesday which would indicate a rather disproportionate share of the business being directed toward Canadian Pacific. The fact is that Canadian Pacific is not the only or the biggest carrier of Open House Canada participants. On a national basis 1 would have to report that in fact the groups using Air Canada do significantly outnumber those using Canadian Pacific. The hon. member referred specifically to five western cities, I think, where Canadian Pacific had been, indeed, more active, but on a total basis actually Air Canada has been more active in respect of the travel program of Open House Canada participants than anyone else.
I think that statement was needed just so there will be no thought that 1 had, even inadvertently, misled the member or the House.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
{English]

Walter David Baker: the first reading of Bill S-7 from the Senate, respecting Canadian non-profit corporations.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Kilgour (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 456, 458, 463, 464, 474, 584 and 883.
1 would ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Herbert: How many buildings are presently occupied by the Department of Veterans Affairs in Charlottetown, and what is the (a) name (b) address (c) number of square feet of space in each building ?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Minister of Public Works):: Three buildings are presently occupied by the Department of Veterans Affairs in Charlottetown.
(a)
Florence McKay Building Dominion Public Building Heritage Canada Building
(b)
Grafton Street Queen Street Great George Street
(c)
434 M2 I.887.7M2
55.7M2


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Were architects selected to prepare plans for the Department of Veterans Affairs building in Charlottetown, P.E.I. and, if so, who are they?
2.	Has a suggested design been submitted and, if so, what was the architect's estimate of the cost of the building?


Erik Nielsen: (1)	Yes, Consortium Designers Incorporated.
(2)	A preliminary design was produced for site No. 9. No design work has yet been done for site No. 15 and no estimate of cost has been developed.


Mr. Herbert: In each of the past five years, what amount was transferred to the Agricultural Products Board account?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: None. However, the amounts necessary to recoup the Agricultural Products Board account were:
1974- 75	$ 97,744
1975-	76	414,8411976-	77	1,121,9301977-	78	35,5451978-	79	107,109


Mr. Herbert: In each of the past five years, what amount was transferred to the Agricultural Commodities Stabilization account?


John Wise: None. However, the amounts necessary to recoup the Agricultural Commodities Stabilization account were:
1974-	75	$297,573,5891975-	76	300,840,0191976-	77	261,866,1421977-	78	364,110,7661978-	79	318,562,968
2326

December 13, 1979
Order Paper Questions AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS BOARD ACCOUNT


Mr. Herbert: As at March 31 in each of the past five years, what amount was outstanding in the accounts of Canada in respect of the Agricultural Products Board account?


John Wise: March 31, 1975, Nil; March 31, 1976, $227,600; March 31, 1977, Nil; March 31, 1978, Nil; March 31, 1979, $148,171.


Mr. Cossitt: Was notice of motion (papers) No. 13 of the fourth session of the Thirtieth Parliament, in the name of the honourable member for Leeds-Grenville, adopted by the House on March 22, 1979 and, if so (a) for what reason were the papers never produced either by tabling in the House or by making them available to the honourable member (b) will any action be taken by the government to rectify this situation?


Mrs. Diane Stratas (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Yes. (a) They were not ready prior to March 29 when the House was dissolved. Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, 5th Edition, page 255 states that "A dissolution of the House immediately puts an end to all outstanding Orders of Returns". Consequently, work on the preparation of the papers ceased, (b) Yes, a copy has been made available to the hon. member.


Mr. Elzinga: 1.	Since 1974, did the Department of Agriculture finance projects in the constituency of Pembina and, if so, in each case, what was the (a) name of the project (b) total cost (c) total contribution by the government?
2.	Is the department planning projects in the near future and, if so, in each case, what is the (a) nature of the project (b) estimated amount to be spent by the government?


John Wise: 1. No. (a)-(c) None.
2. No. (a)-(b) None.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(Mr. Wise.]



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, December 12, 1979, consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government; the amendment thereto of Mr. Gray (p. 2294) and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Rae (p. 2304).
Mr. Dennis Dawson (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to complete the speech I started yesterday. 1 was pleased to hear the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Atkey) state a few moments ago, in answer to my hon. colleague, that he would announce this afternoon the specific measures the Progressive Conservative government intends to take. We have been waiting for the Tory promises for seven months now and I dare hope that there will be substantial and really significant measures for the unemployed in Canada. 1 see that the minister is smiling, and we shall all be here to listen carefully to what he has to say.

The Liberal government has in the past made enormous efforts to try and minimize youth unemployment, but I think it is our duty as members of Parliament to try to convince the present government that if we want the young people to believe in a strong Canada we must prove to them that we are preoccupied with their predicament.
1 could talk about the numerous aspects of the problem, whether it be the fact that the economic costs involved are difficult to calculate, or comparing young unemployed who live with their parents with adults who have to support families. However, we must take into consideration that since students are not finding the opportunity to obtain jobs after graduation, some withdraw from the labour force and retreat into idleness. Other impacts arise from the frustration that is felt when a two or three or four-year course of study produces no job at the end, even a job which is marginally relevant. Still more problems arise when it is discovered that all but the most menial jobs require work experience, and one cannot get work experience without a job.

According to the traditional approach, it is more important to protect the jobs of breadwinners and it is still partly valid.
However, recent developments in our society tend to promote equal opportunities for all. A good example would be the women's lib movement. There may be cases where young people actually suffer from discrimination, but employers usually turn them down merely because of the structural factors mentioned previously. Obviously, although new entrants may have equal qualifications they will have more problems finding a job than older workers.
December 13, 1979

One way or another, we must admit that young people have a hard time entering the labour market. Such persistent alienation cannot be dismissed as harmless just because youth is a temporary stage of life, Mr. Speaker. Special programs have to be put in place to help young people enter the labour market provided these programs do not penalize other groups and do not set young people apart even more so than they are now. More practical arguments than merely providing equality of opportunity can be brought up to justify the creation of special youth employment programs. It is highly important to train young people so that they may take over responsible jobs. Disenchantment and frustration on being turned down when applying for a job can lead to a feeling of rejection that may affect young workers for a long time. Unemployment and instability prevent people from acquiring good working habits and tend to isolate them more and more from the labour force.
In certain cases, unemployment among the young leads to an increase in crime. That problem is especially felt in large American and Canadian cities where unemployment among the young results in an increase in the number of suicides, in violence, prostitution and drug consumption. After a while, it is very difficult to pull some young people away from their illegal activities. In some European countries, for example in Italy, there is fear that this type of unemployment will lead to an increase in violence and to anarchy. We could discuss high and low the youth problem, but I would like to deal with other subjects relating to the budget.
[English)
As 1 said in my speech yesterday, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in this budget for the youth of Canada, nothing but repeated promises and vague solutions. No, what we have are measures that will create more unemployment and raise prices to a level that we have not seen since the years when we had Conservative governments, and you know what happened to those governments, Mr. Speaker.

What we have is a budget that will increase by approximately S380 a year the mean transportation and heating costs of the average Canadian family. And for the average Quebec dairy producer, that means an increase of almost $800 a year. Last April, when he was addressing the Quebec Chamber of Commerce, the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party (Mr. Clark) announced in the middle of the election campaign that he would increase the country's economic growth by 5 per cent, that he would reduce unemployment to 5 per cent and that he would bring the inflation rate down to 5 per cent. Mr. Speaker. However, in this budget the Tories foresee not a growth of 5 per cent but a mean growth of 3 per cent until 1985. And if that is what they anticipate, it will probably be less. For 1980, the government anticipates in its budgetary documents a real economic growth of only 1 per cent.
The Budget-Mr. Bob Jarvis
Instead of bringing the unemployment rate down to 5'/2 per cent by 1985, the Progressive Conservatives have chosen, as shown by their budget forecasts, to let it rise from 7.3 per cent this year to 8.3 per cent next year, and they do not seem intent on trying to achieve the present rate, even by 1985. Instead of reducing inflation to 5'A per cent, it is now certain that Conservative policies will increase the present rate of 9.3 per cent by more than 100 per cent in the next two years and that there will be a very slow decrease afterwards.
Before concluding my remarks, Mr. Speaker, there is another aspect of the problem to be considered, and that is the area of federal-provincial relations. For the past six months, the new government has been advocating a new era in federal-provincial relations, an era of consultation, of non-interference and of co-operation. With this budget, one can see the results achieved, Mr. Speaker. Several premiers, some of which are even Conservatives, are condemning the budget, while others, such as the British Columbia premier, say that his province is ignored by the provisions contained in the federal budget. As to Quebec, the situation is quite simple and is summed up by this newspaper headline:

"Budget will help PQ win votes: Parizeau". I quote:
Parizeau said yesterday that the measure makes no economic sense. Politically, it presents Quebec with a "remarkable opportunity" to show how federalism works against Quebec's interests-
Quebec says the gas tax hike will siphon $600 million out of the province, virtually cancelling the benefits Quebec draws from federal subsidies for imported oil.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister was asked to get involved in the referendum debate, we had the feeling he was going to do so on the federalist side. Unfortunately, with statements like those made by Mr. Parizeau, one can see that the separatist forces are more likely to benefit from the situation. With the measures contained in the budget, Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative government succeeded in creating a common cause among separatists who were in the middle of a unity crisis. The Quebec minister of finance has stated that he intends to draw maximum benefit from this budget during the referendum period. This, Mr. Speaker, is not the kind of contribution we expected from the Prime Minister. We wanted some support for the federalist forces. For this and many other reasons, it seems obvious to me that all opposition members should do everything possible to defeat this government as soon as possible.


Robert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, as a new member may I say how proud I am to rise to give this, my first speech in support of the budget of the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie). For the first time in over a decade we have a budget, a finance minister and a government which has had the courage and fortitude to be honest and open with the

December 13, 1979
The Budget-Mr. Bob Jarvis
Canadian people. This budget detailed our problems, set forth the sacrifices needed to meet our problems head on, set the course to regain financial responsibility and charted the course to energy self-sufficiency. At the same time it acknowledged and met our obligation and responsibility to assist those in our society who, through infirmity, age or circumstances beyond their control, have been unable to cope with the policies of the past decade.
The past decade was a decade which saw massive unemployment-as high as one million people were unemployed at one point-uncontrolled inflation, over three years of double digit inflation, an unparalleled government spending binge which left Canadians with the highest per capita public debt in the industrialized world, a shattered currency and a balance of payments deficit; all of which has effectively mortgaged the earnings and expectations of an entire generation of Canadian youth.
That is the legacy of the Liberal government, the 1970s. This budget comes to grips with this legacy and holds out the challenge and work ahead of us for the 1980s. The Canadian people are not afraid of challenge, nor are they unprepared to pay off the Liberal debts of the 1970s. All that was required for Canadians was a challenge and a direction for us to follow. The hon. Minister of Finance has set the direction. Now it is up to us Canadians to meet the challenge, a challenge which constitutes our future.
This afternoon I intend to concentrate my remarks on the energy policy portion of the budget. However, l should first like to congratulate the hon. minister for the revisions to the Income Tax Act which will allow small unincorporated family businesses to claim as an expense salaries paid to the spouses. My riding of Wiilowdale, located in the north portion of Metropolitan Toronto, has 1,374 family businesses located within its boundaries. Most of these families live in Willow-dale. Long hours, hard work and sacrifice to own a business has in the past been penalized by the Liberals. The role of the wife and mother in maintaining a family business has not been properly recognized prior to this budget. This change has been long overdue. It is a most welcome and appreciated change in Wiilowdale.
The hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), in responding to the budget address, gave a plea for a return to the 1970s. The thrust of his remarks was a return to overspending, to underproduction, to high debt, to low growth rates and to double digit inflation. Why not; that is all the hon. member for Windsor West understands. Those policies were his training ground and encompass the limits of his span of comprehension. Our government's energy policy as set out in the budget was referred to by the hon. member for Windsor West who said, as reported in Hansard at page 2267, that the budget provisions on energy are an-
-aberration carrying the Canadian economy away from the path of growth and development it was on at the time the government changed on June 4.
First, I should explain to the hon. member that it was May 22, 1979.

Let us look at the path we were on under the Liberals at the beginning of the seventies. In the 1970s they took Canada from an oil exporting country to an oil importing country. They took a country with almost unlimited and untapped resources and reduced the rate of search for new supply and the rate of research and development to a point where the production of light and medium crude oil is now at 1.2 million barrels per day. It is now forecast that the production of light and medium crude oil will fall to 750,000 barrels per day by 1985 and to 500,000 barrels per day by 1990 without new finds and new programs, of which they had none.
The Liberals stopped the pipeline on the Ontario-Quebec border and isolated parts of Quebec and the maritimes from Canada's energy resources. They took a country rich in resources and left it with a $2 billion deficit or outflow annually to buy oil from OPEC nations.
With the 1970s policy of the hon. member for Windsor West in place, by 1985 the cash outflow from Canada would increase from $2 billion to upwards of $8 billion to $10 billion-just to stand still, to buy OPEC oil to offset the declining production in this country as a result of their policies, and that does not even take into consideration the announced OPEC price increase today of $6 U.S. per barrel. That is what the Liberals have been advocating. They say there is no problem. Of course, from their limited perception there is no problem, because theirs was the perception of the ostrich with its head in the sand.
What are the true facts, Mr. Speaker? Canadians are entitled to know them. How much oil do we in fact produce today? How much oil do we in fact consume? What do we require? Where are we going and how are we going to get there? 1 should like to direct the balance of my address to the details of these facts for the Canadian people.
In 1978 Canadians produced approximately 1.6 million barrels of oil per day. At the same time, they consumed approximately 1.9 million barrels per day which left a shortfall of 300,000 barrels per day. Money was required in massive amounts to replace the shortfall of 300,000 barrels per day.
Consumption to date in 1979 has been variable, but forecasts have been made for the last quarter which show consumption of 2.06 million barrels per day, production of 1.82 million barrels per day and a shortfall of between 240,000 and
250.000	barrels of oil per day. This shortfall must be bought, Mr. Speaker.
Having isolated the maritimes and portions of Quebec from supply, we are forced to import approximately 600,000 barrels of oil per day to meet their needs. We bring in approximately
250.000	barrels per day to Quebec and 350,000 barrels per day to the maritimes. Thus we find ourselves dependent on foreign sources for 600,000 barrels of oil per day and with no capacity, as a result of Liberal policies, for moving our western supply east.
If we are to have energy self-sufficiency, if we are to have identity as a country, if we are to maintain our self-respect as
December 13, 1979

Canadians, it is absolutely essential that we embark on a program that would hold our consumption at two million barrels per day. To do this would mean we need a number of active programs. These programs include conservation, conversion to new sources of energy, use of other sources of energy including hydro development, a review of the entire nuclear power development industry in this country and turning to renewable sources of energy. This would include solar, biomass, wind and geothermal.
I should like to spend a few moments talking about conservation, Mr. Speaker. There are a number of ways to come to conservation. You can use moral suasion, you can use pricing, regulation, allocation or rationing. To date, Mr. Speaker, moral suasion has not worked in this country because the Canadian people have been led to believe by past Liberal governments that there was an unlimited supply of energy and that we could waste this resource at will. Of course, we just cannot, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to put on the record a figure which is very frightening and which flows directly from past Liberal policies. In his budget address on Tuesday night, the hon. Minister of Finance indicated that to date in Canada, consumption of gasoline has been rising at over 4 per cent per annum, whereas consumption in the United States has fallen by about 4 per cent per annum. The figures for October, which have just been released, indicate that consumption of gasoline in Canada went up by 5.5 per cent, and in the same period consumption in the United States fell by 8 per cent. We are not conserving. We are not using our resource properly and it is essential that we do.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, we have allowed our prices to fall below the cost of production. Time and time again we hear Liberals say that there is an unlimited supply of oil out west. Mr. Speaker, there is an almost unlimited supply of some types of oil, but not of light and medium crude oil which is the type of oil we have relied upon to date. If we are to supply our oil needs in the future, it will have to come from frontier oil, from heavy oil, from synthetic oil, from new finds off the east coast of Labrador, in the high north, the Beaufort Sea, the Arctic Islands, the Mackenzie Delta. Mr. Speaker, you do not find that oil for the cost that you found light and medium crude oil ten, five or eight years ago.
The Liberals have been continually telling the people in this country that there is lots of oil. What they should tell the people, who deserve to have the true facts, is that the light to medium crude oil is running out. It is this which is the cheap oil, but we do not have much of it left.
The price of oil has to go up to allow the entrepreneurs who look for this hard to find resource to get out into the high Arctic, to get off the east coast of Labrador, to look in the places where mankind has never looked before. It is in these areas that our true riches, our true resource base, lies and it is in these remote areas that Canadians will find energy self-sufficiency, not in the boardrooms of Liberal policy makers. At the same time, we must raise money in this country to teach
The Budget-Mr. Bob Jarvis
and educate Canadians to use their resources more wisely and more efficiently.
We must make moneys available for conversion to new sources of energy and to assist those who, because of Liberal policies in the past decade, find themselves on fixed incomes and unable to protect their standard of living. We must make money available to these people so that they will be able to have heat and transportation in the next decade whilst maintaining a reasonable standard of living. This will require money from the federal government which will come from the increased price of oil.
I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that debate has raged in this country for weeks over a price increase of $4 per barrel, from $13.75, the present production price f.o.b. Toronto, to $4 above that, which would be $17.75 per barrel. Today the OPEC nations have effectively increased the price of oil on the world market by $6 U.S., or over $7 Canadian to about $28.50 or $29.00 Canadian per barrel. Who are the Liberals kidding when they say that we have lots of oil? The oil we have must be found and developed and brought on stream.
1 should like to speak for a moment about the production of oil from the tar sands where there is a tremendous capacity. It takes approximately five years to build a tar sands plant or heavy oil plant. There are two such plants proposed in Canada at the present time. Each plant will require a working population of about 30,000 persons and will require 15,000 man-years of engineering during its construction period. The cost of each plant will vary from $5.5 billion in 1979 dollars to $6.5 billion. That means that $12 billion is required in the economy to pay for those plants. Canadians are not fools, Mr. Speaker. They know that money has to be raised and left in the hands of the private companies that build these expensive plants. These are time-consuming and very risky ventures because of the problems inherent in building in these remote areas of this country.
In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, we shall have to consider distributing our resources in a more equitable and proper manner. Why in heaven's name a government with any kind of sense at all would have stopped the energy distribution system at the Ontario-Quebec border is beyond me. That is what happened, however. It is now up to this government to find a way to move our resources to other areas of the country. We must move gas into Quebec and the maritimes, and we must find a way of distributing our energy resources on a more equitable basis. We must not leave one area of the country totally isolated and dependent upon foreign supplies in a very volatile and explosive international situation.
Another program that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hnatyshyn) referred to today in question period is the conversion of heating systems from oil to natural gas. There will be a retrofit program announced in due course to which he referred in question period today. We must convince and persuade Canadians that it is in their best

