1980-06-12

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, concerning the sudden death yesterday of Japanese Prime Minister Masayoshi Ohira. Mr. Ohira was recognized by his colleagues around the world for his sage advice and considered counsel.
We in this House were honoured to have Mr. Ohira speak to us only last month. His closing words to this Parliament are a fitting tribute to his ideals, and I quote his words:
The rich life that we strive for is a life that rewards us with deeper satisfactions. We strive to create a world where our children and grandchildren can feel proud to be born into.
We in this House, Madam Speaker, are indeed proud to have known Mr. Ohira. Therefore I move, seconded by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau):
That this House convey to the government of Japan, and the family of Prime Minister Ohira, its condolence over the death of our friend, Masayoshi Ohira.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, I wish to associate the members of our party with the sentiments of this motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, I rise with reference to action by the Canada Council in purchasing, at a cost of $100,000, so-called works of art constructed of twisted aluminum and steel, five of which have just been
erected in Rockcliffe Park, with six more to follow by July 5, resembling what could be termed a hideous scene from the morning after the night before, including, for example, two objects of twisted bands of green and blue steel by Robert Murray, for $31,000.
Having viewed these incredible, insipid examples of so-called Canadian art, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie):
That the government immediately require the Canada Council to account for this nonsensical, wanton, wasteful expenditure of public funds. Further, that the Canada Council be instructed to desist from such unnecessary, extravagant expenditures in the future; and, finally, this House condemns the constantly continued spending splurges from the public purse by this government's unrestrained and uncontrolled spending policies.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, having regard to the fact that the former Liberal minister of the environment and the former member for Kootenay West are both on record in this House as expressing their disapproval of the Kootenay River diversion project in British Columbia, and recognized that the American Libby Dam project might ultimately be responsible for a serious reduction in nutrients, adversely affecting the fishery in Kootenay Lake, and in view of the fact that the just released report on the water quality of Kootenay Lake, sponsored by Environment Canada, has confirmed that this is indeed the case, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Okanagan-Similk-ameen (Mr. King):
That the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of External Affairs initiate immediate discussions with officials in the United States to develop a more co-operative water management system or, failing this, that the minister refer this matter to the International Joint Commission on the basis that decisions made in the United States have adversely affected the Canadian environment, specifically, the Kootenay River system.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

June 12, 1980


S.O. 43 FISHERIES CALL FOR REVIEW OF INSPECTION SYSTEM PRIOR TO ISSUING EXPORT PERMITS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Whereas changes in federal fisheries inspection procedures are causing higher demands on inspection and facilities than can be met, particularly in Atlantic Canada, whereas this is causing delays to processors in receiving certificates to permit export of fish from Canada, and whereas the annual amount of exports has tripled for fish products in the last few years and the number of inspections have remained the same, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae):
That this House urge the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to review the inspection system, which is delaying issuance of certificates, and to implement procedures that are cognitive of the need for quality; and also to recognize the reduced number of personnel and facilities available to meet the needs for speed for our processors in Atlantic Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HORTICULTURE
Hon. John Wise (Elgin):: I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. It relates to the importation of Florida field tomatoes into the British Columbia market, such that the volume of imports is displacing 50 per cent of the domestic hothouse product and thereby creating unfair competition and causing hardship and financial difficulty to Canadian growers. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King):
That the government take immediate action to impose an appropriate level of surtax on Florida tomatoes to at least restore a position of equal competition to Canadian growers, and that this government accept the recommendations of the Canadian Horticultural Council of including tomatoes in the list of named commodities under the automatic surtax provisions enacted on October 22, 1979, by the previous PC government.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate in May hit its highest level since April, 1979, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Carle-ton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain):
That this House direct the government to immediately bring in measures to provide tax contracts to defer taxes for industries locating or expanding in areas suffering from economic disparity, and that it expedite its efforts to implement the small business development bond.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43. Inasmuch as the city of Vancouver soon will cancel the operation of the only fireboat which provides fire protection in the port of Vancouver, and since all municipalities bordering Vancouver harbour require fire protection by sea, and this should clearly be the responsibility of the National Harbours Board, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell):
That the Minister of Transport take immediate steps to instruct the National Harbours Board to purchase the Vancouver city fireboat and, in co-operation with the region, extend fire protection to cover the waterfront areas adjacent to all municipalities surrounding the port of Vancouver.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ELECTRICITY
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of growing urgency to Atlantic Canadians. In view of the continuing, unacceptably high unemployment in Atlantic Canada, arising in large part from commercial and industrial electricity rates-which in Atlantic Canada are already 60 per cent above the national average-
June 12, 1980

and concerned that any further escalation in the next round of oil price increases will further discourage new industry from locating in Atlantic Canada, and now seriously threatens existing jobs in the primary resource and manufacturing sectors in that part of Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby):
That this House direct the government to take the necessary action, when setting energy costs, to eliminate the current disparity between Atlantic Canada's industrial and domestic electricity rates and the national average rates or, at best, not permit it to further widen, and to provide capital assistance programs designed to assist in the conversion of oil to coal for electricity generation.


Madam Speaker:: Under the terms of Standing Order 43, such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TERRORISM
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that Mr. Yusuf Salojee, a Canadian who is an official spokesman for the African National Congress and who works full time for that organization in support of its efforts to destroy the government of South Africa, has confirmed that his organization was responsible for the terrorist bombings of two synthetic fuel refineries and will direct, promote and encourage other acts of violence, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby):
That this House condemn terrorist groups like the ANC which are publicly dedicated to and supportive of violence, including killing of innocent people, in pursuit of their political ambitions and goals.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Madam Speaker, my question for the Minister of Energy relates to the lack of an oil pricing agreement. Having regard to the fact that in the last three months the minister has held only one substantive meeting
Oral Questions
with each of the producing provinces, can he tell the House whether he has arranged a series of further meetings to negotiate the agreement; and, specifically, will he tell us when, where and with whom these meetings will be held?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: 1 have had two meetings with the ministers of each of the producing provinces. I have also been in communication with them over the telephone at various times; I was in communication by telephone as recently as today. 1 plan to have further meetings next week with my colleagues.


William Herbert Jarvis: Inasmuch as the present pricing agreement expires in 18 days and, perhaps as significantly, the premiers and ministers of producing provinces, including the premier of Saskatchewan, as late as this morning have indicated that an oil pricing agreement is important, if not vital, to constitutional negotiations, is the minister able to explain to the House why he cannot inform us specifically of a timetable of oil pricing meetings?


Marc Lalonde: I have just indicated to the hon. member that meetings are being planned for next week.


William Herbert Jarvis: With respect to constitutional negotiations, the Prime Minister has imposed a three-month deadline and has called for a tight, intensive schedule of meetings and negotiations. May I ask the minister why, when on the pricing agreement there is an unavoidable 18 months deadline, we do not have an equally tight and extensive timetable of meetings? The minister has not told us when he is going to meet, or with whom or where.


Marc Lalonde: First, I think that in fairness the hon. member should be correct in quoting what was said in the House by the Prime Minister and what happened on Monday. No deadline or schedule was imposed. The Prime Minister said in the House that this had been agreed to with 11 first ministers: 1 refer the hon. member to the communique which was tabled. So that was not imposed; it was commonly agreed to by the first ministers concerned.
As for the second part of the question, I intend to be in touch again with one of my colleagues before the end of the day in order to find out whether or not we will be available on the same date. But all the meetings will take place in the course of next week and there will be intensive negotiations and discussions.


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Madam Speaker, that is an interesting change from what was said in the House. My question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources relates to other commitments made in the House by himself and his colleagues with regard to a blended price system.
Is it still the intention of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to introduce a blended price system which will reduce the import compensation program by the $1 billion

June 12, 1980
Oral Questions
which was announced in the mini-budget of the Minister of Finance on April 21 ?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, we have already indicated on several occasions in the Elouse, and 1 had also the opportunity to do so outside the House, that our proposal for a blended price included a provision under which the cost of imported oil would gradually be blended in the general price of oil sold in Canada.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, given that blending, that gradualism and the commitment of the Minister of Finance in terms of how much will occur this year, as well as increases by OPEC and the fact that Canadian production is decreasing and Canadian consumption is increasing-a lot of it is leakage to foreign airlines, truckers and automobile drivers-will the minister at least have the honesty to admit to the House that he cannot have that blended price system, with the savings the Minister of Finance talked about, plus keeping his commitments in terms of crude oil price increases which would be less than those promised by the Progressive Conservative government, and that one of those Liberal promises must be broken? They cannot both be kept.


Marc Lalonde: Absolutely not, Madam Speaker.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. In view of the Prime Minister's very strong commitment iA the Speech from the Throne to have the government initiate measures that would reflect and support improvement in the status of Canadian women-a commitment that I feel was personal as well as governmental-I wonder if the Prime Minister would respond to the critical report issued yesterday by the Advisory Council on the Status of Women which, among other things, stated that the government's recent employment strategy favours men.
I know the Prime Minister has a personal commitment in this area, and that is why I am asking him this question. With respect to women in the labour market, does the Prime Minister adhere to the council's specific request that the government take measures now to remove the barriers in the Canada Manpower training programs?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is quite correct in referring to the commitment that this government has. I am aware of the particular details relating to the figures quoted by the hon.
member, but I am sure the parliamentary secretary would be happy to deal with the question.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DELEGATION FROM AND SPEAKER OF SINGAPORE PARLIAMENT
Madam Speaker:: 1 would like at this time to draw the attention of members of this House to the presence in our gallery of a delegation of visiting parliamentarians, led by Dr. Yeoh, Speaker of the Parliament of Singapore.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DELEGATION FROM MALAYSIA
Madam Speaker:: I would like, also, at this time to draw to the attention of members of this House the presence of a delegation from Malaysia, led by the Hon. Abu Hassan, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Trade and Industry in Malaysia.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


STATUS OF WOMEN
Pauline Jewett: 1 ask
the Prime Minister for his personal support to improve the condition of women in Canadian society. I do not ask him for facts or figures, but for his personal support. May I ask him about a related matter concerning the finding of the Canadian Human Rights Commission that over 3,000 public employees, predominantly women, have been very seriously discriminated against in terms of wages and salaries.
Will the Prime Minister take some initiatives to see that this finding is respected, to begin negotiations and to ensure that, retroactively, this wage differential is recovered?
[ Translation]


Mr. Dennis Dawson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: With regard to the first question, Madam Speaker, it might be that I am too far away for the hon. member-


An hon. Member:: You are not tall enough.


Dennis Dawson: I am not tall enough, as the hon. member says. However, I would advise the hon. member that if we have decided to make the Minister of Employment and Immigration responsible for the status of women it is precisely to try to
June 12, 1980

balance the forces facing one another and make sure that jobs are just as available to women as to anybody else.
As for the second question, I will inquire about it and get back to the hon. member.


Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, not only is the hon. member not visible, but he is not understandable. He did not reply at all to my question which related specifically to the 3,000 public servants who have been found by the Human Rights Commission to have been discriminated against. 1 should like, once again, to address my question to the Prime Minister.


An hon. Member:: He prefers to rewrite the constitution.


Pauline Jewett: It is a personal question. When you see half the Speech from the Throne-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is entitled to rephrase her question and, of course, she can address it to whomsoever she pleases.


Pauline Jewett: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am addressing my third and last question-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Jewett: Thank you for the applause.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Pauline Jewett: I wonder if the Prime Minister has been made aware of the statement made by Edgar Gallant, chairman of the Public Service Commission, saying that it would be extremely difficult to improve the lot of women in the public service. I am very happy to say that it was not difficult to improve the lot of Francophones. It was done without an amendment to the Public Service Employment Act.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Pauline Jewett: But apparently it is very difficult to improve the lot of women. Would the Prime Minister say whether he would give consideration to issuing specific directives to ensure that women have equal opportunities in the Public Service of Canada?


Dennis Dawson: Madam Speaker, so far as the first question is concerned, the hon. member knows very well that if this government decided to make the Minister of Employment and Immigration responsible for the status of women, it would be because this government wanted to try to solve as many employment problems as possible.
Concerning the 3,000 cases about which the hon. member is speaking, I have to admit that I do not have the details concerning all 3,000. If the hon. member wishes to come back to us with the full details, we will answer her question.
Oral Questions ENERGY


GOVERNMENT POLICY ON TAXING EXPORTS
Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and it relates to the oil pricing agreement and the uncertainty he has created in the province of British Columbia where he has not yet advanced any kind of firm position, but has talked about such things as the federal export tax on natural gas, a federal levy on natural gas, distributor level, and so on.
In the case of British Columbia, it is a very serious consideration which will, of course, have some effect on the constitutional discussions. The minister's meetings so far have resulted in the energy minister of British Columbia asserting that everything emanating from Ottawa recently under the guise of an energy policy has nothing at all to do with energy, and everything to do with money.
Could I ask the minister when he intends to advance to British Columbia a firm federal position, because so far all he has told them is that he will bring in some kind of a tax on natural gas which will cost the province of British Columbia an additional S300 million?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I know there have been various speculations and I have said that as long as the negotiations were going to continue, I would not speculate on specific reports or specific rumours. And I certainly do not intend to do so today. I will not even confirm or deny the rumour to which the hon. member has referred. Those negotiations are proceeding between the federal minister and the provincial ministers concerned. They are going to continue between now and the end of the month, and I will be happy to report to the hon. member and to the House the result of those negotiations.


Frank Oberle: As Madam Speaker will recall, I did not ask the minister to give the House the contents of the clear position he advanced to British Columbia. I asked him whether he advanced the position-instead of rumours which he now seems to be confirming.
Since the uncertainty he has created does not only have a dilatory effect on the constitutional talks upon which the government is embarking with the provinces, but already has shown very serious effects on the industry which is seeking other places to explore for new resources, particularly in northeastern British Columbia and other parts of Canada, can we tie the minister down to committing the government to producing a firm position which he will advance to the provinces?
Time is running out, as my colleague said in his load-off question. At what point in time, between now and the end of the month, is the government prepared to advance to the provinces a position into which they can sink their teeth?

June 12, 1980
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, various avenues have been explored with the provinces. As the hon. member should know-and I am sure he knows-when one is in the process of negotiation, I do not think there is any great advantage in freezing oneself into a single position-neither side-until one is reaching the end of those negotiations. This is a very normal process.
I quite understand my provincial colleagues wanting to keep their options open as late as possible. I have refused to put them in a position where they would have to refuse any possible room for manoeuvring. I have enough respect for them to think that they also want to have some room for manoeuvring. This is the process that we are going on. I think the process is going on normally and I will be able to report, as I said, the results later on.


NEGOTIATIONS TO CONCLUDE ENERGY AGREEMENT WITH PROVINCES
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Given the fact that the two massive oil sands projects-Alsands and Imperial in northeastern Alberta-face a one-year delay for lack of an oil pricing agreement, and that these plants alone would contribute $3.6 billion to the Canadian balance of payments and provide 97 million man-hours of construction jobs, is the minister prepared to commit to this House that he will, if necessary, negotiate night and day to conclude an energy agreement, stop this idiotic posturing to fulfil Liberal campaign promises and.get on with the job of securing the energy supply of Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would only answer the hon. member by indicating that the federal government is ready to and has approved proceeding with those two plants. As a matter of fact, Petro-Canada, with Alberta Gas Trunk Line, has already come out with a proposal for another plant, a third plant. So the federal government is very supportive of the construction of more tar sands plants. The companies are ready to go ahead with those plants.
I remind the hon. member that it was the government of Alberta which said that it would refuse to let those plants go ahead, until and unless it had the prices it wanted under a new pricing agreement. This is what we are negotiating. We are not the ones preventing those plants from proceeding. I am afraid the hon. member has the wrong information.


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources knows full well that the go-ahead on those plants depends solely on an energy pricing agreement. How can the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources expect this House to believe that an energy agreement is a priority with his government when he has failed to meet with the minister of energy for Alberta for one full month?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, we are not putting any condition on the building of those plants: we are encouraging
their construction. We are supporting the immediate start of those plants. The companies are ready to go ahead. It is the government of Alberta that has been putting conditions. As far as reaching an agreement-


An hon. Member:: You are dead wrong.


Marc Lalonde: -I remind the hon. member that there is an agreement in existence at the present time until July I.


An hon. Member:: Who is responsible for energy self-sufficiency in Canada?


Marc Lalonde: That agreement is operational now and we are negotiating a new agreement. As soon as those negotiations are completed, I will be very happy to inform the hon. member of the results.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Small Businesses. With reference to the 1977 decision of the anti-dumping tribunal to impose quotas on shoes imported into Canada, and with further reference to the action taken by the government then in power to limit shoe imports, and in view of the fact that, in spite of these quotas, more than 12 million pairs of shoes entered Canada illegally over the past three years, could the minister advise the House, first, whether he intends to correct this anomaly which has caused serious hardship to the Canadian footwear industry by demanding the enforcement of the quotas; and, second, whether the minister intends to consider the possibility, as suggested by the shoe manufacturers of Canada, to extend the current quotas for another five years.


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State, Small Businesses):: Madam Speaker, I must advise the hon. member for Sherbrooke that, together with the Minister of State for Finance, I had a most successful working session with the representatives of the Shoe Manufacturers' Association of Canada, and we are having, on a continuing basis, discussions with the industry, the importers, the Retail Merchants' Association of Canada, about the options which I, jointly with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, will eventually submit to my cabinet colleagues. The quotas are scheduled to expire on November 30. We are considering various ways and means to protect the best interests of the shoe manufacturing industry and Canadian consumers.
June 12, 1980


CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.
In view of the survey released today, which showed that corporate profits were up over 50 per cent in the first quarter of 1980 over the first quarter of 1979 and that, according to the minister's own survey-his economic review-the real disposable income of the average Canadian actually fell in 1979, can the minister tell the House, where is the fairness in proposing substantial personal tax increases at a time when the economy is on the verge of a recession and when the real disposable income of the average Canadian is falling? Could he please explain the fairness of these proposals?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is ahead of himself because no proposal has been made to increase substantially the personal income tax of Canadians. If that proposal is ever made, the hon. member will have an opportunity at that time to make his point of view known.
As the hon. member said, it is true that there was information today with respect to the profit picture of a limited number of firms in Canada. I think one ought to bear in mind that the very strong profit picture is due, in a certain sense, to very large increases in speculative commodity prices. 1 do not think this profit picture will continue into the remainder of 1980 because of the onset of a recession in the United States.


Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question concerns the profits of our chartered banks which are also up substantially this quarter over last quarter. In view of the announcement just a couple of minutes ago that the bank rate for today is 11.29 per cent, a drop of .52 per cent, can the minister tell us why-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bob Rae: I find it hard to understand why those trained individuals on the opposite benches can take credit for the rates when they go down, but refuse to take responsibility for them when they go up.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bob Rae: My question to the Minister of Finance concerns the chartered banks. Why did the government reject amendments to the Bank Act which are being proposed by our party? These amendments would guarantee that the public would know if, when the rates charged by the Bank of Canada go down, the rates charged by the chartered banks would also go down?
Can the minister tell us why his government rejected amendments which would give him and his government the
Oral Questions
power to assess the reasonableness of interest rates charged to average Canadians?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the Bank Act is at present before the standing committee. When it is reported to the House it will be possible to deal with the questions which are now before the standing committee.


Bob Rae: You rejected them this morning.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would remind the hon. member, as he grows very concerned about increased profits, that it is because of the strong profit picture of the last two years in Canadian industry that it was possible to have a 19.4 per cent increase in business investment in Canada. It is also probable, because of the profit picture, that the spending plans in 1980 will be equally great. The hon. member ought to put the picture of profits beside the picture of the very substantial growth of capital investment in Canada.


OIL-PRICE INCREASES FOR HOME HEATING
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I realize that the minister has not yet established his made-in-Canada oil price, but I understand that the price will rise by about 25 per cent. Millions of Canadians are totally dependent upon oil for home heating and pay approximately $800 annually for fuel oil.
How does the minister expect these consumers to bear this additional cost of $200 per annum that will result from this increase? Does he realize that those people who are in lower income brackets spend twice as much of their income, percentagewise, on fuel oil as those in the higher income brackets?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, obviously the hon. member is the only person in the House with this information. He seems to know what the price increase would be under the new oil pricing arrangement. I can tell the hon. member that we will not come out with the kind of proposals and budgets which Parliament and the country rejected in the last election.


Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Finance, who has just heard what was said by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. If this price increase comes about, will the Minister of Finance tell the House whether there will be any plan to assist home owners who are faced with drastic increases in the price of fuel oil? I would not want the plan to be similar to the minister's plan for mortgage interest which he abandoned.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, if I could eliminate the problem in this particular area as rapidly as we eliminated it in the area of mortgage interest, I would be delighted.

June 12, 1980
Oral Questions NORTHERN AFFAIRS


URANIUM EXPLORATION AND FEDERAL JURISDICTION
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or, because of his recent very unfortunate altercation with a particularly vicious bathtub, whoever might be speaking on his behalf.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Dave Nickerson: Could I have quiet, please, Madam Speaker?


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Dave Nickerson: It is understood that requests have been made to the Government of Canada for the imposition of a moratorium, similar to the one imposed in B.C., on uranium exploration and development in the Northwest Territories, an area which, for the time being, is under federal jurisdiction. Could the minister advise the House whether or not the government has taken the request seriously and, if so, whether it does or does not intend to impose such a moratorium?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, there is no
moratorium under active consideration.


NUCLEAR ENERGY
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Since recent information has shown that the Port Hawkesbury heavy water plant has no further orders, and since the economic impact of a shutdown will be significant not only to the people working there and the Cape Breton area, but also the Canadian economy, depending on nuclear technology, will the minister tell the House what the government's plans are regarding the Port Hawkesbury plant, and if there are any foreign sales for Canada's nuclear system in the near future?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, it has already been indicated to the House that the nuclear industry of this country is under review. I can assure the hon. member that at the present time there is no excess supply of heavy water. However, the government decided several months ago to build up a reserve inventory of heavy water for purposes of national security. I do not see any problems with regard to heavy water plants in Cape Breton in the foreseeable future.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, I would take exception to the response that there is a need for $ 100 million worth of heavy water for national security. That is a very questionable premise. Since the answer given by the minister is really an
indication of the government's failure to sell our nuclear technology, can the minister tell the House what the government's internal review of nuclear energy has determined thus far, what the basis of Canada's nuclear energy policy will be now that the industry is withering on the vine, and whether the country will have an opportunity to have access to information from AECL and the government through an open review before members of Parliament?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the hon. member should know that the party to which he belongs was the government last year, and that during that time it did not change the decision to build up an inventory for national security. I believe that the inventory build-up is justified for our own security purposes and for the purpose of security of supply to the people who purchased Candu reactors. These countries should be able to rely on Canada for an adequate supply of heavy water for their Candu reactors. I think the decision was a wise one and I am surprised that the hon. member does not seem to agree.
In so far as the other questions raised by the hon. member are concerned, the review is proceeding but we have not reached a conclusion as yet. When we do come to a conclusion, we will examine the ways in which Parliament and the public can express their views in reaction to some of the proposals which would be put forward at that time. Obviously, if members in this House or organizations outside the House have views to express they will be most welcome and we will certainly take their views into consideration.


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In the document entitled "Priorities for a New Canadian Constitution" which was submitted by the Prime Minister to the constitutional conference on Monday, the last paragraph related to the involvement of native peoples in the constitution process. After his statement on Tuesday, the Prime Minister said that this matter was discussed at the conference, but it is not clear what was decided.
Could the Prime Minister tell the House whether that paragraph was agreed to by a majority or a consensus of the provinces and, if so, will it be the subject of further discussion at the working meetings during the summer? At what stage will the Indians and the Inuits be asked to give their views to those working meetings?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the document which was tabled was presented by the federal government. The provinces are not bound by that document-including the last paragraph-except in so far as the list of items to be discussed, which was agreed to by the first ministers.
June 12, 1980

The particular paragraph concerning natives and about which the hon. member has inquired was not the subject of any agreement. The matter was discussed and the paragraph outlines the view of the federal government. But at this stage I am in no position to speak on behalf of the provinces as to what they intend to do about the matter.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Could he tell the House which ministers, if any, will be accompanying him to the summit conference in Venice?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, as is customary-and I believe this was the case in the summits we have attended in the past four or five years-I will be accompanied by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Finance. Because of the importance of energy on the agenda, I also intend to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to accompany the delegation. I believe this was the practice followed by the right hon. leader of the opposition, when he was prime minister, at the Tokyo Summit.


OIL PRICING AGREEMENT-DISCUSSIONS WITH PROVINCES
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Since that conference will occur prior to June 30, which is the date for the expiry of the present pricing agreement, does the minister expect to conclude an oil pricing agreement before he leaves the country? If not, can he tell the House what contingency plan the government has established in the event that the present pricing agreement expires before midnight on June 30 and no new agreement is signed?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I have already indicated to the House that I would hold meetings next week, presuming that 1 will attend the summit conference in Venice. I want to assure the Leader of the Opposition that I will be back well before June 30. In fact, I hope to be back the day after the end of the Venice conference in order to carry on the negotiations until June 30, if necessary.
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: A supplementary question, Madam Speaker. This matter takes on some urgency since there has been so little progress realized, and perhaps no real progress attempted by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources since his swearing into office and the imminent expiry of the oil pricing agreement. It is interesting to know that his travel plans would involve him coming back to Canada before the agreement expires.
My question is, what contingency plan, if any, does the minister have in place? If he has none, I think the House will like him to say so, and if he has one, we would like him to tell us what it is.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I act on the basis that we will arrive at an agreement and not on the basis that we will have to prepare contingency plans because of a lack of agreement. Our objective has always been and remains to come to a settlement and I have already indicated that we will try our best to do so.
Since the Leader of the Opposition himself has attempted unsuccessfully 'for six months to achieve an agreement, he knows that it is no easy matter and that a lot of work needs to be done. I intend to have at least as much success in my negotiations as he did in his.


FISHERIES
Edward Allan Miller: Madam Speaker, my question will be to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, in the absence of the minister.
The parliamentary secretary will be aware that the Fraser River chinook gillnet fishery was closed down yesterday and there was an announcement today that the sports fishery at the mouth of the Fraser River will be closed down on Friday night, as well as Rivers Inlet, for chinook salmon. The closure of that fishery, particularly the sports fishery, indicates the seriousness of the depletion of stocks in the Fraser River and elsewhere in British Columbia.
In view of this, I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could inform us how the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans can permit the Aluminum Company of Canada to divert the Nechako River in order to reduce the minimum flow requirement in that river, under the requirements of the department, from 1,000 cubic feet per second to 500 cubic feet per second, thus further reducing the health of the chinook salmon in the Nechako and Fraser Rivers?
How can the minister reconcile not forcing Kemano I and the Aluminum Company of Canada to meet the requirements

June 12, 1980
Oral Questions
for fisheries in those river systems? Could the parliamentary secretary inform this House of the facts?


Mr. George Henderson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, 1 thank the hon. member for his question, because he appreciates the concerns of the salmon fishery in British Columbia. The hon. member is quite correct inasmuch as the Aluminum Company of Canada has cut the water down to 500 cubic feet per second. We have asked our officials to look into this situation. I think within the next few days we will be able to make sure that the water rate over that dam is back to 1,000 cubic feet per second.


Edward Allan Miller: Madam Speaker, I think the House should be aware that the reduction of that flow is not for smelter purposes but is for the sale of hydroelectric energy to B.C. Hydro and then later to the United States.
I should like to ask a question about Kemano II, which is a project that will influence 40 per cent of the B.C. salmon industry production in the Skeena River, the Fraser River, the Nechako River and the Dean River. Has the minister any plans, in co-operation with the British Columbia government, to call for a full public inquiry into Kemano II which, if it goes ahead, will further jeopardize all salmon production in those four rivers and reduce the income of the B.C. salmon fishermen, shore workers and those engaged in processing?


George Roland Henderson: Madam Speaker, I indicated in the House the other day that the minister had stated he was in favour of a public inquiry into the Kemano II project. This is the position of the department. I will bring the hon. member's question to the attention of the minister and get back to him with a further answer at a later date.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Yesterday, the government of New Brunswick was forced to close its principal office building in Fredericton because of unacceptably high levels of asbestos dust. Tests are currently under way at Toronto airport by the ministry of transport with regard to unacceptably high levels of asbestos dust found in certain facilities in the airport.
Is the minister, on behalf of the government and in pursuit of her responsibilities for national health, conducting tests in all federal government buildings to determine whether there are unacceptable and dangerously high levels of asbestos dust, especially in buildings erected prior to 1972?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, further to questions on that topic relating to the airport situation which were asked last week, I checked with the department and was told that regular monitoring was taking place. I was not informed of any specific critical situations such as the hon. member seems to be suggesting. I will inquire again in the department. If the hon. member wants to give me more detail, I shall, of course, benefit from his knowledge.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, perhaps by way of a supplementary question I could suggest to the minister that in view of the fact that a number of schools in Canada have had to be closed because of dangerously high levels of asbestos dust, and the incident in Fredericton yesterday, as well as the incident at Toronto airport where 115 Government of Canada employees have had to be monitored and tested because of exposure to high levels of dust-surely in the light of that evidence it would be incumbent upon the minister to order a full-scale monitoring of all government buildings. Has she done so? If not, why not?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, I think I have very clearly and frankly said that I have not ordered such a monitoring. The hon. member is speaking of a matter where the provinces are all actively involved. He mentions schools and federal buildings. It was obvious in my first answer that I have not been informed of any critical situation in which I had a given, direct responsibility; but I shall inquire as soon as we leave the House.


HORTICULTURE
John Wise: Madam Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Agriculture further to the subject I raised earlier today which relates to the very serious situation in the province of British Columbia regarding the excess importation of Florida field tomatoes to the extent of displacing about 50 per cent of the domestic market.
Is the minister aware of the problem, and has he had any discussion with the British Columbia coastal vegetable marketing board? What action does he intend to take on this subject?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, I am aware of the problem. Our agricultural liaison officer is making an inquiry but I have not seen the report yet. I have seen the suggestion that the British Columbia marketing board or association made. They are asking for immediate border controls and we are considering that request at the present time.
June 12, 1980


John Wise: A supplementary question, Madam Speaker. There is certainly no question about the seriousness of the situation or the action it warrants. I ask the minister to give me a commitment today that he will at least make a recommendation to his colleague, the Minister of Finance, to impose an appropriate surcharge on the importation of that particular product.


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, we will be having further discussions later today, and from those discussions probably some recommendations will be made.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, could I ask the government House leader what his intentions are for business for the balance of today, this week and into next week, as far as he can see.


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, as my hon. colleague knows, we will be dealing with the second reading stage of Bill C-30 today. Tomorrow in the following order we will study Bill S-2, an income tax convention bill which relates to many countries in the world, then Bill C-5, to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act and finally Bill S-6, to amend the Two-Price Wheat Act.

As for next week's business, as of Monday, and depending on the progress made in the House and in committees on other pieces of legislation, we should start consideration of an order relating to the establishment of a Ministry of State for Social Development placed under the responsibility of the Minister of Justice. We would then proceed to consideration of Bill C-22 to adjust the accounts of Canada, sponsored by the President of the Treasury Board and finally we hope to complete once and for all the Committee of the Whole stage of the employment tax credit bill and start second reading of the unemployment insurance bill sponsored by the Minister of Employment and Immigration. [DOT]


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, may I put a question to the President of the Privy Council that he has had from me before. On Monday of this week the Minister of Veterans Affairs, speaking at the dominion convention at the Royal Canadian Legion at Penticton, British Columbia, assured the members of the legion that he would soon be bringing in legislative measures with respect to veterans, and that he knew what had to be done. Can the President of the Privy Council underline that assurance and let us know whether the appropriate legislation will be before the House this month?
Point of Order-Mr. Paproski
[ Translation\


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I want to confirm that the minister knew what he was talking about and that he was speaking the truth.


Mr. McKenzie:: Madam Speaker, I rise with respect to the matter raised by the two House leaders. I would like to ask the government House leader whether the Minister of Veterans Affairs has discussed the veterans affairs legislation in cabinet, because he said in Penticton on June 9 that he will soon be discussing veterans affairs legislation with the cabinet. We find it very strange that this has not been discussed in cabinet since he has been the veterans affairs minister since March and he has all the information contained in Bill C-28 dealing with veterans affairs legislation and what is required. The hon. member for Victoria, the former defence minister and veterans affairs minister, left $19 million in the estimates to deal with veterans affairs legislation.
Can the House leader inform us what is causing the delay and the problems within cabinet in bringing forward this veterans affairs legislation?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I wonder what delay the hon. member is referring to. Everything seems to be going smoothly. The minister has made public his position which indicates his interest in the matter. He is doing all he can to speed up the process. Everything is going normally. What he said during the convention the hon. member mentioned is true and I wonder what delay he is complaining about. There is no undue delay and every week the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who has a proven interest in the matter, asks me the same question. I always give him the same assurances, as 1 did today. I am doing the same thing for the hon. member.


POINT OF ORDER
Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Madam Speaker, I am sorry that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has left the chamber because there was a particular question I wanted to ask him. It has to do with Hansard for June 11, 1980, when the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) asked a question in regard to lotteries. The Prime Minister answered the question as reported at page 1989 as follows:
Madam Speaker, I do not know if the minister has effectively asked that such a review be made. I would only remind the member for Joliette that a contract had been signed between Mrs. Campagnolo, the then minister responsible for lotteries, and the ten provinces.
I would like to bring to the attention of the Prime Minister that there was no agreement signed. The only agreement that

June 12, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Hawkes
was signed between the provinces was one that was concluded by myself and two other ministers here. There was no other agreement signed by Mrs. Campagnolo. I think the Prime Minister might want to correct this statement himself. The only agreement on lotteries was made with the help of the justice department and also with the PCO under the jurisdiction of the Progressive Conservative government that was then in power.


Yvon Pinard: may, Madam Speaker, I shall convey the representations of the hon. member to the Prime Minister who will act upon them, if necessary.


Madam Speaker:: I must point out to the hon. member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski) that he cannot have corrections made to the blues of another member of the House. It is up to that member to have corrections made, if he feels he was wrong in his reply.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Madam Speaker, with all due respect to the Chair, it was not my intention to change the blues. All I wanted to do was to remind the Prime Minister that he had made an error, and I would like him to correct it.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, I have given you notice of my intention to raise a question of privilege. In reality I think there are four issues which affect the privileges of members of the House that have arisen during the course of debate on Bill C-19. I will take them in sequence.
First, I refer to pages 104 to 114 of Beauchesne, paragraph 319, under the heading "Referring to Members in Debate", and I read a small portion of that paragraph:
In the House of Commons a member will not be permitted by the Speaker to indulge in any reflections on the House itself as a political institution;-
I believe the next few words are crucial. They read as follows:
-or to impute to any member or members unworthy motives for their actions in a particular case; or to use any profane or indecent language;-
After a cursory glance at Hansard for the last three days of debate on Bill C-19, I have in my hand a typed list of 37 instances in which I think the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) has been in contravention of that privilege. If I may, perhaps I could read two or three of those, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. member intend to refer to a question of privilege flowing from the discussion which took place in Committee of the Whole?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Yes, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: In that case, the hon. member should have brought the subject up in Committee of the Whole. Therefore, 1 cannot hear him at this time.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, some of these instances that I wish to bring up today were in fact brought up in Committee of the Whole. This particular one on the use of language was not.


Madam Speaker:: In that case, the hon. member will have to indicate to me from what deliberations exactly his question of privilege flows. Under those conditions and if they do not flow from the deliberations in Committee of the Whole, I can hear him.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, it will take me a minute to collect my thoughts. The instances in question in Hansard occur in the issues for June 2, June 5, June 9 and June 11. Some of the debates are not in Committee of the Whole but are in fact debates in the House. Does that change my situation in any way?
The second item I wish to raise is found on pages 22 and 23 of Beauchesne. It is the issue of influencing members. In debate there is an issue that was brought up in this House during question period for the first time by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton).


Dennis Dawson: Madam Speaker, as pointed out in your remarks-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. A point of order can be brought up on a question of privilege, and I will hear the hon. member.


Dennis Dawson: Madam Speaker, as you pointed out, those are questions which have not been raised in Committee of the Whole. If the hon. member has any grievance concerning the proceedings in Committee of the Whole, he should raise the matter before the Committee of the Whole.


