1980-04-28

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker,
I seek the attention of all hon. members on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the terms of Standing Order 43.
Taking into account that this year marks the fortieth anniversary of the Katyn forest tragedy, and that 1980 has been declared by Polish people as the year of Katyn, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That this House sympathizes with our fellow Canadians of Polish extraction over the great human sacrifices Poland had to endure during the course of the Second World War and declares that those who lost their lives at Katyn and all other sites of tragedy in Poland will long be remembered.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to move a motion of extraordinary urgency having to do with the lobster fishery on the east shore of Nova Scotia.
Severe bottom and surface storms in the early part of last week combined to virtually wipe out the lobster industry in that part of Canada for the present season. Fourteen fishermen contacted out of about 280 lost about 96 per cent of their traps. In a survey of some 2,300 trap positions a week ago last Saturday, it was found that 2,072 had been lost or damaged beyond repair.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That this House request of the government its immediate attention to this disaster, that it devise and implement a trap replacement program, that it give immediate consideration to making interim cash compensation available so as to enable trap replacement and, finally, that it consider the extension of the lobster season in this district by one to two weeks.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE SENATE
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, I rise on an issue of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the increasingly partisan nature of Senator Perrault's activities in government ministries within which he has no responsibilities, in view of that senator's decision to assemble, at public expense, a partisan staff, and since that hon. gentleman is in no way accountable to this House or to the people of Canada, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson):
That this House directs the hon. senator to confine his activities to those normally reserved for members of the upper chamber and that all expenditures by him and his staff, including flights of government and commercial aircraft, be tabled monthly by the Prime Minister.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIR CANADA
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the fact that under the winter schedule of Air Canada it was possible to leave Ottawa at 8 a.m. on an Air

April 28, 1980
Canada flight to Halifax, change planes at Halifax and arrive in St. John's, Newfoundland, at 1.45 p.m. Newfoundland time-four hours and 15 minutes total duration-and in view of the fact that under the summer schedule of Air Canada the traveller to St. John's, Newfoundland, must leave Ottawa at 7.35 a.m. on a flight to Montreal, wait at Montreal airport for some four hours and then take a flight at 12.10 p.m. from Montreal via Halifax to St. John's, Newfoundland, arriving at 5 p.m. Newfoundland time-or eight hours after leaving Ottawa-I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That all officials of Air Canada who have had any connection with or responsibility for the summer Air Canada schedule for flights from Ottawa to St. John's be "Mackaseyed", without any golden handshake, and that the schedule be changed to ensure service at least the equivalent of the winter service for travellers from Ottawa to St. John's, Newfoundland, particularly in view of the direct service offered to capitals of provinces such as Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island from Ottawa, and that this continuing rank discrimination against Newfoundland by way of air services cease immediately.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Mackasey said "Yes".


FORESTRY
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, I have a motion, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, which lends itself to the serious consideration of this House.
It concerns the mounting problems experienced by the forest and wood-converting industries which result in ever-increasing unemployment, particularly on the west coast but throughout our country and, of course, the serious effect this will have on unemployment insurance statistics. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley (Mr. McCuish):
That the minister engages himself immediately in discussions with his colleagues, the minister responsible for manpower, and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and their counterparts in the governments of the provinces in an attempt to work out a program whereby workers whose employment has been terminated for reasons of depressed market conditions can be engaged in the important task of renewing our forests, and that the federal government undertakes to offer direct subsidies to companies that undertake such programs.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I rise on an issue of urgent and pressing necessity.
In light of statements made late last week by Saskatchewan postal officials which confirmed plans to amalgamate Manitoba and Saskatchewan district offices, thereby removing the district office from Saskatoon, and from Saskatchewan, taking with it jobs and a measure of local control over postal services, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong):
That this House goes on record as being opposed to this amalgamation which will reduce services, reduce efficiency and serve only to further centralize postal operations in this country.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: You are a week late.


EXCISE TAX
Mr. Bill J. Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the technology involving the production of gasohol is now proven and available, and that gasohol could replace up to 10 per cent of the fuel requirements now served completely by gasoline, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker):
That this House directs the Government of Canada to provide positive leadership by exempting gasohol from the excise fuel tax of approximately seven cents per gallon on gasoline that contains at least 10 per cent biomass fuel alcohol, thereby making gasohol prices competitive with those of gasoline.


Walter David Baker: A first-rate idea.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
April 28, 1980


NATIVE RIGHTS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of pressing and urgent necessity.
In light of the fact that in the spring of 1978 native people in Le Pas, Manitoba, were charged, prosecuted and later convicted, for hunting ducks in May of that year; that these convictions were a result of previous governments reneging on treaty agreements with native people when the government instituted the Migratory Birds Convention Act; since the Liberal government promised in 1978 and 1979 to change the legislation in order to recognize native hunting rights, and since a protocol was signed last year with the government of the United States allowing for these changes, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly):
That this House instructs the Minister of the Environment to make the necessary changes in legislation immediately in order to ensure that no more native people are dragged before the courts for exercising their traditional and treaty rights.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In his press statement on Friday justifying the move of the Eldorado plant out of Hope township, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources used grossly inadequate cost estimates, which undoubtedly were the same ones he used in cabinet in order to justify the change.
Now that it is apparent these extra initial costs alone will be over $50 million, and not just $2 million as the minister indicated at his press conference, will the government reconsider the move?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, there is no question of reconsidering the move. The minister has just informed me that he used no cost estimates at his press conference. So if the hon. member has been misled in
Oral Questions
some way or other, he should perhaps ask the minister for the correct facts.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, if the Prime Minister is now indicating that there is no chance at all of the government reconsidering the move at all-


An hon. Member:: He didn't say that.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Maybe I am misinterpreting the Prime Minister. Perhaps he will clarify that. I have given him notice of this supplementary.
Because the contract to put in the services to the cancelled plant in Hope township will require compensation to be paid if the services are not connected, and because that work alone will keep some of the construction workers busy over the next few months, could the government complete the servicing of this site for the cancelled plant and then turn it over, fully serviced, to the municipality-hopefully, for a token amount- so that the municipality itself could then attract other industries to the site? As I say, I have given notice of that question to the Prime Minister's office.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Madam Speaker, I am told that is one of the options being considered. 1 think the hon. member, quite properly, is seeking a solution to this problem for his constituency, but if he wants further detail I would ask him to direct his questions to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who is much better informed of the details of this matter.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I have a further supplementary question, Madam Speaker. 1 am sure the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources heard my last request of the government in respect of the servicing of the site and turning it over to the municipality. Will the minister take that as a question directed to him?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, this is a matter that is being examined at the present time by Eldorado, and it will be discussed with the local authorities eventually as to what, if anything, should be done.


URANIUM REFINERY SITE AT BLIND RIVER, ONT.
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Since the government has selected a new uranium refinery site at Blind River, partly on the basis of storage of waste, does this mean that the community of Blind River has accepted that it will become the nuclear waste storage site for Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, in answer to the previous question, I would indicate that at the press conference there was no mention of cost figures in the press communique.
1 indicated at the press conference certain figures in response to the question as to how much it would cost. I said

April 28, 1980
Oral Questions
that the plan would cost $133 million if it were delayed for one year, and if the increased cost of construction were 10 per cent, then that would be $13 million more. That is the way the question was put. I did not give any specific, additional cost figure.
With regard to the question raised by the hon. member, no specific site has been selected, but-as the hon. member knows-all the experts indicate that the best possible site in Canada for the disposal of spent fuel is in the Canadian Shield which is found in northern Ontario. Sites are being considered. No site has been selected as yet. This will require extensive research, analysis and consultation with local authorities.
I hope that the decision made by the government last week will ensure the co-operation of the communities in northern Ontario so that the matter can be fully investigated, and that with the co-operation of the provincial government of Ontario and the local communities the best and safest arrangement can be found in order to dispose of spent fuel.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is the government committed to expansion of the Candu system both internationally and in Canada and, specifically, does the government intend to promote the use of the Candu system for heavy oils extraction in western Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, on the first part of the question, indeed the government is very committed to expansion of the Candu system both in Canada and in the international community. For instance, last week 1 met with representatives of the Argentinian authorities on this issue, and I believe we made progress on some of the outstanding issues between Canada and the government of Argentina.
With regard to the second part of the question, obviously this is a matter which must be discussed with the government of Alberta. The government has made no such decision, but such an avenue could indeed be explored further.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. In light of statements which have been made by the minister of the treasury for Ontario and by the four provincial premiers who met out west last week, can the Minister of Finance tell the House whether or not his government is reconsidering its high interest rate policy which was criticized by the present Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and by the present Minister of Employment and Immigration when they were in opposition; and, particularly, whether the government has been giving active consideration to the possibility of holding a national economic conference as soon as possible?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member wrongly characterizes the policy as a high interest rate policy. If he wishes to be accurate, he will recall that recently there have been two drops in the bank rate and in the prime rates of commercial banks. Certainly that is a move in the right direction.
I have not given consideration to calling a national economic conference, but I would be glad to take into account the hon. member's representations.


Walter David Baker: Think about it, Allan.


Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, I would remind the minister that the bank rate now stands at 15.67 per cent, and when he took power the rate was 14 per cent. That is a rise of something over 1.5 percentage points in the space of time since the government was formed.
Press reports indicate that governor Bouey declined to meet with the four western premiers on the grounds that he had an alternative engagement, and also on the grounds that he felt it would be inappropriate for a federally-appointed public servant to meet with the four western premiers. I would like to ask the minister if that is also his view of the function of governor Bouey.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I should explain to the hon. member that governor Bouey has been ready to meet with western premiers on an individual basis, has done so in the past and is prepared to do so in the future. With respect to an invitation to appear at a formal conference of western premiers, which might carry implications as to which level of government had responsibility for monetary policy, the governor of the bank chose not to attend, and he gave an explanation.

In that position I supported the governor of the Bank of Canada. But I do reiterate his willingness to meet with the premiers, as he has done in the past, and to explain the basis of his policy and the reasons why monetary policy is being administered the way it is at the present time.


Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, a supplementary question. Since the minister is not prepared to accept responsibility for his government's high interest rate policy, I am not surprised that there is a little confusion about which member of the government is responsible.
As my final supplementary question, Madam Speaker, I would ask the minister if he is prepared to give consideration to the recommendation of the four western premiers, that instead of having a board of directors appointed by the Liberal government of the day, the Bank of Canada be advised by an advisory board which would be at least partly appointed by the provincial governments, which would allow a far greater degree of national economic consultation and disclosure of national monetary policy and which would give rise to a far
April 28, 1980

greater degree of trust by all Canadians in the policies of the Bank of Canada.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I want to make it clear to the hon. member that the governor of the Bank of Canada has received representations, and will continue to receive views and representations, from western premiers and other interested groups.
1 do not think it appropriate, in this context, to revise the constitutional arrangements and to provide for a formal structure which is unnecessary in light of the free access which all groups have both to the governor and to the government.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. The Minister of Agriculture is quoted as having said at the weekend that he favoured a complete embargo on Canadian agricultural exports to the Soviet Union.
Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the Minister of Agriculture was stating government policy, in view of the fact that an embargo on grain sales to Russia alone could cost Canada in excess of $400 million per year.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture has not had an opportunity to make this particular suggestion to me. He may have discussed it with the Secretary of State for External Affairs or other ministers. I shall inquire.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, the statement by the Minister of Agriculture has caused very great ripples throughout the agricultural industry, which is now concerned that this is a new direction being taken and that the person who should be speaking on behalf of western agriculture and agriculture generally is now making suggestions that we limit our exports to the Soviet Union.
Madam Speaker, due to the fact that the Prime Minister has allowed him to answer this question at least, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the statement made by the minister on the Olympic boycott, to the effect that we were going to maintain traditional levels of grain sales and continue traditional exports of agricultural products to the Soviet Union, is this particular initiative one which he endorses and one he has discussed with the Minister of Agriculture?
If there are other embargo items, is he now prepared to bring the House into his confidence and let us know whether he plans other initiatives with respect to the Afghanistan problem?
OraI Questions


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and I are continually having discussions on these and other problems. I also discussed the embargo question with the United States Secretary of State, as he then was, last week.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Look what happened to him.


Mark R. MacGuigan: There is no further announcement to be made at this time. We will certainly keep the House informed. I will say that there is in place a very full range of sanctions on the Soviet Union with respect to Afghanistan.


PARKS CANADA
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, my question stems from a question put earlier today which dealt with the cancellation of construction of the Eldorado Nuclear plant in Hope township.
My question to the Minister of the Environment concerns another regional office relocation of Parks Canada from Cornwall to Peterborough. Would the minister advise this House if he has had a change of mind about that move which is currently under review, or has he decided to permit it to move as planned to Peterborough from Cornwall?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member has suggested, the matter has been under review. I have made some recommendations to my colleagues concerning it and I hope very shortly-perhaps within the next two weeks-to be able to announce a definitive decision on the matter.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of the Environment and it deals with the same subject. Going back to the last election, the employees of the office in Cornwall were told that they would be advised within seven to 14 days should the government decide to cancel that move. Those 14 days have passed. Could the minister advise this House why every time 14 days pass he requires another 14 days to review the move?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, the basis of the hon. member's question is incorrect. When I met the employees in Cornwall, I said that l hoped very shortly, within two weeks, to have come to a conclusion in my own mind about the matter and I would then be making recommendations to my cabinet colleagues. The fact of the matter is that I have decided on the proposals I want to present and I am discussing them with my cabinet colleagues. I indicated at that time that I would have to discuss the proposals I wished to make, and it might take further time before a decision could be announced.
454

April 28, 1980
Oral Questions AIR CANADA


CALL FOR DIRECT FLIGHT FROM OTTAWA TO ST. JOHN'S
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the proposed changes in the Air Canada schedule, in view of the fact that St. John's is the only provincial capital not served by a direct Air Canada flight from Ottawa, and in view of the fact that all Newfoundland members of the House of Commons would like to have direct access to our provincial capital, can the minister say whether he will make representations to Air Canada for such a direct flight from Ottawa to St. John's?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I will obviously do that. But my very recently acquired information is that there will be such a service direct to St. John's, and that will be announced next week-or start next week. I will get further information tomorrow, Madam Speaker, because I would like all members from Newfoundland to be properly served in terms of transportation from the capital.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Especially on the outward run.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lome McCuish (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. The Aluminum Company of Canada has declared its intention to proceed with the Kemano II hydroelectric project in central British Columbia under provisions of a 1949 agreement with the province of British Columbia.
The Aluminum Company of Canada feasibility studies disclose that the project will result in irresponsible and irreparable environmental damage, including the loss of spawning grounds on the Maurice, Skeena, Nechako and Fraser River systems, a change in water tables affecting both municipal and private water and sewage systems, and the loss of agricultural lands and wildlife habitat. Because of the grave danger which will affect over 200,000 people, would the minister assure this House and the people of British Columbia that the federal government will not permit the Aluminum Company of Canada to proceed with this project?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, my understanding is that the British Columbia government has already given assurance that there will be a full public inquiry before this matter is proceeded with. We will, of course, see what happens in that inquiry and make a full study of the environmental effects-particularly as they relate to fish species-before coming to a final conclusion, in order to assure ourselves that there is no damage in proceeding with this
matter, if that is the decision of the British Columbia government.


Robert Lorne McCuish: Madam Speaker, surely the minister is aware that his predecessor had taken positive steps and there will be ample evidence in his own office as to the impact? I would like the assurance of the minister that he has made it loud and clear to his counterparts in the British Columbia legislature that he will not accept the conditions of this project as they now stand,


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, as I indicated, there is going to be a full public inquiry. I think it will be wise for us to delay an absolutely definitive decision until we see the full effect of that inquiry.


PRIVACY
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Two weeks ago the minister gave a commitment to this House that within a few days, as he put it, he would make the kind of presentation that hon. members would like to hear on the subject of mail-opening. The Solicitor General knows, of course, that although the RCMP have been opening mail illegally for years, they were not able to produce any such evidence before the McDonald commission.
Will the Solicitor General now perhaps confirm that, as an alleged former civil libertarian, he understands the people of Canada want no further incursions into their privacy, and will the minister tell this House why there has been such a lengthy delay in preparing this important study?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, first I would like to remind the House that there is no intention on my part or on the part of the government to change the rules which prohibit the opening of mail, by regulation or in any other way. If it is to be done, it will be done by bringing forward legislation for the full consideration of this House.


Walter David Baker: When?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I indicated recently that because of the announcement of the McDonald commission, its report would be forthcoming before the end of the summer and that no action would be taken before that time. I did tell members that a report is being prepared. I have seen a version of it that does not contain enough statistical information, but in view of the fact that the matter is not urgent, that no pressing action is contemplated by the government or by me at this time, I think it is worth waiting to have the opportunity for a very full report to be brought forward, and I intend to bring it forward as soon as it is available.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I am not surprised that the statistics are unavailable. My supplementary
April 28, 1980

question is to the Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of Justice. For over a year now the government has had evidence of systematic violations of the Post Office Act by members of the RCMP. The Prime Minister will now, hopefully, be aware of the fact that it is the responsibility of the federal government to prosecute under that particular act.
My supplementary question, then, to the Prime Minister is: What action does the government intend to take to prosecute those persons who have been shown clearly to have violated the Post Office Act. Second, how quickly will the government be acting? Hopefully, it will be with the same kind of speed with which it moved in the case of the prosecution of CUPW leader Jean Claude Parrot.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, in the case of the hearing before the royal commission, I made it clear before-various ministers have also-that we do not intend to act piecemeal as the evidence unrolls and unfolds in front of the commission. Some of these hearings are in camera; others are in public. Some of them are in parts, and they are joined again at later stages.
I am sure that the hon. member would not want the government to take action and prosecute somebody on partial evidence. We have always said that we would not comment on the evidence as it came out in a piecemeal fashion; that we were waiting for the whole report. That remains our position.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac):: My question is directed to the Postmaster General. In view of the fact that the maximum limit for letting postal route contracts without tender is currently $10,000, and that this maximum amount has not been increased since 1968, could the minister please tell the House whether he will give consideration to raising this limit?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, of course we would like to raise that limit as soon as possible. The hon. member must know that, unfortunately, to do so an amendment must be passed to the Post Office Act. If the hon. member can consult his colleagues and assure me that we could pass such a bill unanimously in a few minutes in Parliament, I would be the first to go ahead with such a measure and have it approved immediately.
Oral Questions


TOURISM
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, given the fact that the Liberal cabinet was sworn in at the beginning of March and that the Prime Minister has not yet seen fit to name the minister who will have responsibility for tourism, an industry that is Canada's sixth largest earner of foreign exchange and one that contributes 5 per cent to the gross national product, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who perhaps may have been briefed on this important aspect of tourism.
It is a well-known fact that the previous government had approved funding for the proposed convention centres in Vancouver and Toronto. Can the minister give his assurance that this government will honour the commitment made in good faith to the cities of Toronto and Vancouver? I ask this question as it is difficult to plan without knowing the basis of funding.


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State, Small Businesses):: Madam Speaker, the whole question of the funding of convention or commercial centres throughout Canada is now being reviewed within the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. We shall be in a position to put before our cabinet colleagues a document for discussion purposes within the coming weeks.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State: in his absence, I will direct it to the Acting Secretary of State. Two weeks ago, a Canadian film animator, working for the National Film Board, won an academy award for his film "Every Child", yet this person was laid off by the National Film Board because of budget restraints. He has not been able to find a job in the Canadian film industry since last November.
The net result is that talented Canadians end up leaving Canada, taking with them valuable resources and further weakening the Canadian film industry. What steps is the government prepared to take to ensure that talented Canadian artists remain in Canada, and to ensure the continuation and improvement of the Canadian film industry?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, I know that my colleague is aware of the situation

April 28, 1980
Oral Questions
and I will draw the hon. member's comments to his attention when he returns.


Simon Leendert de Jong: A supplementary question, Madam Speaker. Perhaps the former secretary of state can answer this. 1 would like to have an answer today by the Acting Secretary of State.
The former Liberal government in 1978 had cut the National Film Board budget by $4.6 million. The former Conservative government restored it by some $350,000, only for last year. It is obvious that the cutbacks have severely limited the role of the National Film Board. Would the minister inform the House if his government will consider increasing the National Film Board budget, especially the budget for production?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, clearly, the restraint programs have had a considerable impact on the National Film Board. The question about further spending priorities in relation to the National Film Board is one to which the present Secretary of State should respond. As I said earlier, I will be happy to draw the hon. member's concerns to his attention.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In light of the long overdue but welcome decision by the government to boycott the Moscow Olympics, and in order for this government to be consistent in its actions condemning the Soviet Union's military invasion of Afghanistan, can the Prime Minister tell this House whether or not his government is now prepared to cease all further artistic and sporting ties with the Soviet Union, including the prevention of the Soviet hockey team from participating in this fall's Canada Cup hockey tournament? If not, can the Prime Minister explain the obvious inconsistencies that exist within his government's position in this regard?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I cannot comment on all the detail of this. Here again, the Secretary of State for External Affairs would be better able to do it than I.
On the specific point raised by the hon. member concerning the World Hockey Cup competition to be held here this fall, I point out to the House that the position of this government has been, not to ban the Olympics or sporting events, per se, but to ban them because they were being held in Moscow. That is the point we want to get through. I think that is the point President Carter first emphasized in his own policy. It is certainly our policy.
In other words, we are not condemning all contacts with Russian athletes, Russian artists or Russians of other kinds. We are condemning the Moscow Games. That is the purpose
of this government's policy. I do not know what the hon. member's policy was.


Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, Canadian amateur athletes will forfeit their once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to participate in the Olympic Games, and rightly so under the circumstances. But the question I put to the Prime Minister-and I suppose he did not understand it the first time-is, how can he justify the fact that on one hand Canadian amateur athletes will have to forfeit this opportunity, and on the other hand the hockey players, for example, or the Soviet-built Lada car sales people in Canada, will continue to bring to the forefront Soviet Union industry and Soviet Union sporting events which, as the Prime Minister knows, is the number one propaganda tool of the Soviet Union?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it has nothing to do with amateur or professional status. Our condemnation is of games to be held in Moscow. That is the total aspect of it. We are not condemning sporting events, amateur or professional, held in other fora. As a matter of fact, and as the hon. member knows, Russian athletes were in the United States at Lake Placid just a couple of months ago. Therefore, the creators of the policy of the boycott, the Americans themselves, are interpreting the policy the way we are, not the way the hon. member is suggesting.


FISHERIES
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to elaborate briefly on the reported guarantees by his department in connection with over-the-side sales of fish, specifically to Joint Trawlers Limited, a Swedish-based consortium. I wonder if this is not tantamount to a subsidy and whether he could tell the House briefly the basis of this, if it is true.


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, the discussions with the foreign company have, in fact, included the possibility of commensurate benefits being offered in exchange for coming in and buying Canadian fish from Canadian fishermen.
As the hon. member knows, we have experimented with the guarantee formula. We found that this created a lack of incentive to hang in if, for example, mackerel did not show up at the appointed time. We are now looking at the possibility of making available, as a commensurate benefit, fish in which Canadian fishermen have shown no interest in the past and which is surplus to our needs, for example, a certain quantity of silver hake. That is the approach we will be taking this year.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the minister's answer. I wonder if he could say whether or not there are any safeguards or provisions in place that would make sure that
April 28, 1980

fish sold under these conditions would not be used to compete directly with existing Canadian markets.


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, if one of the negotiations is successful, it is for a country that is a high consumer of mackerel and any of the fish for which they have need in their own internal consumption bracket.
Elon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East): Madam Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Can the minister tell the House why it is necessary to provide guarantees to Joint Trawlers, or to any other foreign trawlers, which amount to a subsidy, when Canadian processors have the capacity to handle that fish?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows very well-and this policy is not that different from the one I believe he advocated in Charlottetown last January-that if you are going to ask freezer vessels to come cer to Canada and be ready to buy fish, which in the case of mackerel may not appear on the scene for some time, you may have to offer some compensation for the time in which the freezers are waiting in the bay.
It is this approach that we are looking at, not a guarantee but a payment for steaming time. If the amount of fish that is delivered to the foreign vessel is not above a certain level, we are looking at a system which would guarantee a range between a minimum and a maximum sold by Canadian fishermen.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. Since 1975, the minister's government has allowed the movement of Alaskan oil down the British Columbia coast. Now we are faced with greatly increased traffic, with vastly increased potential for disaster.
At present, in connection with the Northern Tier proposal for an oil tanker port at Port Angeles, in the state of Washington, the state is holding site evaluation hearings at Olympia. Canada has neither representatives nor observers at those hearings, but has contact only through our consulate general in Seattle. Given the importance of this issue and these hearings, this is not good enough.
Will the minister undertake to have an official Canadian presence at the hearings or, failing that, will he fund an independent public interest group which would be willing to send a representative?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam
Oral Questions
Speaker, it is not the practice of the Government of Canada to make representations at such hearings nor, I regret to say to the hon. gentleman, do we have funds available in my department to finance interest groups who wish to appear before them.
However, as the hon. member touched upon in his question, we do ensure that there are observers via the consulate who are present at the hearings, and I am satisfied that they will keep us very much in touch with the hearings as they progress.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, 1 am sure the people of British Columbia will feel that the government is not fulfilling its election promises in this regard, with that answer.
In order for the Canadian government to make a strong case regarding tanker traffic on our coast, we need independent environmental impact studies. Is the minister's department relying on the National Energy Board requirement that Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company Limited do such studies before it can proceed with its application or, knowing that Trans Mountain's application could be withdrawn at any time, is the department prepared to proceed with environmental studies on its own?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, we are very much in touch with the situation. We are opposed to the tanker traffic on the west coast and we are, in a continuing way, assessing the potential impact which might come from the various schemes which are discussed.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Now that farmers are in some cases working their land, or in others are making plans for seeding, there are suggestions that the government might be moving toward putting rapeseed under the control of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Could the minister allay the fears of the farmers and indicate to this House that there is no intention of the government to move now so that the present crop or future crops will be put under the control of the Canadian Wheat Board as far as rapeseed is concerned?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board made a speech recently in the west in which he stated quite emphatically that he had no intention of doing that unless he were to take the normal procedure, which is to bring it to the attention of the cabinet as a whole. Most people have taken that as an understanding that he will not move unilaterally toward that change. That is the way things are now.
It seems to me that there are other things of much greater importance to do in western Canada at this time, namely, to

April 28, 1980
Oral Questions
increase the railway capacity and to tackle the Crowsnest Pass rate which will necessitate a climate of co-operation, which I very much hope for.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. As the House of Commons has moved from its chamber in the past, and there is no technical reason to keep it from doing so again, as many parts of Canada have not firmly expressed in the last while their desire for a renewed Canadian federalism including Quebec, and as the Parti Quebecois has intimated that the rest of Canada does not care or that Quebec would be better off without Canada and Canada would be better off without Quebec-things which we in this House do not believe-would the Prime Minister consider discussing with the other party leaders and Your Honour the possibility of adjourning the House of Commons to the city of Montreal, or elsewhere in the province of Quebec for two or three sitting days, not to debate the referendum, which is a question Quebeckers must decide, but to allow members representing every part of Canada to express the overwhelming view of their constituents that there is an important place within a renewed Canadian federation for Quebec, and to express that the overwhelming desire and attitude of other Canadians toward Quebec is one of, "Stay. Let us join together to build a greater Canada"?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I must say to the hon. member that I share his views and admire the objective as expressed in his question. As for the specific suggestion of adjourning the House of Commons to Montreal where it would sit for a few days, I find it very interesting indeed and I am convinced that generally speaking my caucus would find the proposal most acceptable. I shall ask the Leader of the Government in the House to discuss the matter with the other leaders. If there is consensus to that effect, we can then discuss the matter with Madam Speaker and the appropriate authorities.