December 13, 1979
The Budget-Mr. Boh Jarvis
interests to change over to natural gas, which is in abundant supply.
The hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Lalonde) said it is a scandal that we are selling our resources of natural gas. This is not so at all. We have tremendous reserves of natural gas that were the result of exploration during the period 1975-78, and there has been no return whatsoever to the producers on the billions of dollars spent in finding that natural gas.
1 would like to comment on our natural gas reserves for just a moment. In Canada we now produce 2.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas per year. In Canada we use 1.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and we export the balance at the present time to the United States as part of our export program and our trades and swaps program to try to obtain more oil for this country.
We have tapped and proven reserves of 72 trillion cubic feet. In addition, we have proven and probable reserves in the high Arctic. We have proven reserves of about 15 trillion cubic feet and estimated or probable reserves at a 50 per cent recovery rate in the high Arctic of another 150 trillion cubic feet. We have now discovered tight gas with reserves of up to 400 trillion cubic feet. At the price to which oil and natural gas has now moved in Canada following the budget address of Tuesday night, upwards of 40 per cent to 50 per cent of this tight gas can be recovered. These reserves are located in the foothills of Alberta. We have natural gas for all of Canada's current needs and future needs, including all possible conversions from oil to natural gas that this country requires during this century.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Jarvis: We should all thank God that we have these reserves because if they were not there, just think of the mess we would have been in with the Liberal oil policy.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Robert Jarvis: At the same time as this conversion program is taking place and Canadians are switching to natural gas, we will have to re-evaluate and reappraise our resources in hydro electricity. We will have to go back across this country to find out just where and how we can use hydro power.
There is a program now in Newfoundland in the lower Churchill area which is under study by the provincial and federal governments and which will hopefully bring more hydro power into the maritimes and Quebec grid. But we cannot stop there. We have to look at all of our capacities in this area.
Also, in the maritimes-we have to use our coal resources to produce electricity. A very scary fact, Mr. Speaker, is that if you go through the maritimes you will find that electricity is produced in the most inefficient and wasteful manner possible. For example, all the electricity in Prince Edward Island is produced by burning oil, not coal, not hydro, not other sources. We must look at the cost of converting all of the oil-fired electric plants in the maritimes to other sources of energy,
[Mr. Jarvis.)
which will include coal. It is the coal resources in the maritimes that will provide an energy base as soon as we work out the problems associated with the burning of coal and at the same time protect the environment. This must be a first priority.
In addition, we must reappraise and re-evaluate the nuclear question in Canada. Nuclear-produced electricity now provides about 3.5 per cent of the total energy generated in this country. We must look at that program and see whether or not it should be expanded, given always that in any nuclear expansion program we must find proper ways of maintaining and running these plants. At the same time we must find a usable, proper means of storing or disposing of the waste products from nuclear activity. The obligation that is incumbent upon us as a government is to find ways of doing this properly and within the Canadian context so that Canadian citizens understand that we are using our resources properly, effectively and safely at all times.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Jarvis: The future does not bode well for the world in terms of energy if we continue to use non-renewable resources.
While Canada is richly endowed, the balance of the world is not richly endowed. There is a world shortage of non-renewable energy or hydrocarbon sources. As I have said, Canada is well endowed but we do not stand alone or isolated from the balance of the world. We cannot build a wall around ourselves and say that we are not responsible for our fellowman. As human beings we are responsible for our fellow man and we must face up to that obligation. Accordingly, it is incumbent upon this government-this is one of the reasons that an energy bank has been announced- to find ways of using effectively, safely and properly the renewable energy sources with which this universe is endowed.
We cannot turn our heads from the biomass process, which is the reclaiming of energy from plant material. We must look closely at solar energy and see if we can effectively use this form of energy. This is one of the reasons that solar energy is being actively pursued in my department, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, and in other departments. We must also look at wind and the geothermal process. There are a number of programs in these areas that are in the experimental stage. However, they will require massive amounts of money.
If I could put it this way, Mr. Speaker, there is some good news and there is some bad news. In terms of renewable energy sources, the good news is that Canada is richly endowed. The bad news is that it is expensive to find means of using these sources. That is the down side. But Canadians are not fools. Canadians are not prepared to stick their heads in the sand any more. Canadians want to know that they are facing this challenge head on. That is why the budget of the Minister of Finance is acceptable to the people of this country today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
December 13, 1979


Robert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, there are many aspects of this whole matter, but I should like to come back to the issue that seems to pop up from the Liberals time and lime again. It has to do with the 18 cents a gallon excise tax increase.
The Minister of Finance on Tuesday evening quoted the price of oil using 1954 dollars and bringing them forward to 1979. 1 should like to do this exercise slightly differently. 1 would like to point out to the hon. members of this House and to the Canadian people that if you use a constant dollar-and 1 shall pick the 1971 dollar-and if you take that 1971 dollar and eliminate inflation and look at what it would buy in 1949, and then bring it forward to 1979, you can get an accurate, graphic measurement of what has happened to the price of a gallon of gasoline.
Taking the month of September 1949 and using a constant dollar, gasoline in this country cost 68 cents per gallon. If you take the same 1971 constant dollar and projected it forward to September 1979, the cost of gasoline in this country would be 58 cents per gallon. It would have gone down 10 cents. As far as 1 know, gasoline is the only commodity that has gone down in price during this period.
I should now like to take the 18 cents excise tax and add it to the 58 cents. By doing that you come up with a price of 76 cents per gallon, which is still the cheapest price for gasoline in the industrialized world by far. The Americans are now toying with a proposal which will put the effective price as of the new year on their gasoline, in Canadian dollars and using imperial gallons, at over $2.10 per gallon. Yet the Liberals are still complaining over an 18-cent price increase.
The Canadian people understand that this government was left with massive deficits, over-spending and debts that have to be serviced out of the country and be paid off in time. At the same time they understand that there is a duty and an obligation on all of us to meet the challenge of the eighties and to become self-sufficient in energy.
1 am very proud to be associated with this budget. I have no hesitation in saying that this budget is acceptable to the people of Willowdale. 1 have heard the rumblings. I have read the newspapers. 1 understand my friends across the floor think it would be a lot of fun to turf us out of office this evening. If that is their course, so be it. However, let me tell them that the people of Willowdale are prepared to re-elect this government with this budget.
[ Translation]


Fabien Roy: Mr. Speaker, we have to examine and vote on the budget the minister tabled in this House Tuesday night. We have, of course, to make an objective analysis of it because the decisions that will have to be made in the next hours, in the next days, could be critical in many respects. Mr. Speaker, when one has to examine the budget of a government, it is a bit like having to examine the budget of a business.
The Budget-Mr. F. Roy
It is rather difficult to analyse a budget objectively if you do not have the whole picture of the situation. As far as I am concerned, I still have many things to learn but 1 have very seldom seen company directors examine their corporate budget without having in hand a comprehensive financial statement which will tell them where they actually stand, and by comparing it with previous financial statements, they can see exactly where they were and how far they have gone. This will tell them whether they are going in the right direction. Only then and not otherwise can you analyse fully and objectively a company budget. So I see here, in this Parliament of Canada, we are denied this important thing. We are not provided with any financial statement on the general situation in this country. We are provided with just a brief analysis, more of a political nature than not, instead of being provided with those broad indications, that financial statement, describing exactly where we stand so as to be able to determine in all objectivity what are the decisions that have to be made and how we must correct the situation so Canada can meet the challenges of the future.
Indeed, to be able to assess a budget properly, you have to examine the situation of the economy. The financial statement is obviously missing. The former government did not care much for that either. We have to look at the country and the various regions to be able to determine where the imbalances are. You have, of course, to look at the world and international situations because we have partners not only among nations but also trading partners. We also have to look at the government's financial situation. 1 can say, Mr. Speaker, that the government's financial situation is nothing to be happy about but 1 do not have time to make an analysis of all the decisions that have been made in the past which have led to this financial morass in which this country finds itself.
Let us simply recall an historic fact. 1 repeat, this is an historic fact. For 50 of the last 60 years, the country has been governed by the Liberals.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fabien Roy: 1 see people shouting "Hear, hear!" on the other side, and I believe they are Liberals. Mr. Speaker, is it any wonder because they have just shown their knowledge and ability, but their complete lack of understanding of the present situation.
Mr. Speaker, we have to outline a comprehensive policy. We need a program for the future. We need major directions. We need comprehensive plans. They only think of voting and of playing petty politics. Mr. Speaker, would you please call them back to order? I do not think that 1 have interrupted one of my colleagues since I came to this House. I have noted that it is always those who never have the courage to rise in this House to defend the interests of their constituents who keep interrupting me when 1 have the floor.

December 13, 1979
The Budget-Mr. F. Roy
i\lr. Roy (Laval): Mr. Speaker, I believe that 1 have often defended the interests of my constituents and 1 challenge the hon. member to show that 1 have spoken more often in the House than he did. 1 totally disagree with what he has just said.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott, Victoria-Haliburton):: Order, please!


Fabien Roy: Either the interventions of the hon. member were not relevant or he did not have any influence. Mr. Speaker, what is the state of our economy at the present time? We have an unacceptable level of unemployment. When a country like ours is constantly faced with such an unemployment rate, then all government action is hampered and public budgets are burdened with debts. Because of this, the government deprives itself of a few billion dollars every year when the unemployed ask only to work, be first class citizens and an asset to their families, their area, their province and their country. When we are unable to offer them this possibility, then something is wrong.
Mr. Speaker, we are faced with a record inflation rate. Some will argue of course that we are living in a global context. However, we should not forget that international problems as such do not exist. There are only national problems shifted to an international level. Decisions are not made on the international level, but on the national level. Each country should have enough fortitude to assume its responsibilities and take the necessary steps to have true leadership, the will for action and if the mechanisms fail, to improve them and give institutions the necessary instruments to make them effective and thus bring about results. Mr. Speaker, with respect to our dollar, we were supposed to save, in part at least, the Canadian economy, because we were going to maintain the oil price at 85 per cent of the Chicago rate and the dollar is worth 85 cents. Therefore, if my calculations are right this is equivalent to the value of the American dollar, so nothing has changed.
As far as energy is concerned, what is the government policy? What was the policy of the former government? Are our problems just recent or do they go back to months or years? What about projections? What has the new government done since May 22, when the voters defeated the former government and decided to elect a new government full of good will after having made many promises to give rise to great expectations among the people?
And where do we stand today, as far as energy is concerned? The government starts by reaching into the pockets of the taxpayers before announcing particular programs which remain to be finalized. And yet, our hon. colleagues who are now managing the affairs of our country, after such a long time spent in the opposition, should have had sufficient time to

examine the records. In all that time you would think that they saw enough budgets to prepare their political platform. 1 suggest that they have been in power long enough and have had enough cabinet and committee meetings to be able to announce to the Canadian public at the same time as the budget, if not a few days before, their decision about what is to be expected. All the while the taxpayers are paying, the unemployment rate is high, inflation is rampant, the Canadian dollar is ailing, and the very important subject of energy policy is causing considerable concern to the Canadian public. They are still waiting.
Mr. Speaker, to solve unemployment they are looking for a magic formula, a single formula for Canada as a whole. However the rate is very high in the maritimes, somewhat less but still too high in Quebec, and lower still in other areas. But in fact, in this large country of ours, we have provincial governments that are capable of taking their responsibilities, capable of acting. And rather than infringing on their jurisdiction, we should give them the means to assume those responsibilities. In this way, instead of fighting those governments of whatever political creed, we would co-operate with them, whether they be Social Credit, Liberal-although there are none left-Conservative or NDP governments.
As far as inflation is concerned, there would be much to say. We questioned the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) in the House, asking why he agreed with the governor of the Bank of Canada who had announced a third increase in the interest rates. At the request of the opposition, the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs held sessions, the governor of the Bank of Canada appeared, the Minister of Finance also appeared, and here is what the Minister of Finance said, as appears on page three of his statement:
A third reason for present interest rate levels is the large and growing deficit in the current account of our balance of payments. That cannot be reduced quickly either, and as long as it continues it must be covered by an adequate flow of capital into Canada.
The minister went on to say:
High interest rates counter inflation as they discourage excessive spending. As demand drops, businesses come under competitive pressure, and this helps to keep other costs and prices down.
To the extent that there is a cause and effect relationship directly between interest rates and inflation, it is more accurate to say that inflation causes .. .
-he did not say is the main cause for-
... it is more accurate to say that inflation causes higher interest rates than it is today the reverse.
What is the Minister of Finance announcing? Mr. Speaker, in the energy area the government will have to know that there are inequalities between regions, that the problems are different at that level and that there must be a stop to the siphoning off of huge amounts of money from certain regions for transfers to other regions. There will have to be some compensations, some new formulas, some answers in order to have an economic balance based on values, capabilities and resources which are available in the various regions and provinces which
December 13, 1979

make up Canada. Mr. Speaker, in the world we are entering a new era, characterized by a shortage of resources, and Canada is one of the biggest reservoirs of resources in the world. What are we doing to try to make Canadian resources benefit Canadians?
Do our huge resources contribute to create more jobs for Canadians? Do our resources contribute to lessen the pressures on the government budget to reduce taxes so that taxpayers take advantage of them? Is there a budgetary policy which would enable us to incur smaller deficits than we now have? To each of those three questions, Mr. Speaker, the answer is negative.
There is another factor in the industrial field throughout the world and it is the importance of semiconductors. We know quite well that it has now become the second largest industry in the United States. What is the position of Canada in that area? Those are some of the questions which remain unanswered. We have trading partners who are uncertain. And even after the budget speech, quite apart from the unbearable tax on fuel, there is no certainty. Even if there were a few adjustments, there is no more certainty than before. Why? Precisely because there is no comprehensive policy, there is no comprehensive plan. As for the fall in our growth, Mr. Speaker, it is a catastrophe.
Mr. Speaker, what we needed was a budget which would have helped us fight against unemployment and inflation, improve our deficit in the balance of payments and provide a true energy program. We expected incentives for large scale projects, which would have increased our chances of achieving our energy self-sufficiency. For instance, what did the budget say about the Bay of Fundy? Nothing at all. Eerily silent indeed it was about the north-south pipeline and the east-west pipeline. We were also expecting incentives for the manufacturing industry which would have improved the balance of payments so as to shore up that part of the commercial balance which represents the manufacturing sector.
Mr. Speaker, I have here quite eloquent charts for 1978 and 1979, but I would like to compare the months of September and October, 1979. While the value of our exports of finished products other than foodstuffs was roughly $15 billion in September, 1979, the value of our imports in the same field for the same month is $28,222 billion, which leaves us with a deficit of $13.1 billion. Did that improve in October? In October our exports, always in non-edible finished products, were of $17,166 billion and our imports in the same category were of $31,669 billion for a deficit of $14.5 billion for one month; for September and October the trading deficit for non-edible finished products increased by $1.5 billion. The Minister of Finance was strangely silent on this question which, by itself, would warrant an emergency debate in the House, emergency measures and an emergency program. Our problems are balance of payments problems and our huge budgetary deficits are caused by high unemployment rate. It is
The Budget-Mr. F. Roy
because of these deficits that we must bear such high interest rates which are close to being highway robbery. What was announced? We are given a provincial budget. Having debated nine budgets at the Quebec National Assembly, I knew that by provincial jurisdiction, by what authority is given to the provinces, they are limited to fiscal power, and freedom of action is determined by fiscal power. The speech given by the Minister of Finance was an exact replica of the budget speeches given by provincial finance ministers. Because he restricted himself exclusively to the fiscal power. When I made up my mind to run in a federal election, I assumed that in the Parliament of Canada we would be able to look into problems as a whole, that the main economic levers under the constitution were in Ottawa and that in Ottawa also were extraordinary tools which, if used wisely, could set the Canadian economy in motion again, alter the course of our destiny, and that with the new powers now available, the federal government, instead of using its spending power to invade areas under provincial jurisdiction and thus restrict even more the fiscal powers of the provinces, would effectively look toward the future and make sure that the provincial governments are its true partners.
Instead of that, the new government has chosen to pursue the policy initiated by the former government and invaded a fiscal area which until then, with a possible exception in 1920, had been left to the provinces. And these same people are now blaming the government. They had the nerve-I certainly could use more violent words, Mr. Speaker-to move this motion. That motion should read:
And that this House unreservedly condemns the government for its outright betrayal of its election promises-
Mr. Speaker, this House condemns the government for its budget which will place an unfair and unnecessary burden of higher gasoline prices, higher fuel oil prices, and higher taxes on middle and lower income Canadians. Yet, Mr. Speaker, a great deal of care has been taken, great subtleness displayed and even great caution exercized in this matter not to blame the government on a specific point, namely the 25-cent tax, because the former government, the official opposition now trying to defeat the present government at any cost in the hope of replacing it-does not want to commit itself to withdrawing this tax if it ever gets back into power. The opposite side will naturally be accused of having imposed it. Yet they do not want to commit themselves, they act very carefully, very cautiously, very skilfully because they actually do intend to keep it. Let us be frank about it. I did not hear a single member of the Liberal party state in this House he was committing himself to withdrawing it.
Mr. Speaker, it is quite interesting to go back in the past and study the content of the various statements made by the ministers. 1 am referring to Hansard for July 2, 1975, page 7409. Mr. Turner, who was then finance minister, was speaking about the 10-cent energy tax imposed by the former government, the present official opposition which today pre-
80079 74