Madam Speaker:: It is not clear even for the Chair what is exactly the matter in the remarks of the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes). I think we should listen to him very quietly and then I might be able to decide whether his question may be raised at this moment or some time later.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, the issue which I wish to raise refers to articles found on pages 22 and 23 of Beauchesne under the title "Influencing Members". The particular article is No. 67. I wish to read just a short portion of that, as follows:
June 12, 1980

It is generally accepted that any threat to a member, attempting to influence his vote or his actions as a member, is a breach of privilege.
The issue raised by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) during question period was whether it was appropriate for the Minister of Employment and Immigration to seek advice from members of Parliament on the spending of public funds. Was it appropriate to send us a letter asking our advice on which make-work projects should be funded in our constituencies and which should not?
As the course of debate on Bill C-19 has proceeded, the kind of language used by the Minister of Employment and Immigration in addressing the members of this House has been unparliamentary in many instances. It is my view, and my question of privilege is based on this view, that the threat system implied in the attitude and the language is potentially influential of the actions of members of Parliament in terms of their decision whether to respond to the minister's request to propose certain projects to the exclusion of others.
There were two items raised yesterday in Committee of the Whole by more than one hon. member. They both referred to a situation which is important in the present atmosphere of the House. Today we are debating Bill C-30 under the provision of closure. The decision by this House to involve that provision was on the basis of lack of time for debate.
This House complied with the request of the Minister of Employment and Immigration that we move Bill C-19 into Committee of the Whole, which takes the time of the House. While we have been in Committee of the Whole, two things have occurred and these were raised yesterday. In the first instance, and on three separate occasions, the minister showed up without officials, without the kind of detailed information that is normally available to the committee. This resulted in constant repetition of questions, which eats up the time of the House.
Another phenomenon which has emerged and which was raised yesterday is that the Minister of Employment and Immigration tends to be overly lengthy in terms of his answers. The effect of that is that the government itself is eating up the time of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: Order. I have tried to listen to whether or not the hon. member has a question of privilege. The hon. member is not very precise as to what time the deliberations he was discussing took place and what exactly was said. The hon. member said very vaguely that something which he did not find acceptable occurred during the course of a certain debate. When he proceeded to try to be a little more precise, he was speaking of something, and even then it was not all that precise, which took place during Committee of the Whole.
I must tell the hon. member that a question of privilege flowing from deliberations that took place in Committee of the Whole have to be brought up at that committee. The hon. member was talking of deliberations flowing from Committee of the Whole. If the hon. member feels he does have a question of privilege flowing from other deliberations than those which
Supply and Services
occurred in Committee of the Whole, I can listen to it. Otherwise, I will have to say that he is out of order.
[ Translation]


Dennis Dawson: Madam Speaker, on this same question of privilege, as you pointed out, this happened in Committee of the Whole. However, I suggest the allegations made by the hon. member, that the minister has attempted to influence hon. members because some programs, which have been in place for several years, call for consultation of hon. members, are very serious allegations indeed. I would like to point out to the hon. member that if we hear long answers on Bill C-19 and if the debate has been going on for five days, it is precisely because he tries to put multiple questions without really wanting to hear any answers. I suggest, Madam Speaker, that 22 hours of debate on a bill of this importance is enough and, hopefully, the hon. member will co-operate so that this House can deal with other matters.


Madam Speaker:: The parliamentary secretary is also discussing something which happened in Committee of the Whole. If he wishes to raise grievances or a question of privilege on this matter, he should also do so in Committee of the Whole.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: On a question of privilege-


Madam Speaker:: Order. I cannot hear the hon. member twice on the same question of privilege. Those remarks were out of order. Therefore, I cannot allow the hon. member to rise on a question of privilege regarding remarks which I have just said were out of order.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 41(2), I would like to table, in both official languages, copy of the contract concerning the new CF-18 fighter aircraft.


Mr. McKinnon:: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) whether these contracts which have just been tabled are complete and contain the annexes to the contracts.

June 12, 1980
Judges Act


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member can only ask a question with unanimous consent as we are past the period for questions.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


Mr. Blais:: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I might indicate that the contract does not include all of the annexes that flow from A to K because of the immense volume. However, if the hon. member or any members of the House wish to obtain any of the annexes, they will be made available to them.

[ Translation]


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk Assistant has laid upon the table the tenth report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



JUDGES ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice) asked for leave to introduce Bill C-34, to amend the Judges Act and certain other acts in consequence thereof.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, this morning I had consultations with my colleagues and I wish to move a motion with the unanimous consent of the House relating to the creation of a parliamentary task force on the proposed national trading corporation. The motion is rather long but I understand that my colleagues
have had an opportunity to look at it and that the unanimous consent for which I am asking exists. So, if there is agreement, I will move that motion right now.


Walter David Baker: I have one question, Madam Speaker. In the draft I have, the words appearing in the first line read "a Special Committee of the House of Commons to be composed of seven members-" Does that appear in the motion the hon. gentleman intends to put?


Yvon Pinard: Yes, Madam Speaker. With regard to the parliamentary task force it is written here "a committee of the House of Commons".


Walter David Baker: Agreed.


Yvon Pinard: That a Special Committee of the House of Commons, to be composed of seven members, be appointed to act as a parliamentary task force on a national trading corporation, to report finally no later than December 19, 1980, to examine ways in which a national trading corporation could improve Canada's export performance and to describe the functions that should be undertaken and the form that such a corporation should take and, more specifically, to consider:
(1)	means of assisting small and medium-sized Canadian business to expand their export markets;
(2)	what (if any) direct government participation and involvement is required, what kind, to what extent and for what period of time;
(3)	the corporate structure and working relationship of any such trading corporation;
(4)	the method of financing such a corporation;
(5)	the role of the board's managerial and staff requirements of such a corporation;
(6)	the over-all costs and benefits of creating a national trading corporation;
That the committee shall have all of the powers given to standing committees
by section (8) of Standing Order 65;
That the committee have the power to retain the services of expert, professional, technical and clerical staff as may be deemed necessary;
That the committee, its subcommittees and members of the committee have the power, when the committee deems it necessary, to adjourn or travel from place to place inside and outside Canada and that, when deemed necessary, the required staff accompany the committee, subcommittee or members of the committee, as the case may be;
That the provisions of sections (4) and (9) of Standing Order 65 be suspended, unless otherwise agreed to by the committee, in application to the said committee;
That, notwithstanding the usual practices of this House, if the House is not sitting when an interim or final report of the committee is completed, the committee may make the said report public before it is laid before the House; and
That the members of the committee be Messrs. Cardiff, Deans, Flis, Lachance, Roy, Thomson and Tobin.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
June 12, 1980


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault), that the second report of the Standing Committee on Transport presented to this House on Friday, June 6, 1980, be concurred in.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to have the opportunity to look at this report. 1 would suggest that my hon. colleague introduce his motion another day.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House consent to stand this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion stands.


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. 138, 140, 143, 372, 620, 661, 698, 707, 788,832, 844, 845 and 882.


Mr. Turner: 1.	From which location did the CPR train which was derailed at Mississauga, Ontario, on November 11, 1979, originate?
2.	Was an inspection performed on the train and, if so (a) what type (b) was it an over-all inspection plus a brake test and, if so, what type and where were the tests performed?
3.	Was there a pull-by or a walked inspection made on both sides of the train at London, Ontario and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, was it made in a lighted area?
4.	Were cars set-off or added to the train in London, Ontario?
5.	Were any hot-box detectors passed over by the train and, if so, how many and what were their locations?
6.	Is it normal procedure for only a three-man crew to be responsible for a train handling as many dangerous commodities and, if so, for what reason?
7.	Is there a regulation determining what is an adequate number of crew members for trains handling cargoes defined as being dangerous commodities?
8.	Were the cars handling the dangerous commodities equipped with friction or roller bearings?
9.	Does the Department of Transport consider roller bearings to be safer than friction bearings and, if so, for what reason?
Order Paper Questions
10.	Was the crew informed of the location and contents of the dangerous loads and (a) if so (i) how many and what are their names (ii) by what means (b) if not, for what reason?
11.	Is there a regulation that requires that combustible material will not be pulled next to toxic loads and, if not, for what reason?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The question posed addresses the derailment of a CP Rail freight train at Mississauga, Ontario on November 10, 1979, into which Mr. Justice Samuel G. M. Grange is presently conducting an inquiry to determine, among other things, the contribution factors and causes of the derailment and the subsequent events involving dangerous commodities. In consequence, much of the information requested in the question will undoubtedly emerge in the evidence being adduced in the course of the inquiry. In so far as the Canadian Transport Commission is concerned, it wishes to advise as follows on those matters within its knowledge:
1.	The train originated at Windsor, Ontario.
2.	Mississauga Accident Inquiry.
3.	Mississauga Accident Inquiry.
4.	Mississauga Accident Inquiry.
5.	One, located at mile 88.22 Windsor Subdivision, Hay-croft, Ontario.
6.	Mississauga Accident Inquiry.
7.	No.
8.	Both friction and roller bearings with most of the cars fitted with roller bearings.
9.	Mississauga Accident Inquiry.
propane	- 21 cars
butane	- 2 cars
caustic soda	- 4 cars
toluene	- 4 cars
chlorine	- 1 car
fuel antiknock formula	- 1 car
(ii) by three avenues of communication,
(1)	waybills,
(2)	Hazard Information Emergency Response Forms which must accompany each shipment under CTC regulations, and
(3)	each shipment and its location is identified on train consist issued to the train crew.
(b) not applicable.
11. CTC regulations require separation between certain classes of regulated commodities in the marshalling of trains. CTC designated classification system does not utilize terms "combustible material" and "toxic". If question seeks to determine whether chlorine and propane could be placed next to each other at the time of the accident, the answer is affirma-

June 12, 1980
Order Paper Questions
tive but this is no longer permissible and a five-car separation is required between these two commodities by order of the commission.


Mr. Turner: 1.	Is the management of Via Rail Canada aware of any instances where persons were forced to stand on its trains due to the lack of seats and, if so (a) on what trains did the occurrences take place during the past year (b) did the occurrences take place on a regular basis such as once a week or more on any one train?
2.	Has Via Rail Canada taken steps to try and alleviate this problem and, if so, what are they?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: 1. See table below.
2.	Yes. Peak periods are identified and in practically all cases, enough seats are available.
Overcrowding (Coach)
Train	Date	From	To	Reason61	February 2/80	Montreal	Toronto	Extra coach not added to train due to lack of communications72	December 29/79	Windsor	Toronto	No extra equipment available53	January 2/80	Montreal	Toronto	Due to late arrival of trains 11 and 15 from Eastern Canada-train at limit75	August 19/79	Toronto	London	Week-end peak travel-no extra equipment could be added-train at full limit15	July 27/79	Halifax	Moncton	Peak travel-train at limit78	March 13/80	Windsor	Toronto	Hockey tournament in Toronto-train at limit55	March 23/80	Montreal	Toronto	March break-train at limit35	March 23/80	Montreal	Ottawa	March break-train at limit32	March 8/80	Ottawa	Montreal	March break-additional equipment not available


Mr. Turner: Does Via Rail Canada have an agreement with the railways whose track Via Rail trains travel over that involves incentive payments to the railways to keep Via Rail trains on time and, if so, what is the agreement and how are incentive payments determined?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Via Rail Canada, Inc. has an agreement with the railways that provides for financial incentive payments to encourage the railways to improve train performance.
It is possible for the railways to earn up to 10 per cent of Via's gross revenues for improved train performance.
The incentive payments are determined by comparing present train performance to historical train performance which was generally based on the train performance under railway management for the period 1975 to 1977 inclusive.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	As of March 31, 1979 (a) how many persons in the SX classification were employed by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (b) how many were (i) Francophones (ii) females?
2.	What are the present totals?
3.	Was there a structural change in the Department since March 31, 1979 and, if so, what effect did such a change have on the number of SXs employed?


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: 1.	(a) 28 (b) (i) 5
(ii) 2
2.	(a) 27 (b) (i) 5
(ii) 2
3.	Hereunder is a list of the structural changes in the department since March 31, 1979.
(1)	The Bureaus of Corporate Affairs and Intellectual Property were amalgamated, but this had no effect on the number of SXs employed as one of the two ADM position was vacant at the time and has since been abolished.
(2)	Field operations was merged with Consumer Affairs Bureau. This reorganization had the effect of reducing the number of SXs employed by one with the elimination of the position ADM field operations.


Mr. Howie: How many lawyers are employed on staff in the Department of National Revenue?


Mr. Yves Demers (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: There are no lawyers employed on staff in the Department of National Revenue. The Department of Justice has, however, assigned a total of 14 lawyers to provide the day to day legal counsel required by the customs and excise and taxation divisions of the department.


Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1978, have studies taken place regarding the possible establishment of an unemployment insurance office in Oromocto, Minto, or an additional location in Fredericton, New Brunswick?


Dennis Dawson: The further extension of
June 12, 1980

services to Fredericton north, Oromocto and Minto has been the subject of investigation by Employment and Immigration since January 1, 1978.
Currently Oromocto, which is located 12 miles from Fredericton, is covered by a two-day-per-week itinerant service to Canadian Forces Base, Gagetown, designed to assist long-term servicemen and officers to prepare themselves for a second career. Minto is served by a branch office which provides employment services and accepts unemployment insurance inquiries and applications.
An examination of the need for services in Fredericton north and Oromocto indicates that the residents of both localities have reasonable access to the main CEC, that the vast majority of job opportunities are in Fredericton and that there is an insufficient number of claimants to warrant the establishment of separate offices to provide unemployment insurance services.
The possibility of reallocating some resources from the Fredericton office to the centres in question has also been considered. However, it has been concluded that such moves would not significantly improve the service to the residents of these centres and would cause a serious deterioration of service at the main office.
EIC will continue to evaluate this situation in light of changing conditions.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	For the fiscal year 1978-79, how many contracts were let by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for professional services, to persons who at any time within the past five years, had been employed in indeterminate positions under the Public Service Commission?
2.	How many contracts were (a) for less than one year (b) for one to two years (c) over two years?
3.	How many contracts were let outside the national capital region?
4.	What was the total cost of all such contracts?


John Carr Munro: 1. Thirty-nine contracts were let by the department for professional services to persons who have been employed in indeterminate positions within the past five years.
2. (a) Less than one year: 39;
(b)	None;
(c)	None.
3.	Twenty-one contracts were let outside the NCR
4.	Total cost of all such contracts is $172,896.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	Is Mr. J. D. Noah employed in the Department of National Defence and, if so, what is his function?
2.	Is Mr. Noah associated with J.D. & O. Noah Limited and does he conduct company business on government owned telephone lines and, if so, what discipli-
Order Paper Questions
nary action does the minister intend to take to ensure that Mr. Noah ceases such unauthorized use of the government telephone system?


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1. Yes. Mr. Noah is employed as an administrative services officer within the directorate of documentation and drawing services at National Defence Headquarters.
2. Yes. Mr. Noah is president and chief executive officer of J.D. & O. Noah Limited. There is no evidence that he has ever conducted business using government owned telephone lines. Mr. Noah is fully aware that unauthorized use of government lines for the firm's business dealings is unacceptable.


FRANKING PRIVILEGES
Mr. de Jong: Has the Postmaster General considered allowing franking privileges to members of provincial legislatures?


Aideen Nicholson: No.


CFB GAGETOWN PERSONNEL
Mr. Howie: On January 1 (a) 1978 (b) 1979 (c) 1980, how many (i) civilian permanent (ii) military (iii) civilian temporary personnel were employed at CFB Gagetown?


Ursula Appolloni: As of March 31:
(i)	Civilian permanent personnel	(a) 1978 677	(b)1979 669	(c) 1980 674(ii)	Military personnel	3188	3159	3025(iii)	Civilian temporary personnel	564	293	151


DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS GRANTS
Mr. Howie: Since September 1, 1978 did the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs make any grants to any persons or organizations in New Brunswick and, if so, to whom and in what amounts?


Aideen Nicholson: The following contributions have been made:
1.	Information Metro Moncton	$9,000
2.	Le Centre de communication et
d'information mobile	$13,000
3. Le Comite de justice sociale	$2,000

June 12, 1980
Order Paper Questions


DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS FIELD WORKERS
Mr. Howie: How many field workers of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs are employed in New Brunswick?


Aideen Nicholson: 1. Twenty-three (including inspectors, officers and support staff).


NEW FIGHTER AIRCRAFT CONTRACTS
Mr. Wenman: What percentage of the new fighter aircraft contract will be spent in the four western provinces and (a) what will be the amount in dollars (b) what type of work will be involved?


Ursula Appolloni: (a) and (b) New fighter aircraft (CF-18) industrial benefits have not been estimated specifically for the four western provinces but Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce have estimated that Canadian provinces other than Quebec and Ontario will share some $400 million- 11 per cent to 12 per cent-of the new business created by the McDonnell Douglas offset program.
Approximately $1.3 billion of benefits remain to be allocated before the program formally ends in December, 1995. The western provinces share of that business depends largely on the imagination, aggressiveness and competitiveness of the companies there, and the encouragement and assistance which provincial governments provide to companies in their jurisdictions.
Western companies have already received NFA industrial benefits in the form of airframe and engine component production subcontracts; and the transfer of cryogenic technology to aid in pipeline design and construction. Opportunities are being provided to western companies to compete for: CF-18 engine and airframe assembly work; commercial transport structural manufacture; the provision of computer software; the transfer of advanced technology related to grain and woodpulp drying; solar and wind energy; metal-plating and medical diagnostic systems; investments in new facilities to manufacture plastic molds and glass components for the electrical industry and tourism to Canada which McDonnell Douglas has undertaken to promote at home and abroad.


STARRED QUESTION
David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker would you be good enough to call starred question No. 868?


EEC-TARIFFS ON CANADIAN GROUNDFISH
Mr. Gass: 1.	Has Canada held meetings with the European Economic Community aimed at the elimination of tariffs on Canadian groundfish by the EEC and, if so, on what dates and in which locations did the meetings take place?
2.	What did Canada offer in return for such tariff concessions by the EEC?


George Roland Henderson: Madam Speaker, the answer is in two parts. 1. Negotiations between Canada and the EEC have been under way since 1977, with meetings held alternately in Ottawa and Brussels. The current phase began with a meeting in Brussels January 31 to February 1, 1980. A second session took place in Ottawa, April 24 and 25, 1980. Further negotiations are expected to take place in the near future.
2. Canadian objectives to be covered in the bilateral agreement include provisions concerning the protection of Canadian interests in stocks beyond the 200-mile limit; protection for Canada's Atlantic salmon; and reduction of tariffs on Canadian fish products to the lower levels which apply to Canada's major competitors. To obtain these concessions we would be expected to establish allocations to the EEC at an agreed level off the Atlantic coast for a limited period of time. As negotiations are still in progress the details are, of course, confidential.