POST OFFICE
Robert Joseph Ogle: Madam Speaker, my question is to the minister responsible for the Post Office. Last week, the hon. member for Saskatoon West moved a motion
asking that the proposed relocation of the Saskatchewan district office from Saskatoon to Winnipeg be revoked.
Can the minister indicate whether there has been any follow-up, and why he has not responded to my letter asking for clarification of the situation and reversal of the decision, if indeed one has been taken?
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I am quite pleased to answer the question and I thank the hon. member for asking it. I think he is acting much more responsibly than the hon. member for Saskatoon West who recently raised that question knowing quite well that I was unable to answer. I am pleased to advise the hon. member that the amalgamation of administrative services is not settled. No final decision has been made, but if we ever wanted to amalgamate administrative responsibilities, services would in no way be reduced in Saskatchewan. It would not affect employees in the Saskatchewan postal service. Finally, if it were done to reduce our administrative staff all those employees in Saskatchewan would be offered jobs in the public service or in the Post Office so they might continue to work for the Canadian government in Saskatchewan if they want to do so.


Robert Joseph Ogle: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the minister really understands the serious problem that the people of Saskatoon feel they are facing when they hear of the idea that this office could be taken away from them. I wonder if he realizes that the alienation which is taking place there now toward the government in that respect is becoming very widespread.
Would the minister reassure me that everything possible will be done to leave that office in Saskatoon for the district of Saskatchewan?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I want to say to the hon. member that the allegation presented by the hon. member for Saskatoon West was grossly exaggerated and had no foundation. No decisions were taken.


Mr. Clark:: Was it carried by Radio-Canada?


André Ouellet: If, indeed, we do something, it will not diminish or curtail good service in Saskatchewan. It will not deal with hundreds of employees, as has been alleged, but with only a few employees at the administrative level, and we will make sure that we continue to give good service in Saskatchewan. We will not substantially diminish the service.


Mr. Epp:: What do you mean by "substantially"?


André Ouellet: I see some Conservatives do not like the answer.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Right.


André Ouellet: However, I think it is important that I reassure the hon. member-and I thank him for asking the question-
April 28, 1980

and the people there that job security is assured. If such a decision is taken, those who could be affected will be guaranteed jobs in Saskatchewan in the public service, if they want to stay.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, since this government took office, we in the Hamilton area have not heard a peep out of the Minister of Transport, and certainly nothing official from his department, about his plans for expansion of the airport at Mount Hope.
Can the minister tell us now whether the government will adhere to the $45 million commitment of the previous Conservative administration, or does he intend to revise upward or downward government spending on Hamilton's ticky-tacky terminal and airport facilities?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Among other things, I did have a conversation with the Ontario minister of transportation on this very subject: he has a great interest in that particular item. A couple of things came up. One of them was that we would pursue the definition of the "concept"-that word is in quotation marks-or the orientation of the runway, which is still uncertain and needs clarification. Another thing that would be done-


An hon. Member:: Come on.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am using technical words that I did not know the meaning of two months ago. That is how fast I can learn.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order. Since the question period is coming to an end, would the minister please make his answer as brief as possible?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, Madam Speaker, I was about to mention that there is another aspect of very great importance, namely, the servicing of that airport by Air Canada. There are a number of negotiations to take place in that connection because it would be rather useful to have the assurance of regular service if the airport is to be expanded.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: I would still like to know whether the government is going ahead with the $45 million expansion program which had been approved by the previous government. Also, will the minister undertake to meet personally with the mayors of the greater Hamilton area to iron out some of these outstanding problems? Can he give us an assurance that the airport expansion plan will go ahead?
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1 was trying to say that the promise which was made by the previous government will be honoured if it makes sense to do so-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: -which involves the information I am looking for at the present time.


PRIVILEGE
Madam Speaker:: Order. On Tuesday, April 22 last, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) raised, as a question of privilege, the participation in the address debate the day before by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). I have now had an opportunity of reviewing the arguments presented on both sides of the question of privilege. Essentially, the Chair has to determine whether the Minister of Finance has breached the privileges of the House.
Perhaps a brief examination of the criteria for a question of privilege or for contempt would be appropriate at this time. Privilege relates to the obstruction of members in the discharge of their parliamentary duties and contempt relates to manifestations of disrespect for this House. The facts set out by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton and the complaint he raises relates rather to the manner in which the Minister of Finance was proceeding during the proceedings in Parliament last Monday night.
Our ways and means practice, that is to say, our practice regarding taxation proposals, was changed fairly substantially in January, 1969. Until then, most matters of taxation were dealt with in the committee of ways and means, in which the taxing resolution preceding the bill was subject to debate. The House resolved itself into a committee of ways and means by the vehicle of a government order which permitted the Speaker simply to leave the chair.
When it came to the traditional "budget presentations", the House embarked on that debate by a debatable motion for the Speaker to leave the chair in order for the House to resolve itself into a committee of ways and means. When that debate ended, the ways and means motions based on the budget were adopted after debate in the committee of ways and means, and bills based on these motions were then introduced.
The practice since 1969 is for a ways and means motion to be tabled by a minister at any time during a sitting without notice, provided that it may not be dealt with until a later sitting, and then without debate. With respect to the budget presentation, notice is given by the government to designate a day certain for its presentation and a six day debate follows. The ways and means motions-taxation proposals-which always flow from such budget presentations are tabled during the budget presentation and are treated the same way as those

April 28, 19B0
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
ways and means motions mentioned earlier; in other words, they are dealt with at another sitting and then without debate.
The gist of the complaint of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton is that what the Minister of Finance was doing last Monday was to all intents presenting a budget without adhering to the established procedures for budget presentation, and he thereby deprived opposition members from replying in the usual six-day debate that follows.
On the other hand, the position of the Minister of Finance appears to be that, whatever he did in the chamber last Monday night, he did not present a budget as envisaged by our rules but rather spoke in the context of the debate on the Speech from the Throne, and also tabled ways and means motions permitted by Standing Order 60(1), which tabling was not required to be preceded by a budget presentation.
Because the practice in respect of taxation procedures has changed considerably since 1969, the pre-1969 rulings are perhaps not as relevant, particularly since the taxation proposals were debatable then, and the complaint here is that no debate is being permitted on what is alleged to be a budget presentation.
Certain things are clear. First, taxation proposals may be tabled by a minister of the Crown at any time during a sitting. Second, a motion for their adoption is not permitted on the same day they are tabled. Third, the motion for their adoption is not debatable. Fourth, the Standing Orders of the House of Commons provide a procedure for a budget presentation. Fifth, a budget presentation for which the Standing Orders provide a procedure may be presented at a time when the government is so disposed.
Finally, it would be difficult to argue that any member may not address himself or herself to any subject when speaking during the debate on the Speech from the Throne. The practice of the House, as the records will show, has been to allow much greater leniency and not insist strictly on relevancy in the debate on the Speech from the Throne.
While the complaint, if I may so refer to it, is that the Minister of Finance showed disrespect to the House in the manner that he proceeded, the House has set down rules and has built up a practice in regard to the proceedings for ways and means, or procedures in respect of taxation, and therefore
from a procedural point of view the complaint relates to the regularity of these proceedings and accordingly is a matter relating to order rather than privilege or contempt. Therefore, it seems to me that the basic criteria for a question of privilege are lacking in this instance.

The complaint made by the hon. member relates to the regularity of these proceedings rather than to privilege or contempt. Therefore, it seems to me that the basic criteria for a question of privilege are lacking in this instance.
The House of Commons is guided by its rules and how they have been practised. While the spirit of the rules respecting taxation procedure may have been strained last Monday night, compared with the recent practice of October 20, 1977, when the then minister of finance tabled taxation proposals during his interventions in the debate on the Speech from the Throne for that session, in my view there was not that element of irregularity in the procedures of the Minister of Finance last Monday night which would require me to intervene.

Concerning the agreement or what some people assumed to be an agreement between the parties on the order in which speakers should have been heard, the House found itself in an almost identical situation in 1977. However, at that time, the Chair had been advised of an agreement between all party leaders and it was able to fulfil the wishes of the House without any confusion. I quote from Hansard of October 20, 1977, on page 98, when the then parliamentary secretary to the president of the privy council had the floor:
I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is hardly two minutes left and we agreed with each party's representatives to adjourn the debate at six o'clock to allow the Minister of Finance-
-who was then Mr. Chretien-
-to have the floor at eight o'clock.
The minister would be followed by a speaker for the Progressive Conservative Party, one for the New Democratic Party and finally one for the Social Credit Party of Canada. The agreement was that the previous speaker-the one who just spoke-would close his remarks at six o'clock. Since it is now a few seconds to six-
-and I am still quoting the Parliamentary Secretary-
-I ask that the House call it six o'clock to comply with the agreement we had reached.

If the House wishes to depart from the conventional principles regulating the process of debate, it should do so by a clear agreement, or preferably by an order of the House, if the Chair is to be the servant of the House.
April 28, 1980


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I want to rise on a similar point with respect to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) on Friday. I think I should bring this matter to the attention of the House and the Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Lapointe) to make sure that there is absolutely no question in the minds of anyone here, because I know the minister would not want knowingly to mislead the House.
During the course of his remarks on page 424 of Hansard, the minister allegedly quoted me with respect to a position I took which was completely contrary to the position 1 did take. He quoted me as saying that an act was brought into place; I found that in the transcription. The fact is that 1 said that there was no act; I specifically referred to that particular fact. 1 am sure the minister will agree that 1 did not make any reference to a specific act.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
Report of Committees

Charles Lapointe: for leave to introduce Bill C-20, to amend the Federal Business Development Bank Act.


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

Jean-Luc Pepin: for leave to introduce Bill C-21, to implement the International Convention for Safe Containers.


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

Madam Speaker:: I have the honour of tabling in the House a special report from the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada respecting electoral expenses made by registered parties and candidates for the thirty-first general election held May 22, 1979.
Pursuant to statutes, this report is referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


ADJUSTMENT OF ACCOUNTS ACT
Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council (for President of the Treasury Board)) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-22, to adjust the accounts of Canada and to make related amendments to certain acts.


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

Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I rise to present a petition to the House of Commons signed by over
2,000	people, most of whom live in the city of Thompson. The subject of the petition is to ask this House to instruct the government to take whatever steps are necessary to bring interest rates down to a reasonable and manageable level.
For the information of the House, I inform hon. members that many of the petitioners signed prior to February 18 and were reacting to statements of the previous minister.


[Stage Direction]
On the order; Government notice of motion
April 25, 1980-The President of the Privy Council:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, the Supplementary Estimates (A), 1980-81, shall be reported or be deemed to have been reported from the several standing committees no later than May 9, 1980;
That, no later than fifteen minutes before the ordinary time of adjournment on May 15, 1980, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings then in progress and put, forthwith and successively, without amendment or debate, every question that may be necessary to dispose of any item of business relating to interim supply, the said supplementary estimates, the restoration or reinstatement of any item in the said supplementary estimates or any opposed item in the said supplementary estimates and, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 72, for the passage at all stages of any bill or bills based thereon.
[Stage Direction]
April 28, 1980
Order Paper Questions
providing that the ordinary time of adjournment shall remain suspended until all such questions have been decided; and
That, for the year 1980, Standing Order 58 shall be amended as follows:
(i)	by replacing in section (5) thereof the word "five" with the word "eighteen" and by deleting the words "Thirteen additional days shall be allotted to the business of supply in the period ending not later than June 30.";
(ii)	by replacing in section (9) thereof the word "two" with the word "four";
(iii)	by replacing in section (14) thereof the words "March 1 of the then expiring fiscal year" with the words "April 30"; and
(iv)	by replacing in section (14) thereof the words "May 31 in the then current fiscal year" with the words "November 10".
Madam Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 21(2), this notice of motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders later this day or at the next sitting of the House.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 41, 266 and 343.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Between April 20, 1968 and May 22, 1979, what methods were used for purchasing furniture, equipment and appurtenances or other articles for government offices?
2.	Where purchases were made in bulk, were tenders called and (a) if not, in what cases were they not called (b) if so, were they by public advertisement or by invitation and if by invitation, how were the names supplied?


Hon. Jean-Jacques Blais (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1. In so far as DSS is concerned, from the establishment of the department on April 1, 1969, to 22 May, 1979, all purchases of furniture, equipment and appurtenances or other articles for government offices were made in accordance with the government conctract regulations and the subsidiary departmental supply policy manual. Purchases covered both bulk and unit requirements appropriate to customer needs.
2.	Tenders are always called to cover bulk purchases. These tenders can be either competitive or non-competitive.
(a)	Although, as stated above, tenders are always called, they may be non-competitive if: items to be purchased must match or interchange with items already in use; items to be purchased are available from only one supplier; items to be purchased are available from only one supplier who is able to meet required delivery conditions.
(b)	By invitation to suppliers who have identified their willingness to supply the federal government and who
have been qualified in accordance with departmental policies.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Did the Governor of the Bank of Canada in his remarks to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs on October 25, 1979, state "that many of our industries are operating uncomfortably close to capacity"?
2.	Is the government aware of any industrial sectors that are in such an uncomfortable position?
3.	What is the present estimated percentage capacity utilization of industry in Canada?
4.	What is considered a desirable percentage, and does the government intend to introduce incentives to encourage industry to increase its capacity?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State, Finance):: 1. Yes.
2.	The following manufacturing industries were operating at a rate of capacity utilization in the second quarter of 1979 which was greater than their average rate for 1974 as a whole: tobacco, rubber, leather, textiles, knitting, clothing, printing and wood. (1974 was the year of the previous peak for the manufacturing sector).
3.	As of the fourth quarter of 1979, the latest period for which data are now available, capacity utilization in manufacturing was 86.9 per cent compared with the average rate of capacity utilization in 1974 of 90.4 per cent.
4.	A decision on the need for further incentives will be made prior to the budget.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	How many pension applications, in the Canadian Pension Commission of the Department of Veterans Affairs, were received but did not receive first level decision as at (a) December 31, 1978 (b) October 31, 1979?
2.	How many (a) permanent (b) temporary employees were responsible for the processing of the applications in all their stages as at (i) December 31, 1978 (ii) October 31, 1979?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1.	(a) 2709;
(b) 3570.
2.	(a) (i) 94;
(ii) 81.
(b) (i) 4;
(ii) 4.
These figures include commissioners, medical advisers and medical support staff, but do not include any staff involved in the processing of ancillary benefits, entitlement board or assessment board support, or other administration.
April 28, 1980


David Michael Collenette: 1 ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (A), 1980-1981 REPORTING FROM STANDING COMMITTEES Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council) moved:
That, notwithstanding any standing order, the Supplementary Estimates (A), 1980-1981, shall be reported or be deemed to have been reported from the several standing committees no later than May 9, 1980;
That, no later than fifteen minutes before the ordinary time of adjournment on May 15, 1980 the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings then in progress and put, forthwith and successively, without amendment or debate, every question that may be necessary to dispose of any item of business relating to interim supply, the said supplementary estimates, the restoration or reinstatement of any item in the said supplementary estimates or any opposed item in the said supplementary estimates and, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 72, for the passage at all stages of any bill or bills based thereon, providing that the ordinary time of adjournment shall remain suspended until all such questions have been decided; and
That, for the year 1980, Standing Order 58 shall be amended as follows:
(i)	by replacing in section (5) thereof the word "five" with the word "eighteen" and by deleting the words "Thirteen additional days shall be allotted to the business of supply in the period ending not later than June 30.";
(ii)	by replacing in section (9) thereof the word "two" with the word "four";
(iii)	by replacing in section (14) thereof the words "March 1 of the then expiring fiscal year" with the words "April 30"; and
(iv)	by replacing in section (14) thereof the words "May 31 in the then current fiscal year" with the words "November 10".
Madam Speaker:: Is is the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, although the motion may look very technical, the aim is quite simple. It is simply to adjust our standing orders to present conditions. All hon. members know we have gone through two elections this last year. This has affected very significantly the order of business, especially supply and the estimates.
Supplementary Estimates (A)
All the motion boils down to is simply to try and bring back a minimum of order so that we may dispose in a positive and efficient manner the workload accumulated as a result of these last two elections. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the motion is nothing more than amendments to the standing orders for the year 1980, as I say to make the orders applicable to the business of supply we have to face.
In order to understand fully the purpose of the motion, a brief review of recent events is needed. First, we have gone through two elections in 1979-80, on May 22 and in the beginning of 1980, on February 18. As a consequence, the estimates for last year, for 1979-80, were never formally approved by the House, and the estimates for the year ending March 31, 1981, could not be tabled on the 31st of last March to be referred to the various committees of the House, as called for by the standing orders. As a result, the rules concerning the business of supply and limiting the debates do not apply. Our aim in introducing the motion today is to avoid a severe bottleneck that would render the House unproductive. It is to ensure that a fair and reasonable schedule be ordered so that we may dispose of that workload, accumulated as a result of two elections in less than a year.
I emphasize that the proposed schedule is very liberal for the opposition, because it is allowing more time than set forth in the standing orders were they applicable. Let me explain.
Under normal circumstances, Mr. Speaker, the government budget expenditures or the main budget estimates must be tabled in order to be referred to the different committees of the House, by March 1 each year. The standing orders provide that after this occurs, on May 31, that is three months later, these estimates are deemed to be automatically reported back to the House without any additional debate in committee. When the standing orders apply, that is when the estimates can be tabled by March 1, a maximum delay of three months is being allotted for their study in committee. According to the tradition, on March 26, that is the last day of one of the three supply periods provided for under the standing orders, the House of Commons adopts the interim supplies so that the government can carry on its duties and spend until such time as the main estimates are studied and passed.
Also tradition has it that it is only on June 30, at the end of one of the three supply periods, that the whole thing, namely the main estimates and the supplementary estimates which have been studied by the committees until May 31 be voted upon and finally passed on June 30 therefore within the maximum delay of four months provided for the study of the main estimates and the supplementary estimates, such matter including passage by the House of the interim supply.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, if the elections had taken place a little earlier and if the present government could have tabled the main estimates on March 1, the opposition would have had a maximum delay of three months to scrutinize them in the House committees and finally a maximum of four months

April 28, 1980
Supplementary Estimates (A)
before their final passage, in the meanwhile having granted the government interim supply less than 26 days after referring the main estimates to the committees.
Yet due to this exceptional situation in which we now find ourselves these normal limits which had been accepted by the House at the time of a parliamentary reform back in 1968 or 1969, these normal and natural limits provided for by the standing orders do not apply. What we must do now is to try and make sure that the desire expressed by His Excellency the Governor General in the Speech from the Throne be fulfilled. I would refer you to a paragraph in that speech which states, and 1 quote:

Canadians expect much of this Parliament. The country asks for action and action now. The first task is to clear the accumulation of essential legislation left from previous Parliaments. This backlog must be dispatched expeditiously so that the affairs of the state may be put in good order. To that end, my government is relying on the good will of members and senators of all parties.

This was the wish expressed by His Excellency the Governor General and it is in that spirit, Mr. Speaker, that 1 have opened consultations and negotiations, as I said often in this House in the last two weeks and a half, since the opening of Parliament. I believe that the good faith or good will mentioned by His Excellency the Governor General will be demonstrated in the debate on this motion, if there is one, because 1 am still waiting for the valuable explanations that will be certainly given by the Progressive Conservative Party so that we can orderly dispose of that backlog to make this Parliament efficient and allow it to study and deal with the real problems facing our country.
So, Mr. Speaker, what this motion says in the spirit of the wish expressed by His Excellency the Governor General in the name of efficiency and to ensure that the rights of the opposition are respected is that we are going to make sure that the two clauses of our standing orders concerning business of supply or related matters will be changed in view of the present circumstances. We are going to change a few dates in
S.O.	58 which includes 19 paragraphs and determines the natural time limits that 1 mentioned earlier. We are going to change those dates so that the Thirty-second Parliament will be able to study the main estimates as well as the supplementary estimate within a reasonable time limit. That time limit shall be at least equal to that provided by the standing orders had they been applicable and I think that you cannot expect more from a government when it is prepared to ask for an order of the House giving the opposition more time to study the main and supplementary estimates than normally provided by the standing orders.
Another advantage of the order requested by the motion would be to give the opposition all allotted days provided by our standing orders for the two supply periods ending December 10, 1980. Let me explain: The supply procedure provides three periods each year for which a certain number of days
called opposition days are allotted which can be used by the opposition parties to consider the estimates or subjects which interest the Canadian Parliament. These three supply periods are as follows: The first goes from March 26 to June 30 and includes 13 days allotted to the opposition. The second period goes from June 30 to December 10 and provides five allotted days for the opposition. The third period extends from December 10 to March 26 and grants seven more allotted days, which makes a grand total of 25 allotted days in a year.
If we look at the period provided in the motion now under consideration, we note that it provides two supply periods and grants to the opposition the total number of allotted days normally provided in these supply periods. In other words, the motion provides 18 allotted days for the opposition parties from now until December 10, while our standing orders normally provide the same number of days for the period between March 26 and December 10. As I said earlier, there are 13 allotted days between March 26 and June 30 and five between June 30 and December 10, which makes a total of 18. We are now at April 28, and as is quite obvious from the motion, we would be willing to grant to the opposition parties the 18 allotted days that would be provided under our rules if today were March 26. In other words, the opposition would have 18 allotted days for a period of about seven months instead of having 18 allotted days for a period of about eight months, which is clearly to the advantage of the opposition.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to summarize the two advantages provided in this motion. First of all, in a shorter period, the opposition parties would have the same number of allotted days, that is 18, as the number provided by the standing orders between now and December 10, which is a considerable advantage, and second, the main and supplementary estimates could be considered in committee, not only for three months, as provided normally by the standing orders, but for over six months.
We are saying in effect that these estimates will be considered as having been thoroughly studied and will be tabled in the House only on November 10, as opposed to the other deadline which would normally be May 31. Therefore, we have a second advantage: it will be possible for the opposition parties to scrutinize and make a more extensive study of the estimates during a period of time twice as long as is normally provided for in the standing orders.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, 1 submit that the government proposal is very reasonable in allowing Parliament to act efficiently and demonstrate to the Canadian public our desire to work in an orderly fashion to be able to clear this enormous accumulation of legislation left from the previous Parliaments and in the wake of two successive elections in less than one year; but today's order will allow us to be duly efficient without infringing on the rights of the opposition, and without preventing the opposition from making a detailed study of the government's estimates and main expenditures. On the con-
April 28, 1980

trary, the motion under study will amend S.O. 58 dealing with the business of supply and ways and means in that opposition parties, will come out the winners as they will have much more latitude to criticize, to analyse and to debate the estimates and to do so in an orderly fashion.
So, Mr. Speaker, 1 do want to believe in the good will of opposition parties on the necessity of disposing within reasonable time of this backlog, and in particular what we are discussing today, the business of supply. The Progressive Conservative Party which so far has failed to agree on this kind of order of the House and failed to make counterproposals. In the consideration of this motion for a special order of the House, a consideration that I hope will be very short so we can dispose of the very large number of other urgent bills that have accumulated as a result of the two successive elections we have had in a year, I am confident the Progressive Conservative Party will prove reasonable and show the good will that is hoped for by His Excellency the Governor General.
I am confident, and I say so in all sincerity, that that party will allow us to work effectively because we are offering them in that order something more generous than what the opposition normally gets under the rules of this House. And I am sure that my colleague, the Leader of the Offical Opposition in this House, is going to co-operate so as to ensure that that good will is there. I am convinced he will give us the proof in this debate that that good will being required by His Excellency the Governor General is possible between the three parties in this House, and that is why today I ask the Progressive Conservative Party to accept the generosity of the government, to admit that indeed the proposed order is much more generous than the otherwise applicable rules of this House. Furthermore, I am quite aware that there might be a debate perhaps to get some explanations on the required order of the House but 1 think the Progressive Conservative Party today has an excellent opportunity to prove it is anxious to see Parliament dispose effectively of the legislative business that has accumulated as a result of an extraordinary situation, namely, two elections in less than a year.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order and for purposes of clarification. 1 know that the President of the Privy Council would not want to mislead the House intentionally. He has made references throughout his presentation with respect to statements made by His Excellency the Governor General in the course of the throne speech debate as though this was the personal request of the Governor General. 1 was speaking with the Governor General just the other day, Mr. Speaker, and he never mentioned a word about this particular problem.
Supplementary Estimates (A)
I wonder if the President of the Privy Council would want to make it quite clear on the record that the Speech from the Throne, although read by the Governor General, is set down by none other than the Prime Minister and his cabinet, including the hon. President of the Privy Council.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the throne speech that I quoted speaks for itself. As for the ways my colleague might want to interpret it and the private conversations that he might have had with those who helped draft the throne speech, I cannot vouch for them, I was not there. But the passage I quoted is evidence of the fact that there is in this country a desire for the government to stop dragging its feet and carry out its business more efficiently. That was all 1 wanted to convey by quoting the very words of the throne speech, and we want to act, Mr. Speaker, in the greatest respect for the rights of the Progressive Conservative Party and other opposition parties. In that regard we want to give the opposition parties more scope and more time than stipulated in the standing orders. That is exactly what is proposed in the motion now before us.
Therefore 1 ask the hon. member on what principle he refuses such generosity from the government. 1 think his position is illogical.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not think it is at all fair for anyone to blame the Governor General for the contents of the speech he read two and one half weeks ago. 1 am glad that the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) has pointed out to the people of Canada that it is not the Governor General who is responsible for the speech but the government that speaks through the Governor General on that particular occasion. "A thing of beauty is a joy forever."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: I noted the pious way in which the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) expressed this gift. He wishes to give members on this side a gift. He wishes to give us something we did not have before. He wants to give us several extra opposition days within a certain period of time. It really touched one to hear him describe what he was going to give us. We do not want something to be given to us. We think that the rights of Parliament are rights, not to be given to us by the gift of the government.
We think that members of the House should have certain rights-that the opposition have certain rights, and that the government, of course, have certain rights. They have the right of a majority and if they do not exercise that right with some sense and discretion and propriety, then we will have no rights on this side of the House.