December 13, 1979
The Budget-Mr. F. Roy
tends to be shocked. However, its members do not dare look at themselves in a mirror, they would be ashamed! Here is what the former finance minister, not the "blue" one but the "red" one, had to say:
It will also contribute significantly to energy conservation, an objective that I believe all Canadians support... To effect this objective, the special excise tax on gasoline-which is imposed at the manufacturer or importer level-will be refunded to all exempt users.
Some measures were announced in this regard. And, Mr. Speaker, if 1 go on reading, I see the then finance minister-I insist that he was a Liberal finance minister-said:
As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative leader .. .
Because he was indeed attacking the official opposition-
... insisted that oil subsidies should not be funded through an excise tax on gasoline because it would be a source of grudges between eastern and western provinces.
But what is even more surprising-and here I think our Progressive Conservative colleagues will not applaud me, but perhaps the Liberals will-Mr. Stanfield, the then leader of the opposition, said, and 1 quote:
He recognizes that. So what does he do? He does not try to counter that. He sets out immediately to increase vastly the inflationary aspect of the increase in the cost of energy, recognizing that the increase in the price of oil and gas at the wellhead would be inflationary and would create some inflationary pressure ... The minister said, however, that he could not give the House an estimate of how much gasoline would be conserved as a result.
The present minister did not do it either.
The ten cents tax-
It was ten cents at the time and they were mad, of course, as we would have been.
-will not aid the supply situation either. It will not encourage companies to go looking for oil or gas. It has nothing to do with easing the supply situation which the minister has always talked about in the past. When he was not blaming inflation or the weather or something that happened in the United States, he was emphasizing the importance of increasing supply in Canada. This ten cents per gallon tax on gasoline is not going to do anything to increase the supply of gasoline in Canada, and I am sure that the minister would not even make the argument that it might.
And further on, I am still quoting from the leader of the Progressive Conservative party, the then leader of the official opposition:
This ten.cent tax, being on a user basis, is very concentrated,-
It is strange how short our memory is.
-very visible, very stark in its effects on the consumer and taxpayer;-
That is a ten-cent tax, but they increase it to 25 cents.
-clearly its tendency will be to encourage the person on a wage or salary to push for a higher increase than might otherwise have been the case.
If a ten-cent tax prompts the taxpayers to ask for salary increases, how can a 25-cent tax not have the same effect? 1 should like to have an answer from the government side; since they have power, they must also have some knowledge.
[Mr. Roy (Beauce).J
It cannot have any other possible effect. This measure, being in no way conducive to restraint, will have a very clear and stark tendency in the opposite direction.
So the tax at the wholesale level is not just inflationary but it is also an increase in the cost of marketing the product.
A gasoline tax makes sense-
Listen to this one. This was said by the then leader of the opposition, and I am in complete agreement with him.
A gasoline tax makes sense as a road building tax in the hands of provinces. It makes sense if it is considered as a road user tax in the hands of provinces.
The Progressive Conservatives said this when they were in the opposition. They denounced a ten-cent tax, and now, five years later, when they are in power, they increase this tax to 25 cents. What logic! This is what we call consistency in politics. They follow the same old line and then wonder why taxpayers have all sorts of problems. There are many other things that I could quote, but since we shall not have the opportunity to bring up the subject again during the debate, I want to say that the motion introduced by the official opposition is inconsistent and insincere. It is hypocritical and aims only at deluding the population into believing that, after six months, they have seen enough to know exactly what to do.
Mr. Speaker, the truth must be told about the New Democratic Party. The NDP have also introduced a motion, not an amendment pure and simple, but a subamendment because our rules allow them to do so. For our part, we are not entitled to move an amendment or subamendment. Had we been able to do so and if the rules had allowed it, we would have proposed a subamendment and the three other parties would have joined forces against us because they refuse to strike at the root of evil and to tackle the basic problem.
And what does the New Democratic Party's motion say?
And this House unreservedly condemns the Government for its outright betrayal of its election promises to lower interest rates, to cut taxes, and to stimulate the growth of the Canadian economy, without a mandate from the Canadian people for such a reversal.
This is a non-confidence motion, no more and no less.
What is the New Democratic Party's proposal? What would they do, if they were the government, tomorrow morning?
Mr. Speaker, before I came to this House I always believed that the New Democratic Party was serious, but during the time I have been here, they have been attacking interest rates, inflation, unemployment, everything. But I still have to hear a positive proposal from them. Does that party believe only in carping instead of offering solutions? Frankly, this is rather disappointing. Fortunately our debates are televised, the people will be able to find out. I have not heard one single proposal from the New Democrats that would tell us what they would do if they were the government. Their approach is negative. They are physicians that know a disease when they see one, but are unable to cure it.
December 13, 1979

The	Acting	Speaker	(Mr.	Scott,	Victoria-Haliburton):
Order, please. 1 regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired. In order for him to continue, he requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.
The	Acting	Speaker	(Mr.	Scott,	Victoria-Haliburton):Since there is	no unanimous consent,	I recognize the hon.
member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Andras).


An hon. Member:: Let the hon. member for Beauce continue.
The	Acting	Speaker	(Mr.	Scott,	Victoria-Haliburton):
Order, please. I have recognized the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon because the time of the hon. member for Beauce has expired and there was no unanimous consent for him to continue. The hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard) is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Ouellet:: There has been unanimous consent.


Mr. Allard:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott, Victoria-Haliburton):: The
hon. member for Rimouski on a point of order.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding, when you indicated to the hon. member for Beauce that his time had expired, that apparently there was unanimous consent to let Mr. Roy conclude his remarks within two minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott, Victoria-Haliburton):: will ask the House again. Is it the pleasure of the House to allow the hon. member for Beauce to continue? Does he have unanimous consent to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Fabien Roy: Mr. Speaker, while I do not intend to take unfair advantage of this leave, I certainly would like, nevertheless, to deal with the essential points which in our opinion the House should seriously take into consideration, because we believe it is the only way to level up the Canadian economy and set our country on the road to progress and prosperity.
Here in Canada, the government has enormous means and extensive powers at its disposal, one of them being the central bank. The monetary policy does not come under provincial
The Budget-Mr. F. Roy
jurisdiction. It comes under federal jurisdiction. Where is this country's monetary policy? What means does the government intend to use concerning its potential and actual relations with its commercial partners, with the other countries? Tariffs are there to serve the purpose. Also, the government has all kinds of means at its disposal to pull us out of this economic stagnation. But, Mr. Speaker, we are caught in a vicious circle. The interest we have to pay each year on our national debt is in itself a factor which drags the country still further into debt. Do we intend to get out of it? Why is the management of our national debt not a responsibility of the Bank of Canada? Of course, that would involve amending our legislation, revamping our Bank Act in order to give the Canadian government the authority needed to stop this pyramidal indebtedness which is the cause of this absence of government policies, of the current rate of inflation, of unemployment and of high interest rates, for our budgetary deficit is so high that it paralyses any government action. And this, Mr. Speaker, at a time when we are told that increases, or rather deficits, are exjjected to reach $ 10 billion, and the cost of the interest of the national debt $ 12 billion within two years. May I close my speech, Mr. Speaker, with a quotation from the former prime minister who still sits in this House as opposition leader (Mr. Trudeau) and hon. member for Mount Royal. In an interview he gave Fortune magazine, this is what Mr. Trudeau had to say, and I quote:
The worst bellyachers are the bankers. They have never had it so good as since I have been leader of the government. I am ashamed of it.
That is what the former prime minister said, the present opposition leader.
They are growing much richer than the manufacturing sector, or the natural resources sector, or the whole of the service industries.
Mr. Trudeau then adds further that, while complaining about what they call the unwarranted interference of the government in business, the bankers are asking the government to amend the Bank Act in such a way as to better protect them against what competition they now have.
Mr. Speaker, President Roosevelt, whom I am going to quote for a second time to the House, said when the United States entered the war that if his country wanted to win the war it would have to demystify the monetary power. If Canada wants to meet the challenge of the future, it too will have to demystify monetary power.
Just as long as the political groups that lead the country refuse to do what is necessary for the central bank to play its true role, so that we can have a real monetary policy, so that the credit of the nation can be cashed in and accounted for in the interest of all Canadians, we will never know any results other than that, whether or not we hold elections, whether or not we go from the Grits to the Tories, and even adding the New Democrats, nothing will ever change. The question is fundamental, Mr. Speaker, and I invite my colleagues on both sides of the House to reflect on it if we are truly interested in the future of our people.

December 13, 1979
The Budget-Mr. Andras


Mr. Fox:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would permit me to ask him a short question to clarify his position? If the Chair is agreeable, I should ask the hon. member whether he is against the 25-cent a gallon excise tax or whether he is in favour of the maintenance of that excise tax provided it is transferred to the province of Quebec?


Fabien Roy: Mr. Speaker, earlier I answered those questions from newsmen. I do not fear at all to express my opinion in the House. We are clearly and categorically against it and I thank the hon. member for allowing me another minute, as the increase from 7 cents to 25 cents on transportation fuels is an extremely important subject. We are fundamentally against it. However, 1 should like to know what the opposition intends to do and to propose, and whether they are prepared to discuss that tax? Of course, if it were to be changed, and it is not our responsibility, if the opposition agrees and intends to go on working in that direction if the government changes, we should have, of course, to ensure that the tax returns where it comes from, namely in the provinces, and it will be our responsibility.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I would be gratified if I thought I would get the same degree of attention from members in the House today as the previous speaker upon whose every word certain members were hanging, for reasons which, of course, escape some of us. 1 rather doubt that will happen. If it did, it would be for different reasons. But the mystery did not unfold. We really do not know where the hon. member and his party stand. I guess we will wait for that until later.
Even at the risk of giving up a little partisan turf in this debate, I must admit that I had been looking forward for the last couple of months with some hope and modest expectation to the budget. As a minister who has had responsibility for the Treasury Board and later for the board of economic development ministers, certainly I am aware of the developing problems over the last decade of controlling expenditures and having sufficient economic development in the country, which is the only way that expenditures of the government can be financed.
Especially as I was serving on the board of economic development ministers 1 became more and more convinced that the tools that were once developed by Keynes and by others, originally to rescue a world that was sunk in the morass of economic deprivation and moral despair, into which it was dragged by the famous or infamous excesses of Conservative orthodoxy in the thirties, and which later served this and other countries rather well during a period when economic progress was ever onward and upward, had finally outlived their usefulness, and we certainly needed something new and different.
I would say that if the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) had chosen to publish in his background papers to the budget the other night some of the details and figures of the record of

the last two or three years of the previous government, it would have been convincing evidence that at the time of its defeat last May that government was already on the way to keeping expenditures within the bounds set by the rate of inflation, added to the rate of real growth, below the GNP nominal growth rate. There is no doubt about that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Knight Andras: Hon. members opposite can giggle over there, but if they look at the facts they will find that is true, and I am sure they would prefer to deal with truth than fancy.
Indeed, we were putting in place economic measures that I think were improving the economy. At any rate, unemployment rates had been receding during the past two years, and early in this year the inflation rate in Canada was at least three points below that of the United States.
Given our feeling, our conviction, that the correct economic measures to meet the new times were in place and working, my colleagues and I were somewhat distressed to see members of the present government, when seeking office, announce their set of notorious and, thank goodness, by now largely abandoned list of election promises. In that we saw an attempt by the Conservative government to grab power through the simple expediency of pushing past an electorate a platform specifically concocted to pass in its absurdity and in its irresponsibility all previous examples of folly perpetrated by the Tories or even, I think, of any other party that got elected in this country.
The election took place. We came back here. We waited for months and months and months and months for the new government to take office and get rolling. I certainly sighed with some relief, although with a considerable degree of concern about the cynicism inherent in his comments, when the Minister of Finance just stood up and said: "Of course, we accept the doctrine that nothing said by my party during the election campaign meant anything". As we listened to some of the other things they were saying we were rather glad that he went on to say, by implication, that any further senseless pronouncements by anybody, including the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark), his leader-anybody in the government-could equally be ignored.
We had some difficulty then over those months wondering what the new occupation of this new Conservative regime might be since it had abandoned all its promises in its platform enunciated during the election campaign. In any event, as 1 said, 1 came here the other evening to hear the Minister of Finance present a budget with some hope and some modest expectation. I can only say after hearing it and reading it over, and after looking at the documents, in most of my private sentiments I am bitterly disappointed.
Here is a government finally seizing the occasion in which to unveil its view, its 17-year long deliberation, about the Canadian economy in its first budget in 17 years, as the Minister of Finance told us the other night. This is a budget presenting to the expectant electorate of this country all the treasure of all its expertise and its experience and its hope about our national
December 13, 1979

future about which they had thought over the 17 years. They gave that precious gift they bore us the other night the title of "Achieve Our Potential Budget".
What is the vision they offered to us? As far as 1 can discern, in their desire to put it all out and to let it all hang out for the next four or five years on the records they are offering to this country, which already has too high an unemployment rate, a consistent, continuing and even higher unemployment rate.


An hon. Member:: Lower than yours.


Robert Knight Andras: Oh, is that the case? Is that right? Let us just examine that for a moment. The projection of the Conservative government is to see unemployment, and they are aiming for it, at a rate of 8.3 per cent next year. What has been so far only the occasional monthly high around that figure they have now set out as a projection, their target, which becomes the norm lasting for the next two years. After that-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Knight Andras: You can take your medicine now so things will improve later. The best thing you can look at in their five-year projection is that at the end of the five years, and for the last three years of that period, they are accepting 7.5 per cent unemployment as their target.
We have inflation on the one hand and unemployment on the other hand. One looks from that, having been disappointed, about unemployment, to what this great new plan of theirs is going to do for the cost of living and inflation. What do they promise us? Next year they promise 11 per cent and the following year 10.1 per cent. That is, of course, in the low range. Do not look at the high range of their forecast which is probably more likely to be the realization. Eventually, after five years, in 1983 or 1984, they say we are going to get down to 6 per cent, if you can believe them. Frankly, I say that anybody who would accept that kind of a forecast five years ahead, in the face of the international shocks that we face from time to time, is really very naive.
This new face and new vision of Canada, this new version of how to run the economy that they have promised to our confederation, has turned out to be a death mask. It is a face of a government obviously with a death wish, because I do not think the people of this country or the members of this House can very long permit the survival of a regime which can offer as its most optimistic scenario for the next five years a fate for this country that is worse than anything we have experienced in the recent past or, indeed, as bad as anything we have experienced in this country since the 1930s. That is their own projection. That is what they say when they set it all out there in all these documents that reveal their program for the future. They do not even keep it a secret. It is all in there and it is manifest in every page of the budget when you read it, Mr. Speaker. In fact, they are even increasing taxes on some cosmetics, risking probably the only chance they had to disguise the revised face of this grim Conservative party with its grim Conservative pessimism that they term reality.
The Budget-Mr. Andras
Those dismal figures I have quoted from their own documents, the summary of the budget papers, are not really surprising when one looks at the economic doctrine and the techniques that they intend to employ in trying to improve this country's economy. They have two key hinges on which their policy hangs; one is to get the deficit down, with a long-term reduction in the federal deficit, and the other is the so-called energy self-sufficiency policy.
The government has been crying about how they will get the federal cash deficit down. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) is going around slashing, cutting, shouting, making speeches, but he accepts the projection made the other night that continuing increases in government expenditures will be higher than each of the last three years, a 10 per cent annual increase.


An hon. Member:: But a lower deficit.


Robert Knight Andras: 1 am very glad the hon. member brought that up because I am going to come to that subject and indicate how it will be accomplished by this new government. The President of the Treasury Board accepts government expenditures increasing from $48 billion last year to $78 billion at the end of this five-year projection, a 60 per cent increase. This is the government's dramatic new policy while interest charges rise from about $7 billion a year to about $14 billion a year with higher inflation and unemployment, and real growth expected, even in the wildest of expectations, to be no higher than 3 per cent.


An hon. Member:: It is all on your shoulders.


Robert Knight Andras: Listen to all this nonsense. On Tuesday night the Conservative party finally cut the umbilical cord and is off and flying-or not flying, but crashing on their own. Most of the press people in this country give them no more than seven months to whirl around saying, "What a tough job we have because of the previous government". From this point on the figures will be their figures. This plan is their plan and the plan which contains these projections to which I have referred.


An hon. Member:: It will get the cash deficit down.


Robert Knight Andras: I am glad that the hon. gentleman brought that up.


Mr. Friesen:: You cooked them often enough.


Robert Knight Andras: I am merely referring to the material, or the ammunition, which the government gave us the other night. The Conservative party has boasted that they would reduce the deficit from $10 billion to $4 billion. Their expenditures will go up $30 billion and their tax increases will go up by over $3 billion a year. But yet they still end up with a budgetary deficit of $9 billion.
Do hon. members know that the cash deficit reduction will come from an accidental accrual of pension funds which has

December 13, 1979
The Budget-Mr. Andras
nothing to do with that government's policy? Let us not talk about fudging or cooking the books in that game. It is not a reduction in the cash deficit as a result of government expenditure restraint, but as a result of a massive increase in taxes. We all know upon whom the burden of those taxes will fall. The accrual of pension funds was a lucky break.
I do not think that any sophisticated analyst upon reading that document would argue that the government and the President of the Treasury Board are earning their kudos by being tough managers and balancing the books by restraint. Instead, they went in the opposite direction and raised taxes but had a lucky break with regard to pension funds.
The Conservative party neglected to mention in this budget one of the promises which it floated past the Canadian electorate in May, and that is the general tax cut of about $2 billion. There is no sign of it in this budget. With the increase in taxes of $3.5 billion next year, considering that the budgetary deficit will change hardly at all and that the cash deficit will come down by sheer accident as a result of those other cash flows, where is that extraordinary increase in taxes going? It is going into the fetish and priority demand of the Conservative caucus, the mortgage interest deductibility program.
Just a few days ago outside this House, the Minister of Finance said that the mortgage interest deductibility plan was not his priority, and that even though the rest of his party thinks that it is a pretty hot thing, he does not. But the minister came back into the House the next day and said that the mortgage plan was the greatest thing since sliced bread. The government is using closure, before the bill has even gone through committee, to indicate how much they think of that plan. It is a very bad misallocation of resources.
There is very little reference in this budget to international trade. I am glad to see that the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Wilson) is in the House today. The government wails about the balance of payments, the invisibles and so forth. The only thing that it has done is to export a lot of our natural gas. One would expect from the reputation of the big "C" Conservatives that they would be good at wheeling and dealing abroad, at getting contracts and sparking up the export effort of this country.
I read a speech by the Minister of State for International Trade the other day in which he boasted about a task force on the export policies of the federal government. The minister knows full well that that task force was put in place long before he assumed office. I hope that it works. I have no objection to the government's using these ideas and mechanisms and ensuring that they serve the purpose for which they were intended when we put them in place.
Let us talk about what has happened in the world of international trade. We have the timid trio of trade-the senator in the other place who could not make it on his own, the Minister of State for International Trade and the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Industry (Mr. Huntington). They are bad enough, but then we have the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hnatyshyn), who gets into the act or stays out of it, the Secretary of State for External

Affairs (Miss MacDonald) and the Prime Minister, all of whom are making statements. We are now in a fundamental position where one of our most important problems and opportunities is that of solving our current account imbalance.
What is the record of this government in international affairs of this nature? They started off behind the eight ball by having blown millions, if not billions, of potential contracts and jobs in this country by their cynical suggestion of moving the Canadian embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. There is no question that it will take a great deal of work and a long, long time for Canada, because of this government, to recover any basis of negotiation in the Middle East that makes any sense whatsoever. By that stupid, immature, cynical, one, single vote-getting promise they made, they have done a great deal of damage and they know it.
The government talks a great deal about energy self-sufficiency in the 1980s and the 1990s. They are talking about a goal which is ten or 15 years away, and we need oil supplies now. Everyone will admit that there is a possible heating oil problem this winter.