David Michael Collenette: Perhaps, Madam Speaker, the other questions could be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, June 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen that Bill C-30, to provide supplementary borrowing authority for the fiscal year 198081, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam
Speaker, I closed the debate on Bill C-30 on June 3, 1980, and I wish to continue today to speak briefly on this billion borrowing bill. We have yet to hear any proper explanation as to why there should be a requirement for $12 billion. We are not accepting this bill sitting down because there should have
June 12, 1980

been a budget presented by now, and as far as we are concerned on this side of the Elouse this is a very irresponsible act.
I would like to go into a little history as to why we find ourselves in this ridiculous position today of uncontrolled spending, endless borrowing, the printing of more money and what have you. It goes back to 1969 when the rule changes were brought into the House, having the effect of ruling out proper examination of departmental expenditures. At that time, rule changes were rammed through by the use of closure and the Canadian people have been suffering as a result of the move ever since, Madam Speaker.
I would just like to point out that we-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I promised I would do this favour for myself. The hon. gentleman referred to me as Madam Speaker and after two months I wondered whether one of these days I might address the hon. lady and ask whether she is rising on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: On behalf of other hon. members who serve in the chair, we would appreciate the minor recognitional difference.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One of your colleagues said, "I don't see the difference"! Well, I do see the difference and as far as I am concerned you are a man, so I will correct your Liberal colleague on the other side of the House. My apologies. We are just getting used to saying "Madam Speaker" and now we have to refer to both.
Another thing Mr. Speaker, which was started by the Liberal government of 1963, was the dock workers' strike in Montreal. That started wage demands right across the nation and began the inflation spiral. We are getting into the same situation with the letter carriers' strike which will cost some $36 million in the first year. Now everybody will be in line for the same type of settlement. So we can see what the Canadian people are going to be facing in the years to come with inflation, uncontrolled spending, borrowing, the printing of more money. Many Canadians think that when we talk in figures of billions they will not be affected. But I am going to give a little breakdown on that, Mr. Speaker, to point out how it does affect them. It is the Canadian taxpayer who is paying for all this; it is not somebody else who is paying for them.
Another possible jolt we might be in for, Mr. Speaker, is the talk we hear these days that inflation indexing will be removed from the income tax. I just want to give some idea of what it will cost some individual taxpayers if this indexing is removed. At the present time if a person's real income is $10,000, on the removal of indexing he will be paying an additional $156 a year. In five years from now he will be paying an additional $896. If a person is in the $30,000 bracket, within five years he will be paying an additional $2,740 in taxes. So we are starting on another inflation spiral, tax increases and what have you.
Borrowing Authority Act
I would like now to refer to some remarks that were made by the former finance minister, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). He pointed out earlier in this debate that when he was finance minister last October and had asked the House for $7 billion borrowing authority to meet the earlier Liberal budget obligations-not his own-the present Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) pointed out that we needed no more than $3.5 billion.
The question here is how in seven months the government's borrowing needs have jumped from $3.5 billion to $12 billion. We have had no explanation from any government members, from the Minister of Linance (Mr. MacEachen) or from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce for this huge jump in such a short period; the government is asking us to blank-cheque this borrowing authority for $12 billion with no explanation for that huge increase.
I would just like to refer to a recent American Reader's Digest article which explains what causes inflation, uncontrolled borrowing and why we have to print so much money. I just want to read a couple of paragraphs which explain in explicit detail just what causes inflation and how some governments have lived within their means, have been able to control inflation and are not having endless and uncontrolled spending and borrowing.
Mr. Speaker, the article I mentioned reads in part as follows:
Inflation in western European countries has been routinely running high with two dramatic exceptions-West Germany and Switzerland. West Germany has kept its inflation rate around four per cent; Switzerland, below two per cent in recent years. Both countries have displayed the political courage and citizen discipline to keep a tight rein on their budgets and on the growth of their money supply.
In the post-war era there have been four major instances of inflation being brought under control.
West Germany did it in 1948-refusing to "spend" its way to prosperity by running up huge deficits. The United States did it in 1953, under President Dwight D. Eisenhower, whose prudent fiscal policies led to an inflation rate during his administration of 1.4 percent a year. France accomplished the feat in 1958, when Charles de Gaulle halved the government's budget deficit. In each case, control was achieved by dramatic cuts in government spending and a concomitant dialing down of the money machine.
The fourth one, and the best record of all governments, was that of the Diefenbaker government. It had a world record of keeping inflation down as low as 1.2 per cent because it did not have blank-cheque government. It did not encourage government empire building. What that means is that each cabinet minister was not handed a blank cheque just to go on to endless and uncontrolled spending.
Unfortunately, neither Lrance nor the United States stuck to its guns against that old predilection of politicians to give social benefits without taxing. There are just two countries in the world today that have proper inflation rates.
I just want to go into the deficit a little further and into why we unfortunately have this borrowing bill here today. A deficit occurs when a government spends more money than it collects
2038

June 12, 1980
Borrowing Authority Act
over the course of the year. The deficit this year is to be around $12 billion. What that means is that this government has put us into the ridiculous position of its spending $1 billion a month more than what it takes in in revenue. You could not possibly become any more irresponsible.
This year's deficit is equal to $473 per capita or $1,282 per taxpayer, or $30.7 million a day. These figures are probably a little out of date and probably have gone up considerably since this government took office in February.
In 1978-79 the government had a deficit of $12.1 billion, more than total spending the year before the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) came to office. There were deficits in ten of the 11 Trudeau years.
When an individual citizen, a businessman or a government spends more than they receive in revenue they must borrow money to pay debts. The government's debts grow year by year when the financial accounts continue to show a deficit. There are two commonly used definitions of government debt. While net debt is the more frequently used, either is correct as long as the user indicates which definition he is using.
The gross national debt figure includes all liabilities incurred by the government, including bonds, treasury bills, accounts payable, accrued salaries and future pension fund obligations. As of March 31, 1979, the gross national debt was almost $98 billion, $4,145 per capita or almost $12,000 per taxpayer a year. Roughly, that breaks down to $1,000 per month, and rising, for each taxpayer in Canada. They can think about that, Mr. Speaker. There were many people who thought in the last election that they were going to get cheap gas and so on by returning this government but I can assure them nothing is going to come cheap. It is costing them $1,000 a month to pay for this huge debt with money they do not have.
The net debt figure is obtained by subtracting assets from the gross national debt. On March 31, 1979, the net debt was over $55 billion, $2,361 per capita or $6,371 per taxpayer. The net debt under Liberal governments over the last 11 to 12 years has increased by 231 per cent and, of course, this will be increasing dramatically because they have only been back in power for a short period, since March 4. They really have not had an opportunity to get going yet, but watch out, they are just getting warmed up!
Interest on the public debt will be about $8.5 billion this year and $10.2 billion next year. Twenty-two cents out of every tax dollar is used to pay interest on the debt. Interest on the public debt costs $1 million per hour. The annual cost is $356 per capita and $964 per taxpayer.
Any interested taxpayer can read my speech and some other excellent addresses that will be following this afternoon on these figures, they can sit down and analyse them and just study what this government is costing them. They will then realize that nothing is going to be cheap with this government. They are going to be paying through the nose for all time to come.
I want to congratulate the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro), who has dug up some very interesting figures on what the deficit is costing every Canadian. The net debt per capita of this country is almost $2,400. Every man, woman and child in this country owes and will have to meet a debt charge of, to be exact, $2,360 in 1979. We do not have the 1980 figures yet. This is a matter which causes us grave concern and alarm. I refer not only to this Parliament but also to the people of Canada.
In the last government under the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), Mr. Speaker, corrective measures were taken and, unfortunately, they have all been dropped by this Liberal government. The former president of the Treasury Board, the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens), has projected that without the realistic budgetary moves proposed by the former minister of finance, the hon. member for St. John's West, the federal deficit in 1984 would be $18 billion. For fiscal 1980 the estimated deficit is $11.8 billion, without the budgetary measures contained in the Crosbie budget. With the measures the deficit would have been held to $11.25 billion.
We were off in the right direction with starting to cut back on some of the uncontrolled spending. Since last July the Progressive Conservative government had saved one-half billion dollars. Even under the Crosbie budget the public debt would have grown by 22.6 per cent in the next four years. The deficit would not have dipped below $9 billion by 1984.
The cumulative effect is even more alarming. Without the Crosbie budget the federal deficit will exceed $27 billion between 1980 and 1984. The four-year accumulated deficit represents an addition on the net debt of Canada which, even with the Crosbie budget's restraint measures, will rise from $55.8 billion in 1979 to $105.6 billion in 1984. That is almost doubling, Mr. Speaker, so you can see the dangerous path that successive Liberal governments have this country on. Without the Progressive Conservative budget the net debt would have reached $133 billion by 1984, more than 25 per cent over the forecast level.
Unfortunately, that budget was defeated and now we are back to the old Liberal way of doing things. We are removing any and all controls, and this is confirmed each year when we receive the report of the Auditor General.
Hon. members opposite ask many questions of us on this side. They ask what social programs we would cut back. That statement is becoming very outdated. It tries to give the Canadian people the impression that the only thing on which we spend money is social programs. That is absolute nonsense. There are many areas where we could cut back on federal government spending. One of the things that the Clark government had planned to do was to implement all the recommendations in the Auditor General's report and the Lambert commission report, both of which have always highlighted the fact that they cannot find out where half the money is going, that there is no control. They have said that repeatedly in all their reports.
June 12, 1980

Another serious problem which was pointed out by the Auditor General recently is that the productivity figure is down to around 65 per cent. We hope this is something on which this government will be working. Increased efficiency and productivity will be a start in reducing some expenditures. This has been brought out on a regular basis.
Over $1 billion has been spent annually by Liberal governments on outside consultants. We do not believe that is necessary when we have 550,000 civil servants. We have sufficient expertise in the government not to have to resort continually to that number of outside consultants. Of course, some consulting work has to be done from outside, but not to the tune of $1 billion.
Another area in which we could cut back in expenditures is the costly metric conversion program. Some excellent speeches have been made here recently in which hon. members have pointed out how wasteful and costly the conversion program is and how we could cut back on it.
Also, there are many cases of totally unnecessary Statistics Canada surveys. There are hundreds of them around and we question the need for them. They ask many personal and unnecessary questions. We could cut back on those surveys.
We question the need for some 431 Crown corporations, many of which have outlived their usefulness. There should be a complete review of these Crown corporations. Canadian taxpayers are paying for many that are simply not required.
Another costly area which has been allowed to continue to run out of control is public works. A stop should be put to the rental of unneeded office space across Canada. The former minister of public works, the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), had started on a program to reduce the unnecessary rental of unneeded office space, but unfortunately he did not have time to complete his program fully. It would have resulted in the saving of millions of dollars.
Duplication is another unnecessary cost that taxpayers have to cover. It occurs at all three levels of government-municipal, provincial and federal. I want to congratulate the former prime minister because the agenda of the meeting which he was going to have around December 15 contained an item concerning the duplication of forms which was to have been discussed with the premiers with the purpose of eliminating much of it within governments.
1 should like to give you, Mr. Speaker, an example of what happens in some businesses with government forms. One example is Chevron Canada Limited which has to complete 491 monthly, quarterly and annual reports for the federal government, which are then inspected by 14 federal agencies, 19 provincial agencies, and eight municipal departments. This apparent duplication of government inspection and excessive paperwork must be monitored more closely and reduced. But I doubt that this will happen under the present government. The cost of filling out these forms and processing them costs businesses and governments millions of dollars annually, a cost
Borrowing Authority Act
which is, of course, passed on to the taxpayer or the consumer in one form or another.
I will give another example of overlapping and duplication, Mr. Speaker. There is a consortium of seven major oil companies. Their contract was cancelled. It was a promising $60 million contract for a drilling program off the Labrador coast in 1977, because Ottawa and Newfoundland both seek control over offshore mineral rights. In Quebec public housing projects worth $150 million were blocked for as long as four years by disagreement between federal and provincial agencies. Residents of some 20 communities were denied cable television for three years while officials in Winnipeg and Ottawa fought over the ownership of a certain type of cable equipment. All this duplication and overlapping goes on endlessly. These are just a few examples of what the government should consider. It has nothing to do with social programs.
Another area that is costing the Canadian taxpayers millions of dollars due to the direct neglect of successive Liberal governments is a program which was introduced by the Die-fenbaker government back in 1958. I am referring to the roads to resources program which was to open up the north. In the 1950s it was identified that the oil shortage and the energy crunch was going to come in the early 1980s. Whoever predicted that knew what he was talking about because in this regard we have a very serious problem in this country. This program was laughed at by the Liberals. When they formed a government in 1963, the roads to resources program was dropped and the government started relying on imported oil. Today Canadian taxpayers are paying around $9 million a day for imported oil. With increased consumption and no proper conservation plans, the cost will increase.
So you can see, Mr. Speaker, the enormous costs we are incurring. Any taxpayer who thinks he will have cheap gas and will not have to pay 15, 16 or 18 cents a gallon more is indirectly paying a subsidy which is costing Canadians millions of dollars a day. That will continue under the present government.
Another staggering figure is cost overruns. The former president of the treasury board had done a lot of work on this and had started corrective measures. Last year, cost overrums cost the Canadian taxpayers $1,062 billion. This matter has been raised repeatedly in the House and we really do not know whether or not the present government has taken any corrective measures because we have received no constructive answers from the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston). There were around 497 projects with cost overruns. So any one who says there is no control is not exaggerating. That is exactly what it is.
I want to explain what the Clark government inherited when it took office last year. On taking office in June of 1979, the Clark government was presented with a federal financial situation far more serious than that acknowledged by the preceding Liberal administration, and worse than expected by the most pessimistic of forecasters. The new government found that the budgetary deficit was out of control, that the accounts of Canada were in disarray, that expenditure control systems on

June 12, 1980
Borrowing Authority Act
many capital projects had completely broken down and that the federal government was committed to some "quite untenable financial situations." Further, the new government discovered that the economic forecasts of the previous Liberal administration were so inaccurate as to significantly misrepresent the actual state of the economy. That is what they have done to the Canadian people in the last 17 years.
The financial skeletons were revealed during the transition between the Liberal and Progressive Conservative administrations. For the most part, the ugly financial surprises were based on information unavailable to the public during the life of the previous administration. The new information placed constraints on policy initiatives planned for the first year of the Clark administration. In place of the previous practice of burying the problem by stamping "secret" on the file, the new government accepted the responsibility of cleaning up the financial wreckage left by its predecessor. But all that has gone down the drain now and they are at it once again.
When the Clark government took office with only two months of the current fiscal year elapsed, 50 per cent of the reserves were committed, leaving a new government with very little room to manoeuvre. Moreover, many of the claims on reserves made by the Liberal administration represented reversals of planned spending intentions. More than $100 million of the so-called spending cuts of the Liberal administration announced in August, 1978, were reversed between the presentation of the main estimates in February and the beginning of the election campaign in March. Further claims on reserves were the consequences of fundamentally unrealistic economic forecasts of inflation and real economic growth.
I do not think members of the government really understand the role of an elected official, but no matter what level of government, a member's first responsibility is respect for the taxpayer in dealing with his tax dollars. Certainly there has been no respect shown for Canadian taxpayers under any Liberal administration going back to 1963. Canadian taxpayers have been treated with contempt over the years.
There was a real period of uncontrolled spending in the Twenty-ninth Parliament under the Liberal-NDP coalition. In that period federal spending increased by some 50 per cent. One of the largest percentage periods of growth was in that 20-month period. Thus, I get somewhat of a laugh out of members of the NDP saying that they are opposing this closure method, that they do not want to give the government a blank cheque. They certainly had no hesitation in handing the Liberals a blank cheque in the Twenty-ninth Parliament. They are just as responsible as the Liberals for the mess in the country today.
Successive Liberal governments have left us with the following: In 1970 Canada was the third richest nation in the world, behind only Sweden and the United States. By 1978 we had fallen to eleventh place. Under successive Liberal governments the growth in the GNP per capita was one of the worst in the world. We stand eleventh in the list of rich nations today. The
government have managed to let us drop down each year to eleventh place from second and third.
Another record is the unemployment rate of Canada which was 8.4 per cent in 1978. It was the highest of any major industrialized nation. They have broken all records, but their records all go in the wrong direction. They have not accomplished anything of real success. There is more debt, high unemployment, more borrowing, more printing of money, all kinds of empty office space, rampant inflation and duplication. It just goes on and on.
For the purposes of comparing Canada with another country, the United States with ten times the population is concerned about a deficit that is only slightly larger than that of Canada's. They had $15.8 billion versus $10.5 billion for 1980-81. The United States deficit was cut in half this year. Unlike Canada, the Americans are likely to balance their budget within the next few years. The record of the Liberals is very disgraceful.
As I mentioned earlier, probably the indexing will be eliminated. This will cause huge tax increases. It will pay for the uncontrolled spending, the $12 billion debt and whatever. According to many columnists, we cannot rule out tax hikes. Mr. Don McGillivray, an economic columnist, pointed out that he figured the index change would mean a $1,000 increase, and on and on it goes.
We have another Mickey Mouse arrangement in the House. The President of the Treasury Board wrote a profile a number of years ago. His book was entitled: "Fiscalamity". At that time he was opposed to uncontrolled government spending. He pointed out how it affects the country with inflation and whatever. Then he ran as a Liberal candidate and ended up as President of the Treasury Board. What he said in his book and what he did after were two entirely different things. It is too bad he does not practise what he preaches.
I understand there are a number of other members of the Conservative party who wish to speak this afternoon, so I will bring my remarks to a close and welcome the next Conservative member.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise this afternoon to speak in support of Bill C-30. As this is my maiden speech, I hope Mr. Speaker wdl bear with me. Indeed, I hope all my colleagues will.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: I also hope all my colleagues in this House will bear with me if at times I stray ever so slightly from the topic at hand.
First of all, I want to take this opportunity to thank my constituents of Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe who have bestowed on me the great privilege of representing them in the nation's capital. I consider it a great honour and a very sober responsibility to ensure that the needs of Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe are heard loud and clear in this most distinguished chamber.
June 12, 1980