April 28, 1980
Supplementary Estimates (A)
We do not want the President of the Privy Council to give us a couple of little opposition days. What is the good of an opposition day in any event? What does it lead to? We do not want that. We want the President of the Privy Council, now representing a government with a strong majority, to give us something far better than that-to give us some rights. Grant us some rights. Let us enshrine some rights in the rules of the House.
I shall move an amendment to his motion later that is supremely reasonable and will carry out some of the items that we were going to carry out ourselves in the direction of parliamentary reform, so that on this side of the House we will not have to be begging like trained seals on our flippers to the President of the Privy Council, begging him for a couple of extra opposition days and so that we will have the right to have ministers come before the House with their estimates. I mean ministers who are recalcitrant, ministers who are arrogant, ministers who will not come to committees or who only come when they feel it fit to come to committees. These are ministers who do not want to answer questions in committees, ministers who have to have their minions on the backbenches on the government side protect them in committees, occupying time, as Mr. Speaker knows.
In these mighty committees that examine these estimates, everybody has ten minutes to question the minister. Lo and behold, the government has a majority on the committees and members of that government majority use up their ten minutes each footling around so that the minister will not have to answer any pertinent questions, any rude questions, any direct questions, and so that we will not have time to embarrass the minister or dig into some scandal or ferret out some information.
That is what happens in the committees-the majority wastes our time. The committees are absolutely useless for the discussion of estimates, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: We, with no power, with a minority, are in no position to demand anything. When these estimates go out to committees, forget it! We are going to learn nothing in those committees, unless accidentally along the way when we have some officials there who might give us a truthful and full answer and the minister is not around to stop them.
That is what these House of Commons committee studies of the estimates are. The worst thing that ever happened to the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker, was when the estimates were taken away from this House and Committee of the Whole and sent to committees.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: So the minister gives us nothing. The minister gives us the square root of nothing. The minister gives us zero-zilch.
We have not agreed to the motion that he is proposing today, and we are not going to accept the motion he is
proposing here today; we have our own alternative. If he is a man who is going to listen to the Speech from the Throne, if he is going to rely on the good will of members, then I know that he is going to spread a goodly measure of good will in the chamber. He is going to listen to anything we propose that is reasonable and proper and that will help the members of this House.
When the good will of members is being discussed, Mr. Speaker, I cast my mind back to one week ago today and the good will that was demonstrated in the House when there was a mini budget or financial statement bootlegged into the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I cast myself back there and look at all the good will that was generated on that Monday night, the fantastic good will that was displayed in this chamber.
The question of privilege that we raised has been found not to be privilege. I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) put his finger on the matter when he said that this is not a question of the technical rules of the House but a question of how the government wants to approach the House, of what kind of atmosphere they want to exhibit in the House. That is what it all is about. We have not seen too much good will yet. We are relying on the government for the good will. We are relying on the government to exhibit some of that good will.
The Speech from the Throne said that Canadians expect much from this Parliament. Canadians expected much from the last Parliament, Mr. Speaker, but they got precious little chance to see what the last Parliament could do. The last parliament met for only two months and then it was terminated. During those several months there was very little co-operation by the opposition with the then minority government; in fact, there was none.
We are willing to forget all that, Mr. Speaker. I can tell the President of the Privy Council that, for my own part, I should like to get through all the legislation that is non-controversial, and there is a lot of that. I do not see any reason why there should be long debates. We will deal with it speedily and efficiently so long as we get co-operation on this side of the House.
Where we want that co-operation, Mr. Speaker, is in dealing with these estimates, but not dealing with them out in committees of the House where they get no publicity, where we have not got the weapons, where the minister can deal with us as a toy. We can ask the minister a question, he can take nine and a half minutes to answer it and so the ten minutes is up.
When one gets the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) before the committee and asks a question about blended oil pricing, he speaks for nine or nine and a half minutes. By then his time is up and he smiles as he finishes his peroration. He has not answered the question, has not given one bit of information and never intended to. Then we pass on to the next questioner. A Liberal backbencher tells him how good he is, what a wonderful job he is doing. He asks penetrating questions such as, "Mr. Minister, do you realize how good you are?"
April 28, 1980

We do not want that. We want some of the estimates brought here for discussion. We want the estimates of the ministers who are the most arrogant, overbearing, supercilious, the weakest. Perhaps we could choose one weak one and then one who thinks he is the bee's knees and is really tough. We want to discuss these estimates in Committee of the Whole with unlimited time, until the good gentleman comes forward with the information. What is this blended oil price? How is it going to give the people of Canada what they have been promised? That is what we want to know.
If we are treated that way, Mr. Speaker, then you can count on our good will. We are going to have lots of good will in this Parliament. There will be more good will, Mr. Speaker, than you have ever seen in your life. The President of the Privy Council will practically drown in good will. But 1 will come to my amendment later.
We see a government that has come back with a majority and in just two weeks it has done its best to crush good will in this House. It bootlegged in a budget without adequate warning to members and then dealt with it in a very cavalier fashion. It stopped the Speech from the Throne after six days so that even if we wanted to discuss this bootlegged budget in the address in reply, we could not do it.
After doing that, Mr. Speaker, they brought in the estimates. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) said these were the estimates but they were not going to pay any attention to them. He said: "This is not our policy; we are putting these estimates before you so that we can get interim supply".
That was a bald-faced admission that we were being given these estimates not because they were accurate estimates of what this government intends to spend, but because this government wants to sling interim supply out of the House of Commons and it has to present something. After being questioned for two days, the President of the Treasury Board did not know what was in the estimates. There was $2 billion more in the estimates of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) than in the estimates of the President of the Treasury Board. So the President of the Treasury Board does not know what is happening in finance and finance does not know what is happening in treasury board; and the two of them together do not know what is happening to the economy. There is a $2 billion discrepancy and the President of the Treasury Board could not tell us where it was. He said he would have to have time to survey; I have his exact words and I am coming to them, Mr. Speaker. Before I am finished this week, I will be dealing with these matters in detail but I will be coming to the exact words used by the President of the Treasury Board. I am leading up to the subject gently.
1 recommend to the President of the Treasury Board that he look at Hansard for October 12, 1979. I have it underlined here. It struck me at the time as being such a pertinent statement. We know that the former minister of finance now has his fingers in the dikes; all of his fingers and toes are in
Supplementary Estimates (A)
the dikes in Quebec. He is not in the House this afternoon but he said a very pertinent thing and gave a piece of advice to our government. Too bad our government did not have time to act on it. This is what he said as reported at page 147 of Hansard:
There is only one thing that matters: to be honest with the public.
Imagine a Liberal giving that piece of advice.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: I want to repeat that so hon. gentlemen opposite will know what is the cardinal principle that rules the government:
There is only one thing that matters: to be honest with the public. That is al! I ask of the government.
That is what the hon. gentleman who is now the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) asked of us last October. Lo and behold, we were honest with the House and we were honest with the public. Now we are over here and they are over there.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: That was our trouble; we listened to that advice. The day that he opened his mouth and gave us that advice was a poor day for us. Now I am giving the President of the Privy Council the same piece of advice. There is only one thing that matters: to be honest with the public.
The motion before us gives us nothing. If the motion of the President of the Privy Council is passed, the supplementary estimates will now go off to the committees and they will be diddled around with for a couple of weeks. Everyone will have a fine time there saying how good the ministers are. The minister will have a fine time saying "Look, I am only here two months, I cannot answer your questions". They will all come back to the House, and there will not be a word of debate in this House. Under this motion, there will not be a word of debate in the House of Commons on the supplementary estimates if this motion passes. There will not be a word in this House about the interim supply for 1980-81, which will take the government to the end of December. Not one word will we be granted permission to speak in this House on billions of dollars of spending under interim supply from now until December. That is what the President of the Privy Council offers the official opposition. I do not know what members of the NDP will do. We all know that they are very subtle in these matters. They have all the consistency of a corkscrew.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: We know the attitude that they took. We know how straightforward they were, how resolute they were that the rights of this chamber be backed up right to the fore, right to the very hilt, when we were the government and the Liberals, NDP and Social Credit party had a majority over us. Then, by golly, they wanted everything done right and proper. We had to give, give, give, which we did not mind doing because we wanted to change the rules and get this House operating a bit better. We hear the members of the NDP from

April 28, 1980
Supplementary Estimates (A)
the length and breadth of Canada. They are fighting for democracy every day of their lives. Every minute of every hour they are fighting, fighting, fighting. We know that they will not be found lacking when we move our amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Now, what about the main estimates? Let us look at the main estimates. We will have until next December to study the main estimates. Can you not see all of those committee members burrowing in every day in August, Saturdays and Sundays, racketing through those main estimates right until next December?


An hon. Member:: They do not mean anything.


John Carnell Crosbie: March next, 1981, they will tell us they were not their estimates anyway, that they had to change policy. So we will all be going through these estimates in committees, in the crevices of this building where the committees meet. All the press will be there watching and listening to every word we are saying and taking it all in as we are grilling those ministers who turn up when they leave Waikiki, or whatever, every couple of weeks to answer to the estimates. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that the main estimates will not come back to the House either? Have I got that right, Mr. Leader? Mr. Leader, where are you when 1 need you?


Walter David Baker: Right here.


John Carnell Crosbie: Is it not true that the main estimates will not come back either?


Walter David Baker: That is right.


John Carnell Crosbie: The past president of the privy council, who shall be privy to the council again some day, tells me that that is right, that the main estimates under this rule will not come back to this chamber. We have seen the last of the main estimates. We know that we have opposition days but the main estimates will not come back to the House of Commons. So that is not quite good enough.
Before I get to making my motion, I want to tell the House about some other things that we are a teensy-weensy bit concerned about. There does not seem to be any sense of urgency on the part of the government such as they felt last fall with financial and economic matters. The leader of the government seems to be uncertain about what he is worried about. He is not worried, we are told, about the deficit. No, that does not worry the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I am glad that he has said he is not worried by that, because I would not have thought he could survive the worry if he had been worried about it in view of what he has done with the estimates and with the deficits over the past ten years. But he has said no, he is not concerned about the deficit. He has a henchman, the Minister of Finance, and he is not concerned either.
I do not want to be accused of quoting anyone incorrectly. Usually I have thousands of quotations and from time to time, Mr. Speaker, you may have to wait a minute or two while I get
the exact quote so no one will accuse me of being unjust. In any event, here is what the Prime Minister said at his press conference on Thursday. I think the Prime Minister is probably going to give up holding press conferences. He said that "the reason why we want to reduce the deficit then is not to improve the health of the Canadian economy". I do not know why he wants to reduce it if he does not want to improve the health of the Canadian economy. Here he is saying it is healthy. We have a Prime Minister who thinks the Canadian economy is healthy. He does not want to reduce the deficit to improve the health of the Canadian economy because the Canadian economy, lo and behold, is healthy.
This is the economy that he said several months ago when he was in opposition was in ruin and tatters. This is the same economy regarding which last Monday night the Minister of Finance gave certain information and projections as to what was going to happen with the economy; in other words, the economic outlook for Canada. Here is what he said at page 245 of Hansard for April 21:
The general view is that there will be little or no growth in Canada in 1980.
Little or no growth is healthy? How healthy can you get? The Prime Minister is not worried about little or no growth in Canada. He clapped his Minister of Finance on the back and said: "That is the healthiest statement, Allan, that you have made since we have been in the government". I repeat: "The general view is that there will be little or no growth in Canada in 1980". We have a really healthy economy? The Minister of Finance goes on to say at page 246 of Hansard:
Our latest forecast is that the economy will grow by only one-half of one per cent.
It is getting healthier all the time. Imagine, the economy is going to grow a whole one-half of one per cent and the Prime Minister of this country thinks that is very healthy and therefore does not have to worry about the deficit. That is his statement. That is the person who is leading the government and will lead it for the next four or five years. One fears for this country, Mr. Speaker, when one realizes that a man who is going to lead this country for four or five years thinks that our economy today is healthy.
Then the Minister of Finance said this:
The consumer price index is projected to rise by 10 per cent.
That is very, very healthy! This is great news, Mr. Speaker! The CPI is going up 10 per cent. This is great news for Canadians. It is positively healthy; very, very healthy. Again the Minister of Finance said that there will be an increase in the nominal value of the GNP of around 10 per cent.


An hon. Member:: What about unemployment?


John Carnell Crosbie: Someone mentions unemployment. What about unemployment? Somewhere he has a word about unemployment. I see interest rates, mortgages, other domestic sectors, aggregate demand, residential construction. He is trying to hide it here somewhere.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
April 28, 1980


John Carnell Crosbie: Ah, here it is. He says that the unemployment rate is now expected to rise to an average of 8 per cent. I have campaign speeches here made by the Prime Minister. 1 can get them out and quote them, and I probably will as the week goes on. He says in those speeches that he cannot risk while Canada has one million unemployed. He cannot risk while Canada has one person unemployed. He was positively bubbling over with his enthusiasm during the campaign to fight unemployment, to get the unemployed back to work. Now he is ensconced in his comfortable government post again and the Canadian economy is healthy. It is positively healthy. Here is his Minister of Finance saying the unemployment rate is going to rise from an average of 7(6 per cent to about 8 per cent. That is supposed to be healthy!
The volume of consumer spending is projected to increase 2 per cent. The cycle of investment expansion which began in 1979 is expected to continue through 1980 with a further increase of more than IV2 per cent in real terms.
That is if the Minister of Finance's mini-budget does not put a stop to that. That is the healthy economy that the Prime Minister was referring to. Then he says:
-rather it is necessary to reduce the deficit because interest charges on the deficit are so high because of high interest rates.
That is what he is supposed to have said at the press conference. According to The Ottawa Journal, Friday, April 22, and 1 quote:
Prime Minister Trudeau made it clear yesterday that a large federal deficit in itself does not worry him, but the debt charges the government must pay on the deficit do.
We have a Prime Minister that does not realize that without one you cannot have the other. He is not worried about the deficit, he is just worried about the debt charges. He does not have to worry about the debt charges if he keeps the deficit down, but if he allows the deficit to go up then he has more reason to worry about the debt charges.
Our Prime Minister does not realize that debt charges are connected to the deficit. This year it is going to go up SI4.1 billion, according to figures given to this House one week ago, and the debt charges this year are going up $10,775 billion. As for the interest charges alone, one out of every four tax dollars paid by the Canadian taxpayer this year is going to pay interest of $10,775 billion. That is the present estimate; it may be more. One out of every four of your tax dollars, Mr. Speaker, is going to go to pay interest. It would not be going to pay interest if there was not a deficit and if there had not been during the Prime Minister's tenure these ever-increasing deficits.
What have these deficits been? 1 am not going to go back to the start in 1968 when we had a net debt of $16.76 billion. That has now quadrupled. At the end of 1979-80 it was something like $67.7 billion. At the end of this year it will be something like $81.8 billion. The net debt of the Government of Canada has quadrupled during the Prime Minister's tenure in office. Why has it quadrupled? Because the Prime Minister does not worry about a large federal deficit. He only worries about the interest charges, and he has not worried about them
Supplementary Estimates (A)
until very recently. From the time he took office we have quadrupled the national government's debt.
What were the debt charges back in those days of 1968? We paid $1.27 billion in interest and debt charges. Today we are paying nine times as much. It has quadrupled. He has "ninetu-pled" these interest payments on the debt. Well might he be concerned now, Mr. Speaker. He lately comes to his concern about the debt charges, but they are "ninetupled" since he took office in 1968.
I will not go right back to 1968, but I will give some figures from 1972-73. In 1972-73, and that is only eight years ago, our deficit was $968 million and our debt charges were $2.27 billion. In 1973-74, encouraged by this reasonable deficit, we had a deficit of $1.4 billion and the debt charges went to $2.55 billion. In 1974-75 $1,650 million was the deficit and the debt charges went to $3.16 billion.
The Prime Minister must have been surprised. The Prime Minister must have said to his minister of finance, "What are you doing, what is going on here? Why are these debt charges going up? How dare you have these debt charges; don't you realize I don't like debt charges, they worry me?" Surely the minister of finance of the day must have said, "Prime Minister, I can't help these debt charges if you are going to have these deficits". Apparently he never did because it is only in the last week the Prime Minister has learned there is a connection.
In 1975-76 there was a deficit of $5.3 billion and the debt charges went to $3.91 billion. In 1976-77, the deficit was $6,093 billion and the debt charges went to $4.66 billion. In 1977-78 the deficit was $10,098 billion and the debt charges $5.47 billion. In 1978-79 the deficit was $12,103 billion and the debt charges $6.87 billion. In 1979-80 the deficit was $11,450 million and the debt charges $8,420 million. That is last year.
The Minister of Finance came into this House last Monday and calmly told the people of Canada the deficit is going up from the one projected by us; it is going to increase $3.7 billion to $14,165 million and the debt charges are going to be $10,775 million. Why are the debt charges that high? Because of all these deficits.
When the Prime Minister says that the large federal deficit does not worry him but he worries about the debt charges, he has to realize, and I hope the Minister of Finance will have the courage to tell him, that there is a connection. If you do not like these debt charges, Mr. Speaker, you have to reduce the deficit. The Prime Minister still appears not to know.


An hon. Member:: Read on.


John Carnell Crosbie: There is an NDPer croaking in the corner. That is all they are good for, swelling up and croaking in obscure corners of Canada. There is not one of them east of Ontario; The plague has been done away with. As long as we get no more fleas down our way, we are safe.

April 28, 1980
Supplementary Estimates (A)
Here is what the Minister of Finance said about the deficit just after he received this prestigious appointment. I quote from the March 7 edition of the Halifax Chronicle-Herald'.
Mr. MacEachen, trained as an economist-
That is going to be a shock to a lot of people.
-says he is concerned but not consumed by the size of the government's $11.8 billion deficit.
When it was $11.8 billion, he was concerned but not consumed. Now it is $14.1 billion. One can only hope that he is concerned and consumed and that he will do something about it and not sit tamely by uncaring. He had further advice in that same interview, and 1 again quote him:
"The best way to bring about lower interest rates is, of course, to reduce, generally, inflationary pressures in the country," he said without offering specific measures.
The amount of specificity we will ever get from this Minister of Finance is going to be strictly limited. Specificity, or whatever that word is, is not one of his strong points. Getting up in this House and using 25 sentences when one word or three words would suffice is his strength. But the people of Canada are going to be demanding specific measures.
The Prime Minister thinks the economy is healthy. The people of Canada do not think it is healthy and they are going to be wanting answers. We all remember. By the way, Mr. Speaker, I do not say that the government's policy is wrong on the interest rates. They are facing the same situation we were faced with. Until anyone can be convinced there is a better approach, unfortunately the Bank of Canada and higher interest rates have to be endured. That situation has not changed since they took office. Therefore, I have not blamed them since they took office for the fact that interest rates have gone up. What I blame them for is that when they were out of office last fall and knew better and knew that their policy would be not one iota different from ours, they tried to pretend in this House that they had some other policy, some better policy.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) used to get up and crow and bloat in this House about the different policies-and I am coming to that in a few minutes- that he had. The House will recall that they had a made-in-Canada interest rate policy and that they had a made-in-Canada oil pricing policy. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) said it was the same old policy that we had, and he is where he is now and we are where we are now because of that. Yes, he took the advice of the former minister of finance, the present Minister of Justice. There is only one thing that matters, to be honest with the public; and he knows where honesty with the public gets you, just as we do.
Do you remember made-in-Canada interest rates, Mr. Speaker? Oil prices were going to be made in Canada. What else?


Walter David Baker: Made-in-Canada fabrications.


John Carnell Crosbie: All their fabrications were going to be made in Canada. Here is what the Minister of Finance said on Friday, April 18, as I mentioned the other day in the House, in the Toronto Star. If something is in the Star, how I wonder where you are if it's in the Toronto Star. Here it is. It must be true. He said this:
MacEachen said the lower rate was "welcome news".
That is the lower interest rate. But:
[DOT][DOT]-it's worth pointing out that the high interest rates we have had and the very rapid increases in these rates recently have been the direct result of action taken in the United States".
Just a couple of months ago during the election campaign the hon. gentleman opposite claimed we were going to have our own Canadian interest rate policy which would not be subject to the fact that the economy of the United States has an influence here. There were going to be made-in-Canada interest rates.
Well, where are the made-in-Canada interest rates now that the Liberals are back in office? They have "sleveened" their way back into office with that kind of approach. Where are they now when they stand up, frankly, and say there is no made-in-Canada interest rate policy, when they say "we are helpless" and that these increases in rates are the direct result of action taken in the United States? It was the same last fall, the same when they were in office in 1978 and 1979. So they are not giving the people of this country any confidence when that is the best they can do, to turn their position so quickly as they have done.
Where is the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce when he is needed? Where is this veritable Hercules who was in the opposition last fall, who had so many suggestions as to what policy should be and how we had to develop an industrial strategy, how we had to get at the problem of unemployment, how we had to create jobs and what we had to do with the auto pact? Can you not remember him? Well, what is happening now? "Ontario hardest hit by U.S. slowdown"; I quote now from The Ottawa Journal, again an article by Robert Stephens.
Ontario will suffer more than any other province from the current U.S. slowdown, and thus will turn in one of the worst economic performances in the country this year. That's the gloomy forecast released... by the Conference Board in Canada, it predicts that Ontario's 0.6 per cent decline in the real domestic product will be exceeded only by New Brunswick's projected 1 per cent drop.
It goes on to say that in Ontario:
-manufacturing accounts for about 30 per cent of the output of the province, and therefore the provincial economy is particularly vulnerable to difficulties in this key sector. The shrinking U.S. auto market, higher inflation, and tighter credit will continue to restrain manufacturing.
How can these things be? The gentleman who had all the solutions last fall, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is not here today to enlighten us with his new policies on industrial strategy, his new policies of going with the winner, like Chrysler, one of the great winners that he is going to go with. Why is he not here to enlighten us on the government's dynamic new policies which are going to overcome the shrinking U.S. auto market, higher inflation and tighter credit?
April 28, 1980

The Conference Board predicts that Ontario's manufacturing output will decline by almost 4 per cent.
This is despite the fact that we now have the "Windsor wizard" as Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. He is not in the House now telling us how he is going to cure the problems.
Some hon. gentlemen might think 1 am being unfair. They might say that surely the wicked Windsor of west or whatever he is, the hon. member for Windsor West, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, did not say anything like that, that 1 am being unfair, positively unfair. I cannot find any quotations showing where he said anything like that. Well, it strikes my eye that I have one from the Prime Minister which I will give first. The Prime Minister was leader of the opposition on November 6, and a sorry looking sight he was. He used to slump in his chair like a crushed rose. He did not come into this House last fall with a new flower in his lapel every day. Not on your life he did not because the pubic treasure chest was not available. There were no fresh flowers. They disappeared. The fresh flowers are back blooming again now because there is a secret vote in the estimates for flowers for the Prime Minister somewhere. No, last fall when he came in he would get in his chair and slump over. His head would be down. 1 do not think he asked ten questions in the whole of the fall. He was crushed. He was despondent. But on November 6 he did move a non-confidence motion. He blamed the then government for four things. I will quote only one of them to save time because I do not want to use up too much time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: I want to leave some time next week for you people.


Miss Jewett:: Let's hear your amendment.


John Carnell Crosbie: I am coming to that. I am referring to page 998 of Hansard for November 6 last:
That this House has no confidence in the government because it will cause severe economic hardship-
He gave four reasons, and the fourth was:
-through its acceptance of record high interest rates.
The present Prime Minister last November 6 moved a non-confidence vote in our government because of what he called our acceptance of record high interest rates. At the time he moved that non-confidence vote the central bank rate was
14	per cent. That sounds pretty good now. On October 25, 1979, 14 per cent in the Bank of Canada; the prime bank rate,
15	per cent. Since the hon. gentleman who moved that nonconfidence vote got into power, the bank rate went to 16.2 per cent, the Bank of Canada rate, and the prime bank rates went to 17.5 per cent. Now, thank God, they have gone down a bit; the Bank of Canada rate is 15.67 per cent, and the prime rate of the banks is somewhere around 17 per cent or in that area. They are still considerably higher than when the Prime Minister moved his non-confidence motion last November 6. So what has happened? Is he going to get out of office himself? If he does not get out of office himself, why not?
Supplementary Estimates (A)
He had no confidence in our government last November 6, not because of our inability to do anything, but because of our acceptance of record high interest rates. That Prime Minister has accepted vastly higher interest rates since he got into office, and he campaigned on the basis that he could do something about interest rates. He was going to reduce them, and he was going to help those suffering from high interest rates. He was going to help mortgagors. He was going to do it all, and he has done nothing, zilch, for them since he got into office. He has tamely accepted those higher interest rates that he blamed the government for last fall.


Mr. Evans:: Are they going up or coming down?


Mr. Blenkarn:: Say anything, do anything.


An hon. Member:: Say anything, do nothing.


John Carnell Crosbie: That quote just caught my eye while I was going by, on my way to coming to another gentleman, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I do not want any member here thinking I am unfair. I just want to get a couple of quotes on record to show that last fall he did pretend he was Superman. He was "Super Herb". He had the answers, and it was inexplicable that we were not doing and performing the miracles he was going to perform.
On November 6 the present Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said:
It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that the Conservatives' high interest rate policy has already adversely affected the economy.
That is what he said. Now, after he got into power the old high interest rate policy was not affecting the economy at all, presumably, but last fall on November 6 right there at page 1031 he shook his head: They had "already adversely affected the economy". Then he went on to say this:
For some members on this side, Mr. Speaker, there may well have been an argument for allowing interest rates to rise a year ago when it still meant they were only one or two points above the level of inflation, but when the Conservatives allowed our interest rates to go above 14 per cent, five points higher than the rate of inflation, then I think it is a different matter. It means a frontier has been crossed into dangerous, uncharted territory for the Canadian economy.
Lo and behold, we were into trouble there-dangerous, uncharted territory. As a result, he said:
-I believe it is right and necessary for Liberals to take a new approach and a new look at interest rate policy.
That was what the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said last November 6. Now the Liberals have taken a new approach, they have taken a new look, and our interest rates are now one and one half points higher than they were last November 6. Where is their new look? Where is their new approach?
When they were asked at the beginning of the session to approve a motion to establish the finance committee so that they could hear from Mr. Bouey, they refused. The work of that committee on the interest rate hearings had only begun early last fall. I was glad to appear before the committee. I

April 28, 1980
Supplementary Estimates (A)
was glad to have them sit because, frankly, if 1 could be persuaded of some better policy I was quite ready, willing and able to be persuaded and to take some other course rather than see interest rates going up as they were. If the finance committee could have come up with something that seemed better and which I could take the risk of accepting, 1 would have been glad to do so. But I can tell you this, Mr. Speaker: it is the minister of finance who takes the responsibility and therefore he cannot just go gambling over what is going to happen to interest rates and the Canadian dollar. He has to be pretty sure of his ground; he must see that some pretty heavy "heavies" are giving him advice, and no matter who gives him advice, it will be he, the minister, who is responsible if the Canadian economy is wrecked as a result. That is why I accepted the advice I was given last fall and which 1 felt 1 had to continue accepting. But if the finance committee or anyone else could have come up with convincing arguments to show our economy would be better off if we did not follow that route, I would certainly have been willing to follow it.
Why does the government prevent the House of Commons finance committee going on with this work? The committee had a number of learned economists, some from the United States and some from Canada, appearing before it to give evidence. The then minister of finance had appeared, Mr. Bouey had appeared. He was anxious to come back. Why is that committee not now functioning? There is the same problem of high interest rates, the same economic problems, only worse, why will the government now not permit the House of Commons finance committee to go ahead with its interest rate hearings? What has changed? It is not the problem that has changed. It is only the government which has changed, and the group which was over here demanding hearings and demanding that governor Bouey be hung and demanding that I be hung alongside him are now following governor Bouey to the scaffold.


Mr. Knowles:: We are listening.


John Carnell Crosbie: You are listening but you never learn. If that irresponsible group in that corner ever got to power, God help Canada. The foolishness they have tooted and touted from coast to coast would be the economic ruination of this country. I hope they are listening, I hope they are learning, but I doubt it. I have never heard such nonsense: if they ever get into power they are going to pass an order in council saying that interest rates must go down 2 per cent. Imagine, old Broadbent was going to do that all by himself, he was going to sweep down interest rates by 2 per cent. The Liberals never said anything as foolish as that.


An hon. Member:: That is a compliment.


John Carnell Crosbie: A backhanded compliment-the Liberals are not quite as foolish as the NDP.


Pauline Jewett: Why not speak to the motion?


John Carnell Crosbie: I hear a member speaking who during the last campaign put a sword right into her leader's back, and now
she has the audacity to call out to me. I have been warned, and now I want to watch the swordplay over there.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pauline Jewett: I said "speak to the motion". What is your amendment?