Mr. Wilson:: Where were you a few years ago?


Robert Knight Andras: Where was I a few years ago? Well, I will get into that with the minister. Let us take one precise example. Last spring, the former minister of energy went to Mexico and Venezuela. He went for two purposes. One was to shore up oil supplies and decrease our dependency on Middle Eastern oil for the short-term ahead, the next five to ten years.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: He went there to grandstand.


Robert Knight Andras: Hon. members may want to listen to this because they may wish to adjust their policy and take some constructive advice for a change. The former minister of energy went to Mexico to arrange a contract for 50,000 barrels of oil a day with delivery starting in 1980, and 100,000 barrels a day with delivery starting in 1981. The Mexican government was not all that eager to make such a commitment because they were not ready to mass distribute their oil supplies until they had the financial arrangements worked out. Because of the special relationship between Canada and Mexico, they agreed to make this commitment, and not at gouging prices.
The other purpose for going to these countries was to establish a framework for a reciprocal trade agreement with regard to Canadian exports. We are talking about $6 billion both ways in this contract. That is not a small sum. The framework was there. The agreement was initialled and negotiated with the President of Mexico and the former minister of energy, mines and resources. It had only to be ratified and implemented. The President of Mexico had been invited here for that purpose but his visit was understandably interrupted by the election.
A country like Mexico that is going to grow, that has a special affinity, respect, affection and a high priority for Canada-Mexico trade, was treated this way. My information is
December 13, 1979

that there has been no denial of this from across the floor. Since May 22 until a few days ago when we raised it in the House, the only communication this government had with the Mexican government was to send them a signal about the oil agreement, telling them to scratch out the word "Petro-Canada". There had been no formal contact with the President of Mexico to renew the invitation to him to come to Canada until a few days ago when we raised the matter in the House.
Mexico is a special trading partner of Canada. If that is not enough, on November 26 in Guanajuato, Mexico, a bilateral trade meeting between the Canadian Association for Latin American Trade and high level ministers of the Mexican government discussed trade between our two countries. The Mexicans considered this to be extremely significant. In spite of the insistence of the Canadian ambassador to Mexico and the Mexican ambassador to Canada, however, that we send one of our timid trio of trade to Mexico to help the Canadian delegation and to meet with the President of Mexico and his senior officials, those ministers said they were too busy to go. Instead, we sent the director general of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The Mexicans were insulted and offended.
This is just one of a series of inept performances by this government which is beginning to cool relations at a time when we are involved in negotiating a $6 billion exchange of trade, to say nothing of getting relief from our dependency on Middle East oil. The Mexicans like and respect us and are willing to deal with us.
Time will not permit me to go over the sad saga of similar gaffes and examples of ineptitude and indifference by this government in the area of international trade which is so important to us.
One of these days I shall put on record the performance of the Minister of State for International Trade with regard to international trade with Argentina. I know the problems with that contract, and because there was a loss it is doubly important that we capitalize on that very expensive lesson about the development of our nuclear technology. Before May, AECL had the inside track in Argentina but this government procrastinated. There was some disagreement between the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Prime Minister and others about nuclear sales.
As a consequence, they did not make up their minds until they met in Jasper in August, although meetings in Argentina had been arranged and there was a deadline for the contract. I am told that the minister waited-I will accept any correction and I should like to hear about this from him some time-for ten days before he went to Mexico. They had expected two ministers, a senior minister and an inner cabinet minister, and I am told that the junior minister who arrived instead had a great deal of trouble getting an appointment with the janitors.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: That is not so.


Robert Knight Andras: Let us get it on the record, then. I have put down a request for the production of documents on the Mexi-
The Budget-Mr. Atkey
can fiasco so I shall do the same thing with regard to the Argentinian contract.
The reputation this government is getting in the Middle East, Argentina, Venezuela, Mexico and, I am told, Japan, is shocking. Many Canadians would expect that the Conservatives might be able to do a job in this field.
I see my time is nearly up, Mr. Speaker, but I must say I have not seen anything in this budget that is on the right track. The government has a fetish about the reduction of the deficit, and, frankly, it has a commitment to objectives which I share. But, of course, I do not agree with their methods. They said they would accomplish everything by restraint but they have not. I think we are faced with the highest single increase in taxes since World War II. The taxes are regressive and oppressive and set Canadian against Canadian. I do not see how some hon. members opposite can live with their conscience and with this kind of budget. They should not try to tell sophisticated Canadians that they are balancing that budget and reducing cash requirements through tight expenditure control. They have accepted an increase in expenditures of $30 billion in five years, a 60 per cent increase. They are accepting a 10 per cent annual rate of increase in expenditures. They are playing games with their story about the budget reduction because actually their budgetary deficit comes down very little. After all these bitter pills they are asking us to swallow, this is the result.
It is sadly amusing, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance has at least one thing going for him-he has a delightful wit but it is wearing thin, Mr. Speaker. After Tuesday night no one is laughing at that joker any more. In his speech he boasted that his great grandfather had presented a budget in Newfoundland 51 years ago. That takes us back to 1928, Mr. Speaker. Shortly after that, Canada had its most dismal experience of a Conservative regime through the thirties. I am also told that five years after the budget was presented, Newfoundland went bankrupt.
Mr. Speaker, this government has to straighten up and fly right very soon. There was tolerance in the country to let the new boys learn their job but the evidence we had the other night shows that tolerance to be fast disappearing. A great deal of damage can be done, Mr. Speaker, and I do not think this House of Commons has much choice about what should be done with this budget.


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, I am participating in this crucial debate today in my capacity as the minister responsible for employment policy in the present government. And I preface my remarks by saying frankly to this House that I am very much aware of the awesome problems that face the government in this field. They are awesome problems that have been left largely in neglect by our predecessors and they are crying out for direct and proper attention.
Today in Canada we have a double problem involving a paradox. We have an unacceptably high level of unemployment in general-no one disputes that-but at the same time

December 13, 1979
The Budget-Mr. At key
we have a shortage of workers with specific skills. This government intends to act to meet this challenge.
There is another challenge too, that of securing justice for those groups within the economy that have traditionally faced special problems in the job market-youth, women, native peoples, the handicapped and others. We intend to do something about that too.
[ Translation]
Besides, it is clear that the demographic changes in our country and the necessity for our economy to adapt to the energy crisis and to the new physiognomy of international trade will provoke upheavals in the labour force and the labour market in coming years. Therefore, the government must adopt a flexible and balanced approach to take up these challenges.

The immediate problem of young Canadians seeking to establish themselves in a tight labour market has been at the forefront of our considerations in determining the nature and scale of our employment programs for 1980-81. Our concern stems from two main sources. First, youth suffer much more than their fair share of existing unemployment. For example, in November of this year, while youth made up about a quarter of the labour force, they also accounted for almost half of the total unemployment figure. In fact, of the number of Canadians who were looking for work, 15.4 per cent of those aged 15 to 19 and 10.7 per cent of those aged 20 to 24 were unemployed, compared with 5.3 per cent aged 25 and older. I am inclined to the view that these figures probably underestimate the problem because young people are perhaps more easily discouraged from looking for work when they sense it is difficult to find.
The second concern of the government stems from recognition of the importance that finding and keeping meaningful jobs has for the self-esteem and future labour market experience of young people.
[ Translation]
It is well known that the first experiences of a worker have a determining influence on the rest of his active life and on his income level. The young people of the post-war baby boom now represent over a quarter of the labour force and during the years to come they will rapidly join the ranks of adult workers. For example, it is anticipated that in 1985 they will represent only 23 per cent of the labour force compared to over 26 per cent in 1980. Under these circumstances, it is particularly important that they now get the training and qualifications they will need to lead an active, significant and productive life as adults. Because above all, the government does not want to breed another generation of unemployment insurance and social welfare recipients. Our young people can do better than that, especially in a country as rich as ours in human and natural resources.

Mr. Speaker, although solid work experience in real jobs is important to all youth, the truly vital factor, especially for young people who have not had the advantage of higher education or formal skill training, is simply to land that first job. This can be critical to his or her ultimate success because it provides that all-important starting point. In that connection, I firmly believe that an authentic job, a real job, in the private sector will be more credible to potential employers than a job on a government make-work project.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ronald George Atkey: It is about those make-work projects that employers tend to be skeptical, if not downright negative.
We are also aware of the concern of parents for their children who are unable to find work or who drift between dead-end jobs and government support programs without learning to stand on their own feet. In fact, many parents feel that they have done everything possible in terms of educating their children and they ask themselves where they have failed or where they have gone wrong. Of course, the answer in most cases is that no blame can be attached to the parents. The problem has been the failure in the past to provide adequate incentives for the private sector to provide sufficient jobs. In the past, there have been a number of measures designed to alleviate youth unemployment. However, these measures, which existed in several federal departments, lacked a clear policy direction. The public was often confused by what appeared to be a hodge-podge of programs.
As announced in the Speech from the Throne, we will be establishing a youth employment secretariat to provide the direction that has been lacking in the past under the previous government. This secretariat will monitor existing programs and co-ordinate them to ensure that duplication is reduced and that they are meeting the real needs of Canadian youth. As an additional means to make sure that youth employment programs provide the best value for money invested in them, the youth employment secretariat will work to harmonize federal youth employment programs with those of the provinces. I might say there are many good programs in the provinces. One of the first tasks of this new secretariat will be to ensure co-ordination of temporary employment programs for the spring and summer of 1980 to accommodate the thousands of young students expected to come onto the labour market at that time.
Our commitment to youth, however, does not exclude other groups who face particular difficulties in the labour market and who do have a valid call on our energies and available resources.
The participation of women in the labour force is a matter which came up in the question period today, and 1 thank the hon. member opposite for raising it. This has been a problem which has been rising rapidly and continuously since the post-war period. Unfortunately, the trend of having enough jobs for women who want to get into the labour market as a permanent proposition is going to continue for some time.

December 13, 1979

Although this human resource is one of our strengths as a nation and of our economy, for too many years the talents and abilities of Canadian women have not been fully used. One measure of this is to be found in the fact that although women account for over 39 per cent of our labour force, they also make up about 47 per cent of our unemployed. Moreover, women frequently suffer from job segregation and low wages when they do start to work.
Such barriers are gradually being removed and my department is embarking now upon a major campaign to speed up the process. We are encouraging women to train for all kinds of jobs, including many which for too long have been regarded as male preserves. A good idea of the potential of this exercise can be seen at such projects as Syncrude in Fort McMurray, Alberta, where women in hard hats are an integral and essential part of the work force. That is the sort of thing we are going to see in this country.
Those of us who have had good fortune and good health too often forget not only the problems but the employment difficulties of those who are physically or mentally handicapped. These must be brought to the fore. We cannot continue to shunt occupationally handicapped persons to employment outside of the mainstream of Canadian life. The new programs must and will make provision for their employment in meaningful jobs in the private sector.
Although there are no accurate statistics which fully describe the labour market situation of Canadians of native ancestry, our experience clearly indicates that the problems they face are serious indeed. The disproportionately faster growth of the working age population of native youth, together with structural factors such as low levels of educational attainment, limited job skills and geographic isolation, contribute to all these problems.
I would like to emphasize the role that affirmative action can play in helping to ensure that women, natives and the physically disabled obtain a representative share of jobs within a company or organization. Affirmative action, which is a relatively new approach to this problem in Canada, involves an employer developing a comprehensive, results-oriented plan to remove those employment practices which act as a barrier to these groups but which are not work-related.
Already eight medium and large-sized Canadian firms have recently agreed to develop affirmative action plans with my department, and I understand another 12 agreements are under negotiation. This is all as a result of effective action by officials in Canada Employment and Immigration since June 4 who are working together with the private sector to achieve a worth-while objective.
In January, the government and cabinet will be reviewing the effectiveness of the present voluntary approach in terms of federal contractors; that is, people who want or already have contracts with the federal government. This review will be with a view to ensuring compliance with the affirmative action concept and ensuring that compliance is widespread. Whatever decision is taken by Cabinet in January, I can assure this House and the people of Canada that affirmative action to
The Budget-Mr. Atkey
reduce systematic discrimination will be a major priority of this government and will be most vigorously pursued.
On Tuesday evening the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) indicated in his budget speech that my department will be launching a number of new initiatives to stimulate the creation of additional jobs and to help individual Canadians obtain meaningful and rewarding employment. I would like now to describe generally these initiatives and the principles upon which they are based.
It is, and must continue to be, the private sector which generates most of the real employment opportunities in this country. It accomplishes this as a by-product of producing the goods and services which people demand through their purchases. In other words, the priority objective is production of goods and services with a real economic value, rather than make-work job creation.
The aim of start/stop programs such as the local initiatives program, OFY and Canada Works, may well have had some validity in the early 1970s when unemployment was seen- wrongly, as it turned out-as a short-term phenomenon which could be treated almost entirely by temporary palliatives. The Liberal concept is to take a gob of money, throw it at job creation and somehow everything will be all right in the long run. To continue with an emphasis of this kind when it is obvious that short-term or easy solutions are not the answer to the problem of unemployment would be irresponsible. Such programs discourage the kind of mobility needed in the labour force and generate dependencies on government support programs in general. They also divert attention from the need to find more permanent solutions to chronic problems. 1 am convinced that our intention to move towards longer-term solutions by recognizing the primacy of the private sector when it comes to generating real and truly productive jobs is fully in accord with the preference of all Canadians for regular and secure jobs.

Far be it from me to suggest that the private sector alone is responsible for ensuring that there are enough jobs for all those who want and can work. It is indeed clearly the responsibility of the government to provide the required parameters, and to be the prime mover in the creation of jobs. All in all, what I am talking about is the necessity of real co-operation among government, employers and labour.
Mr. Speaker, over the last few months 1 was most impressed to see that the representatives of employers as well as labour and all levels of government have a very positive determination to combine forces to define the problems and work towards solutions. In such a spirit of co-operation, the government can and must act in at least three areas. First, we intend to help establish a social and economic climate conducive to the prosperity of the private sector and to help that sector take initiatives that will produce permanent jobs, as provided for by my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) in his
2342

The Budget-Mr. Atkey
budget. It is also an area where my department intends to make its contribution as I shall explain later on.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, we will encourage the private sector to play its full role in employing people, whatever their sex, age, ethnic or cultural background. We will be doing this in complete realization of current and future social and demographic changes. Some examples are the increasing participation and rising expectations of some in the labour market, the aging of the baby boom generation, alterations in family size and structure, and the aspirations of native Canadians.
Finally, we will be helping individuals increase their employability in situations where they are willing to work but where lack of information, lack of funds or lack of opportunity prevents them from obtaining the training and experience they need. At the same time this will help employers get the skilled people they need. We must also recognize that there are some individuals so lacking in basic qualifications that they are not acceptable to employers even when economic conditions are buoyant. For such individuals, we intend to provide assistance which will allow them, in time, to make their own way in the labour market.
The key to resolving the employment problems of young Canadians and others who have difficulty obtaining employment is more jobs. And, as we all know, the expansion of the private sector is the key to creating more jobs. That is why working in partnership with the private sector is at the centre of this government's approach to our future expansion. It is also why I am today giving notice of a ways and means motion setting out the income tax changes necessary to support a major new program of private employment incentives. Pursuant to Standing Order 60 I wish to table a notice of ways and means motion, and I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to designate an order of the day necessary for the consideration thereof. The incentive will be a tax credit of $80 per week for each eligible worker for a minimum of 13 weeks up to a maximum of one year. A work week must be a minimum of 35 hours subject to any collective agreement regarding a normal work week.
We hope to have the private employment incentives program in effect early in February, 1980. I hope that the motion will be considered by this House very soon after conclusion of the general budget debate. If the motion is accepted, it is my intention to introduce the necessary legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: Order. Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister should table a motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ronald George Atkey: The basic intent of the legislation is to stimulate employment by allowing employers to claim the $80 weekly tax credit in return for providing jobs under certain conditions. In the event that an employer would not be able to use the tax credits in a given year, it would be possible to carry them forward for up to five years.

December 13, 1979
The two elements of the program will be concerned with, first, the incremental employment of youth, and second, with improving or maintaining the employability of people with hiring handicaps, particularly youth, natives, older workers, women re-entrants into the labour force and the disabled. These elements are to come into effect in early February, 1980. If the private sector responds as I anticipate, we will be able to place in private sector jobs before the next fiscal year draws to a close up to 105,000 unemployed young people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ronald George Atkey: Of this total, 89,000 young people will be placed in new private sector jobs that did not exist before; an additional 16,000 young people with severe difficulties in obtaining continuing employment will also be placed in private sector jobs. On top of all this, some 15,000 older Canadians who have had such severe difficulties will also be placed in private sector jobs.
Whether we reach the placement ceilings under either the incremental element or the employability element will depend a great deal on the response we get from the leaders of business and industry. We will be appealing to them to join with us in an all-out effort to create employment opportunities for Canadians, and especially young Canadians.
In addition to forging a partnership with the private business and industrial sectors, we want to co-operate with the voluntary sector in creating jobs directly for youth. Although the voluntary sector has demonstrated a tremendous capacity to perform an invaluable service function, as witness their efforts in the case of the Indo-Chinese refugees, such organizations have been largely untapped as a potential source of concrete work experience for young men and women.
Through a new national youth service program I expect that about 14,000 young people will, by the end of the fiscal year 1980-81, be enlisted by the voluntary sector to render a service to their country, their province or their community rather than having to depend on unemployment insurance benefits or welfare. We should make special efforts to seek the active participation of women's groups in this program. The national youth service program is to be funded at a level of at least $70 million in the year 1980-81.

We especially want to help the young people who are really disadvantaged and who are in great need of assistance. We do not want to repeat some of the mistakes of the Opportunities for Youth and Local Initiatives programs where, in many cases, middle and upper class young people financed their own little projects with public funds without the country or the community being able to benefit from it. By obtaining the participation of recognized organizations which have already proven that they can bring their services to those most in need, we believe that the emphasis will be placed less on innovation for its own sake and more on better opportunities to implement
December 13, 1979

projects which will have long-term beneficial effects and will provide a valid job experience for young people.