An hon. Member:: They made the right choice.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I think it is worth pointing out, at this historic time in our history when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the premiers are seeking to renew the national commitment to confederation and the national commitment to Canada, which collectively is much greater than its individual parts, that at 25 years of age I am the only Newfoundland member of Parliament who was born a Canadian. I am proud of that. 1 am proud to be a Canadian, but my sense of loyalty and pride in Canada is no greater than that felt by all those people in Newfoundland who became Canadians by way of a democratic vote in 1949. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador look forward to repatriation of the constitution quickly. They look to our first ministers to recommit themselves to confederation. Any Newfoundlander who would suggest otherwise is a spokesman divorced from his people; let there be no question of that.
While we in Newfoundland and Labrador were certainly the last to join this great confederation of people, we will be among the first to stand up and voice our support for Canada should we be given that opportunity. We are proud to be recognized for our unique music, tradition and history. Also we are proud to be recognized as just over a half million of Canada's best Canadians.
In the year 1949, the year Newfoundland joined confederation, five years before I was born, a great Canadian addressed this House of Commons. His words of warning then are more relevant this day than ever before. I should like to quote from Hansard of February 15, 1949, which reads as follows:
In the country today, and I am not referring to anything that has been said in this debate, there is I suggest a tendency, a very dangerous tendency in my view, to stir up the feeling that the provinces and the dominion are somehow and in some way hostile to each other; that the people of Canada as represented in this Parliament are in some way different from the people of Canada as represented in the provincial parliaments; that there is, for instance, some inevitable conflict between my duty and loyalty as a resident of this province and my duty and loyalty as a Canadian. I suggest that there is great danger to national development in that trend and in that sort of talk.
Those words of wisdom were spoken by the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson on February 15, 1949, and 1 think they are very relevant today. Mr. Pearson went on to quote Mr. Drew, the leader of the opposition in 1941, who said:
The time has come to start thinking as Canadians. Those who deliberately seek to arouse province against province, race against race are disloyal to Canada-
I want to say a few words about Bill C-30, but first I hope Mr. Speaker will permit me to talk for just a moment about that part of Canada that is Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe. It stretches from Cape Norman on the Strait of Belle Isle in northern Newfoundland, all the way down the west coast to Cape St. George, St. Georges Bay. It is a rural, rugged and beautiful coastline along which some 85,000 people earn their living and make their homes. It is that part of Newfoundland which those of us who live there refer to as God's country.
Borrowing Authority Act
To the north in my riding, one will find Gros Morne National Park, a mountainous land of almost untouched and unspoiled beauty. I would recommend that you, Mr. Speaker, and all hon. members present visit that national park and meet the people who live in the communities within the boundaries of that park. I see the minister for parks shaking his head.
Farther north, hon. members will find the many fishing communities of the great northern peninsula and the Fierce, independent, hard-working people who make their living from the sea. They are proud Newfoundlanders and proud Canadians, as are the people of the Port au Port Peninsula. There too, one will find a thriving and growing fishing industry. It is also there that one would delight in finding the only French-speaking communities in all of Newfoundland.
Should you visit my riding, Mr. Speaker, no doubt you will want to visit the beautiful Bay of Islands area and meet and talk with my many friends there. From the Bay of Islands, one will find that he is just minutes away from the city of Corner Brook, the western capital of Newfoundland. Corner Brook is located at the mouth of the Humber River where the west coast city began in the 1920s and has grown ever since. Bowater's paper mill in Corner Brook is one of the largest in the world, and Bowater Newfoundland Limited, as a result, is the largest single private employer in Newfoundland. It is in Corner Brook where the importance of Newfoundland's forestry resource can be fully appreciated. Indeed, there is no doubt that our fishing and forestry resources are the backbone of the economy of, not only Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe, but all of Newfoundland.
Also in my riding, Mr. Speaker, you will find the two airport towns of Deer Lake and Stephenville. Both of these towns look forward to continuing to service the air travelling public in the northern and southern extremes of my riding. Deer Lake and Stephenville are small towns, but they have a great deal in common, as they are a people determined to go forward, seeking to maintain stability and a sound economic base for future growth.
There are many more communities I would like to talk about; however, time does not permit. I am proud of the district and of the people I represent in this House. I have great confidence in the future of Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe and, more importantly, the people of Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe have great confidence in themselves. I shall work to secure assistance from the Government of Canada, as much as is reasonable, and we are a reasonable people. I will seek to secure assistance that will ensure the people of my riding are given every opportunity to grow and prosper.
It is time for me to turn my thoughts and remarks to the business at hand, Bill C-30. I would like to voice my support for the approval of the $12 billion supplementary borrowing authority. But first let me take just a moment to comment on some remarks made by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), who has taken the liberty of referring to the Prime Minister as "the Count Dracula of the Canadian economic system". I think that one could better equate the efforts

June 12, 1980
Borrowing Authority Act
of the Prime Minister and, indeed, the efforts of all members on this side of the House with those of that distinguished organization, the Canadian Red Cross. Since our election in February, this government has been providing the transfusion so badly needed by the Canadian economy and the Canadian people after their near fatal accident with the Tory government.
As part of the transfusion process I talked about, the government requires the authority to borrow $12 billion to meet the projected financial requirements for 1980-81 as outlined by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) on April 21 and to allow us some margin for contingencies. I think that members opposite must realize that it would indeed be foolish for a government not to have such authority, as it has had in the past, to have the ability to deal with an emergency should one arise. I feel confident in saying that this government has the wisdom and good sense to spend this money only when and where it is needed.
I would like, Mr. Speaker, to point out to the hon. members in this House, especially those who were here during the last Parliament, that the estimates for the 1980-81 expenditures are based on the figures produced by none other than the hon. member for St. John's West. This government recognizes that now is the time for action and it has wasted no time in tabling the estimates so that all members of this House might examine and approve them. In this regard, the government also recognizes the necessity of passing this bill as quickly as possible in order that we may proceed to other important matters.
This government has not delayed in implementing programs which are desperately needed. Operating on a shoe string budget, a situation left to us by the previous government, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) has succeeded in introducing a new series of measures to provide relief to those Canadians facing unemployment. Ridings similar to my own all across Canada have unemployment figures the same as the figure in my riding of over 15 per cent, and they would welcome this announcement. This winter my riding can, for example, look forward to receiving funding under the new Canada employment program for community development projects, a program designed to aid people living in areas of high unemployment. In the coming year, this program alone will provide employment for 15,500 Canadians.
In addition to some of the short-term measures, the Minister of Employment and Immigration has already begun work on long-term employment strategies for the coming decade. Indeed, I am proud to be participating in the formulation of these long-range plans as a member of the parliamentary task force on critical skills for the eighties. I would like to mention that, after only a couple of sessions, I for one welcome the serious, no-nonsense, non-partisan attitude of all seven members of this committee who collectively represent the three parties in this House.
Continuing with the matter of federal expenditures, I would like to stress that the economic development of the west coast of Newfoundland, indeed of all Newfoundland, for the moment is dependent on the support it receives from the
federal government. And it is through the expenditure of these federal funds that regional disparity can be countered. However, we in Newfoundland and Labrador look forward to the day very soon when we are economically self-sufficient. We look forward to the day when we have the capital at our disposal to develop the great fishery and forestry and other resources in our province to their maximum potential. This will come about through the development of oil resources off the shores of Newfoundland and Labrador.
We in Newfoundland and Labrador view this resource potential as a means to strengthen the economic and social fabric of our province. As Canadians who for so many years have benefited from the tax dollars of other provinces, we look forward with pride to sharing the benefits of any offshore development with all Canadians. There is no doubt about that and I say again that any Newfoundland spokesman who would suggest otherwise is a spokesman divorced from his people.
The Prime Minister of Canada assured the people of Newfoundland and Labrador during the election campaign that it is this party's position that Newfoundland will reap the maximum benefits from offshore development, and for that reason and others the people of my province responded by sending five Liberals out of a possible seven members to this House of Commons. A fair and just share of the offshore resource is what the people of my province expect, and I am confident that that is what this government will deliver.
That is an honest statement of our intentions. It is very much unlike the vague and misleading promises of the Conservative party, such as those delivered by the member for St. John's West and other Tory candidates who promised to deliver to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador complete ownership and control immediately after being re-elected. It would be as simple as that and we would have no problems at all. Of course, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador were not fooled. They wondered why, if things were so simple, the Tories did not deliver the goods before the last election. The reason is obvious; they could not deliver the goods. Once again they were talking through their hats. Is it any wonder that the hon. member for St. John's West-and I wish he were here- is one of the shortest lived finance ministers in the history of Canada? It is no wonder at all.
I want to quote from an exchange of letters between the former prime minister and the Premier of Newfoundland. I will do so because I want to point out that we had the former premier, the premier, the hon. member for St. John's West, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and all the Tory candidates telling us in February to vote for the Tory party in Newfoundland and we would get our offshore oil. It was to be as simple as that-a straightforward deal between the boys in Ottawa and the boys in Newfoundland.
I should like to quote from the letter dated September 14, 1979, when the then prime minister, now the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), wrote to Premier Peckford of Newfoundland as follows:
June 12, 1980

-these arrangements will certainly involve important regulatory, legislative and, indeed, constitutional changes before everything is in place.
They did not say anything about the constitution during the election campaign, Mr. Speaker. We did. We were honest enough to state it but the Tories did not. Further on in the letter we find that the little club that is going to straighten this matter up is getting bigger. The letter goes on to say:
-I am sending a copy of this letter to all the premiers because all are interested in the matter to some degree and will, in due time, have to deal with it in constitutional discussions.
That is what we were honest enough to say all along, Mr. Speaker, and 1 welcome the opportunity to put it on the record of this House. That is the farce that the Conservative party tried to perpetrate on the people of Newfoundland during the last election campaign. I think it is shameful, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: I should like to direct my remarks for a moment to the perennial third party in the House of Commons, the New Democratic Party. 1 see that only one member is present, which is not surprising. The elected members of that party participated in what was beyond a shadow of a doubt the greatest political hypocrisy of our time. Those are strong words, Mr. Speaker, but let me tell you why I use them. I am not surprised that the New Democratic Party is upset about the limitation imposed on this debate. Indeed, I would not be surprised if they could find a way to disagree with the Lord himself if he sat on this side of the House. This is the party that refused, again and again as a party, to take a position during the referendum campaign.


An hon. Member:: That is not true.


Brian Vincent Tobin: This is the party which, for purely political and partisan purposes, refused to stand up and be counted for Canada. Shame, Mr. Speaker-shame!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: I find it at the very worst dishonest, and at the very best cowardly, for any Canadian to seek election to represent Canadians in this Parliament and then, when the time comes, to refuse to stand up and be counted and to defend Canada.


Edward Allan Miller: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I recognize that this is the hon. member's maiden speech but nevertheless he is totally misrepresenting the position of the New Democratic Party during the referendum in Quebec.


An hon. Member:: Boo!


Edward Allan Miller: Our party leader attended at least two meetings in the province of Quebec outlining our position on the referendum.


An hon. Member:: That is not a point of order.


Edward Allan Miller: I would question, Mr. Speaker, your permitting the hon. member to use that kind of false-
Borrowing Authority Act


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Edward Allan Miller: -comment, regardless whether it is his maiden speech or not.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The hon. member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) takes a certain risk when he uses words like "dishonesty". It tends to incur the distress of other members. On the other hand, I believe it has been ruled in this House that the use of that expression is not necessarily unparliamentary. It is, however, a risk he takes.
I might point out to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller) that unfortunately the use of a point of order is not an opportunity to enter into debate with the hon. member who has the floor. We will continue with the remarks of the hon. member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin).


Brian Vincent Tobin: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member opposite suggested that I was misrepresenting the position of the NDP during the Quebec referendum. I would make it very clear to him, as it is clear to everybody else, that they did not have a position, so how could I misrepresent it?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: I am convinced that all Canadians, whether they voted Liberal, Conservative or even NDP in the last election, viewed the Quebec referendum result not only as a victory for Quebec but for all Canada. The NDP would be wise to recognize that even those who supported them in the last election can have nothing now but contempt for that party's non-stand during the referendum campaign. Let the non-stand taken by the New Democratic Party be an example to Canadians of the shallowness of ideas and integrity of that party.
While I am on the subject, Mr. Speaker, let me direct my comments for a moment to hon. members opposite in the Conservative party, particularly to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. While there is a fundamental difference between his views and mine on economic matters, and while we would no doubt differ on how this country should evolve, I am sure my colleagues on this side join me in applauding the Leader of the Opposition for his courage in stating in a clear, concise and loud manner his and his party's support for the No side during the referendum campaign.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: 1 suggest the Leader of the New Democratic Party could well take a lesson from the Leader of the Opposition, and indeed should take daily lessons from the Leader of the Government, the right hon. Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: I support Bill C-30, Mr. Speaker. Some 12 years ago at the age of 13 I adopted the habit-old man that I am- of listening to and watching every newscast 1 could. 1 used to

June 12, 1980
Borrowing Authority Act
read every newspaper I could lay my hands on. Very quickly, Mr. Speaker, I gained a tremendous respect and admiration for the prime minister of the day, 12 years ago, who happened to be the same Prime Minister as today. It is a privilege that I did not expect to come my way those 12 years ago to be standing here today as a colleague of the Prime Minister of Canada.
There is no question that the Prime Minister's political longevity is a direct tribute to his honesty and integrity over the years. I hope it is also a tribute to the kind of men and women he has attracted to run for this party under his leadership.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: I cannot, in all good conscience, Mr. Speaker, rationalize the negativity that constantly emanates from that side of the House of Commons-negativity toward Bill C-30 and negativity toward everything this government would undertake as part of its mandate from the people to serve the people. Perhaps there is an explanation for the negativity we have seen in something the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) touched upon in this House a few days ago.
I remember that during the February 18 election campaign I spent one cold night in Corner Brook talking with my grandfather. During the course of our discussion about my chances of election and who was going to form the next government, etc., my grandfather gave me what I think is very sound advice. He told me that if I lost, then I should be proud in defeat. I should be proud of the effort I had made. He also told me that if the people were kind enough to bestow their confidence upon me and I won, then I should be humble in victory. I think that is sound advice, Mr. Speaker-to be humble in victory, and proud and dignified in defeat.
The people of Canada spoke on February 18 and while we on this side, I believe, have been humble in victory, hon. members opposite have been everything and anything but proud and dignified in defeat. Sadly, instead we have seen a kind of bitterness and a vindictiveness that I am sure has clouded their ordinarily good judgment and has poisoned what would ordinarily be their good will to participate in the House of Commons.
We on the government side recognize the necessity for a good, effective opposition in the House of Commons. We would welcome good, effective and constructive opposition. But if that is not forthcoming, then we have no time to play games. That is why I voted for time limitation on this debate on Bill C-30. That is why I support Bill C-30 so we can get on to other important matters.
I have one final piece of advice for members opposite before I sit down. It is simply this: I suggest that right now is the time for members opposite to swallow what has become in their own minds that very bitter pill called defeat.


Edward Allan Miller: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reserve the right, after reviewing what the last member said in terms of his use of the words "dishonesty" and "cowardly"-this is in reference to the representation that he made toward this party with regard to our position on Quebec-to review the blues for further consideration.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The Chair will certainly respect the right of the hon. member and support the right of the hon. member to make that review.
I might add that one hon. member whose advice is often sought in that regard, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Neilsen), has mentioned to me privately the same concern. My recollection was, and I believe it to be the case, that an accusation made directly to a member, of a member or about a member that he or she is dishonest is unparliamentary language and out of order. But a reference made to a political party or a group where the word "dishonesty" is used has in fact been ruled acceptable debate.
The Chair does not want to enter into the fine points of that difference. I only raise it to assure the hon. member that the matter is of some concern. I did warn the previous member on the subject. I will on behalf of the Chair undertake to assure the hon. member that his point of privilege will not be lost, and if he chooses to bring it up tomorrow he will be heard.


Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, it is a duty that I have to fulfil on behalf of my constituents to rise and speak on this bill.
From my recollection of when I studied history in my school days, the reason we have Parliament is to be accountable to the people of Canada, the people who elected us on their behalf. We are accountable to them for the tax dollars that the government collects. It is the duty of every elected representative to see that those tax dollars are spent wisely. But when the government of the day comes before us with a bill asking for permission to borrow $12 billion, and at the same time, upon requesting information from it as to what use the government will put the $12 billion, we find it very difficult to get that information, then I find it rather strange that the previous speaker should talk about taking his responsibilities soberly. He apparently finds it very easy to rise and support a bill that really gives the government a blank cheque in terms of borrowing $12 billion. I think all of us as elected representatives of the people take our responsibilities very soberly. I know I take mine very soberly and that is why I feel compelled to speak on this bill.
The previous speaker said that he is operating on a shoestring budget because of the situation in which he was left by the previous government. I do not know where he comes from or what kind of situation they are in in Newfoundland, but in Manitoba $12 billion is anything but a shoe string budget. In fact, it would account for roughly six years of total expenditure by the province of Manitoba. The hon. member should be very careful when he talks about a shoe string budget and relate it to the amount of money that is involved. It is a tremendous amount of money, and to refer to it simply as a
June 12, 1980

shoestring budget is not exercising rationally or responsibly his admonition of himself that he is sober in his responsibilities to his constituents.


Mr. Nielsen:: That is just the amount of the deficit.