John Carnell Crosbie: The leader of the NDP was lucky he got back to this House. His back was ventilated by the hon. member from Vancouver-something-or-other.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Members of that group cannot listen to economic sense. I want to go on, Mr. Speaker. What the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said on November 6 was this:
The Liberals and I generally want action taken now to prevent the hardship this Conservative high interest rate policy is creating for millions of Canadians and their families.
This was his demand as recorded at page 1032 of Hansard. He wanted action taken immediately. Well, he has been in office since the end of February. Has any action been taken? No, the only action was that interest rates went up further and hon. members opposite refused to help mortgagors.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we in this party had a mortgage interest and property tax program which would have helped.


An hon. Member:: Order!


John Carnell Crosbie: 1 do not know who is croaking "order". This is interim supply and we can talk about everything in the estimates. And I intend to talk about everything in the estimates.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: What action have members opposite taken? They have left the mortgagors dangling in the air. They say they are going to help some 6,000 or 7,000 and the rest they are going to let sink. The great Liberal government promised to help the people of Canada in their problem; they were going to assist the renters, they were going to assist the mortgagors. Now, unless a person spends 30 per cent of his income on mortgage payments, he is to be left dangling in the air. If you get $10,000 a year, unless you spend $3,000 on housing you are not going to get any help. The party opposite did not go across Canada campaigning like that, Mr. Speaker. They never said to all the mortgagors out there: "If you spend 30 per cent of your income we are going to give you an acorn to help you"-the one acorn that the old leases used to request. But there it was. He wanted action taken at once to avoid hardship.
Where is the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce today when those Canadians suffering hardship as a result of high interest rates are looking to him for help? He is not in this House. I do not know where he is. He is in Windsor; he is talking to Chrysler; he is talking to Ford. He has seen Ford, he has seen Chrysler. Ford will not see him. He sees them, they will not see him. He complains about the grants they got. He
April 28, 1980

complains because the Liberals entered into an agreement with Ford which did not include any protection and did not guarantee the number of jobs; it was a piece of botchery, debauchery, on the part of the Liberals. Anyway, he is not around here to tell us what action to take or what action he is taking.
Last fall, Mr. Speaker, hon. gentlemen opposite wanted a budget. My, it is amazing how things change when people move just a few feet across the floor of this chamber. They demanded a budget. Why? The present Minister of Justice had this to say on October 23;
It is important that the nation know where it stands. I hope the Minister of Finance will tell us what he is thinking and what he intends to do.
That is why they wanted a budget last fall. 1 refer to page 517 of Hansard. The former minister of finance went on to give various other reasons and, as reported at page 516, he said:
We have to get ready to move now rather than push back all the problems until later.
I could read his whole speech and the reasons he gave. The hon. member for Windsor West also gave his reasons for demanding a budget, as reported at page 950 of Hansard for November 5, but I will not put on record all the reasons they gave then for demanding a budget. Why do they not talk, now, to this reluctant debutante, the present Minister of Finance? He does not want to bring in a budget. Why does he not want to let the nation know where he stands? I will tell you, Mr. Speaker. It is because when the nation finds out where he stands, the nation will know that he stands on sand. The nation is not going to like where he stands. The nation is not going to like what it hears; it is not going to like the tax measures he is going to bring in unless his oil blender can go to work and save him somehow by getting the billions of dollars of revenue he needs. From where? Is he going to take his blender out to the tar sands? Has the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources got some magic blender he intends to set up way out on the tar sands and start blending to get us the oil we need at a reasonable price?
The Minister of Finance is waiting because he is pinning his hopes on the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and a more unlikely magician 1 never saw. "Mandrake the magician" has nothing on that gentleman. When Premier Lougheed gets through with him you will not be able to pick him up with tweezers. But he has to pull off this miracle. Because if you are not going to impose an excise tax on gasoline, which would have helped Canada, which would have helped conservation, which would have been the way the IMF recommended to the governments of the western world, and if you are not going to get the $2.5 billion in revenue which a measure of that kind would produce, then the revenue has to be obtained from somewhere else. And as the President of the Treasury Board has said, the only way to bring down the deficit is to increase revenue.
So the Minister of Finance is not bringing in a budget. He does not want the nation to know where he stands. He does not
Supplementary Estimates (A)
want the nation to know what he is thinking. He does not want the nation to know what he intends to do. That is why he has not brought in a full budget or is not bringing in one in May. So in power the hon. gentlemen are doing the exact opposite to what they said they would do when they were out of power.
An hon. Member; What about the amendment?


John Carnell Crosbie: I am coming to the amendment. When I come to it, 1 think the hon. member will support it.


An hon. Member:: 1 would love to hear it.


John Carnell Crosbie: You are going to hear it, believe me; you are going to be the first one to hear it.
I was talking about the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. He is a very strong and powerful minister; he is going to perform miracles by making Canada control its own economy. He is going to get back control of our own industry. He is going to do a mighty job, and we all wish him well with it. For 30 to 40 years his party allowed the control of the Canadian economy to go to the United States and to go everywhere. They did not care about who controlled the Canadian economy. Their policy from 1945 onward was to let it slip. They paid lip service to it in the last campaign, but now there is a mighty Samson who is going to wrestle back control of the Canadian economy into the hands of Canadians. Some hope! I wish him well, if he ever attempts it. Here is what the member said as reported at page 2299 of Hansard, when he was discussing my budget:
Essentially this budget hits the little guy in this country.
The tears were starting to trickle down his cheeks, I remember. He continued:
If the little guy decides to have a smoke or a drink to try to find some solace from the impact of this Conservative budget, he will still be reminded of its unfair impact.
That was what he said last December 12. What did the Minister of Finance do, his colleague on the treasury benches just down from him two seats? I think the seating is the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), and then the Prime Minister, who says that the economy is very healthy. No, it is the Minister of Finance and then the Prime Minister; he is just down one seat. The Minister of Finance is within talking distance of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. What did the Minister of Finance do a week ago today? He brought in a budget hitting the little guys in the country, just what we were told last December 12 not to do. If that little guy decides to have a smoke or a drink to try to find some solace from the document brought in by the Minister of Finance of the Liberal government, he is going to find that the price of his cigarettes is up, like the cost of his tobacco, his wine, his beer and his hard liquor. That is exactly what the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce as finance critic last December 12 opposed; he got up in this chamber and opposed it.
Well, I will not belabour the point. It is hypocrisy, of course, complete and utter hypocrisy. It does not matter whether it

April 28, 1980
Supplementary Estimates (A)
comes in French, English or Turkish, it is hypocrisy in every language of the world, and nothing but hypocrisy. Then he moved an amendment to the budget.


John Leslie Evans: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) on a point of order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


John Leslie Evans: I am out of my seat.


Mr. Elnatyshyn:: The hon. member should address us from his correct place in the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order. I recognized the intervention of the hon. member on a point of order, and my apologies to the House, I did not realize that the hon. member who sought the floor was not in his own seat. The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for not being in my seat at the time I called a point of order, but the hon. member is using unparliamentary language. As defined in Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, the use of the word "hypocrisy" or "hypocrite" has been ruled by the Chair before to be unparliamentary, as has the word "debauchery" which was used previously by the member.


An hon. Member:: Withdraw it.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get you into a procedural hassle. I withdraw the use of the word "hypocrisy", "hypocrite" or "hypocritical" and just say, "double-dealing, double-faced". I do not want to offend the rules.


John Leslie Evans: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is rising on a point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a different point of order, and I do it very carefully. I realize that under Standing Order 31(1) the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) has unlimited time. That means he can go on as long as the former member for Nickel Belt and may even outdo this record of two or three days. But surely it is incumbent upon him to relate his remarks, just once in a while, to the motion before us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I thought he was doing pretty well.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre raises a question of relevance. As he and members of the House know, there is before the Chair no motion yet-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, there is.


An hon. Member:: Let him finish.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I mean one moved by the hon. member for St. John's West himself. If relevance is in order, it is to the motion put by the hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard). I would be prepared to admit that there seems to be a wide-ranging effort on the part of the hon. member, but there are few occasions when the Chair has been asked by hon. members to force relevance into debate. Perhaps the intervention by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will make the point itself and the hon. member for St. John's West might like to consider those remarks.


John Carnell Crosbie: Very well, Mr. Speaker. I am dealing with the reason why we cannot support the motion in its present form, which is because we are concerned and worried about the government's approach to our economic, financial and energy problems and the total gamut of the problems. But I am glad to take the advice of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and I will try to be even more relevant than I have been to date. How I can be more relevant, I do not know.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: I know the hon. gentlemen to our left always start to squirm when they hear some truthful statements in this House. When they are not listening to their own nonsensical piffle, they start to squirm and do not want to listen.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You remind me of John Rodriguez.


John Carnell Crosbie: I miss that hon. gentleman. I certainly hope that he comes back to us some day, like the twenty-first century.
I have just one further quotation from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. That gentleman was speaking on November 13, as reported at page 1251 of Hansard. This is just to put the final nail in the coffin of the government over there. He was decrying the fact that we had the possibility of double-digit unemployment and inflation next year, and he said the following about our government:
They seem to have, on the one hand, adopted Mr. Volcher's economic Malthusianism approach in the United States-
That is what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources thought last November 13. Why does he not speak to the Minister of Finance who I just quoted a couple of days ago as saying that it was all in the hands of the United States? Why does he not speak to his colleague, the Minister of Finance, and say, "Allan, you are adopting Mr. Volcher's economic Malthusianism approach? Why are you doing this, Allan? Only last November 13 I got up in the House of Commons and I attacked the then government for adopting Mr. Volcher's economic Malthusianism approach". I am sure if the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources can explain what he meant by it-and 1 doubt that he can-the Minister of Finance would be only too glad to listen to him and get the present government off this adoption of Mr. Volcher's economic Malthusianism approach.
April 28, 1980

Is it not time that they got their act together? Is it not time that the House and the people of Canada were now told that the government has been in office since the end of February, that they have been in office now two months? They are old hands at it. It is not like they suddenly came in from the dark. We were like the spy who came in from the cold. We had to find out where to warm our little fingers when we got in. It took us a couple of months to get used to it. We had been out of office for 16 years, but the hon. government opposite has been in for 16 years and have just been out for seven months, not time enough for their little fingers even to get cold. They have been in now for two months and they seem paralysed with inactivity.


Marc Lalonde: What a terrible mess you left us!


John Carnell Crosbie: We thought that we were dealing with giants and that they were starting back into office over our bent and broken bodies, having shown us what was necessary to get into power and how to deal realistically and honestly with the provinces of Canada. They were going to get in and go right down the road with their program, but we have not heard or seen a program yet. They will not even bring a budget into the House. They are still practising economic Volcherism or economic Volcherian Malthusianism or whatever it was. Well, they are not practising government. They are not practising telling the people of this country what their course is going to be. They are not giving confidence to the investor. They are not giving confidence to the public. They are not giving confidence to the poor man who has a few dollars in his savings account and he sees the value of it going down because of the inflation rate. They are not showing how they are going to approach the provinces in the next four or five years.
They have a majority. They are coming into this House and trying to get us to swallow this codswallop motion. They suggest we should accept this motion. The estimates would never get back into the House again, and they will throw us the bone of a couple of opposition days which we are not going to accept. They can force it on us but we are not going to accept it.
I have dozens more quotations but you can see the point there, Mr. Speaker. The government is not now doing what it said last fall that we should be doing, and it is led by a Prime Minister who does not have the least economic sense in this world. He cannot even understand that the bigger your deficits the more interest you are going to pay. He has a President of the Treasury Board who is not co-ordinated with the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.
How is that, do you say? The President of the Treasury Board, a brilliant lawyer-he is a brilliant lawyer and a nice gentleman-does not know what the Minister of Finance is doing? Yes, he does not know what the Minister of Finance is doing. If you look at Tuesday's Hansard you will see that he is asked what the interest costs are going to be for next year. He was asked what is the best estimate of the oil import subsidy
Supplementary Estimates (A)
charges, and the third question he was asked was, what is the amount to be spent on the guaranteed income supplement. The minister replied as reported at page 296:
-I would be happy to take that question under advisement.
The President of the Treasury Board comes into this hallowed chamber with the estimates for 1980-81, and the supplementary estimates, and when he is asked what are those very, very important three items, public debt charges, oil import subsidies and the new guaranteed annual supplement, he has to take them under advisement. That President of the Treasury Board has to take that under advisement when he has just tabled these documents in the House of Commons, when he has just made a prepared statement to this House, and when he has just weasled and said he is not going to stand by the estimates. He says that some of the information appears in the material which he has tabled but some of it will require further analysis, information that would not be appropriate for him to give during his response.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The Chair is having some difficulty with the hon. member. First, as was noted earlier, Standing Order 31 provides that there is no time limit whatsoever to the hon. member's intervention on the floor and he could, as he has said himself, continue well into next week.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't put that idea into his head.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Second, there is a rule of relevance which, as I have indicated, it has been the practice of the House to interpret very loosely and very widely. I do not want to move that argument too far forward. There is also a third matter, and that has to do with parliamentary language. The hon. member has been reminded once that he may be treading in some water there, and I think I should remind him again that some care is in order.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. You will recall there was an interjection about the word "hypocrite" or "hypocrisy". At the time the hon. member for St. John's West withdrew it because he did not want to get into an argument. However, if you will look at Beauchesne's Fifth Edition you will find that the word is not unparliamentary.


An hon. Member:: What about 425 of Erskine May?


Walter David Baker: I am looking at a book that is much later than Erskine May and much better. Nonetheless, the hon. member withdrew those words when he did not have to. I have looked at Beauchesne's to see whether the word he is now being accused of using is unparliamentary, as I think he would be generous in withdrawing that if that were the case. That word is not unparliamentary either.
The hon. member for St. John's West has an interesting debating style which is refreshing in this chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

April 28, 1980
Supplementary Estimates (A)


Walter David Baker: He is extremely direct and he calls them as he sees them. In respect of that particular matter I think he called it appropriately, but I do not think that what he said can by any means be unparliamentary.
As to relevance, Mr. Speaker-I say this as you did not make a ruling but made an observation-we are talking here about all of the government's expenditure programs which the government is asking Parliament to accept, for reasons which have been put forward by the President of the Privy Council. I can think of nothing more relevant to the programs of the government, and whether we or the public should accept them, than a consideration of the inconsistencies in what they said when they were in opposition and what they say when they are in government. That is absolutely relevant to the programs. Estimates are the springboards of policy. If the government has flip-flopped and used its political trampoline, then I think the government should be told so and told so directly. That is precisely what the hon. member for St. John's West is doing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, may I ask the House to recall that when I mentioned the question of relevancy a few minutes ago I did so very carefully. I just offered it as a suggestion, thinking that my friend might take it to heart. But when my friend, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton, tells us this is a motion under which we can discuss everything relating to the spending and budgetary policies of the government, I suggest he would not have talked that way when he was President of the Privy Council.
The motion before us is really quite a narrow one. It relates to a regime or an arrangement by which we will discuss the estimates. It relates to changes for 1980 in the Standing Orders. I do not see how that can become a debate on everything. If that is possible, if what the hon. member for St. John's West is being allowed to do and now being encouraged to do by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton is in order, then this is far better than the throne speech debate because it could go on for two, three or five weeks. Anybody could talk about anything he thinks the government is doing wrong.
As I say, when I first made this suggestion I did so carefully. I did not want to make a fuss about it. Your Honour said that the hon. member for St. John's West might take note of the sentiments. 1 do not think we should go too far in terms of how far we can go but, by the same token, I do not want to make a big issue of it. However, I think there should be some little regard for the rule of relevance.


John Carnell Crosbie: I will try to accept that advice, Mr. Speaker. The relevance of what I address myself to now is that we are discussing a motion which deals with what is to happen to the supplementary estimates and interim supply. We are being asked to grant interim supply on the basis of the estimates for this total year which are put before us. I am addressing myself to the fact that these are estimates, the contents of which the President of the Treasury Board does not even know. These are estimates of which he and the Minister of Finance have two
different versions. I am addressing myself to that point, because whether these estimates should go to the committee or should not go to the committee, or what should be done, depends on how accurate they are. That is the relevance of my remarks. These estimates are not true estimates in the first place. The government has not given this House true estimates.
I am pointing out that the President of the Treasury Board, who presented these estimates that we are being asked to deal with in this motion, did not know the answers to certain questions when he was asked them last Tuesday, April 22. At the end of his remarks during that session the President of the Treasury Board said, as reported at page 298, that debt service charges would be in the order of $10.8 billion to $10.9 billion. That answer turned out to be incorrect by approximately $200 million, because the next day he was asked again. In fact, he did not have to be asked because it was in the estimates. The President of the Treasury Board said on Wednesday, April 23, as reported at page 323 of Hansard'.
Yesterday, I indicated that with respect to debt costs, the main estimates provide for $10,275 billion and the current projections are $10,775 billion.
The next day the minister had to correct the statement he had made the day before about the estimates which he had presented to this House. He now says that the debt charges are $10,775 billion, not 10.8 billion or 10.9 billion. The day before the minister did not know, and he had to get the information from the Minister of Finance.
How accurate are these estimates that we are being asked to send to committee? For the first time in this House estimates have been presented where the Minister of Finance and the President of the Treasury Board have been unable to agree as to what the total of the estimates were. The President of the Treasury Board said on Tuesday that they totalled $58.4 billion. The night before the Minister of Finance said they totalled $60.4 billion.
Is this discrepancy irrelevant? Are we not allowed to consider matters such as this when we are being asked to vote on rules under which these estimates may never come back to this chamber again? I certainly suggest that it is relevant. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has been in this House since the 1940s. 1 do not care if the hon. member has been here since the 1900s, I say that it is relevant for us to discuss the estimates in this motion.


David Michael Collenette: Who are you?


John Carnell Crosbie: Who am I? I am the member for St. John's West. I am only the little member for St. John's West, and 1 can be put down any time.


David Michael Collenette: You do not decide.


John Carnell Crosbie: And you do not decide,


David Michael Collenette: The Speaker does.
April 28, 1980


John Carnell Crosbie: Exactly, and I say that my opinion as to relevance is just as good to me as the opinion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is good to him. It is relevant to consider what we are being asked to do with these rule changes.
Then, the President of the Treasury Board can give this House no information on how a blended oil-pricing policy will reduce expenditures and financial requirements by as much as $1 billion. The Minister of Finance came to this House last Monday night-and these are the estimates we are considering now-and said that he was giving the estimate of total outlays at $60.4 billion. He then went on to lead the House to believe that it would not be $60.4 billion. As it is reported at page 244 of Hansard, the minister said:
-that these projections do not in any way constitute the expenditure plan or the planned financial requirements of this government for fiscal year 1980-81.
Implementing blended oil-pricing could alone reduce both expenditures and financial requirements by as much as $1 billion.
For the first time this House is being told, quite bluntly, by the government that total outlays are $60.4 billion. But they may be $59.4 billion, and the President of the Treasury Board has said that they are $58.4 billion. Are we not to mention this fact, after a motion has been brought in to dispose of these estimates so that they will never return to this House? Are we to keep quiet about such discrepancies as these simply because somebody to my left believes that they are not relevant? I do not think so.
The government owe this House an explanation before this motion is passed of how they intend to reduce expenditures and financial requirements by $1 billion. I believe it was C. D. Howe who said, "What's a million?" This government is saying, "What's a billion?" and think that they can simply ask the supine opposition-which they would like us to be-to pass this motion allowing these estimates to go to committees where they will not be heard of again. The estimates could be inaccurate by $1 billion alone.
When we on this side ask questions of the Minister of Finance, the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on how blended oil pricing can reduce expenditures and financial requirements by as much as $1 billion, they will not answer. I have copies of Hansard for Thursday and Friday, when the questions were asked.
Last Thursday when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) asked questions of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources about blended oil pricing, and hon. members can refer to Hansard at page 359, he received no answers from the minister, who does not have a blended oil pricing formula. He said that it is detailed, as he stated it to the Leader of the Opposition. The minister said nothing.
On Friday the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens), my seatmate, asked the President of the Treasury Board if the $2.6 billion provided in the main estimates that we are now considering for oil import compensation is based on the previous government's domestic oil pricing strategy in anticipation of the $4 per barrel increase this year. The President of the
Supplementary Estimates (A)
Treasury Board said yes, that was the figure that was produced in the projection of the former minister of finance in December, 1979.
Therefore, the estimates that we now have before us for oil import compensation assume a $4 a barrel increase in the price of oil in Canada this year-the same price that we proposed in our budget, the same price that the government opposite went across the country denouncing, saying that they would introduce an oil pricing policy that was "made-in-Canada". Jhis is another one of their "made-in-Canada" policies. It was to result in a lower increase, but yet we are not told by the President of the Treasury Board, the President of the Privy Council, the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources how they intend to reduce these estimates by $1 billion.
Why should we give this government $1 billion more than they need for interim supply? Is that not relevant to this debate? We are being asked to vote on interim supply up to December, one half of the financial year, and the hon. gentlemen opposite are telling us, coolly and calmly, that they are requesting $60.4 billion but that they will not need $1 billion of it. If they do not need that $1 billion, then why are we giving them that $1 billion? Let us reduce the $1 billion now so that the government will be under some compulsion to bring in an oil pricing agreement in Canada that will result in increases of less than $4 a barrel for this year. By its own statement, the government is asking for $1 billion more than it needs. If hon. members vote for this motion, we will never see these estimates before this House again. We will have tamely submitted to the government. That is why it is relevant to discuss such subjects here in the House.
Here is what the people of Canada are being told by the Minister of Finance. I quote from page 6 of the statement which he made one week ago. It reads:
The projected increase in outlays of over 13.5 per cent is a good deal higher than I would like to see.
What kind of pat does he expect us to swallow? Why did he put in his financial statement that the projected increase in outlays of over 13.5 per cent is a good deal higher than he would like to see? If it is a good deal higher than he would like to see, then why was it there in the estimates? If these estimates are 13.5 per cent higher than the minister would like to see them, then why did he not do his job and cut the estimates back by 13.5 per cent?
The people of this country and the members of this House are being asked to swallow this kind of statement. What this motion will enable the government to do is to get these estimates off to a committee so that we will forget the 13.5 per cent. It is a pious statement by the Minister of Finance.
The minister goes on to say at page 7 of his statement:
The budget will recognize that the well-being of Canadians, the creation of jobs, and the easing of inflationary pressures all depend critically upon a continuing and growing strength of private investment.
I have opposite that paragraph something in my own handwriting which I cannot repeat in this House-the word "hypocrisy". I will not use that word. The Minister of Finance has
478

April 28, 1980
Supplementary Estimates (A)
brought in an economic statement that does its best to frighten all investment in the private sector out of Canada by proposing a $14.1 billion deficit and an $11.7 billion financial requirement, which indicates the borrowing that is necessary for this year and which will have to come from public markets.
What the minister has indicated in his statement will compete with the private sector, force interest rates up, take away money that the private sector needs for investment and cut back on the expansion of manufacturing capacity. It scares the pants off investors to see a government that does not care about such a huge leap in the estimates and in the deficit.
Then the Minister of Finance says that the budget will recognize that all of these things, the creation of jobs and the easing of inflationary pressures, depend critically upon the continuing and growing strength of private investment. If that is what it all depends on, then why has the minister not brought in estimates that are $3.5 billion less than the ones which the government is now asking for permission and authority to put through now, estimates which will never return to the House again except for a vote on the night of May 15?
The minister goes on to say in his statement at page 8:
Canada is certainly not in a position where it can afford to let its guard down against inflation.
The minister lets his guard down against inflation in the same speech by going to a $14.1 billion deficit. Why did the minister make that statement when he is acting 100 per cent contrary to it? Not only did the United States of America overcome inflation, but they are cutting their budget deficit to zero. Here in Canada the government through the Minister of Finance said, as reported at page 245 of Hansard'.
Canada is certainly not in a position where it could afford to let its guard down against inflation.
In the same speech he allows the deficit to go to $14.1 billion, which in United States terms, whose population is ten times larger than ours, would be $140 billion. He is not letting his guard down against inflation. He has no guard at all. Those are the estimates that we are being asked to shove off into the cubbyholes of the committee system of this House and then forget, or just bring them out for a blind vote on May 15 when the government will use its majority to romp them through without anybody else having a word to say in this House about them.
At page 247 of Hansard the minister stated:
-we cannot expect to insulate ourselves fully from that slowdown.
That is, insulate the Canadian economy from the slowdown in the United States. The Minister of Finance says that we in Canada cannot expect to insulate ourselves from the slowdown in the United States. He goes on to say:
This is especially the case given the substantial deficit which already exists on the current account of our balance of payments, and given the size of the federal government deficit which already exists.
Who caused these substantial deficits? It is the government which has been in power for the last 16 years. Who has created
the size of the federal government deficit? The government opposite. The minister himself proposed a $14 billion deficit. The same night that he said we cannot insulate ourselves from the U.S. because of these deficits, he brought in an ever larger deficit.
To read the speech is to marvel that the words would even be put on paper. We cannot insulate ourselves from the U.S. because we have huge deficits in the balance of payments and current account. It was $5 billion last year. Exports are forecast at $7 billion this year. We have had a series of huge deficits in our own budget and that is going to be topped off this year by a $14 billion deficit. The minister is going to make sure that we cannot insulate ourselves.
The effect of his statement to this House is that there is less power to insulate Canada from the United States economy and the U.S. downturn than ever. Yet we are asked to pass these estimates based on that kind of thinking. No, Mr. Speaker, not likely.
In the budget of December 11, dealing with the estimates of the Department of Employment and Immigration there was a funding provided of-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I want to alert the hon. member that the question of relevance has been raised twice through other hon. members.
On the floor of the House at the moment is a motion put forward by the President of the Privy Council which, in effect, would amend Standing Order 58. I understand that the hon. member who now has the floor would have the widest possible range of subject matter because of the fact that it is a motion to amend Standing Order 58 related to supplementary estimates.
At the same time, however, I have to observe that there must be some rule of relevance available here. Otherwise, since our standing orders provide that there is no limit on the amount of time that the hon. member may take the floor, he could, in fact, as he indicated himself, continue for a week or two or three or four, and, in the manner in which he seems to approach the subject, he could range entirely through all government and parliamentary operations without let or limit whatsoever.
1 think I have to draw to the attention of the hon. member that he might direct himself a little more toward the actual motion that is before the House at the moment.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, what we are being asked to deal with here is a process to take into account the fact that the normal processes for dealing with estimates is not available to us. I guess the normal way would be for there to be a motion of some kind which we could debate. We are being asked to have this taken away from us now and something else substituted therefor. I think, with respect, that in the circumstances it becomes relevant for us to examine those estimates in terms of the rights that are being taken away from us.
April 28, 1980

It is also, as 1 am sure you will see as the hon. member goes on, relevant as well to a process which we are going to suggest to the House that might return to the House its right to deal with those estimates in the normal way and in a way that ought to be acceptable to all members.
In order to lay the groundwork for the kind of amendment which we are going to propose, 1 think it is important that the House and the country understand the magnitude of the estimates, where there are discrepancies in the estimates, so as to lay a proper foundation for the suggestion which the hon. member for St. John's West will be making shortly to permit the House of Commons to examine those estimates.
I do not think it is enough merely to say that there have been discrepancies and therefore we have a right; 1 think we have to demonstrate those discrepancies. That is precisely what the hon. member is trying to do. To that extent and in that direction I think there is some relevance. I want to assure the Chair that it is not our wish to debate this motion forever.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: It never was. I am surprised at the hon. gentleman opposite being so acquiescent with respect to the government. I think it is important, however, that there be some discussion of these estimates because this process is different from any we have ever dealt with before.
It is our intention to move a motion on a procedure which I hope will permit the expeditious handling of these estimates in the House, where they should be handled, and where the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said many times they ought to be handled. I therefore ask the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to be patient-


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is my middle name!