The government will also be setting aside $50 million, obtained through reductions in some programs, to finance economic development projects in areas of high unemployment, a significant proportion to be directed to regional areas, primarily in eastern Canada. The specific projects are now under final review and details of the federal proposals, subject to further consultation with the provinces concerned, will be announced soon. They will include small craft harbours, fishing vessel assistance, fish-handling facilities and technological development in Quebec and the four Atlantic provinces.
Let me talk for a moment about the shortage of skilled labour in Canada. Immigration may be an appropriate response to assist the private sector when there is absolutely no other way to fill an immediate labour force need. But a much better and longer-term solution is to give high priority to the training of Canadians in the highly skilled occupations which are or will be in short supply.
Despite the need for restraint in other areas, this government will be maintaining the regular industrial and institutional skills training programs which have proven to be so valuable. In 1980-81 we shall be allocating about $610 million, plus up to $196 million in unemployment insurance benefits, to support industrial and institutional training. Moreover, this government will be increasing financial expenditures to help industry overcome critical trade skills shortages. The critical trade skills training initiatives will be funded at $20 million over the next fiscal year, double the amount provided by the previous government. Under this program the federal government will make financial support available to employers willing to train Canadians. For such employers the support will be for a maximum of two years or half the training time, whichever is less.
As with many programs, the success of this one depends on the willingness of employers, with the support of union leaders, to establish a training capability and to select workers for training. I have already indicated that there is a demonstrated willingness on the part of employers, the labour movement and governments to work together and plan for the future. A good example of this is the establishment in Ontario of a large number of local industrial training advisory committees during the past year. These groups are charged with identifying manpower problems and working toward their resolution at the local level. This is the type of initiative to which we intend to give out full support.
In keeping with the government's intention to ensure that key activities come back to this House at regular intervals to justify their continued need to exist, a sunset evaluation report on our new private employment incentives program will be laid before Parliament after two years. This means, in effect, that there will be the option to end the program after two years. Whether the program continues or not will depend on the resuits of the evaluation and on what Parliament feels should be done. In any case, it will lapse automatically after three
The Budget-Mr. Atkey
years unless Parliament resolves to continue it for a further period of time.
I mentioned earlier that there are individuals who many employers are reluctant to employ. For such individuals the local employment assistance program is functioning successfully as a vehicle to increase their self-sufficiency. It has been shown that participation in a project funded by this program increases the employability and earnings of more than half the clients. A recent cost-benefit study of the program indicates that for every dollar invested Canada is getting over two dollars in return. That is why we are continuing this program. It is clear that the local employment assistance program is an extremely worth-while program which merits the expansion planned. This program will be a major element of my department's programs for native Canadians. More than half the program funds will be allocated in such a way as to encourage the development of long-term jobs in native communities.
By developing these programs and by ensuring that the major components will be subject to sunset review and lapsing clauses, we have maintained the flexibility which will be needed to shift the balance between programs, and the specific problems they address, as circumstances change. One of the things we can foresee now is that the labour force will "age" as we move into the 1980s. The "baby boom" generation will enter the adult age group, reflecting the birth rate decline which started in the 1960s. It will not be fully replaced by new youth of working age. The critical nature of the youth unemployment problem can be expected to ease as a result of these developments, as well as because of the programs we are initiating. As this occurs, it will be necessary from time to time to reassess the situation and possibly to shift the balance so as to direct emphasis to other priority areas.
As my colleague, the Minister of Finance said last evening, the eighties are not going to be easy years. The impact of major changes in the labour market in both the rate and nature of technological change and in the needs of Canadians as they go through the life cycle will generate substantial challenges. This government is ready to meet these challenges and I believe the measures 1 have just described will move us firmly in the right direction.
Above all, however, I would like to underline that although this government is prepared to take policy initiatives and back them up with dollars, the government cannot do the job alone. In the final analysis it is up to the entrepreneurs and businessmen of Canada from both large and small businesses to generate the economic activity which will open up employment opportunities. Our function as a government is to play a supportive role and help create a climate in which individual Canadians are willing to make the judgments and take the risks which will allow the real potential of our economy to be realized. I am sure all members will agree that given this country's combination of human and natural resources, our potential is considerable indeed.

December 13, 1979
The Budget-Mr. Atkey
[ Translation]


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. minister accept a question?


Francis Fox: I rise on a point of order!


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: 1 rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: The hon. member for Longueuil on a point of order.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, could I ask a question of the hon. minister?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: The hon. member can put a question only with the unanimous consent of the House, since the minister's time has expired. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[ Translation]


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Could the minister tell me the full amount that he has set aside for job creation and the total number of jobs that he has created?


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, the program which was announced today is largely a program for the fiscal year 1980-81. The targets I gave you for the creation of jobs was some 105,000 jobs for young people, and an additional 15,000 jobs for persons who are not young persons but nevertheless handicapped in the total sense of having severe difficulties in obtaining continuing employment. On top of that there will be training positions for some 120,000 young people and many more training positions for older Canadians, the total number of which is not fully clear. On top of that-and 1 am repeating the contents of my speech-there will be 14,000 persons in the national youth service program. The total cost of our job-creation program is, in dollar terms, exactly the same amount of money provided by the previous government. 1 can assure the hon. member that for the same dollars we will be getting twice the value.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Hogan:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to ask the minister a brief question. Did he say that the Department of Employment and Immigration is now going to take over the small craft and harbours program entirely, or it is going to play the role that it played traditionally of supplementing the job that was done for the Department of Fisheries?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: Order, please. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that this is not the question period and that this question, like the former

one, can only be asked with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, may I repeat this again, in the eastern alternatives employment program referred to by my colleague, the Minister of Finance, in the budget debate the other night, there is a sum of $50 million which has not been allocated in any specific way but which will include a number of projects, such as small craft and harbours. Those projects need not necessarily be funded directly by my department, but one of the principal criteria for their funding is that they be labour intensive.


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, it is not every day that I have the pleasure of speaking following the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Atkey). In the past few weeks it seemed that I had always preceded him. But in this way I may in some way have the last word.
While it is a pleasure to be following him, it is also a major source of disappointment for me to have to speak in this budget debate following the type of announcements that the minister has just made. We have been waiting for a long time for the minister's employment strategy. In fact we have been waiting since June 4 when he was appointed. Since that time we have been treated to a number of speeches and, in spite of our repeated questioning of him in front of parliamentary committees, we have obtained no information from him. It seems that he has a lot more confidence in the various service clubs to which he speaks across the country, because what he told us today he revealed in great part to most of the service clubs.
We on this side of the House would have much appreciated it if the minister had had the courtesy to send us advance copies of his speech so that we could have had a look at it before he unveiled it in the House, and analysed it in greater detail. I will respond to some parts of the minister's speech, and other parts of it I will leave to my colleague, the critic for women's employment, the hon. member for York South-Wes-ton (Mrs. Appolloni).
First of all, I would like to look, before considering the employment program which the minister put forward before the House, at the economic setting in which we are acting. The minister's department has a very special responsibility within the Government of Canada, one of stimulating employment in times when the macro-economic policies of the government are perhaps not working. If there is one thing that comes out clearly from the budget, it is that the macro-economic policies of the government are not working and they more than offset the type of job-creating opportunities that the minister brought forth tonight. In that sense I want to extend my sympathy to him, because he knows full well that in spite of the $7 million he will be spending in the job-creation field, he knows his colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie), will destroy
December 13, 1979

more than 135,000 jobs between now and 1981. Those are not my figures, those are the figures of the Minister of Finance.
So what is the setting? We have had this government in office for six months now and the setting is one of a slowdown in the Canadian economy and a slowdown in the U.S. economy for which this government is not responsible, but where does the responsibility begin to try to offset in this country, by economic tools at their disposal, the effects of unemployment in Canada or of the U.S. recession? We have rising interest rates for which they now must take responsibility, we have slow growth, which is projected in the Minister of Finance's projections for the next five years, we have the U.S. recession on the horizon and, as a matter of fact, as the minister knows, cuts in his job-creation program since he came to office. That is the setting.
We must look at that setting first of all in connection with the promises that the minister's party made before coming to office, because they made a number of substantial promises. They had miracle solutions to the problems of the Canadian economy in the spring, but those budding promises in the spring have turned to the deadwood of winter even before the snow began to fall in this country.
What were they telling us in the months of April and May? They told us that unemployment could be reduced by 5.5 per cent in 1985. That is far from being the type of projection that the Minister of Finance tabled in the Flouse the other evening during the course of his budget speech. In reality we are looking at 8.3 per cent unemployment by 1981. They spoke of creating 1.5 million jobs by 1985, but according to the Minister of Finance's predictions, they will be destroying 135,000 jobs before 1981. They spoke of a growth of 5 per cent in CNP by 1985, but now they are talking about zero growth in the economy for the second time in a number of years. They are talking about zero growth in a country like ours, with the potential we have in terms of human resources, in terms of natural resources, and in terms of our strategic position in the world community. They also spoke of a number of other initiatives.
They told us they would be reducing taxes by $2.5 billion. We all know that through the very regressive, unfair way of bringing in revenue to the coffers of the Government of Canada, they have decided to tax the people who needed the money most in these times of high inflation, people who own automobiles which consume gasoline and people who are working and who have to pay unemployment insurance premiums.
They will get about $2.8 billion out of the pockets of the Canadian car owner, about $800 million out of the pockets of employers and employees who are paying unemployment insurance premiums, and they have decided to push that user-pay concept to its extreme limit by telling people that in the future as soon as unemployed people obtain jobs, they will have to pay for all the services provided by employment agencies under the jurisdiction of the minister. The minister did not speak about that tonight. Fie put out a press release yesterday. I for one believe this is a scandalous situation where the Government of Canada is telling people that services will
The Budget-Mr. Fox
no longer be provided for them, that their cost is to be covered with money which accrues to individual workers and employees in this country.
When we add up those two or three figures, we see the government will be taking $3.5 billion out of the economy.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Francis Fox: Let us look at those projections in the budget brought down by the minister the other night. He spoke to us about increases in the unemployment rate which would go from 7.5 per cent this year to 8.3 per cent in 1980, and remain at 8.3 per cent in 1981. What does that mean in terms of people, because I think in this House we lose sight of the number of people who are actually involved in this type of process? At an average unemployment rate of 7.5 per cent, we are talking not in terms of percentage points but rather of some 850,000 Canadians who are seeking employment and cannot find it.
What did the government promise to do for Canadians in the years to come? The minister talks about the role of the private sector, but what will the government do to enhance the private sector, to let it expand so as to create the jobs that the minister talks about? The minister's colleague, the Minister of Finance, speaks of the rate of unemployment rising from 7.5 per cent to 8.3 per cent, which means it will rise from 850,000 unemployed this year to 963,000 unemployed Canadians in
1980,	and to 986,000 by 1981.


An hon. Member:: Unacceptable.


Francis Fox: That is if the minister's projections are correct. They are succeeding in doing this at a time when the growth rate in the labour force is declining, that is, at a time when the growth rate is declining the over-all economic policies of this government are leading to an increase from 850,000 unemployed Canadians to 986,000, according to their own figures, in the short period of two years.
What are they promising in terms of inflation? Now they talk in terms of a rate from 11 per cent to 11.4 per cent by
1981.	Indeed this is a novel way of looking at job creation in this country.


An hon. Member:: We will have to change that.


Francis Fox: My colleague is quite right. We do have to change that. When I look at some of the things the Minister of Finance said, and when I read his budget speech, I realize that he had a few positive things to say about the Canadian economy. He said that job creation has been impressive. He is not talking about his job creation. He is talking about the job creation by his predecessors in that portfolio. He said the following:
Job creation has also been impressive. About 440,000 more people were employed in October, 1979, than in October, 1978.

December 13, 1979
The Budget-Mr. Fox
1 am not too sure if the colleagues of the hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration were quite as forthcoming in the last election campaign to mention the type of record levels of employment created in the country over the past few years by his predecessors.
In his budget the Minister of Finance said the following:
More than 135,000 of the new jobs were in the manufacturing sector.
Then he looks to the future, the future for which he and his colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, are responsible. He said the following:
Our prospects for 1980 are clouded by the recession which now appears to be under way in the United States ... This means that fewer jobs will be created in Canada in 1980... and that our unemployment rate is likely to increase to about 8'/4 per cent.
Well, that is the Minister of Finance. He is looking back and says that there has been a great record of employment creation in the country, not to mention that it was done under the previous administration. Then he looks forward, into the future. He is responsible. He has the economic tools in his hand. It is up to him to try to stimulate the economy in a period of time when interest rates prevent the private sector from doing so, in a period of time when the recession in the United States also prevents the private sector from doing so. But, what does he do? He takes about $3.5 billion out of the economy and puts some back, but reduces the general stimulation by about $750 million. What does that mean in general?
1 know there are people looking at us out there. When they hear politicians discussing matters, I know they do not always take their word for the dire economic consequences which will come about. But I have gone over some of the comments which have been made about the economic policy of this government. This government has been in office for six months, and already it is bringing us to the brink of disaster to such an extent that members on both sides of the House feel it is about time the life of this government was brought to an end, so that we can get back to some sort of rational economic policy-making in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ronald George Atkey: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Jerusalem will remember you.


Ronald George Atkey: You will not be smiling at ten o'clock tonight.


Francis Fox: I should like to quote to the Minister of Employment and Immigration from a newspaper which is published in his home town, the Toronto Star. It refers to his colleague's budget as "a totally misguided budget". Those are not my words. Those are the words of the Toronto Star. I am not making them up. They were in the Toronto Star today. It indicated:
Mr. Crosbie has come up with measures that are guaranteed to give us even less growth, higher inflation and more unemployment.. .
That is an indictment of the type of economic policy the minister is trying to support in the House. The minister responsible for employment supported his colleague during the
[Mr. Fox.)
budget debate for coming up with measures which will guarantee less growth, higher inflation, and more unemployment.
1 stay in the hon. minister's home province of Ontario. I looked at what the three main political parties in his province had to say to him and his colleagues yesterday. I am referring to the Liberals, the NDP, and the Conservatives, his blood brothers. They all came to the conclusion that the budget the minister is defending might trigger a recession while fuelling inflation and unemployment. We are not saying that in this House for political partisan purposes. We are trying to give the minister an objective view of how his budget is perceived by the Toronto Star and the three main political parties in the province of Ontario.
The Quebec minister of finance is quoted in The Gazette this morning in Montreal, speaking particularly about the excise tax on gasoline, as saying that this measure makes no economic sense. I should like to quote from this morning's edition of La Presse.
[ Translation]
Tax conservatism does not make any sense at a time when economic stagnation is expected for next year. He wiil step on the brakes precisely when the economy is braking much too hard.

The same theme is taken up in the French press in Montreal.
[ Translation]
The theme is the same. The main dailies in this country, in both Ontario and Quebec, all make the same lecture. The Toronto Star speaks of an absolutely ridiculous budget. Commentators in La Presse say that the measures put forward by the Minister of Finance and 1 quote:
-globally make of this budget a tax hole that will be useless in giving new impetus to the economy and illusory in the fight against inflation.
Le Devoir said this morning, and I shall quote again, Mr. Speaker, because I want to prove this is not political narrowmindedness on our part. These are objective, independent observers, who see the situation from the outside, who have come to the conclusion that the budget does not make any sense. I quote:
One must wonder if the time was really ripe to whip, energetically, a languishing economy whose state might worsen with the American recession.
That is their conclusion. So there! Governments in power, in Ontario as well as in Quebec, condemn the measures put forward by the colleague of the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The great dailies in this country, Le Devoir, La Presse, the Toronto Star all agree. One of the large investment dealers also reaches the same conclusion. I mean Wood Gundy, who says, and I quote:

Wood Gundy, the largest firm of investment dealers in Canada, came out with the following statement:
Fiscal Conservatism is triumphant and will bring Canadian growth in real terms to zero ...
December 13, 1979


An hon. Member:: That is true Conservatism, destroy Canada.


Ronald George Atkey: Oh, oh!


Francis Fox: I will finish the quote. I am sure the hon. minister is interested in hearing the end of the quote. In fact I will reread it: "Fiscal Conservatism"-I have trouble pronouncing those words because I do not particularly like them. It reads as follows:
Fiscal Conservatism is triumphant and will bring Canadian growth in real terms to zero or below in 1980.


Ronald George Atkey: Wood Gundy liked the budget.


Francis Fox: Well, if you like a budget which brings us to zero growth in 1980!
1 should like to get back to the minister's basic premise in the speech which he made to the House this afternoon. It was the primacy of the private sector to the exclusion of the public sector. I think the minister is making a very serious mistake. We in this country do not simply need measures to encourage the private sector. We need a mix, and the minister knows it. In his heart he knows that we need a mix of policies.
We need temporary job-creation policies which can only be funded by public funds and which can be used effectively by local groups, such as municipalities and a number of groups that do not have the profit motive as their sole objective. Of course we need a number of measures which will incite the private sector to undertake job creation, but I tell the minister that fiscal policies which will lead to zero growth in the economy are not of a nature to lead industry to expand.
Now I should like to come to the minister's job-creation measures. Since the minister did not favour me with a copy of his speech, 1 had to make a few notes during the course of his speech. Of course he spoke about the primacy of the private sector and his program to incite job creation in the private sector through the use of a tax incentive, the main thrust of his program. I think the minister will agree with me on that. The main thrust of his program is to use tax incentives to create jobs in the private sector, i am not in disagreement with him. I think it is a good way to go, but 1 do not think it is the full answer to the problem. In doing so, he is really continuing along the lines of the Liberal job-creation program which was started last year when the previous government put $100 million into tax incentives to encourage the creation of jobs throughout the country.
The real problem in this country at the moment is not one of bringing young people into the labour force, the real problem at the moment is how the minister is going to prevent people from losing their jobs. What this government's policies have led to is plant closures and lay-offs right across the country. The Globe and Mail this morning mentions 3,600 workers of the St. Catharines Foundry and Engine Plant being laid off tomorrow. They are not the people the minister's $80 a week incentive program is going to help.
The Budget-Mr. Fox
The point I am really trying to get across to the minister is that, in spite of his efforts to create something like 135,000 jobs in the short term, because of the general policies of this government they will be destroying more than that number of jobs over the next little while. We have all these lay-offs, and the minister knows as well as I that there have been a number in a number of areas right across the country. The job at the moment is really one of using existing capacity rather than how to increase it.
I really cannot understand how the minister's tax incentive program is going to help the young worker coming into the labour force in Windsor or in Ste. Therese, Quebec-how it is going to help him get a job with General Motors. They are laying off men right across the country. The Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Wilson) was here earlier and he knows full well the state of the automobile industry in this country. It seems to me the government would do much better in trying to bring forward a fiscal framework that would encourage the creation and expansion of jobs rather than going at it the opposite way.
The minister is very proud of his program. He tells us now that he wants to do away basically with any job-creation program that relies on the public sector for job creation.