Charles James Mayer: Not only is $12 billion a lot of money to borrow, but it is a lot of money in relation to the total spending of this government.
There was mention by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) of what the Americans are doing with their budget. In 1979 the Americans had a budget of something over $600 billion and a deficit of $29 billion. This works out to something like 5 per cent of their total expenditure as far as borrowings are concerned.
To relate that back to what we do here in Canada, in the current fiscal year the government will be spending roughly $54 billion. Of that, we are told we will be running a $14 billion budget, which leaves approximately $40 billion that we will be collecting from the taxpayers. If we relate that to the amount of interest which this government is going to be paying on previous government debt, it amounts to something like $10 billion. Therefore, for every $4 which this government collects from the taxpayers of Canada, $1, or 25 per cent, of that is going to be used simply to pay interest on past government debt.
This kind of an expenditure does not finance any new programs. It does not finance any health care programs nor does it increase pensions to those who are in need. It does not buy any new fighter aircraft. It does not do anything that people have come to expect from their government; it simply goes to pay interest on past mismanagement. I find it incredible that we could be so flippant about giving this government borrowing authority to borrow vast sums of money without expecting it to account for what it wants to use the money for and without examining the government's record on what it has done to the economy in the past ten or 12 years.
The previous speaker also talked about being humble in victory and proud in defeat. It seems to me that this government is anything but humble in victory. I have to think that it is arrogant in victory. If the government was anything that approximated humble, it would be very willing to be forthcoming with information as to how it intends to use the money which it is asking us to approve for its borrowing and the government would do this by presenting a budget.
I think the reference to this borrowing authority being a blank cheque fits. There have been many examples used in this House to try to relate billions of dollars into figures which the ordinary citizen can comprehend. In my opinion, "billions" does not mean much to people because it is such a large number that it virtually becomes meaningless. In terms of each citizen it amounts to $500 per man, woman and child throughout the whole country. For each family of four it means we are being asked to approve $2,000.
I like to think that I come from a very friendly part of the country. We refer to ourselves as being very hospitable. How-
Borrowing Authority Act
ever, I am sure that our hospitality would be strained to the limit if one day a salesman or someone we did not know drove into the yard, knocked at the door, introduced himself and then said that he was sure we did not know him but that he wanted to borrow $2,000. In addition, he would not say what he would use the money for or how he would pay it back; he just wanted to borrow $2,000. If we were faced with that situation, I think our hospitality would be strained past the limit and that we would chase that kind of an individual out of the yard. Yet this is exactly what this government is asking us to do.
On thinking about what would happen in that situation, I think the poor chap would deserve some pity and help and we might feel some compassion for him-at least in my part of the country. In any event, that is what is going on when we are being asked to approve this kind of borrowing. In terms of the people I represent in Portage-Marquette, it would roughly equate to $40 million. I do not know how I could possibly face my constituents if I went home and said that 1 was perfectly content to sit on my hands and not feel obligated to rise in my place and voice some objections to committing them to paying $40 million. I take my responsibilities seriously and soberly. For me to do that simply means that I rise and voice my objection to being asked to approve borrowing without any idea of what the money is to be spent for.
I refer now to a remark made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Evans) which appears in Hansard for June 2 at page 1670. In closing his speech he said:
I think the time has come for us to move forward on this bill and get on with the business of the House in looking at legislation that is extremely critical, and to stop the kind of delaying tactics that have been used and will be used tonight and tomorrow to stop the passage of a bill which is a fair and honest bill, a bill of borrowing authority the same as ministers of finance have brought down in every government in the past. I think we should get on with the bill, pass the bill and move to other pieces of business.
The parliamentary secretary should be ashamed of himself for making that kind of statement. I am glad to see that he is in the chamber. He stated on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada that we should get on with other business of the House that is critical. To suggest that borrowing $12 billion is not critical and important to the people of Canada is an irresponsible statement. The parliamentary secretary should take those things into account when making such statements.
Much has been said about the irresponsible spending record of this government. I wish to quote from the report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1979. At page 12 of that report, Mr. Macdonell talks about how difficult it is for us to be accountable to our constituents and for the government to be accountable for its actions to the people of Canada unless they have information. This is where he says how critical it is to have information, and I quote:
"the key to accountability is ... quite simply, information-the openness with which an individual or agency operates and the access to information by persons outside who are in a position to do something about it, if necessary, and the ways in which relevant information is selected, processed, and utilized."
2046

June 12, 1980
Borrowing Authority Act
From this definition it follows that accountability will be direct and effective where information is reliable and meaningful. For reasons I have set out in detail in five successive annua! reports to the House of Commons, it is clear that neither of these latter adjectives applies to the financial information Parliament now receives.
Had this government been more open and forthcoming in terms of information as to what it intends to do with this $12 billion, we on this side would have been much happier to see the passage of this bill come about very quickly. If the parliamentary secretary was really interested in getting on with the business of the House-important business, he called it, by implication saying this bill is not important business-he would have tried to see that the information would be forthcoming. I am sure we would not then be showing as much concern with this bill as we are at present.
I wish to make one other point before concluding my remarks and making way for as many more speakers on this side of the House as possible. On Tuesday afternoon the Minister of State, Small Businesses (Mr. Lapointe) talked in this House about the metric conversion process. During that debate we were given information to the effect that the metric committee that is forcibly converting this country to metric has a budget of something like $27 million. In his remarks the minister made the point that the plastics industry and the petroleum industry were converting very successfully. He sadly neglected to say whether anyone was concerned about people.
My point is simply this. The minister would be exercising his responsibility to small business a lot better if he had seen that some of the $27 million that will be wasted by the commission to convert this country to metric was made available to the small business section of his department in order to assist small businesses. Conversion to metric will cause a lot of problems and additional expense to small business. Small business would be much better served by the minister had he shown some concern about the people involved in the conversion process and tried to ensure that some of the $27 million presently budgeted to the Metric Commission was made available to small business.
There are several other points I should make, but my main concern is that opposition members should have complete information on what the government plans to do with this $12 billion before we are forced into giving the government a blank cheque to borrow vast sums of money on behalf of our constituents.
[ Translation]


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to rise this afternoon in this chamber on a matter of such controversy at this point, namely Bill C-30, and as I do I am almost in a nervous shock. Because when the man in the street arrived here as a new member of Parliament, he gets the feeling, especially under a government that gives so many services as this government has been giving Canadians for years, that such services clearly require funds, and that during difficult periods such as we are now going through, the government must borrow.
We had a notion, when the government announced that borrowing would be needed, that these loans would proceed as a matter of routine and everyone would be in agreement here, because if services are given to Canadians it is because members of Parliament passed legislation to help develop the Canadian population. My state of shock comes from the realization that some members here are trying to prevent the Government of Canada from borrowing to meet its commitments to the Canadian people or to defer the process. This is something that as a man in the street I have difficulty in realizing. But as every other member of Parliament, I am so much more aware of the fact that I represent some 80,000 constituents.
The debate has been going on for quite some time. I heard all sorts of things. Some hon. members suggested at some points that this government spent too much, expenditures had to be cut, but a few minutes later they were going on record to suggest that millions should be invested in their constituencies. The rationale of this I never could understand. Others have said that this government is asking for a blank cheque of $12 billion. It is unbelievable that some people can say such inept things to the people. If my memory serves me well a blank cheque is a cheque on which there is no figure and which is signed by the person who is the holder of the bank account. It is certainly not so. There is a very definite figure mentioned in Bill C-30, which represents the borrowing authority asked in it.
Furthermore, we know perfectly well for what purpose those expenditures will be made. Those who do not know just have to review all existing Canadian legislation and they will find there all the expenditures made by the Government of Canada within a year. They are all there and you know it full well.
Another matter that has been frequently raised is the fact that, apparently, the government has not introduced a budget before it requested that borrowing authority. Apparently, this has happened before and anyway I remember very well that the Minister of Finance mentioned on April 21 what would be the expenditures of our country for the coming month. But worse still is that the people who refuse today to give to the Government of Canada the borrowing powers that will enable it to administer our country are the same who after their election as a government on May 22, 1979, took seven months before presenting their budget.
I remember very well, I was in Lac Saint-Jean at the time and I had been listening to the evening news on TV. On two occasions, we saw the then prime minister (Mr. Clark) who, by the way, was not prime minister for too long, go to Banff with his cabinet. Jasper Park, Lake Louise, Banff are very beautiful. Had they visited Lac Saint-Jean at least once they might have seen the marvellous sunset or else they could have seen the most beautiful and the deepest fjord in the world, the one which goes farthest inland, the Saguenay. But this did not happen. Watching all this, we had the impression that that
June 12, 1980

government had just discovered a Canadian city called Banff, that the weather was nice and that they were wandering through the city. I think that that government sat more often in Banff than here. This can certainly delay a budget!
The result of all this was that when the famous budget of which everyone is aware was introduced by the then minister of finance, this budget was so far removed from what Canadians thought the budget of the government should be that it was the last nail in the coffin that the Progressive Conservatives had built for themselves. If at least this budget had been introduced in the first three or four months in office of that government, then we would not have had to wait until February 18 for that government to be replaced by one more able to govern this country. In addition, the budget that the members opposite have been demanding for so long would probably have been introduced before now.
Elowever, after February 18, that important date when Canadians were finally able to say to Pierre Trudeau, "you are the one we find the best," the new government had to rebuild the whole machine and discuss the situation with public servants who were completely lost because they had just gone through a terrible time with many people who had just come into power in May telling them, "black goes right, white goes left," and so on, and because those who had tried in seven months to change major policies to give to the country a new direction which no one understood and did not know exactly where they were going. Everything had to be replaced, all these people had to be told to sit down and to work peacefully as in the past without starting a war with anyone, especially not with our neighbours, nor with those who are a bit farther from us, and they had to be asked to get themselves into the state of mind that they were in before, under the Trudeau administration.
I can assure you that it is quite a handicap to follow such a government and to introduce a budget in the following months. This is a major handicap that we must overcome, and the work is enormous. We have had to do everything over very quickly, and we had to do it so completely over because the former government nearly had time to destroy everything in such a short while.
Other than that there is one thing I want to point out. I can tell hon. members opposite even before a budget is introduced in the House that the next budget will help the middle class, the working class and the underprivileged class in Canada which was not the case of theirs. You know what happens when you do that, you have to borrow several billions of dollars because times are difficult. The man in the street understands that problem very well. It is beyond me that you should have missed that.
How I remember the millions of dollars that were supposed to go into the coffers of the companies, the multinational oil
Borrowing Authority Act
companies, with that famous budget. You would have wanted us to draft the same budget again and have it endorsed by the people of Canada. That would have been quite simply shameful. The only thing you have to do now to try and right the wrong and the damage you did to this country by delaying the process of legislation for a period of seven months during which the House did not sit is to stop filibustering the borrowing authority this government is asking for in its own right. It has that borrowing authority as the elected government of the people of Canada, and all you are doing now is delaying it. That delay, as you know full well, is unjustifiable.
For my part, as I said in this place yesterday, I come from an area where the presence of the Government of Canada is essential and is being felt at various levels because of the economic problems we are now facing. We know full well that the Government of Canada spends more money in my area than it gets out of it in revenues. We are aware of that. We also know one thing, and it is that this situation will not last forever, it is only temporary. When will we get out of it? I am not a soothsayer, I cannot tell you, but we will get out of it. All the premises are there, and all the work that has been done in recent years tends to lead to that result. But in the meantime we cannot conceive that you would want to have a single generation pay for all the problems we are now experiencing. That is why the Government of Canada is borrowing. This is capitalization. When it is paid off, it will bring dividends. We are spending today to meet the needs of the underprivileged. One day the government will have enough revenue to look after those needs, as it has already been the case. It is a regular cycle.
Therefore, the people in my area know quite well and are proud of the fact that the authorities of this country have taken the necessary decisions which have brought investments worth millions of dollars in this fine country called Canada and have made sure that not only one generation or only one part of the population is experiencing difficulties. You know that during the last election campaign the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) said a few words that we have not forgotten. He said: "The Liberal Party of Canada does not make promises but stands for principles." Those are the principles which I am now stating, principles of justice and equity for the distribution of wealth. A while ago 1 heard my colleague from Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) who referred to the position taken by various provinces in the constitutional negotiations. Once again, the same spirit should be revised.
What I find most unfortunate-and I do not know whether it is a false impression-is that my colleagues opposite seem to have forgotten those principles. They seem to have forgotten them, because they are trying to prevent the Canadian government from borrowing or they are delaying the borrowing process of the Canadian government. They want to prevent the government from borrowing. This government was democrati-

June 12, 1980
Borrowing Authority Act
cally elected on February 18, 1980, when the former prime minister decided to call the election when his senseless budget was rejected. This is what they are trying to do. I wish to tell them that we are pleased to see that the members opposite are doing their job, that they are watching us and saying from time to 'time: You should perhaps do that instead of something else.
That is part of your job, but it is also part of your job to represent your constituents, if you know what that means. It means that when existing legislation obliges the government to borrow to meet its requirements, you also have the duty to approve it, and as quickly as possible. Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, I have the impression that hon. members of the opposition live in the past. We still hear them talk about oil taxes, budget cuts, all things which Canadians said at one point they did not want, ever.
We also hear that the government should not be given a blank cheque, but the government is not asking for a blank cheque. It is telling us that the House must give it authority to fulfil its obligations towards the people and in that sense, gentlemen, when you let the debate go on and on, you act as if you were still in power, and you are not. It was a democratic decision that made things the way they are, nothing else, following your actions and those of people who formed your government.
As a new member, I think that is horrifying, Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand. I have trouble grasping all that and putting it into my head at a point in time a responsible member of Parliament comes here to represent his constituents. Follow your reasoning to its logical conclusion, gentlemen.
Assuming a motion for closure is not brought in at some time, and that you keep the debate going, say, until the month of January, 1981, where would the government get the money? Can you tell me that? What about the people of your ridings who are on welfare, get medical care or money for the capital projects under way in Alberta, whether through Petro-Canada or any other way? I am asking you to realize that the government is now asking you to do your job. Let the bill go through as soon as possible so that we can perform our duty to Canadians.


Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-30, which has become a very, very important question in the minds of the Canadian public. The hon. member from the other side of the House just said that the people of Canada are not signing a blank cheque. That is true. They are signing a cheque with $12 billion on it. The government is saying to the people of Canada, "We are not telling you how we are going to spend the money, but we are asking you to pay the bill".
I suggest that the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of this country and the government of the day will be held responsible by our children and our grandchildren for the actions that the government is taking in this House today. We have had 12 years and more of Liberal government under the leadership of the Prime Minister, which has led us in a direction that is socializing this country and turning it into a socialist state, with the help of the NDP members on the extreme left who defeated a good budget and who defeated some direction for this country. That direction would have turned around this excess spending.
What type of direction is this government asking for? What kind of spending has it been doing? There has been excess spending in the form of a Metric Commission. There has been excess spending on many white elephants across the country. We just heard of one in the past few days. Two billion dollars was spent on a complex. It is rather hard for someone from the province of Saskatchewan to think in terms of those figures because that is about the budget of our whole province. We have some concern for our constituencies and for our people because we are asked to share in the responsibility for paying for this type of mismanagement brought upon the people of Canada by the government of the day. Truly it is a blank cheque and more. We have had no direction from the Minister of Finance with regard to what type of budget there will be. We have had no direction in terms of how the spending will be done. All we know is that we must pay the bill.
I think at this time the Canadian people are asking more of government and more of this House of Commons. They are asking for some accountability on the part of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and every member who sits in this House of Commons with regard to the spending done here, in this case $12 billion.
There has been big government during the Trudeau years and during the Liberal years. Big government spending has gone completely out of control. There has been no consideration given to production. We have lived through an era in which the word "profit" was a bad word and the word "incentive" was completely forgotten. We have given no direction and no incentive to the people who have been paying the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard J. Gustafson: In my constituency of Assiniboia we have very productive people. I imagine every member in this House thinks that his people are productive, but when we analyse how much money is being spent and where it is being spent, it gives me some concern as a member from western Canada.
I would like to relate a couple of examples just in the short term I have been the representative of the constituency of Assiniboia. Under the summer youth employment program it is very interesting to note that the constituency of Assiniboia was allotted by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) $85,000. I received letters from people from across my constituency whose projects were turned down. The average constituency in Quebec received $200,000. My people
June 12, 1980

are asking, "Where is the money being spent?" We asked for help with productive projects. Before I came to this House my predecessor who represented Assiniboia had been working toward the extension of the runway at the airport at Estevan. I worked toward that extension and made submissions to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin). We have been turned down again and again on that project. There are aeroplanes coming in to service the oil wells and coal production in that area. The request of that particular community was turned down. We asked for $200,000.
I have figures in front of me regarding the money spent on Mirabel airport. The original approved cost was to be $212,247,000. The final cost turned out to be $371,276,000. There was a cost overrun of $159 million, or 74 per cent. This is the way this government has been spending money.
The people of my constituency and the people of western Canada are very, very concerned about the excess spending that has been going on here in Ottawa by big government. That leads me to another question. It is all right to accuse someone of excess spending, but we must also come up with some answers. How can we solve the problem? One of the major problems Canada faces today is that we have priced ourselves out of the world market under the socialistic direction the Prime Minister of Canada has taken.
One of the members across the way laughs. I should like to read the words the right hon. Prime Minister wrote in 1961 which appeared in a book entitled "Practice and Theory of Federalism":
If the whole of the Canadian electorate could miraculously be converted to socialist ideals at one fell swoop, there would be no reason to discuss strategy in the present context. Socialism would be achieved with or without federalism, and socialist administrations would be installed at every level of government affairs, no matter the form of the constitution.
The Prime Minister of Canada-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I was simply indicating to the hon. member that it is now five o'clock and I wanted to give him the opportunity to complete his sentence. Otherwise I will recognize him at eight o'clock when the House resumes debate on Bill C-30.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed in today's order paper, namely, private bills, notices of motions (papers), public bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Shall item No. 1 on the order paper, in the name of the hon. member for Leeds-Gren-ville (Mr. Cossitt), stand by unanimous consent?
Candu Reactor Sales


Mr. Herbert:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This item was placed on the order paper as a notice of motion for the production of papers on April 14. It was transferred for debate on June 4. If the member is serious, he should be prepared for debate. So I give the first notice of my intention to raise the matter at the next time of calling.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is the Chair to understand from the comments of the hon. member that he is not going to deny unanimous consent at this point to the suggestion that the item stand? Is that correct?


Harold Thomas Herbert: I am putting my objection at this time, which means it will require unanimous consent at the next time of calling.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: That is understood. The next item is item No. 19, in the name of the hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon). Shall the item stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


SALES OF CANDU REACTORS
Harold Thomas Herbert: That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence, notes, minutes of meetings and other communications between the government and senior officials of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited during the months of June, July, August and September, 1979, that pertain to the negotiation of the sales of Candu reactors either by AECL or by any private company acting with the authority or knowledge of AECL.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak for very long. This motion was transferred yesterday. It is a repeat of an identical motion which I placed on the order paper in the last Parliament on November 8, 1979. The motion arose from a complaint of a constituent who represents and works for a company which is interested in international trade, which is working in the export business, particularly in the field of nuclear reactors, nuclear equipment and allied equipment.
The complaint of the constituent was that in this period to which the motion refers there was, in his opinion, direct interference by the government of the day in Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, the result of which was to ensure that there would be no communication between private companies interested in furthering sales and the representatives of the government who were interested in making purchases.
When I look at the make-up of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, I find that its objectives are, among others:
To participate in the development of a viable Canadian nuclear industry through the development and marketing of nuclear power systems, components, materials, equipment, technology, medical and industrial isotopes, irradiators and related products.
They are also:
To ensure an adequate supply of heavy water to meet domestic and export needs of the Candu system.