Walter David Baker: -and to view the statement made by the hon. member for St. John's West as laying the groundwork, because of the discrepancies and the statements of the party opposite from when they were in opposition to when they were in government, from when they were in the campaign to today, for demanding something more than is being given to the House if the motion of the President of the Privy Council should carry.
I think those discrepancies are such that we cannot be satisfied with a process that really does not allow examination of those estimates in the House. It is to the groundwork for that motion, which I hope will be commendable to the other side, that the hon. member for St. John's West is directing his remarks.
I think, Mr. Speaker, you will see the drift of this when the motion is put.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I want to accept the comments made by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton, particularly because he used the word "process". What is before the House is a suggestion for a change in process. It is for that reason that I have asked the hon.
Supplementary Estimates (A)
member for St. John's West to address himself to that process, the subject matter of that process.
The Chair is in the position of saying that there is either no limit because it is under supplementary estimates and a change in the standing orders of the House treating with supplementary estimates and interim supply, or that there still is some limit and some relevance in debate. I do not think hon. members would like me to attempt to make a ruling on that kind of subject.
The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton has made it clear that it is not the intention to stray too far. The hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) has received, I hope, the sentiment of the Chair and possibly of some other hon. members as well who are, in fact, asking him to try to stay closer to the subject of the process that is before the House in this motion.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I know it is a very difficult question and I certainly want to be very relevant to this process.
As you know, this motion wants us to deal with interim supply and the supplementary estimates by sending them now to the committee. They will not again be debated in this House so far as we know, but at 15 minutes before the ordinary time of adjournment on May 15 this year the Speaker will interrupt the proceedings, whatever is in progress, and put the question in connection with disposing of the supplementary estimates and interim supply.
This is what is suggested in this motion. I am trying to explain why we do not like and do not accept the process suggested in this motion, because important questions to do with the estimates, to do with the government's economic financial policy, to do with the government's approach to the problem and to do with the whole process of the control of this House of Commons on economic and financial matters have been disregarded in the last two weeks. The motion now before us is a part of this pattern.
What is the pattern? It is this. Monday night a week ago, an economic statement, a budget or a quasi-budget-call it what you like-was bootlegged into the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. That was the start of the government's treating us with contempt on this side and trying to ride roughshod over us on very important financial and economic matters.
The process then continued on Tuesday with the estimates being tabled by the President of the Treasury Board who would not stand properly behind them and who could not explain discrepancies between his estimates and statements made by the Minister of Finance the night before.
Then the process continued during the week with a contemptuous refusal by ministers to explain how they were going to save $1 billion in the estimates presented to the House on Tuesday which the Minister of Finance had spoken about on

April 28, 1980
Supplementary Estimates (A)
Monday night. It was a contemptuous refusal to explain how this $1 billion was to be saved by a blended oil-pricing policy.
Then the process continues with this motion before the House, not agreed to by our side, in which the ignoring of our rights, and responsibilities of the government on economic and financial matters, is continued by these estimates, and with interim supply to carry the government until December. These estimates are being washed out of the House. "I am going to wash that man right out of my hair". We might as well say that we are going to wash those estimates right out of our hair and send them on their way. They will be sent right out of the House to a committee and they will come back here for only 15 minutes for voting on May 15.
I will illustrate the process. 1 am not going to emulate Mr. Rodriguez. How are you, John, out there in never-never land? I am going to finish speaking before this House is adjourned at six o'clock. I am not going to try to carry on any great Rodriguez marathon, not at all. I am going to move our amendment in about five minutes. For example, in our budget of December 11 we said in addition to an employment tax credit program to respond to differences in employment opportunities across the country that we were going to make an amount of $50 million available to initiate new measures or to supplement existing programs aimed at stimulating employment and economic development in eastern Canada.
We had $50 million in the estimates, Mr. Speaker. We had increased the estimates to combat employment $150 million over those of the previous year. That is what was said in the budget speech. There are estimates before this House now tabled last Tuesday that include that $50 million because the President of the Treasury Board said these were the estimaes that we had prepared.
1 made inquiries as to what has happened to the $50 million in the estimates. The President of the Treasury Board said that he had presented the estimates we had prepared, but when I inquired of the minister of fisheries and other poeple in the government about the $50 million-$25 million was going to the Department of Fisheries and $14 million to small craft and harbours to stimulate construction of wharves, breakwaters, slipways, dredging projects in eastern Canada this year, which would create a lot of employment, money to be spent by the government-1 was told that it was not there. 1 was told that this money is not going to the Department of Fisheries or to small crafts and harbours.
Where is this $50 million which was in our estimates to create more employment in eastern Canada this year? If that question is not answered here in this House, we will never have the answer. Why has the government done away with the $50 million stimulus for employment opportunities in eastern Canada where, we all have to admit, unemployment is the highest in Canada?
If this procedure that the hon. gentleman has suggested is adopted these estimates will go off to committee and we will be unable to force any answer from any minister of the government. They can ignore our questions. They do not have to answer any questions in committee. We cannot do them any
harm because we cannot hold up anything in the committees. It all has to come here automatically on May 15. The ministers do not have to come anyway. We will never get an answer to what has happened to this $50 million additional money for more employment opportunities in eastern Canada this year that we had in the estimates. These very estimates were tabled in the House yet we are told there is no $14 million extra for small crafts and harbours. The Minister of Fisheries cannot tell me whether they are going to be doing our wharf in Bay Bulls or repairing the wharf in St. Shott's and so on. I moved a motion of Friday under Standing Order 43 that named the various communities where some of these works were supposed to be done, to create employment in an area of high unemployment and so on.
That is the process. Once this motion is passed, this goes out into committees and we may or may not get any answers. We have no way of pressuring the Crown to get any answers as to what has happened to this $50 million. That is why this process is important. That is why it is important to us to have the President of the Privy Council adopt a different procedure which we hope will commend itself to him.
Because there is so much impatience being shown, and because you are under so much pressure yourself, Mr. Speaker, about relevance and irrelevance-I do not want to cause you any trouble as the presiding officer-I will move the amendment now. Our amendment is from the brilliant brain and intellect of our House leader on this side of the House. It is not debatable. 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), one of the great parliamentarians of the century:
That the motion be amended by deleting the second paragraph thereof and substituting therefor the following:
"That on May 12, the business of the House shall be the consideration of any motions or bills relating to the said supplementary estimates or interim supply;
That notice shall not be required for a notice to oppose any item in the estimates or for any motion to restore or reinstate any item in the estimates;
That, no later than fifteen minutes before the ordinary time of adjournment on May 12, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings then in progress and put, forthwith and successively, without further amendment or debate, any motions relating to interim supply, the said supplementary estimates, the restoration or reinstatement of any item in the said supplementary estimates, or the second reading stage of any appropriations bill based on the said supplementary estimates or interim supply;
That on May 13 to May 15 inclusive the business of the House shall be the consideration of committee of the whole stage of any bill or bills relating to the said supplementary estimates or interim supply;
That, no later than fifteen minutes before the ordinary time of adjournment on May 15, 1980, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings then in progress and put, forthwith and successively, without amendment or debate, and notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 72, every question that may be necessary for the passage of all remaining stages of any bill or bills based on the said supplementary estimates or interim supply, providing that the ordinary time of adjournment shall remain suspended until all such questions have been decided;"
And by inserting after the last paragraph of the motion the following paragraph:
"That members in opposition to the government may choose the estimates of three departments or agencies which shall be presented to the House in a separate appropriations bill exempt from any deadline in this or any other temporary or permanent standing order or special order relating to the business
April 28, 1980

of supply, provided that all stages of the said bill, except the committee of the whole stage, shall be put to the House without amendment or debate".
1 might try to explain the purport of it. What this amendment attempts to do is this. As I say, if the present motion passes, supplementary estimates go into committee, interim supply goes into committee, the estimates for the year go into committee. Supplementary estimates and interim supply all get voted on before the end of May 15. We do not discuss them any more in this House once this motion is passed.
Then, as I understand it, the main estimates for 1980-81 are dealt with in a similar manner, but they do not have to be brought back in the House and voted on until December. I think that is the procedure. But we no longer discuss them in this House either.
If this amendment is agreed to by the President of the Privy Council and the government, what will happen will be that on May 12 we will discuss for that day motions or bills relating to supplementary estimates or interim supply. We would vote on those motions or bills on May 12. Then we would go on for three days, May 13, 14, and 15, to consider in Committee of the Whole the supplementary estimates or interim supply.
We would all have our ordinary chance in Committee of the Whole to question ministers. I ask a question, I sit down, and then somebody else asks one. If there is a minister we are particularly interested in, we can question him for three days. It might be on energy policy or whatever is in the supplementary estimates. Anyway, we would all have a chance in Committee of the Whole for three days to really go into these estimates and into the question of the main estimates and interim supply. That is what we are suggesting.
We would have three days in Committee of the Whole, and this is far better than opposition days. This is Committee of the Whole where we can question ministers and attempt to get answers, where we can catch ministers not doing their homework, where we can pin down ministers who do not know what they are talking about or force them to give us some information, make things a bit hot for them. That is what ministers are for-to test their methods, make things hot for them, see if they know how to jump from the pan when it gets warmed up or whatever.
We would have three days, not opposition days where I get up and make a speech, the member over there gets up and makes a speech and somebody else makes a speech, which accomplishes very little, but three days of questioning ministers here where the television is in the House so that the people of Canada can see the process. Do they know what they are talking about? Does the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources know what he is talking about? Does he have a blended cost? Does the Minister of Finance know what he is talking about? In three days they will see no, he certainly does not, that he said nothing as usual. Or they might say the Minister of Finance is a brilliant man, that he has turned back all inquiries and explained fully what his policy is. I will certainly be astounded if that turns out to be the case, but he is
Supplementary Estimates (A)
a man of long experience in this House. He has just been over to Hamburg. We know what happens when bachelors go to Hamburg, Mr. Speaker. I imagine he had quite a busy time there.
Anyway, that is the purport of this motion. Apart from the question of interim supply and supplementary estimates, all that would be voted on by May 15 so the President of the Privy Council gets his necessary business to the House.
Then we are suggesting that the estimates in general go on out to committees. However, next December or whenever they are brought back from committee, the opposition can choose three departments. This is because we want to give our confreres in the opposition, the members of the New Democratic Party, a chance to participate. We are not like them. We do not want to cut them off from debate. We did not get up and object when Mr. Rodriguez was here speaking day after day.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member again, but the usual tradition of the House is that the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member is read by the Chair to the members. 1 do not necessarily want to do that if the hon. member is going to finish his comments in the very near future.


John Carnell Crosbie: I am almost finished, Mr. Speaker. I have a lot more to say, but there seems to be some upset in the chamber if I go on too long. What can one do?
What we are proposing is that when December comes, or whenever these main estimates come back to the House, the opposition would be able to say to the government that we want to have the estimates of three departments. The NDP can suggest one. Our confreres in the New Democratic Party may want to choose one. We will choose two. These will be departments that we would like to get more information on, or just raise burning topics of the moment. Probably this year energy would be one that there would be a lot of debate and discussion about, but it might be finance or any department. Who knows what is going to be very topical next fall?
The estimates of those departments will then come forward in a separate bill. We will go into Committee of the Whole stage. We will question the ministers of those departments until they satisfy us that they have given us the information that is required or they have satisfied the points brought up in the House.
This is not something we are suggesting as the opposition that we did not suggest as a government. It is something that as a government we said we are going to do because we believe in the House of Commons. We believe in trying to make this chamber function effectively, so that members can really feel they have some influence, not that they are just here speaking so they can send a few copies of speeches back to some of their constituents, or because somebody might be watching during the afternoon when they are speaking or whatever.
We would like a chamber that is effective. There are probably a dozen government departments, there might be twenty, that no one can quarrel with, but there may be a

April 28, 1980
Supplementary Estimates (A)
couple that are not performing properly or where there is some injustice. For example, in the Department of Transport there might be some jiggery-pokery going on there.
I remember when a CFLCO airplane crashed in 1977 in Labrador. It was just shocking. The Department of Transport interfered with the report of the accident investigation division. I smoked it out. Now a royal commission is sitting and getting the evidence on all this.
This procedure would be a very useful device for something of that kind. If the Minister of Transport had not been forthcoming on a matter like that, fine, we would choose his estimates to go into in the Flouse until he came forward with the information. Who knows what department or minister it will be, but it will make them all sit up and be a bit more attentive to the wishes of their own backbenchers and the opposition.
We have an experienced former minister in the Treasury benches. He was always pretty forthcoming. He would have been even more forthcoming and on his toes if he knew that he could be kept in this House for a few days answering questions in Committee of the Whole.
That is what this amendment suggests. It is not something we were not prepared to do ourselves. We are suggesting a way out for the President of the Privy Council. The only difference between his motion and ours is that there are four days in this House when we discuss interim supply and supplementary estimates, and three days in Committee of the Whole where we can really probe the minister and so can backbenchers opposite. There is nothing stopping them in Committee of the Whole asking any questions they want to ask.
For the main estimates we are suggesting this different treatment. We believe that this will make a vast difference in committee, because when a minister comes to the committee he will be more willing to be reasonable. He is not going to want the opposition to choose his department to be grilled in the House of Commons. He will be more forthcoming. It will make the system more reasonable all around.
Part of the frustration now is that you cannot do anything when the government gives you the run around. We were over there ourselves. We would want to give the run around too. Nobody wants to create a whip for his own back. It is only because we were new at the game and in government for only a few months that we were willing to propose this as a government. If we had been in power for sixteen years, we would be just as bad as the hon. gentleman opposite, most likely. I would have liked to be given a test of the sixteen years first and then see if we can make a comparison, but that was not to be.
These are our suggestions. We are hoping that the President of the Privy Council will accept this amendment, or if he does not want to accept it as it is, he might talk to our House leader and see if there is some common ground.
In concluding-I have a lot more information that is very relevant but I do not want to occupy the time of the House too much; I know we have a lot of other speakers who wish to
address themselves to this very question-quite seriously, I say we on this side of the House want to co-operate.
I, as a former minister of finance, will be quite frank. I am interested in seeing a lot of that legislation through-tax conventions and banking legislation, Bretton Woods. There is a lot of legislation that is non-controversial which should be able to go through this House reasonably quickly, as long as hon. members on this side of the House are included in the process and as long as we are treated with some degree of fairness.
There are four or five years to go, and I for one do not think that much that is said this year is going to have any effect when the next election comes in four or five years' time. I am interested in trying to see that this is a place that does a good job and that the things we really disagree on we ventilate well, but otherwise let us get on with the business. However, we are only going to be in that frame of mind if hon. gentlemen will give some way to us, and in the last ten days this they have not done. They were rubbing our noses in it with their approach to the financial statement last Monday night, and they were doing it again in the estimates on Tuesday. Well, it is all well and good, but it does not induce the right kind of spirit.
Now, if we can be given some proper way with backbenchers opposite to go at the estimates, where we know at the end of the process we have some muscle to use on recalcitrant ministers, or on those who get carried away with the sense of their own importance, or on those who have something to hide, then it will make the whole process a lot better, save a lot of time in committee, and it will make a lot healthier atmosphere, so I am hoping.
I certainly have nothing to praise the government for at the moment. In my next speech I would like to be able to get up and praise the government for doing something, and for doing something sensible. I have not been able to do that, but I commend this to the President of the Privy Council and hope that he will respond and that we can get on and do a lot of business before the end of July, close for a week or two, come back in the middle of August full of vim and vigour, get right into this thing again and get on with the business.
So, I have great pleasure in moving, seconded by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton the motion Your Honour now has, and I hope we will get a good response from the other side.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Before I can put that amendment to the House I want to express some concern about the provisions in the last paragraph where the amendment proposes that if this amendment were to be adopted by the House, if I understand it correctly, it would be exempt from any deadline in this or any other temporary or Standing Order or permanent Standing Order related to the business of supply, and so forth. My understanding is that the amendment
April 28, 1980

proposes unlimited debate without time limits inherent, and I think it would be wise if hon. members would accord me the dinner hour to seek consultation with the Table officers in order to determine whether that is quite right on.
That being the case, and if it is deemed suitable by hon. members, debate may continue on the motion.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm)-Metric conversion-Request for parliamentary debate before system put into full effect; the hon. member for Win-nipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie)-Canadian Pacific Railway-Winnipeg-Rail relocation-Suggested reversal of government policy.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (A), 1980-81 REPORTING FROM STANDING COMMITTEES The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pinard:
That, notwithstanding any standing order, the Supplementary Estimates (A), 1980-1981, shall be reported or be deemed to have been reported from the several standing committees no later than May 9, 1980;
That, no later than fifteen minutes before the ordinary time of adjournment on May 15, 1980 the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings then in progress and put, forthwith and successively, without amendment or debate, every question that may be necessary to dispose of any item of business relating to interim supply, the said Supplementary Estimates, the restoration or reinstatement of any item in the said Supplementary Estimates or any opposed item in the said Supplementary Estimates and, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 72, for the passage at all stages of any bill or bills based thereon, providing that the ordinary time of adjournment shall remain suspended until all such questions have been decided; and
That, for the year 1980, Standing Order 58 shall be amended as follows:
(i)	by replacing in section (5) thereof the word "five" with the word "eighteen" and by deleting the words "Thirteen additional days shall be allotted to the business of supply in the period ending not later than June 30.";
(ii)	by replacing in section (9) thereof the word "two" with the word "four";
(iii)	by replacing in section (14) thereof the words "March 1 of the then expiring fiscal year" with the words "April 30"; and
(iv)	by replacing in section (14) thereof the words "May 31 in the then current fiscal year" with the words "November 10".
['Mr. Speaker, I sure hope we come to an agreement tomorrow morning. If we do, we will proceed with Bill C-19 tomorrow afternoon.']
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we all enjoyed the meandering speech of the hon.
Supplementary Estimates (A)
member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). I am a little disappointed that he did not make it for at least two full hours. He fell nine minutes short. Maybe next time he is in that spot he will surpass his own record.
However, I have to say, despite my criticism of his wandering and so on, that when it was all over he did produce something that to me, at least, is negotiable. I suspect that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) would find it difficult to accept the amendment in its entirety as it has been moved, but there are certain principles in it that I believe are sound, and I hope that there might be some consultations that could lead to a compromise or a negotiated settlement.
As a matter of fact, I think it is unfortunate that we are having this debate on the floor of the House. There is an awful lot of business with which this Parliament must deal, and it seems to me that one of the reasons for having meetings of House leaders is to try to sort out the process so that on the floor of the House we can deal with matters of substance. Indeed, I think it is unfortunate that the terms of this proposal as set out in the amendment were not presented at a meeting of House leaders where, perchance, we might have come to some understanding.
I have been a bit critical, perhaps, of my friends to the right.
I am addressing myself now to the President of the Privy Council. As he knows, I was prepared to buy the motion that he put down the other day. In fact I was prepared to buy an even shorter one that he presented to us at a meeting of House leaders, but I ask him not to reject out of hand the suggestions which have been made by the hon. member for St. John's West in an amendment which he says was drafted by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker).
Before I comment on what this amendment does as I see it, may I back up a bit and describe what I think would be the result of the motion as put by the President of the Privy Council. The hon. member for St. John's West rang the changes on the proposition that we were being denied the right to debate the estimates back on the floor of the House. Well, that happens to be the way the rules are set up. 1 do not like them but that is the way they are. The motion of the President of the Privy Council does not do that. All the motion of the President of the Privy Council does is to take cognizance of the fact that we have had a couple of elections, that we met only two months out of 13 between March, 1979, and April, 1980, and that somehow we have to catch up with the backlog. So, his motion proposed that since in the semester we are now in and in the one at the end of this year there is a total of 18 days, he puts down 18 opposition days. Since the rules provide for two non-confidence days in each of those, he adds two and two together and gets four. He is a smart man; he can do his arithmetic.


An hon. Member:: He should be the Minister of Finance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As for the business of the estimates being sent to committee and then being brought back to the House

April 28, 1980
Supplementary Estimates (A)
without any chance to debate them on the floor of the House, a process many of us do not like, that has been there since we put these rules in a decade ago, and the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton is quite right that I am not happy with that arrangement. It is the one thing out of the changes we made that I think does not stand up, and that we should be changing. By the same token, I am prepared to experiment with something else in the meantime.
As for the proposal by the President of the Privy Council, it provided the same number of days for what remains of 1980, and it provided for the same number of "non-confidence" days. He also provided for the estimates to be out there in committee a lot longer than the rules provide. So I do not think he deserves to be castigated quite as much as he has been today. All he was doing was trying to put together the rules as we have them in terms of the 1980 time frame. I appreciate the fact that he added these extra weeks or months for discussion in committee, but as the hon. member for St. John's West indicated, many of us have become dissatisfied with that arrangement.
Now, what the hon. member for St. John's West, as the spokesman for the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton, is proposing, is that in 1980 we experiment, as we have done in some other years, with having a few days of estimates here on the floor of the House. The proposal, as I get it, in this amendment, is that with respect to interim supply and supplementary estimates we have four days debate, the four days being May, 12, 13, 14 and 15. Right away that hits the President of the Privy Council between the eyes. Where does he find four days? Let me come to that in a moment.
Then the member for St. John's West proposes that when we get to December and we come to wind up the main estimates, there be an opportunity for debating the estimates of three departments, which the opposition will choose, but without any time limit on the total number of days to be taken for that debate. I read the amendment as saying that debates will all take place in Committee of the Whole. That is good. In other words we do not have set speeches with the Speaker in the chair; we spend all our time in Committee of the Whole questioning ministers on those estimates. I do not think the wording of the amendment changes the time limit on speeches, I think the 20 minute rule still applies in Committee of the Whole. But there is no limit on the number of days that might be taken on those departments.
So what the member for St. John's West is asking is that, in addition to what is provided in the rules, translated as the President of the Privy Council has done, there be an additional four days in May for supplementary estimates and interim supply, and an additional unstated number of days in December for debating three departments. Now I would like to make the suggestion that some time soon, perhaps after I have finished speaking, this debate might even be adjourned, and we could possibly go on to something else. The House leaders might get together, in short, to consider what might be done.
First, may I talk about the four days in May? We could trade off some of the opposition days for some of the four days. I will not start off by saying we will give you four for four, but we might give you two for four. I am suggesting that the problem that the minister has of finding four days' debate in that period could be looked at in terms of a trade-off with opposition days. The same could happen in December; there could be a trade-off. I recognize that it will be a strange government if it agrees to an unlimited debate on those three departments, but if we got together the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton might say: "All right, we will accept a certain time limit; we will accept four days in December on that special supply bill that deals with three departments and be prepared to give up two opposition days." This is the kind of thing we do in House leaders' meetings all the time.
I think that if we had had this before us at one of our meetings in the last week or so we might have come to it. So I find myself in this position in those meetings, often trying to be an honest broker between my two friends. They have both been in and out of government, and they both have feelings about this, and each one is trying to get back at the other and all that sort of thing. I have not been in that position, so I can try to conciliate between the two of them.
I say I do not think the President of the Privy Council should be condemned for his motion. He did not put anything new into that motion at all. It is already there that the estimates go off to committee and when they come back there is no debate on them unless the opposition puts some of them down for an opposition day. He has given more time, but that is simply because of the nature of the calender in 1980. So I do not think he should be condemned. Neither do I think the proposal of the hon. member for St. John's West should be dismissed out of hand because his proposal seems to call for four more days of debate in the House in May and an unlimited number of days of debate in December. I think the compromise is to have four or three days in May and a bit of a trade-off with the opposition days. The other thought is to have an understanding about a certain limited number of days in December, again with a trade-off against opposition days.
As for the idea itself that we should bring back some of the estimates to the floor, 1 have been speaking in favour of this for years. Then, as to the other proposition that debating estimates on the floor of the House should be only at the Committee of the Whole stage-I do not think I have seen it in those precise words before-it is a good idea and I commend the author of it.
Way back in ancient history we used to debate the estimates entirely on the floor of the House in committee of supply. The process went on and on, but there were some pretty good debates. The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton will remember them because he sat up in the gallery as a boy and watched them. Some of us were down here on the floor. But, you know, this country got too big, the number of departments became too many, the sums of money became too involved, and we just could not handle it that way-the year was not long enough for us to consider all the estimates in committee of supply on
April 28, 1980

the floor of the House. So we experimented with two or three different ways.
We went back and forth and finally we decided, I think it was in 1968 or 1969, to take the estimates off the floor altogether and send them out to the standing committees. That same package which we passed in 1968 or 1969 included changes affecting the legislation, the report stage, the sending of bills to committee and so on, which I think were good and which have worked out well. Somewhere in the process we brought in the late show at night, and we did other things. 1 think we have improved the procedures in this House.
The one area in which we have not yet solved the problem is with respect to the passing of estimates. We could not possibly go back to the way it was when 1 came here in 1942. But I do not think we can continue with this process of their being dealt with in committee without a word being said on the floor of the House, and I think some sort of compromise should be considered.
I hope we can look at this subject with equanimity, and get over chiding each other about what has gone on in the past. 1 trust the House will realize that the President of the Privy Council has a problem which must be solved. We have to find a way to do it. I hope the President of the Privy Council will consider that maybe, despite all the problems he has, we can experiment this year with a few days of debating estimates on the floor of the House in Committee of the Whole on special supply bills.
1 do not think we can solve this by simply debating this matter all week and all next week, and having recorded votes. I think it calls for consultation, and 1 hope there will be that consultation among the House leaders and that we can find something which will solve this problem. As I said in my initial remarks, we are faced with a great backlog of business, budgets and estimates and a lot of things which did not get done, and I think the country out there-


An hon. Member:: Whose fault was that?