Ronald George Atkey: That is not true.


Francis Fox: That is certainly the main thrust of the minister's program. He has cut a number of programs.


Ronald George Atkey: There is the national youth program.


Francis Fox: Let us consider the national youth program. The minister tells us he is going to be creating something like 14,000 jobs with the national youth program. If I look at the document that was published by the minister's department in September, 1978, I see that there already is something that is called the Youth Job Corps which cost $50 million and which, according to these documents that originate with the minister's department, was to create something like 16,500 jobs. What is the minister talking about?
I know it is Christmas time and that the hon. minister has a temptation to take some of these programs that have been effective under past policies of his department and wrap them up in tinsel to go with the Christmas season, putting tags on them and calling them by different names. However, his national youth service corps which is going to cost $70 million to create 14,000 jobs does not look much different from this youth program that is already in existence and which cost $50 million to produce 16,500 jobs.
The minister has difficulty in holding back his comments on certain things. We have had examples of that over the course of the summer when he was talking about certain kinds of animals, and noises in the night. We on this side of the House all hope that behind the word "bark" lies some timbre, but up to now he has not shown that he really has any timbre at all. I really do not know what political advantage the minister finds in this process of trying to insult everybody in this society.

December 13, 1979
The Budget-Mr. Fox
1 have here an extract from the Montreal Gazette which quotes the minister as saying in Toronto, specifically in relation to the youth corps program, when asked how his proposals differ from the previous Liberal government's job corps, that participants would work for a year at minimum wages and create some services of lasting benefit. He then went on to say, and I am astounded that he would make this kind of comment, that the second difference is that the plan is not for middle class unemployed youths looking to coast along for a year, but for the chronically unemployed people. I think that is a crying shame.
We have $50 million of public funds being expended to create employment for 16,500 Canadian youths, and this minister instead of trying to improve the program and motivate the young people to do things which are of value to their communities, as they are in a number of areas in the country, goes out and insults them.
Just yesterday I received a letter from the minister's colleague, the Solicitor General and Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Lawrence), telling me what a great success the Youth Job Corps program has been. He gave me as an example some programs that have be funded in my own riding. Why does this minister find it necessary to go out and insult the youth of Canada? That is really beyond me. If he wants to help them obtain jobs then I am with him and I will support him. Of course I wish him luck and success in his job-creation programs. I must say that to date he has not impressed us very much in that regard.
During the course of the debate last week when we were talking about another program, the Canada Works program which the minister has promised to eliminate and take completely out of the spectrum of job-creation programs, he went out of his way, along with his parliamentary secretary, to come out with a number of high profile projects that were unsuccessful, failures. Once again, the minister's job is to try to refine and fine tune programs, and to eliminate projects that are not successful. His job is to come up with projects that are successful. There is not one member who sits on this side of the House who could not point out to the minister a couple of highly successful programs in his own riding.
There are a number of members here from New Brunswick and from Quebec, particularly from the Gaspe area, who can point to wharves having been built, arenas having been built and community centres having been built, all with the help of Canada Works Program money being put into the hands of municipalities. What the minister is doing today is telling these municipalities that in the future they can no longer count on federal funds to help them meet local objectives.
In that regard I disagree quite fundamentally with the minister. He is putting all his eggs into one basket, and that basket is the private sector. He should put a substantial part of his program and proposals in that area, and I agree with that. That he should eliminate the public sector from job-creation programs, and eliminate the Government of Canada from a presence in ridings across the country, I fundamentally disagree.


Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, we must conclude that after a few months in power this government has no idea of the directions in which to go when it comes to job creation and economic policy. What we have today is almost a joke, Mr. Speaker. Last Tuesday night, the Minister of Finance presented a budget in which he announced a whole series of measures whose sole effect will be to take an additional $3.5 billion from the pockets of consumers across the country, and policies which will directly contribute to the destruction in the Canadian economy of over 135,000 jobs within 18 months.
Today, the Minister of Employment and Immigration to ease the ridiculous and pointless policies announced by his colleague, the Minister of Finance, announced a job-creation program which will not even create the same number of jobs as his colleague destroyed. That is why, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance was forced to indicate clearly in his budget of last Tuesday that despite all the measures that this government wants to take, the only effect between 1979 and 1981 will be an increase in the employment rate from 7.5 to 8.3 per cent.


An hon. Member:: Economic activists-


Francis Fox: The main problem with this budget and its lack of stimulus is that it will not be directed toward new hiring, or in the prevention of lay-offs. Only a Conservative budget could ensure rising unemployment at a time when the rate of growth in the labour force is declining. May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: 1 have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-29, granting Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31,1980.
It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
December 13, 1979

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government, and the amendment thereto (Mr. Gray) (p. 2299), and the amendment to the amendment (Mr. Rae) (p. 2304).
Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, in the two or three minutes which are left to me I would like to wrap up and summarize my speech. I would very much have liked to have had the opportunity to continue to address my remarks to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Atkey) who does not seem to be with us at the moment.
This government has been leading the nation for six months. In that short period of time, it has led Canada to the highest levels of interest rates in living memory. For six months this government has led unemployed Canadians to believe that they would be able to find a job under a Tory government. But the Conservative government has shown its true colours in the budget which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) brought down on Tuesday night.
What the Conservatives are really leading this country to is an inflation rate of 11.4 per cent before 1981. They are leading this country to higher taxation imposed on those least able to pay it, and a much higher rate of unemployment. The budget which was tabled by the Minister of Finance indicates, in his own figures, that from a rate of unemployment of 7.5 per cent and with his leadership and his fiscal and monetary policies, he will take this country up to a level of 8.3 per cent unemployment by 1981. In human terms this means that, in spite of the announcement of the job-creation measures of the minister of employment today, we will proceed from a situation where we now have approximately 850,000 unemployed-men, women, youth and older people-to a situation where in 1981 we will have 986,000 unemployed. Those are the figures contained in the documents filed by the Minister of Finance.

So there, Mr. Speaker, after six months in power this is the only record of the Progressive Conservative government: the highest interest rates that members in this House have ever seen and an unemployment rate-as the result of measures put forward by the Minister of Finance who does not seem pleased that we already have such an unemployment rate-that will make it impossible for 850,000 Canadians to find a job. In addition to that figure, the policies of the minister unavoidably lead to the unemployment of 986,000 Canadians in 1980. 1 will end on those comments, Mr. Speaker. Such is the record of the government. It is time that we put an end to it and that we close the books.
The Budget-Mr. Hovdebo


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott, Victoria-Haliburton):: Order. I regret to inform the hon. member that his time has expired. However, he may proceed with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, in this, my first speech before this House, 1 would be remiss if I did not begin with a tribute to my predecessor from the constituency of Prince Albert. For 26 years the Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker represented my riding. The former Prime Minister dominated politics in our part of the country. That dominance eventually reached all of Canada. We may not have agreed with his politics or his position on many issues, but we could not dispute his agility as a politician, or his ability to catch the imagination of the nation right up to this Thirty-first Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley J. Hovdebo: During his career I crossed Mr. Diefenbak-er's path many times. As a boy, I met him with my father when he was my father's lawyer. As a university student I listened to him in mock parliament. As a professional educator and administrator, I was Mr. Diefenbaker's host when he, as Prime Minister, opened the town of Inuvik. I was his host again in 1965 when he presided at the opening of the John Diefenbaker Elementary School in the city of Prince Albert.
When I conceded defeat to Mr. Diefenbaker on May 22, he very generously wished me well by saying to his gathered supporters, "We may not be from the same party, but we are here for the same reason, because we believe in Canada''.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley J. Hovdebo: He said that the election process is a part of Canadian democracy. Although I did not often agree with the Chief, either politically or ideologically, I respected him. The Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker served Prince Albert and Canada well. He believed in the strength of this Parliament and he trusted the parliamentary system. It is now my honour to represent Prince Albert. I will not betray that trust.
Prince Albert had other distinguished parliamentarians. First we claimed Sir Wilfred Laurier who, though he did not live there, was elected to represent that riding. Prince Albert was also represented for many years by the Right Hon. Mackenzie King. He moved there when he was defeated in Ontario. Prince Albert was then considered a safe Liberal seat.


An hon. Member:: Those days are gone.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. King was defeated by the CCF in 1945 in a close election that hinged on the soldier vote. There is

December 13, 1979
The Budget-Mr. Hovdebo
many a veteran in Prince Albert who proudly proclaims that his vote sent Mr. King back east.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about the constituency of Prince Albert. It is basically a rural constituency with 60 per cent of the voters living outside the city. It is an historic city, the oldest in Saskatchewan, situated approximately in the center of the constituency on the banks of the North Saskatchewan River in the parkland area of the province. It is a beautiful city in a beautiful setting, small enough to be friendly and large enough to provide facilities for the good life. Although forest products and northern development are now contributing considerably to the economy, Prince Albert is very closely connected to the agricultural communities which surround it. The constituency includes some of the best farm land in Canada, Domremy, where I was born, Birch Hiils, Kinistino, Wakaw, Shellbrook; Blaine Lake-where Jack Horner was born-Debden, Rosthern and Waldheim.
Prince Albert is the gateway to the north of Saskatchewan, where you will find some of the best fishing in Canada. An international playground, it includes the Prince Albert National Park. That area also has tremendous possibilities for development.
After the Red River rebellion, Mr. Speaker, many of the Metis moved to Saskatchewan and settled on the southern branch of the river. The two Saskatchewan Rivers meet about 20 miles east of the city. The Metis settled in St. Louis, St. Laurent, and Batoche. Duck Lake, Carleton and Batoche were, of course, the sites of some of the battles of the Riel rebellion. Scattered throughout the riding are 12 Indian reserves, mostly Cree, and one Dakota Sioux.
The Indians of northern Saskatchewan are strong, prosperous, and well organized. They contribute a great deal to the communities of that area.
I could spend a great deal of time detailing the hopes and needs of the people of Prince Albert on an individual and group basis. For instance, the Indians would like better housing and more freedom to control their own destiny. They are hoping to have the Saskatchewan formula implemented in dealing with their land entitlement claims. I support all those hopes and needs, and encourage this government to proceed as quickly as possible to their fulfilment.
The farmers of Prince Albert are being squeezed by increasing costs and insufficient prices for their products. Fuel price increases and high interest rates are hurting them. Besides that, the whole industry is being squeezed by the inability to transport grain, and by the abandonment of rail lines which are necessary for the economic delivery of grain. The cow-calf industry may look good at the moment but it is still reeling from four bad years. Farmers need legislation which will allow them to survive. The survival of farms, as we know them in Saskatchewan, is the survival of a way of life.
In Prince Albert members of the Public Service Alliance are feeling insecure and uncared for. Morale is low and many positions are going unfilled, to the detriment of the effective work of whole departments. A policy needs to be articulated
[Mr. Hovdebo.)
and implemented which the Public Service considers fair and equitable.
Labour is also feeling the pinch of interest rates and the general depression of the economy. Workers' purchasing power has been further cut by the increase in unemployment insurance premiums and increased costs of fuel. Construction workers are being laid off and look forward to a very dismal future brought on by the high mortgage rates which have curtailed housing starts.
Small businesses are also in need of protection and encouragement. 1 commend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) on the long overdue move to allow the salaries paid to spouses to be deductible. That is some help, but will not overcome the other effects of the budget.
These are some of the groups of people in the constituency who have needs and hopes and look to this government to help fulfil those hopes. Instead what they got is this budget.
This budget does not deal with the real culprits in our system. It does not attempt to deal with inflation to any extent. The major factor in increasing costs now and in the future will be the interest rates being charged. Those interest rates are causing inflation, hardship, and bankruptcy. Let me be more explicit, Mr. Speaker.
During the recent election campaign in Prince Albert, I talked to many home owners who were worried about the effect of high interest rates on their mortgages. Their present rate on a mortgage is 10 per cent or less. Those rates are to be renegotiated, if you can call it that, up to 14% per cent or 15 per cent. On $40,000, 15 per cent means $500 interest. Many of their payments will be $500 per month before principal.
Let me be still more specific: one young couple with three children are planning to sell their home because their mortgage comes up for renewal this month. They cannot afford an increase. Their house will go on sale on a buyer's market, due to the sudden drop in the sale of houses. They are not even likely to be able to cash in their five-year equity. There are thousands of other young home owners just like them.
Most farmers on the prairies, regardless of the type of farming or even the size of the farms they operate, depend upon demand loans for operating at certain times of the year. The margin between cost of production and return from sales is very slim in many types of farm operations. The farmer has a choice of cutting back production or losing more money on a bigger operation. The extra 4 per cent to 5 per cent of interest on operational money will cut that margin still further, or may even eliminate it. If the losses go on long enough, the farmer will eventually be forced to sell. One more farmer will have left the industry. One more family will have been forced to change its way of life. One or two more people will be out looking for work that is not to be found.
Small businesses are very important to the economy of Prince Albert. I agree with a statement in the December 11 budget speech which says that "the small business sector is one of the great strengths of this country". Small businesses are good for Canada because they are usually Canadian-owned
December 13, 1979

and operated. Interest rates also have a devastating effect on small business. Again let me be more explicit. In Prince Albert last month, a dealer in carpets closed his shop. He had approximately $100,000 worth of carpets in stock. However, the interest on those carpets increased to the extent that he felt he could not afford to stay in business. There are thousands of stores like his. I predict a rash of bankruptcies among small businesses during the next year.
Interest rates have a domino effect. For example, a lumber mill closed a month ago at Meadow Lake just outside of my riding, which put approximately 100 men out of work. The mill closed down because it could not sell its lumber. The lumber yards quit buying lumber because the construction people stopped building houses. Orders for houses dropped drastically. The lumber yard laid off men because they were no longer needed. The house construction industry was not building houses because sales had dropped off. Again, men were being laid off because few houses were being built. Real estate people were having difficulty selling houses because mortgage rates were too high.
We all know the story of the battle that was lost for the want of a horseshoe nail. The analogy is clear, Mr. Speaker. The government may lose this battle because it has failed to deal with high interest rates.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley J. Hovdebo: I have heard hon. members opposite say that mortgage rates are going down. But, down from where? Interest rates have moved up from 11 per cent to in excess of 15 per cent and then have moved back to 14.75 per cent. I do not call that a reduction.
I want to speak now about the farmer. The farmer has been dealt a triple blow by this budget and this government. First, interest rates were increased by this government. They were not lowered in the budget. However, I have already dealt with that point.
Prices are being increased for farm fuel at a rate of approximately 60 cents per gallon by the end of next year due to the artificial increase in the cost of crude. In addition, the farmer will be required to pay 25 cents per gallon tax on all fuel he buys. Granted he will receive a 10 cent rebate, but he still has to pay the full amount to get the fuel. I hope that the government will consider paying 16 per cent interest on the money that makes up that rebate because that is what the farmer will be paying for it.
Incidentally, this 15-cent tax will cost Canadian farmers approximately $170 million. The farmer is devastated by these extra costs. That is how this government fulfils its promise to protect the family farm. These kinds of costs heaped on farms that are already marginal will cause bankruptcy. The family farm is in danger.
Statistics Canada, that much beleaguered entity, indicated that the number of families living below the poverty line in
The Budget-Mr. Hovdebo
Canada has increased by only 1 per cent. I stress the word "only" because the Statistics Canada report did so. Most of us are losing buying power through the effect of interest rates and inflation. But those who are on low or fixed incomes are hurting the most because they so easily slip below the poverty line.
It is a sad state when in a country as rich as Canada 700,000 families are living below the poverty line. Again, that figure is from Statistics Canada. This budget will increase that number by pushing up the cost of rent, fuel and other items. Meanwhile, corporate profits increased substantially during the last year, and this budget will not affect them. In fact it is likely to increase the profits of many companies. This budget will increase the number and speed by which people fall below the poverty line. Poverty is not an economic problem as much as it is a problem of lack of will and neglect on the part of the government.
During the last 100 years, people of the western world developed political democracy to a point where we pride ourselves on our freedom. But also during the last 100 years we have contradicted that by losing control of the economy. One hundred years ago, farmers, tradesmen, storekeepers and professionals owned and controlled the means by which they lived. However, the industrial revolution concentrated the machinery of production and of distribution in the hands of those who supplied the capital. While we won the right to vote, we lost control of the economy.
We are subjected to an almost continuous campaign to sell us on the idea of the free enterprise system. However, as Tommy Douglas put it in 1958, "The economic system under which we live is neither free nor enterprising".
We have heavy unemployment, a surplus of most staples and most manufactured goods, and if the free enterprise market system is working, then the cost of living and the price of retail goods should go down. This is the law of supply and demand. Instead, the cost of living continues to rise and retail costs continue to do likewise. The market system no longer works because most prices these days are set by agreement based on the cost of production plus a fairly hefty profit. The prices are set by the producer in every industry except farming.
While we have become politically free, we have become economically enslaved. It is still true today that he who controls the means by which we live, controls me. Political power follows economic power. People who control the economy take steps to control the political nation, and I want to stress that point-people who control the economy take steps to control the political nation to protect their investment in the nation. When decisions made in this House favour corporations and when budgets favour those corporations, then we confirm that that statement is true. We confirm that corporations that control the economy are protecting their investment by controlling the political action of the government.
We hear much about the dangers of government control of the economy. What is the danger of a country in which corporations control the government? In Canada we have not only accepted the idea of the state being controlled by corpora-