June 12, 1980
Candu Reactor Sales
The last available report of AECL was transmitted to the then minister of energy, mines and resources on June 28 of last year, so presumably we will soon be getting the more current report. In his opening remarks, the president of AECL makes reference to Canada's clear intentions to make the affairs of AECL more commercially oriented.
If one looks through the last report of AECL one sees some most interesting photographs of reactors in Argentina, of people from China looking at the Ontario Hydro facility at Pickering, of an exhibition which was organized in Switzerland where Canada is attempting to sell its technology, of visiting personages from Romania, and of the construction of a Candu nuclear generating station in Korea for the Korean Electric Company. I mention these just to illustrate that obviously we have been intent on making export sales and have been at least communicating with persons in the countries mentioned.
It appeared from the information available to us in the second half of last year that a deliberate attempt was being made to hinder any negotiations. It appeared to me that an important minister of the Crown at that time was interfering with the operations of a Crown corporation which should have been independent of government interference, to ensure that by refusing to communicate they were effectively stopping negotiations for a sale.
Let me be very clear, Mr. Speaker. In this motion I am not arguing for or against the merits of selling Candu reactors abroad. Whether we should or should not do so is for the government to decide, but I am tired at this stage of double standards. I honestly believe that we should make up our mind whether or not we are going to be in this market. I honestly believe that we have one of the best reactors that is available. I honestly believe that if we do not sell our reactors, France, West Germany or another country will sell theirs.
Although I am not making the argument in this motion for the sale of our reactors, I do believe we should have a very clear statement of what our policy will be, and we should not find ourselves in a position where a minister of the Crown appears at least to have interfered with the operations of an independent corporation to ensure that negotiations do not proceed.
Just this week, and by coincidence, representatives from Argentina were in this capital city of Ottawa. I did not meet them but they made plain to other hon. members their disenchantment with the actions of our government in making it impossible for the government of Argentina to communicate with us and do business. What I am suggesting, of course, is that we should make up our minds precisely what we want or do not want. I do not like the suggestion that a minister of the Crown can make a personal decision about the countries with which we should be doing business.
To make a point, I have made reference in the report to representatives from China, which would make it at least appear as if we are prepared to do business with China. That is fine by me personally, but I also ask why we have put every
single impediment in the way of doing business with Taiwan. I know we have heard two motions in the House in the last two or three days concerning the conduct of people in Taiwan, but will anyone suggest that what is happening there is any better or worse than what is happening in other countries with which we are doing business? My point is that I am very upset that we can have this double standard where we or individuals decide with what countries we shall or shall not be doing business and the basis on which that business shall be done. If we want to be holier than thou and we do not want to do business with governments of countries that do not act in the way we believe they should act, then I will accept that as policy, but it must be across the board, for all countries. I think it is unjust and unfair that we have this double standard.
It seems to me that the action last year, in appearing to stop a sale to Argentina by closing off negotiations or making it impossible for the parties to get together, is not the way in which we should be proceeding. I understand the sensitivities of the Department of External Affairs and its foreign relationships with other countries, but I think if there is one thing we in Canada can do, it is to establish a clear basis upon which we do business.
I have heard comments in the last few days about South Africa, for example. Certainly I am not here pleading any case for South Africa, but will anyone suggest that what is happening there is worse than what is happening in other countries? We do not like to talk about it because there is too much at stake either in business or in the relations between our country and that particular country.
My motion was put on the order paper not in the expectation of receiving any documents. When I put it on in the last Parliament, it was directed against the last government. I did not expect to receive the documents. Frankly I did not expect to receive them from this government either, and I understand the reasons why.


An hon. Member:: Why?


Harold Thomas Herbert: Simply because probably among those documents there are documents which are of a confidential and private nature. I am prepared to accept that explanation. However, I must direct my motion at all the documents. I have no way of putting my finger on any one direct communication. That is why I make my motion in this form.
My objection is to an apparent action of a minister of the Crown in communicating with an independent Crown corporation to ensure there will be a closing off of communications between private Canadian companies and AECL, so as to ensure that discussions dealing with the sale of equipment related to nuclear devices-and not necessarily Candu reactors themselves-should not proceed and the basis for the intervention apparently to stop the sale, in this case to Argentina. I will make it plain again. I am not pleading for the sale of Candu reactors to Argentina or to any other country, but I am pleading with the government to establish a policy which is the same for all countries and not to set up a double standard that
June 12, 1980

sounds politically good, whether it be the last government or the present government.
Because 1 am referring to June, July and August of last year, obviously I am not pointing the finger at the present government. But 1 feel we must clarify this particular point. We must tell AECL that its job is to try to increase the export market to give us more jobs in Canada. It is an area in which we have the expertise. It is an area which provides the type of high technology employment that is beneficial to Canada. I do not believe impediments of any kind should be put in the way of this company in its negotiations with any country, unless we set up in advance the standards by which that other country is supposed to operate. Then I suggest that probably we will be cutting off two-thirds of the world's countries.
I hope I have made my point. I do not intend to pursue this motion through to its logical conclusion, but I plead with the present government not to fall into the same pattern as the past government and, by indirect action, interfere with the free operation of a Crown corporation which, in the fashion it is set up, is supposed to be independent of government interference.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Roy MacLaren (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with attention to the statement of the hon. member. I have noted that a number of the issues which he raised will be under consideration in the nuclear review which the government has undertaken. I can assure the hon. member that the points he made will be fully taken into account in our consideration of the ways in which the nuclear industry in Canada can best be further promoted and developed in the future.
In entering this discussion this afternoon, I thought it might be useful if I were to say a word first about the ways in which the nuclear industry in Canada has developed, before turning to the future possibilities that are open to AECL and the private sector in this important area of our high technology industry.
As members of the House will recall, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and the current nuclear industry originated in the military programs launched during the Second World War. Research and development activities on the peaceful use of nuclear energy have been funded by parliamentary appropriations since the very start of atomic research in Canada.
In 1952 AECL was formed when the assets of the Chalk River wartime research project, along with those of the commercial products division of Eldorado Mining Ltd., were transferred to the newly formed Crown corporation. From a starting complement of about 1,300 employees in 1952, AECL has grown to close to 8,000 employees. Today the corporation has major facilities at Chalk River in Ontario, the Whiteshell nuclear laboratories in Manitoba, the power project engineering, design and development facilities near Toronto, and a successful radioactive isotopes commercial products operation in Ottawa.
Candu Reactor Sales
Also, AECL has heavy water production plants at Glace Bay and Port Hawkesbury in Nova Scotia and a partially constructed heavy water plant in La Prade, Quebec, as well as its corporate headquarters here in Ottawa. The Canadian nuclear industry today directly employs about 30,000 people. It is estimated that a further 50,000 jobs are generated indirectly.
The majority of jobs directly related to the Canadian nuclear industry are of a highly skilled nature. For example, in the nuclear manufacturing sector, the level of professional and technical employment is approximately four times the Canadian manufacturing average and double the electrical product industry average. AECL has developed as the linch pin of this industry providing, on the one hand, the coherent, specialized, technical basis of the industry and, on the other hand, the marketing and export of nuclear power systems in various forms.
Alternative industrial structures have been considered from time to time and remain a major subject of review. The value of Canadian goods and services in a single exported 600-megawatt station can range up to $300 million. Additional opportunities for Canadian industry often exist in the provision of support facilities and infrastructure.
The tangible results of AECL's efforts are perhaps most readily seen in the province of Ontario. Having foreseen the early exhaustion of its hydraulic resources for electricity generation, and having limited indigenous fossil resources and a sufficiently large grid, Ontario made an early commitment to a nuclear program. In 1978 Ontario received 30 per cent of its electric energy from nuclear sources. Installed capacity is now about 5500 megawatts and a further 8500 megawatts are under construction. Quebec has an installed nuclear capacity of 250 megawatts with a further 600 megawatts under construction. New Brunswick, as hon. members of that province will be aware, also has a 600-megawatt unit under construction at Lepreau.
The technical success of the Candu reactor is evidenced by a comparison of the measured gross capacity factors of the western world's nuclear power stations. In 1978 Ontario Hydro's units occupied five of the top 12 positions. On a lifetime comparison basis, these same units occupy five of the top seven positions. The unit energy cost of electricity produced at the Pickering nuclear station is about half that from the comparably sized and contemporary coal-fired Lambton station and has the additional benefit of major savings in foreign exchange.
The Candu reactor has proven to be a dependable, safe and economic source of electrical energy. Its continued role has received recent support from the Bayda royal commission in Saskatchewan, the report of the Porter Royal Commission on Electric Power Planning in Ontario, and the select committee on energy of the Ontario legislature.
The United States nuclear physicist and Nobel prize winner, Hans Bethe, has called the Candu reactor a technical wonder

June 12, 1980
Candu Reactor Sales
and praised its fantastic reliability. The Sussex University research unit in Britain, after a worldwide analysis of nuclear plant performance, has rated the Candu heavy water system the best in the world and recommended its adoption in Britain. And in the wake of Three Mile Island in the United States, the Tennessee Institute for Energy Analysis suggested that the U.S. use the current lull in the construction of new nuclear plants there to examine alternative models, including Canada's Candu reactor.
As a development-hungry Third World looks toward nuclear technology to replace oil-related energy and as Europe is planning for massive nuclear development, Canada finds itself with an unique opportunity to prove its nuclear technological leadership.
I believe it is clear from what I have said that the nuclear industry in Canada and particularly the development of AECL has not been something that happened overnight or without the consultation of Parliament. For almost 40 years the Canadian government and the nuclear industry have been working to develop and build a viable product that is not only safe but dependable and efficient. It is helping to meet Canada's current energy demands and, according to projections, it will provide a greater proportion of our energy demands in the future. Parliament has been involved with the development of the industry since its inception and will continue to help to ensure that the nuclear option provides safe and dependable energy for all Canadians.
But what of the future of the Candu reactor? Although the Candu reactor has achieved practical maturity and proven its commercial viability, the development potential of the system is nowhere near exhaustion. The current Candu designs are capable of evolutionary development to minimize energy costs and conserve resources. It is most important to recognize that the Candu system can and will adjust to future requirements by a process of evolution, based on a proven, highly successful design.
Most other advanced nations expect that future nuclear energy requirements will be met by a change from current thermal reactor systems to fast breeder reactors. However, the fast breeder type of reactor is far from being commercially feasible at this stage and will require massive outlays in capital before it is fully developed. The evolutionary route of the Candu system is obviously less costly and more predictable than employing our scarce resources to develop the fast breeder reactor.
Three major areas for the evolutionary development of the Candu system that are currently under way are reactor size, in terms of unit output; the fuel cycle, and heat-transfer fluid or coolant, used to extract the heat energy from the reactor core.
On the first point, it has been found that it is possible conceptually to design units of 2000 megawatts without technical limitations. For the Bruce Generating Station, each of the four units is rated at a nominal 750 megawatts, with the additional thermal energy being supplied as industrial process heat to a heavy water plant. This demonstrates the other
possibilities open for power reactors other than generating electricity.
Part of the power reactors output may be extracted directly as heat for space heating for industrial and residential uses. One possibility that has been suggested is the full output of a reactor being applied to the extraction of oil from tar sands. The large quantities of heat and electricity that are required for this process could be matched to the capacity of the reactor. Heat from the reactor can be used in greenhouses and providing warm water for fish farming, as the hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin) has pointed out in this House.
The second area of development of the Candu system is in the fuel cycle. All present Candu reactors operate on the once-through natural uranium cycle, with retrievable storage of the spent fuel. Although this cycle is very efficient in its utilization of our uranium resources compared to other commercially available reactor systems, it does consume fissile uranium, the supply of which is limited.
The Candu reactor is, however, capable, with minor alterations, of being adapted to exploit the considerable reserve of energy in spent fuel by recycling plutonium, and may be further adapted to the transformation of thorium into a fuel material, thus giving access to vast new reserves of energy. This inherent advantage of the Candu system is unparalleled in the world today. It will prolong the life of our present nuclear facilities and ensure that we shall remain competitive internationally in the future.
The third area of possible development is the choice of heat-transfer fluid or the coolant, as it is known. The coolant presently used in the Candu design is heavy water. Heavy water is an efficient but expensive heat-transfer fluid.
Two other coolants are being examined for possible savings in energy costs, boiling light water and organic-cooled reactor type. Both of these approaches have been examined in conjunction with the advanced fuel cycles. By combining alternative coolants with advanced fuel cycles it seems certain that additional reduction in capital costs will be possible. Estimates of over-all cost reductions of 15 per cent to 20 per cent may be realized, principally in the capital cost component when the advanced fuel cycles are available.
The Candu reactor is not simply for our present use. It is flexible enough to be adapted for the advanced fuel cycles of the future. As I have indicated, AECL and the nuclear industry are studying ways by which we can continue to use the Candu reactor well into the next century. The future of the Candu reactor is bright; with its flexibility and proven capability it is indeed a "technical wonder."
The nuclear power programs of many industrialized nations, including Canada, have been challenged by perceptions which focus essentially on three principal issues: reactor safety, the safe management of high level nuclear wastes and nuclear weapons proliferation. These are, of course, important issues which will continue to require consistent attention. While these issues are the subject of concerted national and international
June 12, 1980

action, they are not likely to be totally resolved to the satisfaction of all, in the immediate term.
For example, the safe management and disposal of radioactive wastes is a problem facing the industry as a whole. From its inception in the early 1950s, AECL has been studying means of safely immobilizing such materials and, more recently, has formally joined with the province of Ontario in a major effort to establish the parameters associated with their permanent disposal. With the proper support, AECL is confident that this matter can be addressed in an economic and timely manner, consistent with the meeting of concerns on health and safety. The present phase of the program consists of a research effort for the safe disposal of nuclear waste. Site selection will come much later.
The Candu reactor system has a power safety record second to none in the world and a comprehensive high level waste management program is well under way. Significant progress has been made through the aegis of international organizations and agencies toward the articulation of a global safeguards regime which will, on the one hand, diminish the probability of weapons proliferation and, on the other, provide developing nations with the benefits or nuclear technology upon which to base some of their economic development aspirations.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the nuclear energy option is of compelling national and international importance. The issues are not trivial and are often politically sensitive. The goal is nothing short of a solid contribution to a stable and secure long term energy supply to underpin our economic and social development in the years ahead. To this end Canada, through government funding, has firmly established international scale and world recognized research and development facilities, the principal mission of which is to sustain and safeguard our fission energy option both now and in the future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I noted the remarks made by the hon. parliamentary secretary. I am always pleased to hear him read his speeches because of the exciting way he does so. The beginning of his speech was so exciting that even the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was compelled to leave the House on business-momentarily. His speeches are so exciting that they make the answers given by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) during the question period sound positively vaudevillian, exciting and stimulating. The hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) has other discriptions for the hon. member's delivery but 1 shall not repeat them.
I shall, however, say something about the substance of the parliamentary secretary's speech. It was simply an incredible speech and showed a completely uncritical attitude toward the nuclear industry.


An hon. Member:: It was critical but it was not negative.
Candu Reactor Sales


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I heard nothing critical in the whole speech; no questioning, nothing.
This is the government that in reply to a question in this House today stated there was an inquiry under way with reference to the nuclear industry. Mr. Speaker, the nuclear question is probably one of the most crucial questions of the day. I am astounded at the parliamentary secretary's uncritical attitude toward the nuclear industry. It shows that the internal inquiry is not real. This government and the department should come clean with the Canadian people and say so.


Walter David Baker: Have a public inquiry.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) says it should be a public inquiry. That is what his government suggested and I shall return to that in a moment.
I have not finished with the parliamentary secretary yet but I want to deal with the remarks of the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert). He said he was not pleading for the sale of Candu reactors and was not pleading for information. What was he pleading for, then? I thought he had a tiger of a resolution here and was bringing up an important matter on the freedom of information and the important matter of the nuclear industry, but he fizzled out. He started off like a tiger and became a pussycat. I do not say that personally, but in effect that was the result of his speech.
He said he did not receive documents, but that it does not matter; that he was not asking for documents-in spite of putting the resolution forward-because they are probably of a private and confidential nature.
A new book has been published entitled "Deference to Authority: the Case of Canada" by an author called Frieden-berg. I am sorry I do not have the name of the publisher or the full title available. The book points out that we Canadians have such deference for authority we are afraid to question things and ask that they be brought out in the open; that we are almost a totalitarian society and that we will not look into things as the Americans will. This pertains to freedom of information, to the McDonald Inquiry, to the way RCMP is run and the way the Liberals run the Government of Canada. I shall come back to this, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. member did say he was pleading for a policy, a standard but he apparently objected to a standard being set. I do not think it is any secret but he mentioned that representatives from Argentina were in this country about a month ago. They visited Ottawa in secret. The Argentinian equivalent of the head of AECL came to see the government to get us to reduce our standards. So we do have a policy and we do have standards, Mr. Speaker, and I will congratulate the government on that. There are standards for the sale of Candu reactors overseas and the hon. member should know that and the difficulty of keeping to those standards.
1 believe we sold a reactor to India. They did not live up to the standards and built an atomic bomb, to their eternal disgrace. I can understand why they did it; because of the pressures on them and the difficulties of their foreign policy,

June 12, 1980
Candu Reactor Sales
but, nevertheless, I think the decision was wrong and it was a very important one.
There are policies and standards, Mr. Speaker. I believe the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) has stated that these standards will not be lowered, and in that he is right. The hon. member who just spoke said he does not want any policy at all. The policy he wants is laissez-faire- sell the reactor to anybody. If that is the case, I do not know why he brought the resolution.
I want to return now to the question of the Candu reactor itself, Mr. Speaker. It is a good reactor, if you like nuclear reactors. There are two problems with them and the first is a serious one. The fact is that we cannot dispose of nuclear waste. The parliamentary secretary said that with the proper support, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is confident it can solve the disposal problem. It has the proper support, Mr. Speaker, from the Government of Canada, but the government is not going to help them solve the disposal problem because it does not have the answers.
That is the fundamental question of our generation. It is a moral question, Mr. Speaker. Can we in this generation pass on to future generations an unsolved nuclear waste problem that may in fact destroy future generations and destroy the world? That is a fundamental moral question. For my part, 1 say no, we cannot, and some of my colleagues say no also.
Another problem that arises in the selling of the Candu reactors is whether those countries who buy them will live up to the safeguards. For example, India did not, and that is another problem.
To return to this matter of an inquiry, on May 1 of this year, as reported in Hansard at page 605, the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) asked about an inquiry, and referring to the Progressive Conservative government, he said this:
Our government initiated a national inquiry into domestic and international nuclear policy in Canada. Is it the intention of the Prime Minister to reconvene that national inquiry so that Canadians may have an input and there can be an assessment with respect to the direction of our national nuclear policy?
The parliamentary secretary then stood up and gave one of his solid answers, as follows:
Madam Speaker, there is no intention at the moment to begin a public inquiry of the type the hon. member has raised but, rather, to pursue an internal review as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources announced a few days ago.
At this point the hon. member for Saskatoon West asked a supplementary question, which reads as follows:
Will he be able to table as soon as possible the terms of reference with respect to an internal inquiry, and will the minister be in a position to let us know precisely the nature of that inquiry? Will the inquiry be open, and will the people of Canada have an opportunity to participate, whatever form it may take?
At this point, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) replied, and gave this answer:
Madam Speaker, I was involved in the discussions of this matter with the parliamentary secretary and the minister.
So it went right to the top level, to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister continued:
On behalf of the government, I would like to explain why we are not at this time organizing a public inquiry: it is because the time schedule for keeping our industry viable is very, very short.
We are now in danger of seeing the Canadian industry obsolete and lose its chance to sell in other countries of the world unless we make some quick decisions on some basic questions. It is in order to get these quick decisions that we in the government want to establish our own policy in a firm way.
There is no intention of preventing the Canadian public, concurrently or subsequently, from participating in various ways and expressing their views, but we cannot wait for a long inquiry to decide whether we stay in the game or get out of the game. That is the essence of the situation.
That is sort of like Alice in Wonderland, at the point where Alice was in Wonderland and the queen said, "Off with her head", to which Alice replied that she wanted a trial. But the queen said, "Off with her head first and then the trial". The quick decision is going to be over with, and it will have been taken.
I think the Prime Minister is making a big mistake in this area. Perhaps the Prime Minister wants to go down in Canadian history as one who has repatriated the constitution, in other words as the great constitutionalist. I predict that perhaps in 50 to 100 years from now historians are going to look back and say that is the man who ignored one of the most crucial issues of his time, the nuclear issue; by making an internal inquiry when the decision had already been made.
The big point today in this debate, and I thank the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) for raising the matter and smoking out the parliamentary secretary is that we got the terms of reference for the inquiry, and that was it. The inquiry is over, it is finished; we have had the trial, the head is off, and that is unacceptable.
Atomic Energy of Canada seems to feel that it is above participation, that it is above inquiry. If anyone wants to ask a question of Atomic Energy of Canada, any interested groups of citizens, we hear the reply that Atomic Energy of Canada will not participate, nor will it give us information. I wrote to Atomic Energy of Canada and asked how much it spent on public relations-a simple question. I suspect in the United States I would get an answer, or I could go to the Freedom of Information Act. But what did I get back? I received a snarky letter from a Hilary Pearson, parliamentary affairs officer. The letter reads:
In response to your request of May 1, 1980, for information concerning AECL public relations, please find attached the relevant figures for vote funded public affairs.
It would be appreciated if in future you would check the public accounts for the fiscal year in question prior to making a request for publicly available information.
That is typical of the attitude of the Atomic Energy of Canada. It thinks it is above everything; that it cannot be asked questions.