Stanley Howard Knowles: An hon. member says "whose fault is that?" Is it not time to quit talking about whose fault it was, the two elections and all the rest of it? The fact is: let the bygones be bygones. The reason I was prepared to buy the shorter program of the two which the President of the Privy Council gave us the other day, was because it got the rest over that much sooner; it got it over in the middle of the summer. I do not think we should drag the past on for all of this year. As I say, what the country would like is for us to deal with substance. I hope we do not spend all week debating this process, but that we will find some way whereby we can have some agreement and get it done.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, because I have already taken part in the debate and the amendment has been taken under
Supplementary Estimates (A)
advisement. I just have one thing to say. It is true, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said, that about ten days ago the various options were consideration and the opposition House leaders were given a choice. The hon. member came quickly to a decision; he was willing to co-operate, to accept either proposal, but my learned colleague of the Progressive Conservative Party, of course, took no position and preferred having the question debated today, without offering any counter-proposal, as I indicated earlier in my remarks on the motion.
We would have preferred, of course, to have the procedural matter negotiated and settled by mutual agreement or, at least, to receive counterproposals rather than being forced to come to the House to reach a solution that is fair and in accordance with the spirit of the Standing Orders, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre so appropriately remarked, although that does not make us less open to a serious negotiation, if only there could be someone to talk to in the Progressive Conservative Party.
So if today's debate has the effect of convincing my hon. friend, the House leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, at least to reply to the proposals which have been made to him and to negotiate with all the good will that I know he can show, I am sure that if we call it six o'clock now, we can negotiate a reasonable agreement by eight o'clock tonight. Should my knowledgeable colleague not be reasonable, we can go on with the debate at eight o'clock.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am really rather surprised. I thought that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) had dealt quite appropriately with the spirit that ought to exist among House leaders. I hope the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), by what 1 regard as a rather offensive interjection, has not destroyed that spirit.
Since he has laid it out on the table, I just want him to recall that I told him I would consult and consult broadly-and I did-with respect to what we should do. 1 did exactly that. As 1 said at the outset in one interjection, it is not my job to make life miserable for the government, although 1 think my friend should recall that when I occupied his position my life was made somewhat miserable by open-ended debates in Committee of the Whole with respect to estimates. I think he should remember that. Notwithstanding that, as a result of the considerations we took internally as to how we might make this House of Commons work, one of the ways we chose was not to be offensive to one another on the floor of the House.
We considered very carefully how we might satisfy two things. The first thing was the necessity of the government getting its business done. I sat in that seat. I sympathize with his desire to have business done. I suffered under an opposition which did not give a damn whether business was done. The
486

April 28, 1980
Supplementary Estimates (A)
second thing which is important with respect to this is that it is part of Parliament's business, not just the government's business, to hold the government accountable. Parliament is not the handmaiden of the government. It will never be, God willing. Parliament's job is to hold the government accountable. The only way we will in our processes hold the government accountable is if we somehow look at our processes and procedures.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is quite right. The examination in committees is next to useless in terms of estimates, and every member knows that. The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) has been concerned about the rights of French-speaking Canadians outside of Quebec. He knows how little opportunity there really is to come to grips with that. But if he had, for instance, the estimates of the Department of the Secretary of State here where the public can see what the government is doing, or is not doing, if that is the case, then I think he would feel he had his day in court on behalf of a constituency which to him is important. This could be repeated 282 times in the House.
What this amendment is all about, as a result of consultation, is not to hold up the government. But it is to provide that balance where we can somehow do our job. We have wrestled with the way in which it can be done. I hope Mr. Speaker finds it appropriate. In fact, if 1 can give Mr. Speaker some advice, the Chair ought to lean in the direction of finding this amendment appropriate if it can. It expands the rights of members of Parliament and of Mr. Speaker. That is the way in which it is prepared, not as a way to hold up the government.
I think our relationship will continue to be a good one, if we do not insult one another on the floor of the House. It is very important. Having served in both capacities as opposition House leader and government House leader, if I can give my learned friend some advice it is to learn to cool his tongue.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: This is a House of debate and of differences of opinion, but in terms of the operations of government and the operations of Parliament, there has to be some good will. As I said before, it is not my wish to hold up the government; it is not. That wish can be accommodated if we can accommodate each other. This amendment is an attempt to do precisely that. Of course we are prepared to consult; of course we are. We now have something to consult about.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I wonder if I could make a suggestion which modifies slightly the one made by the hon. President of the Privy Council. It seems to me that to try to resolve this before eight o'clock is a little too much, but I believe we have a meeting already set for tomorrow morning. I wonder if we could not come to that meeting with our minds and hearts open, trusting that we can come to something, and that being the case, I wonder whether there could not be an agreement to adjourn
this debate at six o'clock and take some other business tonight. I suggest now that a debate tonight on this subject will just be a repetition of speeches, but we have something about which we could consult tomorrow morning. I believe the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton is prepared to do so. I invite the President of the Privy Council to put this on the table at our meeting tomorrow morning and to ask the Chair to move to some other business at eight o'clock tonight.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, that is an eminently excellent suggestion, and I join in the invitation to do that, if I may. If the government House leader wants to take a few minutes to decide what he would like to call, we would be quite willing to deal with whatever business he has in mind this evening.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this new wind of co-operation. There is no need for me to consult anyone now. At eight o'clock tonight, we will proceed with the consideration of the bill on small businesses loans. I sincerely hope that we will reach an agreement tomorrow morning on this motion, otherwise 1 will notify my colleagues of the order of the day for tomorrow. The proposal of our hon. colleague from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) seems to me to be very reasonable and I am quite willing to negotiate provided, once again, I deal with a serious spokesman for the Conservatives. Tonight we will consider the bill in the name of the Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Lapointe) dealing with small businesses loans. Tomorrow, we will see whether there are any changes in the order of the day.


Walter David Baker: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The understanding of the Chair is that some progress will be made on the subject matter of checking the orderliness of the amendment this evening, and I believe that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) has indicated that at eight o'clock this evening we will resume the debate on Bill C-17. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That this debate is adjourned.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 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.

April 28, 1980

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, April 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lapointe (Charlevoix) that Bill C-17, to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) had the floor.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, I believe you are correct, but I did not know that as soon as I walked in tonight you would change the schedule and this matter would again be under discussion. However, 1 have just about completed what I had to say on the subject.
The final clause of the bill with which we are dealing brings the date forward, at which time the act will expire, unless renewed, to June 30, 1982. 1 am pleased to note that this sunset provision is still included in the bill. If we are not very careful, legislation of this nature can continue, continue, and continue, and Parliament can lose sight of it. With this provision it means that the measure has to be brought back before this House within the time period.
We are given to understand that within the two-year time period the government is going to take a close look at the various ways by which assistance can be given to small businesses, and I am very pleased this is to be done. The general consensus of the House is, I believe, that we should like this to go ahead, with assistance given to small businesses, and we commend the government for taking this upon itself. I am sure it can expect the advice and help of all members of this House.
Although that is the consensus of the House, I have one small reservation. It appears to me sometimes that instead of the government taking money from one set of taxpayers and giving it out in this fashion in specific areas, it might be better had it not taken that money from the taxpayers in the first place. We can very often make a good case for leaving the money in the hands of individuals, in the hands of corporations and small businesses, particularly so that they can themselves decide where they want to reinvest that money.
Just a few days ago every member of this House received a communication from the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) about the summer youth employment program. In reviewing various projects under that program it came to our attention that after all this money has been spent we are still not going to be that much further ahead. This was something of a stop-gap measure. Perhaps in that case, as in the case of some of of the programs to assist small businesses, it would be better to leave the money in the hands of the taxpayer.
I think those were to be my concluding remarks on this particular bill. This is something I am sure everybody in this House wants to deal with quickly. We all agree with it in priniciple, and I hope it has speedy passage.
Small Businesses Loans Act


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Mr. Speaker, I-welcome the opportunity to enter the debate on Bill C-17 to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act. The government has nothing to congratulate itself about in respect of this bill. All this is, is a very small step forward. The government certainly has much to do in this Parliament in order to get off the backs of the businessmen. I should just like to read into the record a brief comment from some business leaders in Manitoba following the introduction of the mini-budget last week. This is an excellent article which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press, entitled "Budget Riles Winnipeg Businessmen". The article states in part:
The federal government's mini-budget is the worst of all possible combinations, three Winnipeg business leaders say.
Their protests centre on higher government spending and escalating deficits coupled with higher taxation.
"They've led us down the garden path," is the way the government's financial posture was described to the Free Press by Gervin Greasly, executive vice-president of the Winnipeg Construction Association.
Jim Cartlidge, president of the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce, expressed concern the government is increasing both taxes and bureaucratic spending without having a long-term plan for fiscal administration.
In other words, the government does not have its act together. The article goes on to criticize the government for its continuing irresponsible spending habits, which have been the record of this Liberal government or so-called Liberal government since 1968. The Liberals have a disgraceful record when it comes to assisting the business community in Canada. One only needs to look at the number of commercial failures and bankruptcies since 1968. In 1968, under a Liberal government, there were 2,481 bankruptcies. Since 1968 the Liberals have managed to work that figure up to 5,648 bankruptcies. Clearly it indicates that their policies of heavy taxation, interference, and harassment of the business community have been very successful. They have increased bankruptcies by making things as awkward and difficult as possible for the business community in Canada.


Jean-Luc Pepin: What is the figure for 1979?


A. Daniel McKenzie: We on this side are very pleased that the Liberal party has adopted a number of our proposals. One proposal which it has adopted is the Small Business Development Bonds which will assist small businessmen with the problem of escalating interest rates. I will be discussing the high interest rate policies of the New Democratic Party and the Liberal party in just a few moments.
Another policy which has been adopted by the government is the tax deduction to small businessmen of salaries paid to spouses, which was introduced in the last Conservative budget. One of the most serious problems for businesses, large and small, is the paper burden. Our government had taken steps to reduce the amount of paper work imposed on the small business community. Over 70,000 small businessmen will be exempt from filing reports under the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act. This is a step in the right direction, and I hope that the Liberal government will take a look at this

April 28, 1980
Small Businesses Loans Act
problem and continue to take steps to reduce the paper burden of the small businessmen.
A bill which died in the last Parliament under the filibustering and blocking of the NDP and the Liberal party was Bill C-12. 1 hope that this new Liberal government will reintroduce this bill, or a similar one, because it will greatly assist businesses, large and small, in Canada. This particular bill would save Canadian businessmen a considerable amount of time by reducing the paper burden.
As 1 have said, we had only begun in the area of reducing the paper burden. Bill C-12 was intended to streamline reporting systems and improve the sharing of information within the federal government. That bill would have also resulted in a better perception of labour union activity, particularly with regard to finances. I hope that the appropriate minister will be dealing with those issues in the future.
All members of Parliament receive copies of Mandate from the small businessmen. I read them with great interest, particularly the column which is headed, "Our members speak up". I would like to read a couple of comments from that section into the record tonight. One comment reads:
High interest rates are killing business. Governments should drastically reduce interest rates to business by having two prime rates-with interest charged to businesses being about 50 per cent of the personal rate.
The Small Business Development Bonds introduced by the Conservative government, and now being implemented by the Liberal government, will help to some extent in this area.
One of the major problems facing this country is high interest rates. I would like to talk about high interest rates and what causes them. The size of the government deficit is one of the major contributing factors in causing high interest rates. This involves the financing of the deficit through the sale of securities to the public and absorbs a good part of the savings in the economy. The savings thus absorbed would tend to reduce interest rates if public borrowing requirements were less.
The reason we have such high interest rates is because we must attract investors to pay off the huge deficit which was run up by the NDP-Liberal coalition of the Twenty-ninth Parliament when all stops were removed. During that Parliament the lid was taken off, and federal spending increased by 50 per cent. This is what happened when the NDP were running the country for 20 months during the Twenty-ninth Parliament. Thank God it only lasted for 20 months. During the 20-month period of the Twenty-ninth Parliament, the period 1972-1974, Liberal government spending increased by approximately 50 per cent, when the little group down here to my left were controlling the country.


Mr. Benjamin:: Hear, hear!


A. Daniel McKenzie: They are clapping, Mr. Speaker. They love bribing the people with their own money and getting this country deeper and deeper into debt. In dollar terms, during the fiscal year 1971-72 budgetary spending was $17,046,000,000. By the fiscal year 1974-75, budgetary spending reached
$29,717,000,000; an increase of $12 billion in a 12-month period. That is why we have high interest rates today, to pay off the debt and the uncontrolled spending of that Parliament which was run by the NDP party, because the Liberals would sell their very souls to stay in power. They did not only sell their souls to stay in power during that Parliament, but they took the country into complete bankruptcy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


A. Daniel McKenzie: We hear laughs and jokes from the Liberals and the NDP because it is a great big joke to them. Canadians saw their performance in the Liberal television commercials during the last election which said, night after night, that interest rates should not have gone up, that it was a terrible thing for the Conservatives to let interest rates go up. If interest rates should not have gone up, then why has the government not reduced interest rates? It has been back in power since February 19, and why has it not reduced interest rates? Instead this government has played one of the cruellest hoaxes on the Canadian people that I have ever seen. Look at the smirks and laughs on these new NDP members.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


A. Daniel McKenzie: These new Liberal members-what is the difference between NDP and Liberal?


An hon. Member:: It's the same thing.


Mr. Huntington:: It's a coalition.


A. Daniel McKenzie: That is right, it is a coalition. The Liberals spent 20 months in bed with the NDP.
It has been suggested that the Progressive Conservative minority government made Parliament unworkable because it refused to make deals to keep Parliament alive. It is the heavy spending of the Twenty-ninth Parliament which caused so much trouble in the business community, not the Conservative government. The Liberals claim that their ability to survive 20 months with a minority government, 1972-74, is ample proof of their inherent ability to govern. What the Liberals fail to understand is that the art of governing involves more than the craft of political survival. The Liberals survived their minority period by continually making deals with the NDP or by selling out one's principles for the sake of power, and it has not benefited Canadians. That is why there is a high interest rate problem which is not only affecting businessmen but also home owners across this country.
In 1979 the Conservative government, faced with a need to make decisive economic decisions following the prolonged period when economic decision-making was virtually nonexistent, the Clark government made those decisions and stood by them. We were not going to make any under-the-counter deals with the NDP. If we had entered into any such agreement with them, spending would have skyrocketed out of control, and the interest rate would be much higher than 16 per cent, 17 per cent or 18 per cent.
April 28, 1980

In contrast the Liberal minority government of 1972 to 1974 was one which presided over the total abandonment of responsible fiscal management, and the cost to Canada of the Liber-al-NDP alliance was staggering. The fiscal damage that was done during that period tied the hands of the Clark government, and Canada could no longer afford the economic compromises which the Liberal minority government found so expedient to their political survival. The Clark government had taken a stand on basic economic principles, principles it was unwilling to compromise.
1 listened to the Winnipeg radio station, with the NDP finance critic wailing and moaning about interest rates. He forgot to tell the people what happened in the Twenty-ninth Parliament with the coalition between the NDP and the Liberal parties. The NDP is directly responsible for the high interest rate problem that we have doday. Their policy is high interest rates through uncontrolled government spending.
1 also made reference to the Liberals' TV advertisements. That was one of the most cruel hoaxes I have ever seen played on the Canadian people regarding interest rates, Mr. Speaker. It clearly indicated that the Liberal party do not have the principles or the ethics of an alley cat. That was one of the most cruel hoaxes I have ever seen played on the Canadian people. Unfortunately it was a member from Manitoba, the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), who was used in the TV ads night after night, telling the people that interest rates should not have gone up. Mr. Speaker, why do they not bring them down now if they should not have gone up?
Then there was the utter nonsense we had to listen to in the last Parliament from the Liberal finance critic, now the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray), who comes from Windsor. When he was asked how he would reduce interest rates, "Oh" he said, "1 will introduce an industrial strategy." When are we going to see this industrial strategy that will lower interest rates? We are not going to see it, Mr. Speaker.
The name of the Liberal party should be changed to the B & B party. In the 1960s it was bilingualism and biculturalism that was going to be the complete answer to all the problems of Canada. That did not work. It was only a limited success. Now the Liberals are taking us into the 1980s. We will have to find a new B & B name for them-the Balkanization and Bankruptcy party. I think that would be a very appropriate name.


David Michael Collenette: How about the winning party?


A. Daniel McKenzie: Yes, Mr. Speaker. A Liberal member just said, what about the winning party?


David Michael Collenette: Try it sometime.


A. Daniel McKenzie: The Liberals won through their unscrupulous tactics on TV ads and what have you. The Liberals certainly do not know anything about running the country but
Small Businesses Loans Act
they know how to win an election, unfortunately. But the Canadian public is getting wise to them.
Bill C-17 does not cover a number of areas that were covered in the budget we presented in the last Parliament. It would have assisted development in eastern Canada. It offered specialized tax incentives for firms investing in Atlantic Canada and the Gaspe. Tax incentives were offered to encourage the construction of new Canadian-built fishing vessels. Fifty million dollars in job-creation funds were offered to assist eastern Canada in projects related to economic development. I hope the Liberal government will consider those areas in the very near future.
It is all very well to bring in little band-aid programs, but in countries or, for that matter, provinces that have nationalistic, leftist, or extremely strong bureaucratic tendencies, successful and striving entrepreneurs are made to feel uncomfortable. That is the situation we have witnessed in this country in the last few years. It was experienced also in the eight years the NDP were in power in Manitoba. Most people have no idea of the extent to which businesses are affected. It drives out investment money and stops business expansion because they simply do not trust these socialist governments. I shall not read into the record tonight things that I have read into past debates in other Parliaments about the amount of investment money and businesses that have been driven out of this country.
It is easy to see that Bill C-17 is not the total answer. It is a very, very small bill that will temporarily assist a few thousand business people. I have read the figures from this particular document into the record a number of times, Mr. Speaker, showing the amount of money driven out of the province of Manitoba in the eight years it had an NDP government. I have also read into the record a number of times the amounts of money driven out of this country under Liberal governments over the years.
The unadjusted unemployment rate as of March is running at 8.6 per cent, or almost one million people. This shows that over the years the policies have been absolute failures. The government managed to con people with their TV ads and slick promotions. We cannot take that away from them because they have been very successful with it-but that is about all they have been successful with. In 1970, Mr. Speaker, Canada enjoyed the third highest standard of living in the world; in 1978, we were eleventh, and today I believe we are somewhere about fifteenth, so our standard is dropping steadily under successive Liberal governments while problems for business are mounting.
I should like to return to the Mandate I referred to earlier and the comments that are made about the problems of small business. I hope that the minister will take note of these tonight. I should like to quote another letter that appeared in the Mandate recently as follows:
Please be advised that we are wasting a lot of time and gaining nothing for the small business with regards to the Small Businesses Loans Act. I have pleaded with (1) my bank, (2) the Co-op Credit Union, (3) The Provincial Treasury

April 28, 1980
Small Businesses Loans Act
Branches and received a big horse laugh. (They all said) there is no way that we are going to let our money out for 1 per cent over prime.
That came from a plumbing company in Calgary, but it is an issue that has been raised time and time again in the House. Small business people are having problems obtaining loans from different trust companies and banks. I hope we will hear something constructive from the minister regarding the problems that small businesses are having in obtaining loans.
I should like now to quote a comment of a businessman from Salmon Arm, B.C., who writes in the Mandate as follows:
For our clients, banking is a constant concern. The banks do not serve the business communities-the community serves the banks.
The problems are continuing, and Bill C-17 is far from the total answer. In fact it is not anywhere near it. Another letter which appeared in the Mandate reads as follows:
If the government is entitled to make laws to protect the consumer, they should also have the responsibility to make them known to all small businesses in such a way that the onus is not always on us. Who reads the official Gazette anyway!
I imagine this gentleman was referring to orders in council. We know that in 1978 about 3,300 orders in council were passed. This is a constant problem for the business community, to try to keep up with all the changes and the laws. They cannot sit down and read orders in council every day. We raised a question repeatedly in the House about the number of orders in council issued which affected businesses and other people in Canada.
Another area has caused problems for the small business community, especially the housebuilding industry. The September, 1979, issue of Hudac National Focus applauds the Conservatives' mortgage tax deduction plan which was filibustered and blocked by the Liberal and NDP parties in the last government. The publication commented that builders and industry generally were well pleased with the program outlined by the then minister of finance, although a few were skeptical about its over-all effects. It might not have helped everybody in the country but it would have been a great step forward in assisting home owners and builders. Nothing has been done since the new government took over. We hear the NDP screaming and yelling about interest rates but they filibustered and blocked a piece of legislation which would have been a major step forward in assisting home owners and the building industry in Canada.
Not only were they busy blocking veterans' affairs legislation and the transportation of dangerous goods measure but they also blocked the mortgage tax deductibility plan which would have helped home owners and the business community.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: And put people right out of their homes.


A. Daniel McKenzie: That is right. The NDP and the Liberals are putting people out of their homes.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: It costs them 3 per cent more than it should in interest.


A. Daniel McKenzie: That is right. One of my colleagues has just pointed out that the interest rates have gone up 3 per cent. That is as a result of the actions of the Liberal and the NDP parties in the Twenty-ninth Parliament.
The Liberal government is also falling back in not creating jobs and instead causing problems. It could do a lot to help the business community by making Canada self-sufficient in oil. We see that Canada spends $5.1 million a day to import oil. Successive Liberal governments have done more to create jobs for OPEC than they have to create jobs in Canada.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: They have done a good job with high interest rates in Canada though.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Yes, they have certainly done a good job with high interest rates in Canada. I understand too that they have done a remarkably good job in creating work for OPEC with their policy of relying on imported oil, instead of making Canada self-sufficient. If previous Liberal governments had continued with the policy introduced by the Diefenbaker government in 1958, namely, the road to resources program, Canada could very well be self-sufficient today. We probably would not have any unemployment nor would we have to worry about importing oil. Every business in this country would be booming if the Diefenbaker program of roads to resources had been continued. But the Liberals had a big laugh about that and said that all we were doing was building roads from igloo to igloo. That is a Liberal policy for which we are paying very dearly.
Of course, under the present Liberal policy, this $5.1 million a day going to OPEC to create jobs, over the next three or four years, will increase to about $15 million a day. I am sure OPEC will be looking forward with glee to this Liberal government depending on other countries for energy.
There are others in our party who wish to speak this evening but I wanted to put these viewpoints on the record. I know the Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Lapointe) has moved around-there he is behind the curtain-and I hope he has taken some note of what I have said tonight. I hope he is reading the Mandates, and I hope he bears in mind why we have the high interest rate policy. I do not know whether he was here during the Twenty-ninth Parliament, but I hope he bears in mind the damage that was done to this country by allowing the NDP to run Canada for 20 months. They have to take full and direct responsibility, along with the Liberals, for the high interest rate policy that we have today which was established by the NDP and Liberals in the Twenty-ninth Parliament.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight, having been the advocate of small business during the past Parliament. As a result, I have some knowledge of the difficulties that small businesses are having in the country at this time.
The bill itself is really not going to fool the small business community. All it is is an amendment to the instructions found in the average Liberal band-aid box. The increase by $75
April 28, 1980

million to $675 million, which will take us to June 30 of this year, does not do very much to deal with many of the critical internal problems faced by the small business community. The limits are raised from $75,000 to $100,000, which addreses inflation by adding a $25,000 bump. But it is really simple indexing for three years of unbridled inflation.
It was interesting to listen to the previous speaker who never really touched on the small business community or its difficulties. Instead, we heard a lot of political rhetoric from him. I would certainly hope that the Tory party will take the time to send it out to every small businessman in Canada.


An hon. Member:: They would not dare.


James Ross Fulton: The new ceiling, which will take us into 1982, adds an additional $175 million, raising the limit to $850 million. I think it is important to look at what it means. The historical bulk of Liberal legislation does not deal with working capital, nor did any of the amendments proposed by the previous administration. The bill allows for equipment, improvement on premises, purchasing and construction of premises, and the purchase of land.
Tonight I would like to centre in on working capital requirements. I would like to point out that having acted as the critic for the NDP on small business, I noticed one particular thing in the last Parliament, and that was the number of letters I received from small businesses compared with the number I received from large corporations. 1 can tell you quite frankly that 1 did not get any from large corporations.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Ross Fulton: I think it says a lot about the two larger parties, and how they fund themselves during elections. They like to laugh and chortle. I raised the point in my riding that Alcan gave the Liberal candidate $15,000 and the Tory candidate $15,000. It is interesting how it muzzled them during the campaign. Alcan wanted to build a large dam that would destroy the fishery and a major section of the environment. The Liberals and the Tories were very quiet during the campaign. There was only one voice, and that was the voice of the NDP.
The brutal rate of bankruptcy will remain untouched by the availability of loan capital under the SBLA. It directs itself rather to cosmetic change, to premises or equipment rather than interest rates and the costs of carrying inventory and expanding deliverability of goods and services, which are really the keys to a strong business sector. It is high time that the centralized disorganized approach to small business was discussed in this House. The myriad of forms for loans and criteria are an unnecessary hurdle to most small businesses. There is a need for one apparatus which deals, like a physician, with the whole, as well as the parts, rather than having, as many small businesses do now, a full time form filling and journeyman paper chaser. Businessmen need access to capital and expertise, not to red tape and paperwork.
Small Businesses Loans Act
With interest rates at 17 per cent to 20 per cent, a small business must pay out well over $1,000 a month simply to carry a $100,000 inventory. This gives opportunity for major chains and corporations to take over markets if a small business cuts back in its inventory. For example, in my riding a number of small businessmen contacted me as interest rates escalated earlier this year. A clothing store owner had two choices before him if he was to remain viable in the small business sector. He had to carry different sizes, colours, cuts and fabrics in order to attract customers and to get them back because he had the goods they liked. His first option was to borrow, increase his inventory, and hope the customers would come and buy from this increase in inventory. His second option was cut his inventory, thereby reducing his costs, and risk losing the volume sales which would result from customers in greater numbers. Neither of those options is particularly viable. Let us not forget that four out of ten Canadians are employed in the small business sector, with sales of less than $2 million.
I think it is important to touch on one of the points raised by the previous speaker. With over one million unemployed in Canada today, we should look at the relationship in percentages of those employed. Roughly 400,000 of those individuals would move on into the small business sector should we come up with a unified plan that would get the small business sector rolling again.
The time spent chasing loans could be better used at work within the Canadian economy. Let me give hon. members a number of examples. A number of years ago I was a glazier. I can tell you, quite frankly, that the need to carry inventory in that particular trade is extremely important. A glazier is much better off cutting glass, installing glass, mirrors or whatever else, than running around to wholesalers, as many glaziers now have to do, chasing up materials because they cannot afford to carry a full inventory.
I put it to hon. members that Bill C-17 and the other 400 odd pieces of dribs and drabs of garbage legislation and programs, do not deal with the crucial problems that small businesses are facing.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: It's a ding-dong bill; let's face it.


James Ross Fulton: A plumber is better off refitting a home than sitting in an office trying to negotiate a loan because his accounts are slow in being paid or his cash flow is limited because of his carrying capacity.
An engineer is better off preparing a site evaluation than sorting through an inch-thick book of bureaucratic nonsense, or trying to accommodate his need for staff to some ethereal federal government gobbledygook program.
I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I have looked at such things as the ABCs to small business a number of times. 1 am glad to see the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) here. I am sure he has had a number of things to say, and I have read some of his comments. It is certainly something that the previous government had some intention of dealing with, but did not get too far along the road in doing so.

April 28, 1980
Small Businesses Loans Act
Small business today is working to subsidize the federal monetary system that does little in return for its hard work. An active, growing small business sector requires an aggressive and an imaginative federal leadership, something that is sadly lacking in Bill C-17. We should not spend days dealing with cosmetic trivia such as this. Let us spend our days effectively, condensing and working on such things as an umbrella funding system, an expanded research and development concept-


An hon. Member:: Are you opposing it?


James Ross Fulton: I am certainly not opposing it. 1 think it is a very cosmetic bill and really does not deal with the types of issues and certainly the type of media that surround such things as the introduction of this bill.


An hon. Member:: It's useless.