December 13, 1979
The Budget-Mr. Hovdebo
tions, but we have even allowed the ownership of those corporations to be non-resident. Canada has more non-resident foreign ownership and non-resident control of its industry than all of the United States, western Europe and Japan together.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley J. Hovdebo: That foreign ownership is in excess of $75 billion. The real value is much higher than that, and 80 per cent of it is American-owned.
For many years past and for the foreseeable future, unless this or succeeding governments turn it around, the continued non-resident control of the Canadian economy will come from funds generated in Canada from earnings here. We are cannibalistic. We generate funds and give them to foreign corporations to buy more of our economy. What is the present foreign ownership of some of Canadian industry? These figures are a year old. They own 63 per cent of manufacturing; 91 per cent of oil and gas industry; 88 per cent of electrical industry; and 99 per cent of the petroleum refining industry, though this may be down with the growth of PetroCan.
It is getting worse. Areas of Canada previously exempt are fast going foreign as well. The wholesale industry, the retail industry, the forest industry, and the agricultural products industry are all under attack. Even the funeral industry has begun to succumb. With present moves we are all likely to be buried by a foreign-owned corporation.
Most of the cream from our economy is being skimmed off the top and going to the United States. More than $500,000 an hour leaves Canada. That is $12 million a day, or more than $4 billion a year. No wonder we have a balance of payments problem. No wonder we are in economic trouble.
We must buy Canada back. If we fail, future Canadians will be working in relatively low paid, unsophisticated jobs in foreign-controlled companies, with limited choice, and heavier unemployment. The national debt will be self-perpetuating and backbreaking. Time is running out for our country. It is time we became masters in our own house. More and more money flows from our economy to New York where it is borrowed back by federal, provincial and municipal governments in Canada, at high interest rates.
We are told by the Minister of Finance that we have no alternative but to increase our interest rates. Why? Because we have to attract record amounts of foreign capital to help balance the outflow of money. That money which is leaving Canada for services, charges and profits, is needed here. Yet we have to pay high interest rates to borrow our money back. We have come to a sad state of affairs when money, the so-called medium of exchange, has become so great a power that it overshadows everything we do or hope to do. 1 suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this government might better use their time in devising a financial structure which Canadians control, than bringing in a budget which gouges the Canadian public. The devising of such a fiscal structure would put us in direct opposition to Bay Street and Wall Street. It would take

courage on the part of the government, particularly this government, because they would be legislating against their friends.
This budget does not attempt even to tinker with the financial structure, and therefore cannot do anything about foreign ownership or inflation. Support of this budget is support of foreign ownership and a sell-out to the multinational corporations. It does nothing about high interest rates, and increases taxation by devious means.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity of speaking to this House on this budget.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, this is the second or third time in this House 1 have had the pleasure and the privilege of extending congratulations to a new member, on this occasion the new member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo), on his maiden speech in the House of Commons. I want to do that unstintingly and without reservation in the best traditions of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I want him to know that, whether his time is long or short in this House, new or forever, there is no greater privilege than serving in this House of Commons, regardless of on what side of the House one sits. 1 am afraid he will be sitting on that side of the House for some time, if he sits at all, but I hope he enjoys it.
The hon. member said something in the course of his speech which I thought was most interesting and which none of us ought to forget. He said that Canadians were feeling the pinch. Canadians have been feeling the pinch of a lack of leadership in this country for 16 years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I hope it does not take away from the sincerity of my greeting on his speech if 1 say to the hon. member that one of the problems in Canada is, that his party supported consistently the purveyors of that feeling of pinching in Canada.
There is no doubt that Canadian farmers are in a plight. There is no doubt that small businessmen are having some difficulty. Under the government that we defeated at the polls on May 22, 1979, and will again be defeated if we again go to the polls-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: -that government caused more difficulties for small businessmen, farmers, who are the best small businessmen, the labour man, the public servant, and the man and woman on the street of this country than any other government in the history of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
December 13, 1979


Walter David Baker: I do not want to accuse the hon. member for Prince Albert of shedding crocodile tears. 1 am sure he meant every word he said. He cried about the plight of the home owner who is plagued with high interest rates and property taxes. 1 want to remind him that it is his party that is taking part in the filibuster to deny that same home owner the property tax credit plan.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Walter David Baker: He talked about the young couple he knew who had three children and were concerned about being able to keep their home. 1 remind him that there are constituencies in this country filled with people who want to keep their own homes. There are constituencies represented by members in this House, including members on the other side, who would like to have a home of their own. Because of their filibuster, these people will not have the advantage of Bill C-20. I want to serve notice now in this House of Commons that, given the opportunity over the course of the next week, the people of Canada are going to get that bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I have listened to the speeches of members of this House, talking about the great things they would do, particularly the Liberal party, for Canada. I have listened to them talking about the great things they would do if they were in office, the great things the Liberal party could do for Canada. Mr. Speaker, the party is so bereft of good fortune, good ideas and good principles that even the Crown Prince would not stand for its leadership!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: I see the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Phillips) is in his place-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott, Victoria-Haliburton):: Order. There is a great deal of noise in the chamber. I think the House and the Chair would be better served if we could allow the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker) to continue his speech with fewer interruptions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 1 was coming to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre who made more press by saying he was not going to run for the leadership than anyone else. Mr. Speaker, the press welcomes a wise man! The party over there promised duty-free shops, and instead we got Sky Shops.


An hon. Member:: Your first campaign speech!


Walter David Baker: 1 beg your pardon. The hon. member is new to this House and he can shout all he wishes. But 1 should like to listen to him if he gets a chance to speak in the debate, and perhaps it might be a good thing if he listened
The Budget-Mr. Walter Baker
to what the Speaker said a few moments ago. The party over there is very fond of saying that the government under the present Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) has not kept any of its promises. Mr. Speaker, 1 want to deal with this budget in terms of the promises this party has kept.


An hon. Member:: Then your speech will be short.


Walter David Baker: We made a number of tax-related commitments in the course of the election campaign. Those commitments included long-term tax contracts for firms investing in eastern Canada. The budget delivered on that promise. We indicated in the course of the campaign that we would make substantial capital gains tax relief available to farmers. The budget has delivered on that promise. We said we would give tax incentives to encourage the production in Canada of new vessels for the Atlantic fishery. The budget has delivered on that promise.
We said we wanted to deliver on another promise related to the idea that spouses who work legitimately in the businesses of their husbands are not chattels but are entitled to be treated as persons. We have delivered on that promise. We said we would begin to reduce the size of the federal deficit and of the federal cash requirement, and last night the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) began the delivery of that promise. We said there would be a marked improvement in the employment tax credit program so that we could begin to employ more young Canadians, and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Atkey), following upon the Minister of Finance, has delivered on that promise.
We said as well that it was a good idea for Canadians to invest in their own society, in their own businesses and in their own country, and the budget produced tax measures to encourage investment in the common stock of Canadian corporations. We said it was high time we were honest with Canadians with respect to the prospects for the future, remembering that the hon. member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien), when he was minister of finance, gave forecasts which only a fool would believe. We said it was time there was a five-year fiscal forecast of expected expenditures and revenues and that it was time to reduce budget secrecy. And we have delivered on that promise.
Mr. Speaker, we sat on the side of the House for some time and watched the government wallow in rhetoric for 16 years as they promised energy self-sufficiency for Canada-and failed to deliver. Sir, the tax measures and other measures in this budget are designed to implement the promise we made to Canadians that we would move toward energy self-sufficiency by 1990, and we intend to deliver that promise.
Once in a while I listen to the NDP. Their favourite word is "concern". They are concerned about this, they are concerned about that. The only thing they are not concerned about is consistency!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

December 13, 1979
The Budget-Mr. Walter Baker


Walter David Baker: I will say though, that the hon. member for Prince Albert did not do that; he was, at least, straightforward in his maiden speech, and I compliment him on that. He was wrong, but straightforward. His friends in that group claim they are the purveyors of virtue, that they are the only repositories of virtue in this country. I want to point out to them, and to Canadians generally, that there are some worth-while social policies in this budget, policies they ought to support.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: We promised something else in this budget; there is a ways and means motion, through which we hope to deliver to Canadians a policy which will shelter lower and middle-income families, a refundable energy tax credit of $80 per adult and $30 per child a year, phased in over a period of two years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: This party recognizes that any change in policy has an impact on some groups of Canadians, and the Minister of Finance, the compassionate man that he is, showed his concern about the little man in this country and has delivered on that promise as well.
Of course there are problems with respect to the impact, say, in Atlantic Canada, of higher energy prices. I don't think the people of Atlantic Canada are likely to forget that what caused this impact was not the Minister of Finance but 16 years of neglect by those on the other side. But in recognition of their need, we have provided for grants in the Atlantic region to compensate for the higher cost of electricity generation, grants which will hold down increases affecting families in that region. We want to deliver on that promise well.
We have provided tax incentives to increase job opportunities available to young people. The highest rate of unemployment among any class in Canada exists among young people. We cannot undo in six months the consequences of 16 years of neglect, but we have started.
We want to deliver to a parliamentary committee, which we have established, a paper which will be the basis for an examination of the whole question of charitable donations so that hopefully we can revitalize the voluntary sector. There are measures in this budget to stimulate investment, to stimulate growth, and to stimulate confidence. And for once, and thank God it's happened, there is a government in Ottawa ready to tackle the problems of the country.
I noted as well, in the course of the speeches by members of the Liberal party, the crocodile tears and the misconceptions which have been a burden on the Hansard record of this House. They are trying to tell Canadians now that they are the party of low energy prices, that the last thing in the world they would ever consider is that we should move toward world prices. We have all heard them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott, Victoria-Haliburton):: Order, please. I want to appeal to members on all sides of the House to refrain please from making so much noise so that we can hear the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker).


Walter David Baker: 1 appreciate your intervention, Mr. Speaker, but I can understand that members on all sides of the House would shout and complain when they contemplate the record of 16 years of incompetence from the party on the other side. I was talking about the party that would aspire to leadership, the party that would aspire to plunge the country into a winter election. I want to remind them of what they said. They are trying to say to Canada today, and to Canadians, that they are the party of low energy prices, they are the party that does not want to move to world prices. If they think they can fool the Canadian people that that is the position they take, then they have less faith in the Canadian people than we have.


Mr. Breau:: You fooled them.


Walter David Baker: One of the princes of the Liberal party, Donald Macdonald-we are not sure whether or not Donald is going to run-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: There is at least one Crown Prince left, and this is what he said in his budget speech on May 25, 1976:
-the government-
That is the Liberal government-
-has recognized the necessity of allowing prices of oil and gas to rise at a measured pace toward world levels.
That is what they said.


Herb Breau: What was the world price then?


Walter David Baker: World prices in 1976, but when it is convenient, something different in 1979. Remember the speeches that they made in the course of this debate? Donald Macdonald went on to say:
The need to encourage production and conservation and to ease the fiscal burden on government points toward larger and faster increases of energy prices.
This is the crowd who want Canadians to believe they stand up for the little man and low prices of energy. Of course they do not, except that it is convenient for them to attempt to mislead the Canadian people in 1979.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I want to talk again about consistency. There is another man practising law now, properly and appropriately, in the firm of McMillan Binch in Toronto. I do not blame him for practising law in that firm. He took a look at the rag-tag group over there and decided he could not lead them. There is nothing wrong with "Blue Eyes". This is what he said in his budget speech of June of 1975:
December 13, 1979

When international oil prices rose sharply in the fall of 1973, most countries, particularly those wholly or largely dependent on imported oil, allowed their domestic prices to reflect those fully prevailing in the world market. This is what normally occurs in Canada when the prices of internationally traded goods rise. There are good reasons for allowing this to happen. If a price for a commodity is kept lower in our open market than in international markets, this discourages domestic producers from increasing supplies and discourages consumers from economizing on the use of a scarce commodity.
Speaking of the Liberal government of that day, which is the Liberal opposition of this day, he said:
-it was never the intention of the government to maintain indefinitely the present regime of cheap energy in Canada, while the rest of the world was adjusting to the new realities.
He went on to say:
-we have no practical alternative to continuing a phased adjustment to higher energy prices. This is essential to provide for our future supplies and to conserve the use of this scarce resource.
The finance ministers in that government, at least with respect to the problem of energy and energy self-sufficiency, recognized in 1975 and 1976 that we could never again live in the same regime even though that party today thinks we can turn back the clock. We cannot. What has happened is that there was all the preaching about world prices but no action and, as a result, our exploration went down, our search for new resources went down, and we became captive of the nations that are not so friendly to us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: As a result of the neglect of 16 years, Canada must now face up to the reality that is ours. If we want to become self-sufficient in energy, if we do not want to be hostage to misfortune, if we do not want to be subject to the whims of Arabian nations, of Venezuela and other nations, if, in the words of the hon. member for Prince Albert, we really want to be masters in our own house, then the Arabs will not do it, the Americans will not do it, but the Canadians will have to do it, and the Minister of Finance has pointed out the only way we can do it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: There is not a person in Canada who wants to pay higher prices for anything. There is not a person in this House or anywhere else who wants to pay higher taxes. Canadians, 1 believe, are prepared to face up to the truth. I hope this Parliament is prepared to face up to the truth. Let there be no doubt about it from any party or any group in this House, that self-sufficiency by 1990 is our watchword.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: By this budget we have nailed our colours to the mast.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: It would be very easy to follow the example of other years, to let the deficit climb, to let us fall further and further into the morass of non self-sufficien-
The Budget-Mr. Walter Baker
cy. 1 am proud to serve in the same cabinet with John Crosbie because he has challenged Canadians. He has more faith in Canada than that rag-tag, leaderless, unprincipled lot that wants to replace this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: It is the same crowd the country rejected in 1979.


An hon. Member:: Talk about the budget.


Walter David Baker: The hon. member for Prince Albert said it was time to buy back Canada. He is right, it is time to buy back Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: It is time we let all Canadians share in the resources of this nation. If we want to be self-sufficient, we have to pay for it. I have telegrams on my desk, and I have received telephone calls from all over Canada today. They are saying to us that this is the right direction for Canada-it is tough, but it is the right direction.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: They said, "It is time somebody took hold, and the Minister of Finance has taken hold, and thank God for that".
Garth Turner was writing in the Toronto Sun today and this is what he said, talking about this budget:
Sure, it's tough. It's what everyone is calling an "austerity" budget. It means most of us will be paying more for almost everything. It assumes the 1980s will be harsh, with higher inflation, more unemployment and slow economic growth. But through all of that, there's a note of realism here. It's nice to hear.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Particularly I point out to my friends in the NDP what the writer went on to say. He said:
The single most important thing we heard last night was that fiscal responsibility might, just might, return to Ottawa. Crosbie's pledge to reduce the federal deficit will have sweeping ramifications. It will lower inflation, and therefore reduce crushing interest rates. It will return capital to the private sector for the creation of jobs and the expansion of industry. That, in turn, will help Canada's trade picture and reduce our current accounts deficit with the rest of the world.
That is why 1 am proud to serve with the Minister of Finance in this cabinet.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: What about The Toronto Sun?


John Mercer Reid: What about the Star and the Globe?


Walter David Baker: Perhaps members of this House should face up to what the people of Canada are facing. He added:

December 13, 1979
The Budget-Mr. Simmons
It's time to face up to economic realities, he said,... It's time to make the most of this country's opportunity. That can only come through energy self-sufficiency. reduced government spending, increased productivity and investment and an end to deficit financing.
That is the promise of this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: These are the things we have to do ourselves in Canada. No one else will do them for us. If the opposition parties do not understand that, then they have broken faith with Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Believe me, Canadians understand this challenge and Canadians are prepared to accept this challenge because they have faith in Canada, faith in its resources, faith in its people, and faith in its potential.


An hon. Member:: Forty-three minutes to go.


Walter David Baker: If this party goes to the country, the country will have faith in this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Knight Andras: Would the hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker) permit a very gentle, quick question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Robert Knight Andras: I am wondering if the minister who just finished speaking would permit a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I did not hear the hon. member because his microphone was not turned on.


Robert Knight Andras: Will the House or the minister permit a quick question, based upon his remarks of a few minutes ago?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter David Baker: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Knight Andras: The hon. minister has made many quotations from many documents. I wonder if he has seen the quotation of Dalton Camp which reads:
If the new government were a play just opened on Broadway, it would be shut down tomorrow for bad reviews.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I saw that quotation. If the hon. gentleman and his colleagues want to put us down, go ahead.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, my first words ought to be those of sincere thanks to Your Honour, members of the House and all who have been so kind and warm in receiving me here. Especially my thanks go to the
[Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton).)
hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Trudeau), the opposition House leader, the whip, their staff, and all the others who have helped me to become oriented. Indeed, I extend a special thanks to the persons who are responsible for my being here, the voters of the district of Burin-St. George's.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roger Simmons: Especially I want to express to them my firm commitment that 1 shall do my very best to represent them in this Parliament adequately. I want to welcome my friend, the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo), who was elected on the same day as I and who, like I, succeeded a very great Canadian. As Your Honour will know, I succeed in my place here a very great Newfoundlander and a devoted Canadian, the Hon. Don Jamieson.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roger Simmons: It is rare indeed that a man with his combination of confidence, drive and energy is attracted to elected public life in this country. I am honoured to succeed him. I hasten to add that I shall not try to fill his shoes. What I intend to do is to try, to the very best of my ability, to make some contribution to the cause which brings all of us to the chamber. In saying that, of course I am aware that this, my first term here, may be historically brief, but not so my second term as a government member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, as you can see my French is extremely limited, but I intend to do something about it as soon as possible. That is why 1 have registered for French lessons this morning. So if you find it difficult to understand me in English, do not give up right away. In the near future, after hearing my newly acquired French, you will realize that my English is not so bad.

In my six years as a member of the Newfoundland House of Assembly, and in my many years of watching this Parliament, 1 saw something tonight which I have never before witnessed. First I saw my good friend, the hon. member for Prince Albert, make his maiden speech, and a good speech it was.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roger Simmons: Then I saw the unbelievable, and I wish the minister about whom I am to speak were in the chamber.


An hon. Member:: He is never here.


Roger Simmons: I saw the unbelievable tonight. 1 saw a minister of the Crown throw normal common courtesy and normal parliamentary decency out the window and launch a vicious attack on a new member, a brand new member.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame!
December 13, 1979


Roger Simmons: That member is not in my party, but since he has already spoken, 1 feel as the other fellow who was elected that same day, that I should come a bit to his defence for the despicable display of arrogance we saw a few moments ago.


An hon. Member:: Good old St. George's.


Roger Simmons: If the hon. member is going to say it, he should say it right: Burin-St. George's. Before the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker) gets too carried away about the promises he says the Torry government has kept, let me remind him of some promises. Mr. Speaker does not have to take my word for it; he can take the word of the very reputable Toronto Sun.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roger Simmons: "The Promises Go Down Drain". This is not my publication. This is The Toronto Sun, not exactly the voice of rural Newfoundland or rural Canada. It has not been known over the years as being a great proponent of things Liberal. I should like to refer to the version of The Toronto Sun for the benefit of the President of the Privy Council.


An hon. Member:: He is not here.


Roger Simmons: I realize he is not here. I saw him leave. I can well understand why he has to get out fast to go to certain other places, which we will not mention here.


An hon. Member:: He is afraid of you.