James Ross Fulton: I would not say it is useless as the hon. member to my right is indicating. It certainly does offer some funds to the small business sector.
The myriad approach, now with some 400 programs, is an attempt to cover up the fundamental problems of Liberal support to monopoly corporations and high interest rates which result from a deficiency of made-in-Canada industrial and economic strategies.
All fingers and toes in the dike of small business problems do little today except have all digits in the dike, something the pickled corkscrew from St. John's I am sure would appreciate. It is fundamental that there must be a forum for the voice of small business in developing a comprehensive structure that deals immediately with the needs of small business, not simply the needs and the wart-healing approach of the Liberal party.
Bill C-17 is an expression of the search for band-aids to hold together an eighteenth century approach to twentieth century global economics. 1 notice from the comments of the hon. member for Capilano, the previous minister of small business, a number of interesting statements, and I quote from page 431 of Friday's Hansard'.
I suggest that part of that review must be a change in attitude, a change in the use of the government resource from a protective attitude toward industries that are now obsolete in the global market place to delivering programs of front end benefit... so that we can compete against global efficiency and labour in other parts of the world where there is a lower standard of living and perhaps not the burden of environmental protection-
I must say with respect to the first part of it I can agree there are some obsolete sectors in the Canadian economy that really need to be dealt with, either in terms of bringing in a new technology so those jobs can be transferred, or dealing inside of Canada's economy so that the small business sector can expand into those areas where we are now importing either technology or the goods themselves.
There are some other points touched on here. Certainly the one 1 would like to touch on, being the environmental critic, is where the previous minister referred to "the burden of environmental protection". It is important, in looking at some of the statements of the previous minister of the environment when
his party was in office, that the costs were estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars, the costs of environmental and industrial pollution. If we are going to talk about burdens, it is an issue we should discuss at some length.
For example, acid rain is a burden. Polluted lakes and rivers, caused by industry are a burden. Cancer and disease from a polluted environment are a cost and a burden. The studies that are coming forth today indicate that some of the areas of soft technology in fact bring more jobs with them than having an industry that does pollute the environment. It can actually bring more jobs than simply adopting, as we are seeing certainly with our neighbours to the south, such policies that say if we are going to move toward energy self sufficiency by 1990, we are going to have to trade off part of the environment. I would say, and I hope all members would support it, that as we move toward energy self sufficiency and full employment in Canada we should not simply trade off the environment simply to gain goals that are not accessible in the short term. Carefully planned and executed developments that operate with the environment are a cost benefit, not a burden.
The benefits of this bill are eroded by the high interest rates. 1 think we need to look at that most closely. It raises the limit from $75,000 to $100,000. With the type of inflation that we have seen in the past couple of years, that extra $25,000 has been very rapidly gobbled up.
Let's take a look for a moment at a small businessman somewhere in Canada who is having difficulty. He is having difficulty getting his accounts in and he is having difficulty carrying a large inventory. What does this act deal with? It deals with premises, machinery, and land.
Simply putting on a new store front might help to get somebody in. A new piece of land for a little parking might help. However, the fundamentals in the small business community are waiting for this government to really start credibly dealing with the very difficult situation that they are facing, that is, the cost of carrying inventory and the cost of increasing staff, so that they can get out and deal and grapple in the marketplace with the problems, and with the initiatives that are required to get the small business community going. The 25 per cent increase in the amount, with 17 per cent interest charged on that, can hardly be described as a constructive policy.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Where do you get 17 per cent?


James Ross Fulton: 15.67 plus 1 percent.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: One per cent over prime.


James Ross Fulton: The hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) covered very well the reasons why banks are less than eager to pursue 1 per cent over prime when they can pursue 3 per cent over prime on other loans. That comes to the crucial matter of what is facing the small business community, which is access to capital.
1 was pleased to hear the hon. member for Capilano touch on that, with some possibility of ways of getting capital out of
April 28, 1980

the Canadian economy and getting it moving within the small business sector. This is a job for government. Clearly the government on the other side is not prepared to move on it. It is a job for all the opposition, rather than bickering back and forth as the previous speaker for the Tory party did. We should deal credibly with the issues that are at hand, rather than simply using these periods in the House of Commons to bicker back and forth about very trivial issues, getting on to the fundamental issues that need to be dealt with in this country on behalf of small business. After all, that is why this time is set aside. We should therefore pursue it as effectively as we can.
With the same frustration felt by the small businesses of Canada 1 give support to this bill, acknowledging however the stop-gap and bureaucratic nature of it, at a time when an imaginative and cohesive approach is required.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I cannot begin without saying how amazed I am at that hogwash coming from the previous speaker for the New Democratic Party. If any government followed the philosophies of the New Democratic Party, there would be no small business sector. All that would be left in a country run by the socialists would be larger unions and nationalized Crown corporations.
I would first like to congratulate the new Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Lapointe) on his appointment. I hope he receives the co-operation from his cabinet that his predecessor, the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) did, and not as his previous Liberal predecessors. Otherwise he will become a puppet on a string as they were in the past. I sincerely wish him the best of luck in his deliberations with small business because we all look, from these two parties in any event, at the future of small business in a very non-partisan way.
I am pleased to be taking part in this debate regarding the proposed amendments to the Small Businesses Loans Act. I am always delighted to speak on matters which deal with the small business sector because small business, as we know it, still know it, or certainly as we knew it, is certainly the backbone of the economy. Unfortunately, with a lack of attention to that sector, that backbone has been eroding.
Small business, as we have said over and over again, is responsible for over 60 per cent of the labour force in this country. It is certainly the largest potential employer, something that governments, generally speaking, are not taking as much advantage of as possible, especially with the unemployment figure reaching a million in this country.
It is unfortunate that this House debates matters involving small business so seldom, when in fact the whole economy revolves around it. It is also unfortunate that more often than not when this House debates matters dealing with small business, it deals with amendments or extensions of old pieces of legislation merely to keep up with the times, rather than with new innovative programs and policies that truly assist the small business sector. This bill, Bill C-17, is one such example of merely amending the Small Businesses Loans Act in such a
Small Businesses Loans Act
way as to keep up with the times. Naturally it will receive all-round support, for it increases the amount of the maximum guaranteed loan from $75,000 to $100,000. As I said, that merely keeps the level of the loan indexed to the current inflation rate.
I recall in 1977 when similar amendments were made to the Small Businesses Loans Act at which time the ceiling went from $50,000 to $75,000 maximum. At that time a number of us recommended that we should be more generous and raise the level to $100,000 instead of going back to this bill on a tri-annual basis. Perhaps a permanent bill incorporating measures keeping up with inflation could be considered, so that we would not have to come back to deal with these band-aid approaches to small business on a regular basis, as we have been doing. In any event, three years ago dealing with these same amendments I said we should not just deal with this vital sector on an ad hoc basis, as we are doing today again but, rather, that we should develop an over-all comprehensive program for small and medium enterprises in Canada.
Over the years that I was a small business spokesman in this House, my colleagues and I proposed a variety of ideas and recommendations to assist and enhance the growth of the small business sector. In fact, my friend, the hon. member for Capilano, was in the process of developing some of those ideas when he was minister of state for small businesses in the last Parliament. Unfortunately, though, as everyone knows, this development of ideas came to an abrupt and sad end when the Liberals and New Democrats defeated a budget which, I must assume, was defeated for a reason which goes far beyond budgetary measures, namely, political power.


Mr. LeBIanc:: Explain.


Otto John Jelinek: The Liberals could not have defeated the budget because they did not approve of it. I will explain. The Liberals could not have defeated the budget just because they did not approve of the budgetary measures, because why else would the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) have copied to the cent many of those budgetary measures in his minibudget just a week ago tonight? One of the few things that was left out, of course, was a promise that government spending would not increase any faster than the gross national product. Look what the proposal is now, $4 billion. That was a promise.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) promised during the election campaign after our budget defeat that if interest rates rose after the Liberals formed the government, he would resign. What happened? Interest rates have increased by 3 per cent, and he is still here. The only thing 1 can say to those who supported the Liberals on February 18 is that they have been had. If they believe that energy cost increases are going to stay below 18 cents a gallon, they are fooling themselves as well. The government has been fooling the Canadian people. That is what has been happening. The

April 28, 1980
Small Businesses Loans Act
Liberals did that in 1974 with wage and price controls. They did it again this time with the budget and with energy policy.
Where is that magic blended price or the magic made-in-Canada price? When all the blending comes together, the cost at the gas pump is going to increase by 50 cents or more a gallon, not 18 cents. We were proposing 18 cents a gallon. We proposed, hand-in-hand, energy tax rebates to low income families, to agricultural producers and to the development of the urban transit system. None of this is being proposed by the Liberals now that they are in government.
During the election campaign the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) promised that as soon as he formed the government he would let us know what energy costs were going to be. In December of last year he said that in two weeks he would let us know exactly what that made-in-Canada price would be. Two weeks later he said he would let us know as soon as he formed the government. When he formed the government he still did not know. He still does not tell us, and he still keeps the Canadian public in the dark as far as energy costs are concerned. That is why I am saying to those Canadians who supported the Liberals on February 18 that-and I repeat again-they have been had.
In any event, back to Bill C-17-


Walter David Baker: A wonderful digression.


Otto John Jelinek: -three years ago this House also increased the eligibility level of a small business under the Small Businesses Loans Act from maximum annual sales of $1 million to $1.5 million. 1 am somewhat surprised that there is no change in this definition as it pertains to this legislation in Bill C-17. Is there something wrong with growth? Does the Minister of State for Small Businesses or the government think there is something wrong with growth? By not raising the level there would appear to be an incentive for small business to stay small rather than to grow.
But perhaps the most important thing which is missing is a provision which would include venture or working capital as part of this legislation because, after all, the majority of businesses which experience financial difficulties experience them because of a lack of working capital. This is something that I proposed very strenuously the last time this bill was amended in 1977. It was considered and rejected for a variety of reasons, but today more than ever, as far as the economic climate in this country is concerned, it is necessary that working capital or venture capital be included in this bill, and I hope the minister will seriously consider including such a provision when it comes before the appropriate standing committee at which time I, along with my colleagues, will be proposing a number of amendments to try to improve this bill.
However, after all is said and done with regard to this bill, it is really interest rates which harm industry the most, the high cost of borrowing money. Members of this government only two or three months ago were saying that they should be elected because they would bring interest rates down. One credit I must give to the government is for copying parts of that John Crosbie budget, and one of the measures in that
budget which the government copied is the small business development bond, but that is not enough.
Three months ago this Liberal administration, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) has said over the past few months, knew what was wrong. Surely it must know what is right, and yet all it has the guts to do is sneak in a mini-budget so that the opposition does not have an opportunity to reply and respond. We cannot bring the budgetary measures before the appropriate committee for discussion and deliberation. What is wrong with this government which made all those promises to the Canadian public about what is good and what is not good? Unfortunately, the small business community cannot depend solely on the Small Businesses Loans Act and its tri-annual update.
The small business community cannot continue, as it were, to hang in, while governments in general ignore its basic needs on one hand, and swamp it with bureaucratic regulations, directives, controls, forms and general paper work on the other. The small firm sector is what the free enterprise system in this country was built on, and if we want this system as we know it to continue to exist, much more must be done in the way of the promotion and development of wide-ranging programs and policies.
I have said over and over again, in this House as well as outside it, that government must commit itself to developing an over-all policy, not just ad hoc amendments and legislation such as the legislation we are discussing today. This government must commit itself to an over-all policy to assist the small business community in dealing with a broad range of issues and concerns.
The party to which I belong has, on many occasions, put forward realistic recommendations for consideration by the government in dealing with this vital industrial sector and, again, we were in the process of implementing them. The hon. member for Capilano was in the process of implementing them when he was cut short. The Conservative government was cut short in trying to implement the many realistic programs and proposals which we had introduced and were in the process of introducing.
For example, here are just some of the programs which I personally have recommended in this House in the past, and 1 continued to do so: Give tax rebates and other incentives to those small businesses which invest in research and development, because incentive is the key word in small business. Yet under the Liberal administration of the past 12 years, incentive has virtually disappeared from the political vocabulary.
I turn to point two: to provide an incentive tax credit to any Canadian citizen who makes a direct investment in the equity of a Canadian-owned business. Again, we must give small business an incentive, and we must give Canadians the incentive not only to invest in small business but to keep their investment in Canadian small businesses. By such a program we would kill two birds with one stone-keep investment in
April 28, 1980

Canada, and support the small business sector at the same time.
Three: develop trade schools and apprenticeship programs. It is unfortunate that in a country like ours, in which there are now a million unemployed, we should be importing specialists and tradespeople instead of setting up expanded trade schools and apprenticeship programs here. We have to go abroad and bring in labour from other countries. It is a shame, when we have a million people unemployed, that we should have to depend on other countries for specialized labour. The Conservative government was in the process of developing more trade schools and apprenticeship programs when it was cut short by the Liberals and the New Democrats who do not have a program to replace the new programs we were recommending.
Point four: to establish a fixed proportion of government services and goods to be supplied by small business, in other words, a set-aside program. We have talked about this for years. Why should the majority of those called upon to produce products and services for the government be large corporations, many of them multinational corporations not Canadian-owned? Why cannot the government set aside part of its purchasing program strictly for Canadian small businesses which, more often than not, can provide products and services more effectively than the larger multinationals?
Five: exempt small businesses from the application of federal legislation potentially harmful to them. We often debate federal legislation which is geared to large businesses, forgetting what harmful effects many of these measures have on the small business sector, whether it is textile quotas, whether it is-


An hon. Member:: The Bank Act.


Otto John Jelinek: -or the Bank Act, as one of my hon. friends mentioned. There are many pieces of legislation dealt with in this House which are harmful to small business. The minister responsible for small businesses should take upon himself to make sure that small business is exempt from these provisions whenever they are harmful to that sector.
Six: develop, through incentives, a secondary manufacturing sector. Canada is the wealthiest country per capita in terms of natural resources, yet consider what happens: we dig up our natural resources, often using American or foreign firms, and sell those resources to West Germany, Japan and elsewhere, where they create productivity and employment. Then, very often, we buy back the finished product at inflated prices, though in many cases they were made out of natural resources which came from Canadian soil in the first place. Again, through incentives, we must begin to consider establishing a secondary manufacturing sector particularly within the small and medium-size business community which is the most capable when it comes to dealing with this aspect. As I say, we have an advantage because the natural resources are here as opposed to Japan or West Germany.
Governments in the past have closed their eyes to these possibilities. Their philosophy has been: just dig it out and ship
Small Businesses Loans Act
it abroad. If we had a secondary manufacturing sector here we would not be obliged to depend to the extent we do on the American economy when it comes to auto parts, for example.
One other point-and I shall be brief because I know my time is running out-calls for the total overhaul of the Federal Business Development Bank. From my point of view, its procedures are too cumbersome, too bureaucratic; there is too much red tape and too much security is demanded by way of collateral. I could tell you a dozen horror stories, Mr. Speaker. I recall when I was building up my own small business. At that time the Federal Business Development Bank was called the Industrial Development Bank. We needed expansion funds because our business was growing faster than we could get credit from the chartered banks. It took us six months to get the loan and four times the amount of collateral which we regarded as reasonable. I am sure if that bank had known my grandmother had gold fillings in her teeth, they would have asked for them, too! But I did not tell them. I might add that legal fees amounted to about 10 per cent of the total loan. Now, is that assistance to small business? The same kind of story is true today of the Federal Business Development Bank. That is not assistance to small business.
As I said earlier, bills such as the one before us are necessary for the sake of updating only. They do not constitute anything new or innovative. I believe the bill should have offered a lot more than it has, such as higher maximums, higher annual gross revenues for eligibility, an increase in the number of institutions offering the loans, the inclusion of working capital, and a far greater variety of reasons qualifying people for loans-not only those engaged in small business strictly defined but those engaged in the area of farming and fisheries as well.
I shall not dwell on this subject any longer because I anticipate putting forward these recommendations perhaps by way of amendment when the bill reaches committee stage. So, in closing, I should like to repeat what I have said often in this chamber, something which I believe is imperative if we are to preserve our democratic way of life.
If we wish the small business sector to continue and prosper in our society, as I am sure we all do-at least on the Liberal and Conservative sides; I am not so sure about those other clowns to my left-immediate action must be taken by the federal government to come up with an over-all, comprehensive program dealing with small business, rather than the present band-aid approach. I know the minister must be getting tired of hearing the phrase "band-aid approach" used so many times, but that is what it is and that is what has been applied for the last 12 years. The small business community is what the free enterprise system is all about. It is what this country was built on and what this country can prosper by.
Other countries, which are presently more fortunate than Canada with respect to unemployment, inflation, productivity and other benchmarks by which a standard of success is judged, have all concentrated their economic energies upon the small business sector. We still have a chance to keep the free enterprise system well and alive, building toward the future,

April 28, 1980
Small Businesses Loans Act
building on what we possess, building on the strength we have. But we must act at once before we lose this opportunity.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne had a great promise in it. It said something about an assurance that ceilings for loans under the Small Businesses Loans Act and the Farm Improvement Loans Act would be raised to $100,000. That, of course, was designed to sound good to the general unwashed. This is a ding-dong piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker. It is pure drivel. It does not mean anything with interest rates on prime at 16.75 per cent. And one over prime is 17.75 per cent-18 per cent. Well, my goodness gracious!
We are now going to increase the limit which the Government of Canada can guarantee to the big banks to $675 million from $600 million. Now, is that not an important piece of legislation for the big banks? Is that not wonderful for the big banks? The big banks will be happy about that. Also we will hear about the Bank Act later in this session. Is that not super? Are we not going to do something real fine for small business? We are going to give them money at one over prime, if they happen to qualify under the regulations in the act.
Let us look at the act and all the regulations required under it. Under section 7 of the act it is indicated that the governor in council may make regulations prescribing the forms, applications, reports and other documents required in connection with guaranteed loan improvements effective under the operations of the act. At one over prime we have got to go through the red tape, and at 18 points we still have to go through the red tape. This is to help small business. Is that not wonderful? How can one be the Minister of State for Small Businesses, (Mr. Lapointe) and expect to help small business by one more bit of regulation and red tape up to $100,000? This is providing that one's business does not have too much gross and providing that it comes under the regulations and the requirements of the minister. What is his regulatory power? It goes on a whole page and on to the next page right down to section (m) and the subsections. It goes on and on and on.
The poor small businessman coming up to apply for a loan will say to his banker, "Sir, I want a loan under the Small Businesses Loans Act. I want to pay only one over prime." The banker is going to kick him out on his arse. This is what they call a help to small business. This is a real Liberal help to small business. They really want to help the small businessman. They want to give him all this advantage of paying one over prime. The guy could probably get the loan at one over prime without the red tape, and if he cannot, he will not get the loan anyway.
What are they going to guarantee with this one over prime loan? They are going to guarantee that the banks will get 90 per cent of their defaults covered. That is what they are talking about. They are talking about a piece of legislation which is so important that it was put into the Speech from the Throne. It was put in to help the unwashed who do not know
anything about small business to think that this government will do something for small business.
I see the minister walking out right now. 1 do not blame him for walking out. I would walk out too if I was the minister with this piece of legislation. This piece of legislation is a travesty on this Parliament. We were asked to debate urgent legislation. The Governor General in his imputations for this House said in the speech that we must rely on the good will of members and that we must get down to passing necessary legislation, the accumulation of essential legislation. This is called essential legislation; this is called legislation to help small business. I see the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) nodding his head. He thinks that this is great stuff. He has been so heavily involved in the small business field that he really knows what it is to earn a living and pay a payroll, as long as he is on the public service staff.
Let us get down to brass tacks. This is a bill which is just pure hokum to the general public. It has no intention of helping small business at all. It will not do a darned thing to help small business. It raises the limits the banks will receive. The big banks will receive the guarantee of the minister from $600 million to $675 million. It raises the size of the loan, providing the loan goes through all the regulatory processes, up to $100,000. I say, big deal, ding-dong legislation. It is a never mind bill. One cannot oppose the thing. It has got good intentions. It says something about small business. It is really intended to help. Maybe it will help the little guy a bit, but it will not do a darn thing for the business conditions of this country.
1 am disappointed that the minister has left because I would have liked to have asked him how many public servants are operating this wonderful piece of legislation, guiding the limits the banks will guarantee these loans? How many people does he have supervising the banks under the Small Businesses Loans Act? How many people are we paying as taxpayers of Canada to supervise these terribly difficult loans on which the poor small businessman only has to pay 18 per cent or 1.5 per cent a month? It is as easy as that. It is disgusting that the government should produce this legislation at all, that it should not come to the House of Commons with real concrete economic legislation dealing with the interest problems faced by business.
The other day I was doing some homework on the Bank Act.
I am glad the hon. member for Ottawa Centre is looking at me. While I was doing some homework on the Bank Act, I had some discussion with some bankers, and it appears to me that the banking system is taking the hide off business to pay for its mistakes by getting into the mortgage business and the consumer loans business. What they have to do to cover their hides and their losses with rising interest rates is to charge small business prime plus one over, plus two over or whatever, just to get enough income to cover the losses they are taking on their long-term mortgage portfolios, their long-term car finance portfolios, and their long-term chargex type portfolios which are guaranteed at rates of interest far below the current prime. The effect has been that the business community has
April 28, 1980

been diddled. Really, the minister should be talking about the Bank Act. He should be talking about how we will control interest factors charged to businesses that are productive and employment oriented in the country, rather than businesses which need the assistance of this act.
Frankly this act has never done anything for small business. This act started in 1961. Really, what has it done? What are the huge accomplishments? What are the enormous successes of a statute which has been cluttering up the books since 1961? What have they really accomplished with it? We could talk about the bureaucracy they have. We could talk about the number of people who are employed in the service of the Government of Canada as a result of this act. We could talk about the paperwork that has been organized. We could talk about the forms that have been prescribed under section 7. It goes on page after page. This is the kind of thing we get from a Liberal government. They have not got anything new to offer, so they keep on amending an old piece of legislation, and they do not justify this legislation by any tremendous assistance to small business. Yes, it sounds sexy if one wants to put it that way. It is great stuff, it will help small business. They are going to increase their loan limit to $100,000. That is not the kind of thing we should be doing in this Parliament.
Even though the Governor General, in speaking to us in the Speech from the Throne, was mouthing the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the people of Canada expect something out of this Parliament. They do not expect this kind of drivel. They expect something that is positive. They expect something that will inspire the entrepreneurial efforts of Canadians. What does this act do? It increases the loan limit to $100,000. It increases the guarantee limit to $675 million. That is all it does. At no time can we show in the administration of this act for nearly 20 years that it has really accomplished anything for small business, that it has really made it possible for small business to grow and develop, even though small business represents very close to half the employment in this country or more.
What has this act done? As a small businessman, would you bother going to your bank manager and saying, "Mr. Manager, you have got to put me under the Small Businesses Loans Act?" The truth of the matter is that you want the loan. If the manager says that it is 1.5 over prime, you will go for 1.5 over prime rather than upset the manager and try to beat him down to one over prime. That is what you are going to do. You are darned right you are going to do that. You are not going to say to Mr. Manager, "Fill out the forms under the Small Businesses Loans Act and get it for one over prime for me." Guess what! You are not going to get the loan at all if you play that kind of a game. You know it, I know it, and anybody who has been in business knows it.
This is cosmetic legislation designed for people who do not know any better. It is designed to put in a brochure so the government can say it has given something to small business. I suggest the government has done it to small business, not for
Small Businesses Loans Act
small business, and they have done it to the people of Canada, not for them.
The government has created a situation where it has gone to the public of Canada, and intends to go this year, to borrow $50 million every business day of the year. That is fresh money they require to pay for their wasteful expenditure programs. These are expenditure programs which they refuse to come to this country and the people of Canada and this House of Commons to say why they are required. The government requires $50 million fresh cash every business day.
Some small businessmen hold savings bonds. Some ordinary Canadians hold savings bonds, but $500 million in savings bonds have been cashed in the last three weeks.
What this government has done has driven up the price of capital. It has driven up the cost of interest in this country by excessive borrowing. If the government would even cut down its requirement to borrow by a couple of billion dollars, or the $3.7 billion the budget of December 11 would have allowed, there would have been more money on the market for businessmen to borrow. When there is more money around to borrow, the interest rate goes down. Businessmen are not concerned about whether they qualify under this piece of legislation. They are concerned about whether they can borrow money at a reasonable rate. What does this government do? It is going to do something great for the small businessman by increasing the amount of the ceiling to $100,000.
I guess our party will support this piece of nonsense. I guess we will send it to the committee. As the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Jelinek) says, I suppose we can make some amendments to it. However, you know it really is a ridiculous piece of nonsense. It does not do anything for people in small business. It does not help anybody. I bet you that the minister, if he were here, could not tell us one single person this piece of legislation has really helped. If you can get a loan you get the loan yourself. If you cannot get the loan then you do not get it.
Do you think a bank is going to give you a loan at one over prime when it thinks it can dig you for three over prime, just because you go to the manager and say, "Mr. Manager, did you not know there was a Small Businesses Loans Act? Did you not know that, Mr. Manager?" You know what the manager is going to say. He is going to say, "You do not qualify, buddy boy, because I ain't going to fill out the form." He will tell you to go down the street to the Bank of Nova Scotia. The Bank of Nova Scotia will tell you to go down the street to the Toronto-Dominion Bank. You can go all around the clock and eventually you might, if you do your politicking right, get somebody to fill out the forms, but then he will probably turn the whole thing down.
This is a lot of nonsense. Anybody who has been in business knows that. I see that the hon. member for Stormont-Dundas (Mr. Lumley) knows that. He has been there before and he knows it is a lot of nonsense. It is a lot of nonsense; it is ding-dong legislation from a ding-dong government that does not know anything about business. The hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett)-

April 28, 1980
Small Businesses Loans Act


An hon. Member:: 1 was sleeping.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: She says she is sleeping. I do not think that even she expects there is very much in this legislation. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) was speaking about it and I do not think he believes there is very much in this legislation. This is a filler bill in order to keep people happy and let this government say it is doing something. The government can tell Mr. Bulloch it has done something for small business today. I hope Mr. Bulloch of the organization for small business appreciates that because he has really got something. He has got a wonderful bill. He has a really wonderful bill here. It is really going to make all his members rich and prosperous. It is going to help them all make a lot of money.
This is the kind of a bill that is really not worth the paper it is written on. You will not find a bank manager getting all worked up about this bill. They think it is great. They think, by golly, the Government of Canada has really come to the assistance of the little fellow. Here we have a bill that is supposed to help small business. Why does the government not have a bill before this House that says this government commits itself to buying the things it requires from small business? It should buy a percentage of government requirements in Canada from small business. It should buy a percentage of its stationery, paper clips, typewriters, and repair services from small business.
What about the things the government needs around this Hill and in its offices around the countryside? Is a percentage of that material purchased from small business? Are we going to hire no one except people from small businesses to do the typewriter repairs, fix up the adding machines and the computers in the manpower office in my city? Is that the kind of policy we have, or are we going to continue with a policy of only hiring the big boys, the powerful boys, and give the small businessmen this drivel in Bill C-17?
Bill C-17 represents the kind of nonsense that we get from this government. This is the kind of thing this government produces so that it can say it has done something. I can see all the press clippings now. They will indicate that in the month of April this government was able to pass through second reading so many pieces of legislation: Holy baldy! Holy baldy!
This ding-dong bill with its red tape, with its 17% per cent demand interest on the present rate will not do anything for the business people in the community. It is keeping us busy here tonight. We are having lots of fun. We can debate it back and forth, but the real problems of the small businessmen relate to the acquiring of equity capital. If this government really was intent on doing something it should produce some amendments to the Federal Business Development Bank Act in connection with the federal government making arrangements for equity capital for small business. The government should do something in respect of the Federal Business Development Bank taking less security and a little more risk on some of the development loan possibilities that exist in small business.
This bill really does not have much to offer. It limits the minister's liability to a bank. It is really a bill to guarantee a bank against a bum loan. In others words, if a bank has to make a loan, because of political pressure in a community, and it did not think it was a very good loan, that bank is protected by the government. As a matter of fact, if the banker felt he would probably lose he would probably fill out the necessary paperwork and make the loan. If it was a good loan the banker might even talk the client into taking the loan at 1.5 per cent or 2 per cent over prime because of the speed at which the loan would be processed. After all, if the interest rate at 1 per cent over prime is 17% per cent, or 18 per cent, and the rate at 2 per cent over prime is 18% per cent, what is the difference? At that level of prime, to a person who wants the money, the total interest factor on the improvement loan does not mean much. The important thing is how fast the loan can be approved and how quickly the man can get on with the job.
This bill really does not reduce interest rates at all. It really provides an assistance program for the big banks. That is what it is, it is the big bank improvement loan. We should call it the big bank improvement loan. We could say it is the Royal benefit plan, the Commercial benevolent plan, or the Montreal yes plan. That is really what it is.

If one really gets down to the matter, the only people who will file applications under this act are those whom the banks looks upon as people who cannot pay their bills anyway. The banks will try to stick the minister with a $100,000 liability. They can stick this minister with a lot of liabilities. He is a good fellow for liabilities. He is a liability to this government sometimes, and he must be a liability because he brought in this bill as a matter of urgent and pressing legislation. It is a bank benevolent act.
If a person really qualifies for the loan, then he will get the loan from his local bank. I can say, from my much experience in small business and arranging financing for small business through our banking system, that our banking system is very competent at organizing loans for small business. It does not want to be bothered with the red tape of this bill. In fact the banks will make these loans at 1 per cent over prime or not much more. The banks will make these loans in some cases with minimal security if the credit worthiness of the borrower is there. It is only if the credit worthiness is not there or if the person cannot or will not pay, that the bank will attempt to stick the minister with the loan.
The minister will end up with a bank bureaucracy to look after the situations where the bank has ended up sticking it to him. This bill is very typical of Liberal legislation in that it is designed to increase the size of the bureaucracy and designed to be colour-coated to make a good impression. As far as business is concerned, as far as the guy on the street who is running a small manufacturing business, a store, or something in the construction field, is concerned, this is a bunch of nonsense. If such a person goes to his banker tomorrow and says, "Bill C-17 has been passed and you have to give me a
April 28, 1980

loan of $100,000, cheapie, cheapie, cheap", he will get the cold shoulder from his banker. You and 1 know that, Mr. Speaker, and the minister ought to know it as well.
The minister has been involved in small business enough to know that this piece of legislation is purely cosmetic or drivel legislation, the kind of useless bill that really does not accomplish very much and that is only there to paint the picture that this government is doing something for small business. This government has "bureaucratitus". It is a disease. The government passes legislation that provides for regulation, and I mentioned earlier the regulations in section 7, and I can go on through three-quarters of this bill about regulations.
Obviously, this is a bill that is designed to employ people. It gives the minister more people to work for him, more people in the civil service, more people to regulate and more forms to produce. It is probably good for the printing industry, and if the minister were really enthusiastic about the bill, he would organize the printing of the business forms required for this legislation so that the work would go to companies defined under the legislation as being small businesses.
This legislation will not do very much for small business. I will support the bill, but 1 really do not know why it was introduced as part of a program of a government that purports to do something for people, that purports to create, that purports to produce, and that purports to be interested in the affairs of Canada. After the government increases the deficit to $14 billion and brings in a requirement to borrow $11.75 billion on the capital markets of the country which will drive interest rates up and make things difficult for business, it proceeds to come along with this piece of camouflage, this piece of ding dong, this piece of nothingness and say that small business loans will receive favourable treatment.
The minister knows that it is nonsense, and anybody who has been in small business knows it as well. This bill is cosmetic and has no value in the total picture of the business community in Canada. This is typical of the kind of bill which this government produces. It is unfortunate that we on this side must support or, to some extent, go along with such a measure simply because there may be some conceivable benefit. So, I believe that we must conceivably go along.


Mr. Bill  Doram@Peterborough: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the best suggestion that could be given to the government today as it addresses the problem of what it might be able to do to assist small business is that it try, through some magic that is not obvious in this piece of legislation, to put itself in the place of a small businessman. I suggest that Bill C-19 refuses to address the problem that the small businessman is facing today.
I think back to 1977 when I entered federal politics and to what the then prime minister of Canada said, that he would like to wrestle inflation to the ground. He gave the people of Canada a commitment in that year by forecasting that inflation would not exceed 4 per cent. He followed that forecast with an apology by blaming the pressures of inflation on the Canadian economy on other countries. In 1978 he said, "We will hold inflation in Canada to no more than 6 per cent." In
Small Businesses Loans Act
fact, what has happened is far from the promises which the Prime Minister gave. His promises are not inconsistent with the promises his party made during the most recent election campaign.
I am sure that the business community in Canada was looking to this new government which took office only a short time ago for some injections into the economy that would help small businessmen. As a small businessman for some 25 years, I can say that this piece of legislation offers absolutely nothing new over what has occurred in the past decade, which was a complete disregard for the small businessman as he faced the pressures of inflation. We all know what members opposite thought of the "Diefenbuck", the 97-cent dollar, and we all know that when a piece of legislation is introduced in the House that offers some positive measures with regard to the fact that the small businessman must get better value for his dollar, he must also get better value from the government.
This piece of legislation, Bill C-17, will not correct what in fact is actually happening. What is happening to the business community in Canada today is that investments are leaving the country. No one wishes to invest in small business because of the bad treatment it gets from government. The government is supposed to set an example, and introduce legislation to prove it. What the government is doing in this bill is saying it would like to see the banks guaranteed for their losses incurred through the higher frequencies of bankruptcies in Canada today. This way the banks will lend to small business.
Small business is a bad risk because small business cannot get good value for its dollars spent. And why can small business not get good value for its dollars spent? It is because of the devalued dollar, the waste in government, and the high inflation rate, which was forecast in 1977 by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to be 4 per cent. Then it went to 6 per cent, 8 per cent, and 10 per cent. I say to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Lapointe), why can the government not introduce legislation that honestly tries to help the business community? Why do they dress up legislation and have headlines in the newspapers to the effect that the Small Businesses Loans Act is coming in when all it is in reality is a means for the banks to guarantee 90 per cent of their risk capital to an already bankrupt industry, small business, for job creation and employment?
Today the small business sector provides more than half of the total employment in Canada. We have a tremendously high unemployment rate. It approaches one million or more, if the figures were accurate. It actually exceeds one million because it eliminates those people who no longer qualify because of the effect of Liberal policies on the UIC qualifications.
This government is totally responsible for the giant octopus approach to the economy. The government is reaching out with its tentacles and is sucking like a giant octopus every nickel and every penny out of the small business community until there is nothing left for that octopus known as the government

April 28, 1980
Small Businesses Loans Act
to live on. It grows with its own greed and the person mainly affected is the small businessman.
How nice it would have been if the government had honoured some of the commitments it had made to the business community in Canada. How long can this giant cookie monster keep reaching into the cookie jar sucking every ounce of blood out of the business community until it has created the threat of unemployment for 50 per cent of the potential work force in Canada today?
If they do not smarten up soon, and introduce small business legislation that addresses the principal problem in business today-if they do not soon face the fact that the business community is going bankrupt with them, may 1 remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the spending of this government at some $60 billion represents 30 per cent more than they expect to take in? What business in Canada today could remain operative when spending 25 per cent more than it earns-sucking out of the people of Canada $1 out of every $4 they pay in taxes in order to satisfy their own greed?
The government's greed is nothing more than an insatiable search for power. They will tell the people of Canada anything, lead them down the garden path to nowhere, and in reality what the people get is nothing. This piece of legislation offers nothing new-no new outlook, no new approach or new direction for the running of this country.
When 1 ran for election in 1977 it was because I was finding it increasingly difficult to stay in business because of the greed of government and bureaucracy with its paper work. Why can the government not look at small business and design a very basic piece of legislation and give some credibility to the Minister of State for Small Businesses? It is not fair to shove him in some back room office and tell him that it is his responsibility to solve the problems of the country while, at the same time, giving him no teeth with which to attack the problem. If the minister is sincere-and I am sure he is-in wanting to help the small business community, he should introduce legislation that would cut bureaucracy, that would reduce the 60 per cent inefficiency in the civil service, that would offer funds to small businessmen at an interest rate they could afford. Why doesn't he do these things instead of introducing a meaningless piece of legislation?
This bill does nothing more than say to the business people of Canada today, "We are going to guarantee your loan to the bank; we are going to make sure that those big corporate giants known as the banks and trust companies are not going to lose any more on that problem that we, as a government, created, so we are going to insure the banks against losses in business."
When I approached the Industrial Development Bank in 1971, in 1972, and in 1974, Mr. Speaker, I found it increasingly difficult to obtain a loan. The banks are not interested, and this legislation does not offer the incentive for the bank or the lending institution to help the small businessman.
The government does not offer business people any incentive to run their businesses effectively, efficiently, economically
and practically. The government cannot run its own house, so how does it expect the business community to pay any attention to a piece of legislation which does nothing more than guarantee the loan to the bank-90 per cent and write off 10? The banks can write off 10 per cent at the exorbitant interest rate of 18 per cent that our government is proposing to charge them.
I think this bill is a piece of rubbish, Mr. Speaker. The problem of the business community is totally ignored. There are not enough businessmen on the other side of the House to design a piece of legislation that will be helpful to that community.
What is a small businessman with a demand loan at the bank at up to 20 per cent interest, depending on the risk, a private loan from an individual paying up to 22 per cent, another loan from a mother or father paying dear knows what they can afford to pay, going to do with this legislation? Absolutely nothing, Mr. Speaker. He cannot consolidate his loans, nor can he make himself solvent because the legislation will not allow the small businessman to obtain working capital. The major problem in the business community today is not building a business or buying an expensive piece of equipment; it is staying in business. How can people stay in business with this kind of legislation? How can the small businessman become solvent again through the pressures of high interest rates when the government ignores him, when the government cannot even set the example for the business community to follow?
The real responsibility of the government today is to create a climate for small business, and not to meddle in the market place, not create the paperwork, not put the burden on the businessman to fill in reports and account to everybody for everything he or she does. A business is run best when the government stays out of the marketplace. What the government is doing with this piece of garbage is entering the market place with a bill which is mountainous in scope, as one of my colleagues said, and which is not even comprehensible to the average businessman. He wants something simple-for the government to make funds available to the business community in order that people can obtain working capital, can consolidate debts, can get their cash flow in line with income.
The government is taking more from the small businessman than he can afford to pay. You are taking $1 out of every $4 in taxes paid today. You, as a government, are responsible. You are taking from business people in Canada today more than they can afford to pay.
I suggest that two things should be in this act in order to enable the business community to survive. The first one is for the government to set an example and to live by the Auditor General's report which shows the government is a bad manager. There should be people in control of government who will address this major problem of how to run their own house, how to run Parliament, how to run the country.
You cannot do it. You did not do it for 12, 13, 14 or 17 years, and all of a sudden you are back in office. That is not because you have a new program. You do not. That is why you
April 28, 1980

are sitting on the opposite side of the House. We had a program and you did not, but we did not have a chance to turn the train around. You got the train running downhill in Canada for 17 years. We did not have a chance to get that second track going out west in order that we could bring it back.
I say to the government, if you do not get your ship in order, if you do not address the problem facing the business community today, and quickly-I see both businessmen on the other side are laughing-I say if they do not address the problem quickly there will not be any business community left in Canada to save.
Do you realize that you, responsible people as you are, responsible people as you should be, are currently-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member address his remarks to the Chair?


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, do hon. members on the other side of the House who are reported to be creditable, sincere people, realize that this country cannot go on spending almost 50 cents of every dollar compared to the United States which spends as low as 23 cents? There are just not enough dollars to sustain that kind of octopus. The government has to get its hand out of the cookie jar. It has to remove the paperwork that is the burden on the small business community. The government has to cut that spending program from $60 billion to what it has to spend. This government must set an example for the business community, an example which the business community can look up to, not look down at.
As long as this government continues as a government, and as long as we allow it to spend 25 per cent or 30 per cent more than it takes in each year, the government will go the route of the business community, that is, it will go down the drain. When the government goes down the drain, we all lose. That is exactly the course the train is on now. We are going down the drain. The government is refusing to face the facts, it is refusing to address the problems of the business community and refusing to make working capital available to the small businessman so he can consolidate his debts. I say 18 per cent interest will not do it. The business community cannot survive on this program. The government ignores it. The government offers a program that is only of benefit to the major banking institutions.
We are at a time now in history when the people of Canada must be conservative. The people of Canada must learn to spend less. When I say the people of Canada, I say that the government will have to start living within its means if any legislation, particularly if a piece of legislation to be credibly studied in this House, addressing the problem of the business community is to be given any credibility at all. Having said that, with a little bit of restraint now shown by government- and it is not in its Minnie Mouse budget-we could perhaps slow up the train. But we must keep the business community shovelling the coal in. We must generate that 50 per cent of
Small Businesses Loans Act
the work force that the business community generates. We will not do it by strangling these people with increased paperwork and bills like this which are of no assistance to them whatsoever.
We all know about the disasters in the post office and how well the Government of Canada runs anything that it sticks its hand into. We say: less government intervention, more responsibility given to business, less requirements of business to account to government, and the net result will be a reduction in our deficit, an improvement in the business community, and credibility to this government which it sorely needs.
What we need is a more businesslike approach from members opposite. We should not be continually laughing at the small business community. When we do that, we discredit ourselves. We have to give importance to the need to assist them and not give them lip service. We have to stop the intrusion of a government in the economy. We have to stop large bureaucracies draining life out of the business community. We have to bring in legislation that honestly and sincerely addresses the problem, and not give some front page headline story to this bill that it is going to offer the saving salvation for the business community when, in reality, it is going to do nothing of the sort.
A small businessman going broke today is not going broke because he cannot borrow $100,000. He is going broke because he cannot borrow $5,000. He cannot get enough money to meet his payroll. He cannot make the payments to the CIP, to the government. He cannot meet the payroll to his spouse, so the deduction that the government proposes to give to the spouses in small business, to a large number of businesses in Canada today will not mean a thing. He is not paying any income tax. He is not paying any money to the government. Consequently, we do not have enough dollars to run our own House here. Let us get our House expenses down. We have to move away from leaning toward the free handouts that is pressured on us by members to my left.
We have to stop realizing that every time there is a need in the country we look to the government to pick up the tab. Every time you do that, you strangle small business. Every time one gives in to a pressure group, any time one makes an election promise-and members opposite make election promises that will cost money-the business community is strangled with excesses of spending far in excess of revenue.
Let us try to put the country back on its feet. Let us do everything we can to be a good example to the business community in Canada. Let us consider, just for a moment, the possibility of getting off the back of the small businessman. Let us take a moment to think of what a saving it would be to a small businessman with a staff of two or three if he did not have to devote 30 per cent, 40 per cent or 50 per cent of his time to filling out papers in order to satisfy the bureaucrats that the system that we have implemented, here with all of our legal advice, is the best system for that small businessman. In reality, our major problem in Canada today, whether it is the labour unions, small business, or in government, is productivity or the lack of it. We cannot improve productivity in the small

April 28, 1980
Adjournment Debate
business community if we do not get off the backs of these people, or say, and mean what you say, that we will cut the paperwork and set up systems within ministries today, not a new ministry or a new portfolio with 125 administering it, but systems within the existing ministries in that front bench across the way whereby their own ministerial expenses will be cut. And at the same time perhaps they will be able to cut the paperwork that is putting a burden on the small businessman. If hon. members opposite do not address these subjects soon, they can expect the kinds of problems that are compounding as they continue.
I remind hon. members opposite that in the first quarter of 1979 there were 1,465 bankruptcies. In September, 1979, there were over 2,000 bankruptcies. I would also like to remind hon. members opposite that our percentage based on the number of businesses in Canada, of bankruptcies, is not very commendable when one looks at the situation to the south of us. We have a lot to do to put our ship in order, in order that we can even compare half favourably to other free enterprise countries. The main problem is the drain that the members opposite, the ministers, and the minister for small business are ignoring-the drain on the pocketbooks of the small businessmen.
1 plead with the minister for small business in his wisdom to bring in a good, honest piece of legislation that will say to the business community of Canada, "We do care and we will reduce government expenses. We will cut the inflation rate," not big insignificant promises of inflation rates of 4 per cent, 6 per cent or 8 per cent when in reality we have double digit inflation.
Let us look at what the Prime Minister has referred to as perhaps a new fresh outlook, and involve Canadians in that process of bringing credibility to government and success to small business.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before we proceed to the late show, I wonder if we could have a word from the government House leader about the business for tomorrow. I hope we will reach an agreement in the morning on the matter we discussed this afternoon.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I sure hope we come to an agreement tomorrow morning. If we do, we will proceed with Bill C-19 tomorrow afternoon.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, as the result of some questions asked on metric conversion as it would pertain to the imposing of forced implementation of metric conversion on some six million or eight million people in Canada on January 1, whether they want it or not, I asked a question in the House of Commons on April 23. I addressed the question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). In his absence, I referred it to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray). He was reluctant to answer it and passed it on to the Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Lapointe).
The question dealt with two matters. I felt that the Government of Canada, against the will of the people of Canada, and without due process or consultation, had forced metric conversion on the Canadian people, in particular the cities of Peterborough, Kamloops and Sherbrooke. I asked the minister for small businesses if he would consider bringing into the House an act to be debated which would afford the opportunity for the citizens of Canada, Jo have their input into this legislation which will bring metric conversion into retail stores, and the meat stores in particular.
The minister responded that he was under the impression that metric conversion had been debated in the House in 1971. On April 25, last Friday, the minister for small businesses stated that he recognized that he was in error. He said, "I recognize quite humbly that there has been no legislation on metrication that was passed as such."
With that in mind, I would like to advise this government that the contrast between the United States method of handling the implementation of metric conversion in the retail stores versus Canada's method, is the same as looking at a democracy and looking at a dictatorship. What has happened in Canada is without the due process of parliamentary debate and the citizens of Canada being given the opportunity to choose. The Government of Canada, in its lack of wisdom, elected through orders in council or ministerial direction to force metrication last year on three test centres in Canada. The results were disastrous. The response against the program was overwhelming. In light of this, and in light of the adverse reaction to this forced metric conversion without debate, 1 look forward very optimistically to the minister's statement in the House.
On April 23 the Minister of State for Small Businesses, when 1 asked whether he would allow full parliamentary discussion on metric conversion, responded "that it would be exam-
April 28, 1980

ined". I pursued the question with a supplementary and asked whether he would introduce a bill. Again he said he would review the suggestion. In light of the throne speech of the Prime Minister and the government, in which they assured the people of Canada that they would take into consideration the wishes of the people as they proceeded with running this country, 1 sincerely hope they will avail themselves of the opportunity to introduce legislation before they implement metric in 21 cities in Canada on January 1, 1981.
I remind this House than when metric is imposed without the due process of debate on January 1, 1981, approximately six million Canadians will be affected over the next year. If the government refuses to introduce legislation in this House, it will be taking a very hard-handed and dictatorial approach to what we all ran for office to do, that is, represent the majority wishes of our constituents in Canada.
Perhaps some hon. members opposite would like to know that they are going to get metric in St. John's, Dartmouth-Halifax, Quebec City, Montreal, Ottawa-Hull, Hamilton, Brantford, Windsor, Edmonton, Calgary, Lethbridge, Victoria, Nanaimo, and on the list goes. I would like hon. members opposite to realize that in April of 1981 they are going to have it in Charlottetown, Moncton, Fredericton, back in Montreal for a second phase, Mississauga, Toronto, Scarborough, Kingston, Oshawa and St. Catharines. There is something in this long list I would like to draw to the attention of this House. They have left Peterborough off the list.
Peterborough went into forced metric conversion in 1979. It has presented, through delegations to this government, the adverse effects it felt. My quarrel is not with the metric system per se but with the way it is being introduced. In last Saturday's edition of the Ottawa Citizen an article dealing with the report of the metric overview board includes the following quotation from that report:
The majority of Canadians are not prepared to accept metric conversion, despite active promotion of metric by the Metric Commission over an extended period. Many people also view the metrication program to be costly-
Another hindrance for small business.
-inconvenient and confusing, having few if any practical benefits.
A preliminary report by the overview committee last November listed more examples of public opposition to the implementation of metric, but truly to understand the nature of the opposition, it is probably best to go to the people who were the guinea pigs, the people of the city of Peterborough.


Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State, Small Businesses):: Mr. Speaker, the government has not yet decided on a date to proceed with the implementation of the retail scales metric conversion program.
The previous government imposed a postponement of a minimum of one year on the continuation of scales conversion across the country. The weights and measures regulations setting conversion dates for the different areas covering the country were rescinded on February 19, 1980, but the provision for weighing and selling in metric still remains. In the three pilot areas almost all the food stores in Sherbrooke still retail in metric; in Kamloops about half of the stores switched
Adjournment Debate
back to pounds; and in Peterborough almost all stores are back to pounds.
The national co-ordinating body which planned this conversion is the working group on scales in the retail food industry. This body met on March 24 of this year and indicated the majority of the retail representation in the working group are prepared to recommend a start of scale conversion on January 1, 1981, provided that this receives the support of government regulation over the entire industry, and with a positive public attitude toward conversion created by that time.
The working group further gave its chairman a mandate to make the government aware of its concerns and, if its recommendations receive the approval and support of government, to recall the working group to implement a program of scale conversion covering the two-year period starting January 1, 1981.
The working group on scales is composed of representatives from the retail food and scales industries, and from consumers' groups. Associations represented include the Canadian Federation of Retail Grocers, the Retail Council of Canada, the Retail Merchants Association of Canada, and the Consumers' Association of Canada.
Note that weights and measures in Canada have been regulated under the Weights and Measures Act, through the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The working group on scales responded to the view of food retailers and consumers that retail food scale conversion be supported by legislation in order to ensure an orderly conversion and fair and uniform advertising practices. The working group now recommends that the proposed new schedules should also be supported by regulations and by a reinforced promotional campaign.
Our review will consider the views of all the interested parties involved in the conversion of scales in the retail food industry.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY-WINNIPEG-RAIL RELOCATION-SUGGESTED REVERSAL OF GOVERNMENT POLICY
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, in February of 1979 I raised a question in the House in regard to the federal government, the Liberal government of the day, making up its mind one way or another as to whether it would provide funds for CP rail relocation in Winnipeg. After much procrastination they decided they would have another study. Well, we have just received the results of that study within the last couple of weeks and they show it would cost something like $168 million for rail relocation in Winnipeg.
As the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) pointed out to me last week, however, there are no funds available for rail relocation. I do not understand why Liberal governments are continually asking for studies on rail relocation in Winnipeg when they do not have any funds for rail relocation. What kind

April 28, 1980
Adjournment Debate
of game are they playing with the people of Winnipeg? Tonight we have the parliamentary secretary answering for the Minister of Transport. Tie is calling for more studies. And the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) wants more studies too. They all want more studies, but they are not prepared to put up one red cent for rail relocation. This is absolutely ludicrous in light of the statements we heard from the right hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Trudeau) when he was prime minister in 1979. Rail relocation, he said then, was the Liberal approach. Well, if it is the Liberal approach, let them put up the funds.
Under the rail relocation formula 50 per cent comes from the federal government and the remaining 50 per cent is split equally between the provincial and municipal governments. If Ottawa is not prepared to put up something between $85 million and $100 million, then let them stop all these studies and this silly nonsense about wanting more studies about rail relocation. Let them put their money where their mouth is. The Minister of Transport told me the other day that the door is not closed, that there might possibly be DREE funds available. 1 hope the parliamentary secretary has some kind of announcement to make tonight about DREE funds, and I hope it is not $3 million or $4 million. If he cannot stand up tonight and tell us it is $85 million to $100 million, it will be further evidence they are leading us down the garden path.
There is another point 1 want to make clear tonight. This deliberate delay with regard to building the Sherbrook-McGregor overpass, because the Liberal government will not provide funding for the CP rail relocation, will cost Winnipeg an additional $2.8 million in construction fees, and I want a commitment from the parliamentary secretary that Ottawa will reimburse the city for the cost of this delay in providing funds while studies, studies, and yet more studies were being held. They will have to pay the additional $2.8 million which the city of Winnipeg will have to raise due to the 14-month delay in building the overpass.
The Minister of Transport stated to me the other day that everybody and his aunt want rail relocation. Well, not everybody and his aunt have been asking for it. It is the Minister of Transport, the former minister of transport, the present Minister of Employment and Immigration, the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Bockstael), and the Prime Minister who have been asking for more and more studies. So, the onus is on the present Liberal government to provide some kind of funding to the tune of $85 million to $ 100 million.
Rail relocation has to be initiated by federal legislation and federal funding. They are committed to making a firm commitment to produce $85 million to $100 million in funds. Then the provincial government will be put on the spot to see what they will come up with. The Minister of Transport was critical the other day because he said that the Manitoba government has not said much about providing funding for rail relocation. But the city of Winnipeg and the province of Manitoba cannot make any firm commitment for funds until the senior government makes a firm commitment because it is their legislation.
We have heard the statements from the previous minister of federal-provincial affairs. Lie gave tips to the city of Winnipeg on how to obtain funds for rail relocation, and he was so concerned about the grain handling problems in Winnipeg, that they are a major concern of the federal government, and the possible relocation of yards. He went on and on about the backup of grain cars. He was concerned about grain cars and grain movement, but when the final crunch comes, they do not have any money to put up at all. All we have is the UTAP funds which the province of Manitoba is prepared to turn over to the city, $7.2 million of the $10 million which was allotted to the province, but that is the only funding they have. The city of Winnipeg and the province do not have a bottomless pit of money to bring forward for CP rail relocation.
I hope the parliamentary secretary tonight has a firm commitment to give us. I hope he will announce that he has found $85 million to $100 million in DREE, or if they cannot come up with the funds, for heaven's sake say that you are going to forget about rail relocation and will grant a permit to build the Sherbrook-McGregor overpass. Everybody would like to see the rail relocation go through, but if they cannot come up with the funding, then we will have to go with the Sherbrook-McGregor overpass.
I want to remind the parliamentary secretary that the two bridges crossing the tracks now are under weight restrictions. 1 hope the Liberal government is not waiting for these bridges to be closed permanently and then maybe come up with some solution. We cannot go on and on with this procrastination, stalling, and calling for more and more studies. I hope the parliamentary secretary will stand on his feet tonight and give us a firm commitment one way or the other.


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, following the conclusion of the railway relocation study in Winnipeg, I have been involved in reviewing the study and have conferred with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) and Transport Canada officials about the study findings. In this process both the minister and myself have used the consultative approach. For instance, on April 24 the minister met with representatives of the city and the province to exchange views on the course of action to follow.
1 am sure everyone here will agree that removing the railway tracks from the downtown of cities is a very desirable action. The cost of doing so, however, may in many cases be prohibitive. In the case of Winnipeg, the minister has already indicated in the House earlier that Transport Canada does not have funds, other than those available under the urban transportation assistance program, to allocate to Winnipeg. During the meeting on April 24 he reiterated his position on that subject in light of the report that the estimated net cost for relocation of the yard is $128 million, and $169 million is the estimated net cost for moving the yard and its main line.
April 28, 1980

I would note that the city is likely to construct the Sher-brook-McGregor arterial roadway system even if the rail lines are removed from their present location.
The study which was undertaken by the federal government was carried out because the city provided no estimate on the cost of relocation when they applied to build the Sherbrook-McGregor overpass.
Before the meeting with the representatives of the city and the province adjourned, the minister agreed to approach the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to find out whether this department has funds that might be allocated to the relocation project in Winnipeg. This possibility is being
Adjournment Debate
explored expeditiously so that an early decision can be reached.
I doubt very much that even should the federal government be in a position to increase its own financial commitment proportionately, the province and the city in turn would be willing to give the proposed CPR rail relocation in Winnipeg their corresponding priorized financial participation. Such an essential component of their co-operative involvement can only be resolved through jointly held negotiations.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.21 p.m.

Tuesday, April 29, 1980