Roger Simmons: The promises go down the drain. Here is what The Toronto Sun said the day after this much lauded budget; this thing that has got the President of the Privy Council all worked up, giving him sheer jollies because it is so good, so magnificent, and so perfect. Here is the perfection. I will tell you ail about it. Let The Toronto Sun tell you all about it. It says:
Income lax deductions for middle and low income families up to $300.
Reality, he hit us with five tax increases.
Promise:
Cutbacks in unemployment insurance rates.
Reality:
Crosbie increased UIC; increased premiums paid by workers.
1 will not take the time since I get no commission for this to read it all. But let me refer to more realities, and quote from The Toronto Sun:
It will cost more to drive your car. heat your home, smoke and drink.
It will make life longer, at least it will seem a lot longer.
Another reality The Toronto Sun outlines:
We may well be self-sufficient in energy by 1991 but at $4.50 a barrel of oil by 1983 who will be able to afford to buy it?


An hon. Member:: $4.50 a gallon.
The Budget-Mr. Simmons


Roger Simmons: The paper says a barrel, but I am sure it meant a gallon. In Toronto everything is smaller, including the barrels. One more reality from the reputable Toronto Sun and I quote:
And nothing on income tax cuts for middle and low-income wage earners.
Shame! The minister across the way should be the very man to talk about consistency because he certainly will know about it. He preached and lectured us tonight about consistency, but he must have learned it from a book. I say to him, it took the Tories 16 years to get there. Enjoy it; enjoy it for another half hour. It will take the Tories another 16 years before the people of Canada forget what was in this budget.
Now that I have dispensed with the President of the Privy Council, let us come to something far some serious. I refer to the budget speech, because that is what I want to talk about tonight.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard) on a point of order.


Eudore Allard: If the hon. member would allow me, I would like to ask him a question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is seeking permission to ask a question. Is the hon. member ready to accept a question?


Roger Simmons: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I understood that is what he had said, and I would be pleased at the end of my few remarks to entertain any questions.
I want to come to what is for me a very serious document. I want to say to my good friend, the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes), that what I shall give, I hope, in this chamber tonight during my few remarks is not going to be so much the bias of a Newfoundlander, as he would suggest, but the concern of one Canadian who is not very pleased about what is in this document, and I suggest I perhaps would not feel much different were I from some other part of Canada, even from his own part of Ontario.
To understand this budget Canadians must first understand the man behind the budget. I wish he were here tonight, but that is not my choice, so in his absence I will proceed. I should perhaps take a little time to tell you and, through you, the people of Canada, something about the man who is our Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie), what makes him tick, and why he does not believe in Christmas. I have known him for years, even before it was my task, often pleasant, to shadow him when he was the Newfoundland minister of finance, and even before, I say to the misled member from St. John's, he showed clearly where his loyalties were when he cancelled, as the Newfoundland minister of finance-can you believe it- the mother's allowance!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

December 13, 1979
The Budget-Mr. Simmons


Roger Simmons: 1 know him, and I knew him even before he sat in my living room 11 years ago and invited me to join his team in his quest for leadership of his party, which at that time was Liberal. He did not win that quest, and that explains why he crossed the floor to the Tories. That, of course, does not explain why he crossed the floor to the Liberals and left his Tory grandfather in the first place.
The Minister of Finance took pains to tell us about his successive electoral victories. I want to talk to you about just two of them to make a point in relation to the budget. One election took place about two months after he had joined the Tory administration in Newfoundland and about three weeks after he had delivered his first budget in which he literally dwarfed Churchill's sweat, blood and tears speech of World War 11. In that election the Minister of Finance got 74 per cent of the votes cast.
After having been three years as minister of finance he faced another election, after he had not quite delivered the Utopia he had promised. In that election he got a majority of 437, or 54 per cent of the votes. Not surprisingly, within a year he was running federally. It was a choice really of running or being run out of town. That is a demonstration of that bit of wisdom which says that if you are about to be run out of town get at the front of the crowd so it looks like they are having a parade in your honour!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roger Simmons: 1 promised I would tell you a few things about the Minister of Finance. He was the deputy mayor of St. John's. He was second to the mayor. He was the second man in Joe Smallwood's Liberal cabinet. He was the second man in Frank Moore's PC cabinet. He is now the second man in the Prime Minister's cabinet. Not that the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) is the first man. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) is the first man. The Minister of Finance is doing today in this budget what he has done all his life. He is playing second fiddle. In this case the first fiddle is the President of the Treasury Board. 1 love poetry. "The Origin of The Term Second Fiddle" is a little piece I have. It is anonymous, but I have this little couplet here which states:
I am the dean, and this is Mrs. Liddell.
She is the first and I the second fiddle.
The dean is the Minister of Finance and the President of the Treasury Board is like Mrs. Liddell. The Minister of Finance is always the bridesmaid and never the bride, until one day the bridesmaid dreamed about being the bride, and then dreamed she was a bride, and then believed her dream!
Who wrote the budget speech? I do not mean who physically transcribed it, but who dictated the budget? Was it dictated by some of the ministers who do not sit here because they could not win themselves a seat? Was it the minister of small businesses, the minister of international trade and economic development, and the minister of industry, trade and commerce and whatever else? I will tell you how many portfolios he has. If you count all the junior ministers on that side who answer to him, you have fully half the Tory bench. Did he
[Mr. Simmons.l
write the budget? If so, 1 cannot see the Minister of Finance reading it because those two guys, as I hear it, are not on very good terms these days. Did the President of the Treasury Board write the budget? Then again, how could the Minister of Finance read it because he and the minister responsible for the Treasury Board are not on particularly good terms these days either.
Or was it another minister who dictated this budget? Was it the senior minister from Alberta? No, I do not mean the Prime Minister, I mean the senior minister from Alberta, Mr. Lougheed. Who dictated this budget? That is the first question to which 1 would like to have an answer.
The Minister of Finance has stated his complete strategy on reducing the deficit. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, as one who knows, that he is not without experience in this matter, or at least in a related matter. When he was with the Tory opposition in Newfoundland in 1970 he said, as it is reported in the extract of Hansard which 1 have here, as an opposition member talking about the scandously high Newfoundland debt on that day which approached something in the order of $600 million or $700 million-he said, in part, and with humour, which is so much a part of him:
I have heard the premier saying-
He is talking about Premier Smallwood.
-I have heard him say, 'we will just roll over this money. This is no problem, we will roll it over'. The theme song of the government seems to be 'roll me over' with respect to the funded debt of this province.
Then he goes on to lament the size of the public debt of approximately $700 million. In truth, by the time this minister became the provincial minister of finance, those shockingly bad Liberals had put it up from about $700 million to fully $900 million. So his great crusade was to bring down this shockingly high public debt. Keep in mind that when he assumed the portfolio of finance, the debt was $900 million. When this provincial minister of finance left that portfolio two years later, it was $2 billion! This is the same man who, after great success in reducing the public debt in Newfoundland all the way down from $900 million to $2 billion-that is a long way down-and after solving our problems down there, has come up here to solve some of your problems, Mr. Speaker. He intends to reduce your deficit for you now, sir!
As one of my friends to my left said earlier this week, the government is having a bit of an experimental program in math, and do not be surprised if reduction means multiplying by two or 2.5 over the next three or four years, that is, if they have the chance to be the government that long, but that is not something we will have to deal with now. Clearly, the Minister of Finance has the experience, and I leave it to hon. members to decide whether it will be helpful in his present crusade to reduce the deficit. I have warned you, Mr. Speaker, not to hold your breath.
There is no doubt that this man has humour. He had it in the quote which 1 gave, and he has it now. Indeed, I would guess that of all those in this chamber tonight, I, more than
December 13, 1979

anyone else, have rolled in the aisles with his brand of wit and his paralysing invective. I will continue to do so because I like it. But I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, what I have discovered about his wit; it does not buy the groceries for the widow or the low income people across this country, on in my riding of Burin-St. George's!
As beautiful as the minister's wit is, it is a veneer, a facade, a style of bravado which is designed to conceal, hide, and distract. Humour is all right in its place, but if there is one thing the mourners in a funeral procession can do without, it is an undertaker who flashes a greasy grin on the way to the graveyard. I will leave it to my colleagues who are more expert in these matters, such as the hon. member and former minister of finance, the hon. member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien) and our spokesman on finance-I will leave it to them to deal with the more technical aspects of this budget, if they ever get the opportunity to do so in this Parliament.
My immediate concern relates to those issues which have a money impact or a pocket book impact on the middle and low income Canadians in my riding and all across this nation. The 25 cents a gallon increase in automobile gas with another 12 cents increase over the next year, the 15 cents increase for fishermen with another 12 cents increase during the next year and the 12 cents extra for people on home heating fuel over the next year, are all bad. 1 hear the minister talk about the conservation argument. That may well apply in certain parts of urban Canada, but 1 do not know because I do not represent an urban riding. I will leave that to my colleagues.
How do you conserve fuel in a fishing boat? Do you go half way to the fishing grounds? It is very good to have a car pool in Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver, but can you imagine a boat pool? Can you imagine the boys saying in the morning, "Don't take your boat this morning, George; we will put all the fish in my boat". These people cannot go out on a corner and wait for the bus. They wait two weeks for a boat. We cannot tell them to conserve by taking public transport. They only transport they have is their automobile, if they live near or on a road, or their legs. The latter take little petro, but the cars and boats take a great deal of petro and they cannot conserve it. These people have to use it if they are going to do their work.
I am dismayed at what the government is doing with unemployment insurance premiums. I heard the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) say in his speech yesterday that that is only the tip of the iceberg, and that it is only part of the full review. Why do they not tell us the full truth about what they have in mind? This budget is a Newfy joke because we in Newfoundland, like no others across this country, will bear the brunt of it, and from whom? One of the two men, including the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. McGrath), in that administration upon whom we thought we could depend to put our case in government! They are two Newfoundlanders themselves, and to whom are they socking it most? The people of rural Newfoundland, rural Canada, and all parts of this country!
The Budget-Mr. Simmons
If that is what the Minister of Finance is prepared to do to his own people amongst whom he grew up, then 1 shudder to think what he is prepared to do to the people of Canada as a whole. Perhaps the most prophetic statement in this entire document is the one which occurs on page 20 where the Minister of Finance says:
Fifly-one years ago my grandfather. Sir John Crosbie, delivered his fifth and final speech to the House of Assembly-
He went on to say:
-they had vision, confidence and courage.
And he could have added, "and a formula for bankruptcy". Sir John Crosbie was a Tory, but not a turncoat. Sir John Crosbie was a Conservative, though not a rank opportunist. His pedigree is that of a Tory, and that is about the only thing he has in common with the present Minister of Finance. They were both Tories by nature and by ancestry.
Let me make one other comparison. There are similarities in the two positions of 1928 and today. In both cases it was each man's Fifth budget. The present Minister of Finance delivered a budget to the city council of St. John's, three to the provincial government and one here, his last!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roger Simmons: And it, like the other ones, is a harbinger. It is a harbinger of things to come. It is a frightful message of how bad it will get if this crowd is allowed to run the government affairs of this country much longer.
Finally, and on a pleasant note, let me say that if we do not get home for Christmas-1 feel certain that we will with the vote that is about to come-do not blame the Minister of Finance for all the nice things I have said about him. Blame the President of the Treasury Board who, believe it or not, lost his estimates in committee. Perhaps we should put him in charge of the Prime Minister's suitcases. Not only did he lose his estimates in committee, he has not yet managed to find the Atlantic provinces!
1 said earlier, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Finance did not believe in Christmas. 1 owe it to the House to say why. He insists his birthday is not until January 30!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Rimouski on a point of order.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to congratulate the hon. member who has just spoken. He was quite eloquent, but he gloated over too many things. 1 should like to ask him whether he would have any remedy to apply were he sitting where Progressive Conservative party members are sitting now.

December 13, 1979
The Budget-Mr. Gustafson


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons) accepted a question and the question is being asked, if he wishes to answer it.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, 1 reply to my hon. friend in English because my French is inadequate and I would appreciate it if he would repeat his question. I will get my little plug and put it in my ear. We are not technically oriented down my way and it takes a little time to get the plug in the ear.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I am willing to start all over again. First of all, 1 should like to congratulate the hon. member on his eloquence. Fie speaks so well that it is a pleasure to listen to him. Flowever, he gloated over a great many things, but if he were to speak on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada, what solutions would he propose to solve the problems with which we are faced now? If he were sitting where the Progressive Conservatives are sitting now, what would he do? That is my question. If he is willing to answer it, fine.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard) for the question. First of all, I would not sock it to the low and middle income earners. I would not raise unemployment insurance premiums. I would not make promises about income tax and then reverse them. If the hon. member wants my platform in any more detail, I will be delighted to meet him in the lobby and have a good chat.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, it is a real privilege for me to rise in this House and make my speech at this very serious hour.


An hon. Member:: The first and last.


Leonard J. Gustafson: The timing goes this way, and it is a good proverb-the first shall be last and the last shall not be first.
Mr. Speaker, 1 represent the people of the constituency of Assiniboia who are very serious people. They are very serious about the situation that faces us now. I represent a people who are a productive people, hard-working people. 1 do not stand before you tonight as a professional politician; I stand before you to represent a people who know what it is to work hard and to produce. We have seen the production of the hard working people eroded by the socialists who are now hard to discern on the opposite side of the House because the philosophy of the left camp has climbed into the other camp, under the leadership of the former government. It is hard, though, to discern just where that side of the House stands. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Canada will decide- those hard working people whom we represent.
i should like to tell hon. members something about the constituency of Assiniboia, Mr. Speaker. It produces one-quar-

ter of all the wheat grown in Saskatchewan. There are 1,000 square miles of coal at Willow Bunch, Saskatchewan. In the constituency there are 150 square miles of coal in the Estevan area which also has major oil fields, the Estevan oil field, the Weyburn oil field, the Goodwater oil field, and the Midale oil field. I know what it is to represent people who produce the goods, Mr. Speaker.
The people of Canada tonight are not happy with the flippant mood in this House. Canada is standing at the crossroads, the result of 16 years of government that did not well represent the hard working and productive population, those in the factories, on the farms, in small business. Those people do not think that this is a light matter. On May 22 they voted under conviction, and if we are called upon to go to the polls again, they will vote under conviction this time as well.
I rose to speak on the budget, Mr. Speaker, and I should like to say a few words on that subject. I am very pleased to stand in this House with men like the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) who gave great leadership, and who will give great leadership.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard J. Gustafson: I am pleased to stand in this House with men like the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) who brought us a good budget, a hard budget, but an honest one, and who will in days to come, God willing, bring us many more honourable budgets. In this very serious moment Canadians are looking for men of determination, men of good will, but men who are willing to do the hard thing and the right thing. In this budget the minister did the right thing.
Leaders and business across the country and in other fields have acknowledged that this budget is right for Canada at this time. I would challenge hon. members opposite that if they think this budget is not right in the minds of the people, let them ask the public of Canada.
Let me tell you what a productive people have done, Mr. Speaker. In the year 1900, 97 per cent of all the people in North America were engaged in agriculture. Today, less than 5 per cent are engaged in agriculture, but that 5 per cent is producing enough to feed all of North America and a good portion of the world.
What did the opposition accomplish in the field of energy, Mr. Speaker? Canada is a strong country. It can produce energy as it can produce food. These are two important commodities that we will hear a great deal about in the future-food and energy. What does the opposition do to bring into being and to help exploration and production in this country? In 1975 we were self-sufficient in oil. But today we are running far behind because there was a lack of vision, a lack to see the tremendous challenge to produce. What has our budget done? What has the Minister of Finance seen and this government seen in the few short days we have had in this House? We have seen the vision of where Canada can go in energy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
December 13, 1979


Leonard J. Gustafson: We can be self-sufficient by 1990 with this budget that the Minister of Finance has given us. We can be efficient. We can heat the homes of Canadians. We can put fuel in the tractors of Canadian farmers, and we can produce energy like we have produced food.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard J. Gustafson: What did the budget say for the farmer? The budget of the Minister of Finance said that we will give some relief in the area of capital gains. I fought hard and long for this, with my colleagues from all across Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard J. Gustafson: This is a very positive and productive budget. What did this budget do for energy? It ensures relief for the low income families.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard J. Gustafson: There will be exemptions for fuel on the farms. It will stimulate exploration, and supply this great country of ours with the tremendous benefits of being self-sufficient in oil. It is most important, ladies and gentlemen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard J. Gustafson: I would like to continue but time will not permit. However, in the few closing minutes that are left to me, I would like to impress hon. members with something of importance to the country of Canada tonight. A statement made some time ago said "The land is strong". I agree, the land is strong. Canada is strong. There is no better country in the world. I have had the opportunity to visit 35 countries in the world and there is none that equals Canada. It is the best country in the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard J. Gustafson: Second, the people of Canada are strong. Canadians are a very strong people. Canadians are productive people. How did the opposition use that production? They wasted on the one hand and they have given away on the other hand. We have come through a decade of socialism. They were interested in giving away the hard-earned production of Canadian citizens.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard J. Gustafson: What is the future of this country? The future of this country is to give incentives and to give the opportunity to these hard-working people to create wealth for this country. That will be a precedent that Canadians will be proud to hand to their children and their grandchildren.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard J. Gustafson: I want to tell you further that the government you have today is strong. It is strong because men like the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister and the men behind them are ready to stand up and do the right thing.
The Budget-Mr. Gustafson


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard J. Gustafson: If we should be challenged at the polls in just a few minutes, the challenge, the cross-roads that the people of Canada will face is: are you willing to do the right thing right now?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
It being 9:45 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to Section 6 of Standing Order 60, to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the amendment to the amendment now before the House.
The question is on the amendment to the amendment. Those in favour of the amendment to the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 1 declare the amendment carried.
It being after ten o'clock, this House would ordinarily stand adjourned. 1 have an indication that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) wishes to gain the floor for the purpose of making a brief comment to the House. Since it is after the ordinary hour of adjournment, he could do so only with consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The government has lost a vote on a matter which we have no alternative but to regard as a question of confidence. I simply want to advise the House that I will be seeing His Excellency the Governor General tomorrow morning.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have only two very brief things to say. The House will realize, I am sure, that it would have been most inappropriate for me to anticipate this decision in any way. Therefore I have not arranged and have no intention of making any arrangements for any hospitality.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Why not?


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members would not have expected me to anticipate any result one way or the other, at least 1 hope so. Therefore, I will not, I repeat, not be in the usual environment after this sort of event.
The second is that this House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.
At 10.25 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, December 14, 1979