An hon. Member:: They are just above you.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Above me; I am a member of Parliament, like you. I would think that if you asked Atomic Energy of Canada, you would expect a reply. If it is above me, as the
June 12, 1980

hon. member said, it is certainly above all the other Canadians in the country who are seeking information.
I said this was tied in with freedom of information. Yesterday in the House this government was asked about freedom of information. It is going to bring in a bill as was indicated in the Speech from the Throne. It was also in the Speech from the Throne in 1978, and it has not been brought in yet. Sure the government will bring it in, but it will bring in an emasculated bill. The government will not put it to a court review when there is a dispute between a citizen and the government. The government is not going to make it apply to groups, such as Atomic Energy of Canada. I tell hon. members to mark my words. It is not in the interests of the authoritarian nature of the way we have been conducting public business in this country for Atomic Energy of Canada to have such a bill. It is not in the interests of the bureaucrats in the federal government to have that, and it is not in the interests of the Liberal Party of Canada. That is how they use their power and that is how they continue government in this country; not through authoritarian, but through a secretive type of government. It is not in their interest to open up government and let the fresh air in. I tell hon. members to mark my words and watch for that bill.
I just wish to compare Canada to the U.S. The Americans have a good freedom of information bill. They are looking at the nuclear industry critically, and they are not afraid to do so.
I have a magazine called the National Journal, in which is an article by a Mr. William J. Lanouette. He talks about the dangers that persist one year later at the Three-Mile Island nuclear plant. It is a fair article. He speaks of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission which is the American commission, and says this in his article;
Both the utility and the NRC are well aware that their public credibility has suffered from their handling of the Three-Mile Island accident and its aftermath. And both have pledged to involve the public in decisions that affect it.
I repeat that last sentence: "And both have pledged to involve the public in decisions that affect it." I say compare that to this government. The member on the government side is even afraid to ask for information or to press for information from Atomic Energy. Compare that to this attitude in the United States that both the agency and the company, and the government by implication, have pledged to involve the public in decisions that affect it.
We just heard the parliamentary secretary give a most remarkable speech in which it was clear that he is not prepared to involve the public in one of the most vital concerns of our generation.


Mr. Kelly:: Mr. Speaker, if there is time remaining in the time allotted for the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) might we ask some questions from this side of the House, if there are no objections?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member who had the floor does have a couple of moments left, and it is his
Candu Reactor Sales
privilege to accept questions from other members if he so wishes.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to hear from the other members. I am not sure, but perhaps the Chair could tell me, how long this matter will be debated?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ninety minutes.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I am informed 90 minutes, Mr. Speaker. 1 would like to hear from the other members. Personally, I would like to see the matter come to a decision. 1 would rather the debate proceed than answer questions. It would save time.


Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to speak on this motion. In doing so, I will in a way be speaking about a very important part of my life. 1 spent a large part of my professional life in the nuclear energy industry.
I wish to begin by saying that the nuclear energy industry in Canada and throughout the world has come of age. There is an increasing realization that if mankind is to progress and overcome the poverty in the Third World, it must have access to energy sources that have been developed by mankind. The nuclear energy resource is one that literally developed in the last half century.
In Canada, it has basically been developed over the last 35 years. It is a triumph of Canadian excellence in the area of research and development. This is a magnificent triumph of Canadians which is recognized throughout the world. Indeed, the Canadian excellence can be compared to the excellence of development in any area in the world in history. Canadians can be very proud that they have contributed to the development of nuclear energy.
That is not to say there are not concerns about this industry and apprehension by society at large. One of the reasons for this is that the industry has been kept underground. It has not been allowed to come forth into the open and present to the Canadian public and the rest of the world the substance of the whole effort of producing energy through nuclear fission and nuclear fusion. Indeed, the energy of the sun is nothing more than nuclear fusion. The world is sustained by nuclear fusion. We find that quite acceptable because it is at a distance.
I am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt, as are many experts in this field, that mankind not only needs nuclear energy desperately in the evolving civilization, but knows how and has available at its fingertips the ability to cope with the problems resulting from this industry.
There is no problem so severe that mankind cannot solve it. I am referring to technical problems. The one thing mankind cannot solve seems to be fear. There is much fear, unjustly expressed, about this industry. For example, it is said we could not possibly solve the nuclear waste disposal problem.
The surface of the world has no end of radioactive deposits. In India one finds great areas of sand with fairly high radioactivity, and it has been there for ages. Indeed, cosmic radia-

June 12, 1980
Candu Reactor Sales
tion, which is of a similar nature to nuclear reactors, heats the earth and impacts upon the earth all the time. There is a danger that we may be altering the atmosphere of the world such that the cosmic radiation may intensify considerably faster than anything from nuclear energy.
The first point I want to make is that mankind does not have a problem but an opportunity for potential success. Second, it has no choice but to use the success. Third, mankind will use this opportunity regardless of what some groups of society say today. The point is this; mankind must use it sensibly, rationally and with understanding rather than with fear and misunderstanding as advocated by some groups today.
One of the first things that must be realized in a progression toward acceptance in this area, because there still is great, great fear from the association of this industry with the atom bomb, the fusion bomb and the fission bomb, is that today there is development of radiation for curing cancer. Indeed, there are many areas where radiation is being used advantageously.
I come back to the essence of this problem, the fact that the whole area of research and technology must be brought into the open. It must be set up before all people so that they know what we are dealing with. They should know whether the solutions are there today or are going to be found tomorrow.
The greatest steps made in the Thirty-first Parliament were in two areas. The first was the freedom of information bill that was brought before this House. Its purpose was to get into the dark corners of the government and technology so the public would know what was going on. The second most important resolution or motion was brought forward by the government House leader. It was motion No. 3, brought forward on October 24, 1979. It proposed:
That a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons be appointed to inquire into the economic, social, environmental, health and international considerations bearing upon the role of the Government of Canada in the development, use, regulation and export of nuclear energy, including but not limited to:
(a) Energy and economic policy considerations:
It was not limited to economic, social, environmental and federal-provincial considerations, but international considerations. This inquiry of the two Houses was given the widest possible terms of reference. It was permitted to dig into all the dark corners of this industry and put on the table for the people of Canada and the world where the shortcomings existed. It was also to put on the table the triumph, because this has been a triumph in Canadian technology; a triumph of Canadian excellence. Let no one say differently. The world recognizes this.
On February 18 of this year the government changed. Instead of coming forward and saying to the people of Canada; we will bring before you, to a large degree, the future energy sources for mankind, and I repeat that solar energy is literally nothing more than fission energy; we will open the gates and the cupboards and tell you what we have done as a government over the past 35 years and what we are doing today in this field of technology and commerce in order to study nuclear
energy. This government is filled with fear. Why is that so? It is going to do an internal examination and review. In the few short months we were in government we had occasion to speak with the AECL people and to have before us in the energy committee last fall-
May I call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The hour for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening, at which time the House will resume debate on Bill C-30.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen that Bill C-30, to provide supplementary borrowing authority for the fiscal year 1980-81, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. When the debate was interrupted at 5 p.m. the motion for second reading of Bill C-30 was under consideration and the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) had the floor.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, at five o'clock I was speaking about how in the past 12 years the government had been spending money. I was trying to bring to the attention of the government that it is now asking for $12 billion without giving the public a clear understanding as to how it will be spent.
We have dealt with how the government has spent money in the past, and that is a pretty dismal record. I would also like to deal with where money has been spent. I have given several indications of why we feel very strongly that we have been short-changed, and I would like to bring a couple more of those indications forward. Simply put, I think the cow seems to be fed in the west and milked in the east. A good indication of that could be seen in the House about a week ago. I asked the minister who answers on matters relating to the Canadian Wheat Board if he would consider, in times of drought in western Canada-and particularly after farmers had subsidized the price of bread in Canada to some $25 million since
June 12, 1980

the first of February-if he would give the same consideration as that given by the Conservative government in power just a year ago. I received the following answer:
On May 29, you inquired in the House whether the government would increase the price of domestic grain as of February 1, 1980, and how farmers are to recover the $25 million they have lost.
A little further on he says:
There is therefore no plan to reimburse producers for their costs as a result of the program during the recent period when world prices were above the domestic maximum.
It was interesting to note, however, that a day later I received on my desk a news release from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) stating:
Agriculture Minister Eugene Whelan today announced that a cheque for $5 million has been sent to Quebec-
A little further down it says:
Under the Quebec program, the federal government is providing $33.5 million over a five-year period-
All I want to suggest is that it is high time we in this House gave some consideration to where moneys are being spent. We in my constituency ask for some consideration, particularly in view of the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in his Speech from the Throne asked that special consideration be given to western Canada because there was no representation, for the most part, in western Canada. I am glad 1 can stand in this House this evening and speak for a party which has members in all provinces of Canada. I believe it is important when the government is considering its spending-particularly in the case of spending $12 billion-that it consider fairness.
There came to my desk today a news release from the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), which says:
The Minister of Transport's intention to deprive over 7500 western grain farmers of 1000 miles of rail branch lines is another indication of the Trudeau government's misunderstanding of and indifference to the needs and objectives of western Canada.
This leads me to another point about government spending, which I think is very important and relevant to Bill C-30. We have come through a time when, in western Canada in particular, we were not moving grain. It is all right to talk about government spending and so on, and to criticize it, but it is another thing to come up with some answers. I suggest that there are some answers. One answer is found in productivity. Western farmers have produced wheat. We had not put in a system of rail grain movement in general that was handling our production, and that was a gross error on the part of the government that is in power today. The former minister of transport, the hon. member for Vegreville, did a tremendous job of adjusting some of the inadequacies and some of the problems that existed in that area, and this is bringing about some results today. It looks like we are back to the old game; 1,000 miles of transportation is in question. I suggest it is very important that we look at productivity. I represent people who are very productive in two areas: agriculture and the oil industry. If we are going to find some solutions to the prob-
Borrowing Authority Act
lems and stop the extravagant spending of the government, we had better find some solutions to productivity problems.
Our government was blocked. In fact, it was put out of power, and, if I recall correctly, I was the last speaker before the government was put out of power. We brought down a budget which would have provided a way to make Canada productive, particularly in energy, which is very important and will be very important to Canada. It is interesting to note that to this point the government, after only several months, has done nothing about an oil pricing agreement. There have been no negotiations which have brought forward any result in terms of coming to an agreement. At this point the two sides seem further apart. OPEC is talking about $37 a barrel for oil, and we in western Canada are receiving less than half the world price. We basically have no program for self-sufficiency or production.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Confrontation and arrogance.


Leonard J. Gustafson: What brought all this on? For the past 12 years of Trudeau Liberal government the Prime Minister has allowed socialist trends to develop.
These trends have been the downfall of this country having regard to productivity, the lack of which has been unequalled in the history of Canada. Unless we reverse the trend in agricultural production-


An hon. Member:: That's right, back to the stone age.


Leonard J. Gustafson: -and in industry, this country will face problems for many years.
I want to give you some indication from a very homey experience. I was involved in the contracting business, house moving. We moved a house for a gentleman to a town called Kipling. I happened to move that house in which he was retiring. He was of Hungarian origin and came over here as a pioneer. He took an axe in his hand and said, "What can I build?" On that farm was a log house that he built. The next house beside the log house was the one in which he lived from about 1920 to about 1948, and I am only guessing. He was using that house for a tool shed, and the house which we moved into Kipling for him and in which he retired was built by him in about 1948 or 1949. A story was told in that farmyard of someone who came to Canada, picked up an axe and said, "What can I build?" He hewed out, in the Canadian way-and he was one example of many great Canadians from various origins-a tremendous future which I as a member of Parliament and other members of Parliament and their sons and daughters are enjoying in Canada today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard J. Gustafson: The opposite trend to that in recent years has been to ask, "What can we get for nothing?"


An hon. Member:: The Tories.

June 12, 1980
Borrowing Authority Act


Leonard J. Gustafson: The socialist theory, brought into being in this country predominantly by the Leader of the Government today, has brought this country to a situation where we have forgotten about production.
I want to take my point one step further. In 1900, 97 per cent of the people were involved in agriculture; today, less than 5 per cent of the people are involved in agriculture. They produce enough food to feed all the people in North America and a good number of people around the world. Production is the word. Our farm boys produce in western Canada and in eastern Canada. In the west they work side by side with the oil boys who are out there pumping oil in temperatures of 40 below. There is some cost to production. The NDP and the Liberal parties have forgotten about that.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Leonard J. Gustafson: They have forgotten about it completely, seemingly.


An hon. Member:: What are you talking about?


Leonard J. Gustafson: Production and the fact that we must produce. But what is the story in the oil industry?


An hon. Member:: Tell us.


Leonard J. Gustafson: A lot of this work has been done by farm boys who worked on these oil wells and produced. The story is this, plain and simple. We in Canada are now furnishing, through production, oil for half price, but we are running far behind because the government has not put a program in place so that we can become self-sufficient in this country and so that, through production, we can have the wherewithal to make this country self-sufficient in energy.
I want to suggest to you that in the next few years, and perhaps next winter, one of the most important words will be energy. I want to suggest that you cannot produce food without energy. Canada is counting on this government. Canada is counting on this House of Commons. Canada is counting on the Liberal government on that side of the House-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard J. Gustafson: -to bring an end to senseless spending. They are counting on you and they are counting on us. It is most important that we bring some responsibility back to the way in which we handle the finances of the taxpayer and the finances the government controls. Here we are asked to approve borrowing authority for $12 billion. But are we going to be productive?


An hon. Member:: Yes.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Are we going to have some foresight-


An hon. Member:: No.


An hon. Member:: We always have.


Leonard J. Gustafson: -or are we not?


An hon. Member:: Not from you.


Leonard J. Gustafson: As I said, we have not had an oil agreement. What has the government done?


An hon. Member:: Alberta is overpaid now.


Leonard J. Gustafson: I want to quote from the Leader-Post. The article is entitled, "Messer sees different oil price deal". It reads:
Messer said Lalonde is "somewhat mistaken" to assume co-operation means Saskatchewan would settle for less than Alberta. In fact, Saskatchewan is looking for a better deal than that sought by the other provinces.
"We want a better deal, better in terms of enhancing and encouraging more resource development-
That is the key. It is not simply to get oil as cheaply as possible, with no conservation, and to use it up, with no direction in production. In our budget a year ago in this House we put into place a program which would make Canada self-sufficient in energy-


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


An hon. Member:: You were still on holiday.


Leonard J. Gustafson: -and also a program that would not put this country into debt. It w[DOT] s looked at and commented upon by economists and by ex rts in many cases as an excellent budget.


Marc Lalonde: Ask Bill [ avis; and what about the minister of finance in Ontario?


Leonard J. Gustafson: The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), appealing to the voters in this country, simply did one thing. He offered eastern Canada western Canada's resources at a price he cannot deliver. I want to suggest to you that this type of program will not work. But there is a program that will work; one of being responsible, a program of a fair price for a commodity and a program which looks into the future and to the welfare of this country.


An hon. Member:: What is a fair price?


An hon. Member:: Give us a fair price.


Leonard J. Gustafson: I see that my time is nearly up. I would like to say in closing that in terms of the excess spending we have seen in the last 12 years by the Liberal government, as never in the history of this country-


An hon. Member:: The PCs have never spent, they have never been there.


Leonard J. Gustafson: I challenge you. The people of Canada are counting on this House for responsible direction.


An hon. Member:: That is what they will get.
June 12, 1980


Leonard J. Gustafson: The deficit of this government is nearly the same as one year's deficit of the United States which has ten times the population. Do you call that responsible?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired. Ele may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State, Small Businesses):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly feel very privileged to speak tonight on Bill C-30, in view of the very obvious lack of understanding by many Canadians of the way in which our fiscal spending operates at the federal level. Furthermore, I should like to place on record the amount of federal funding provided to our senior citizens and to those in need of financial help. It amounts to slightly over $11 billion for 1980-81, or 19.1 per cent of our budgetary outlay.
The federal system provides that a transfer of payments be made in order that all Canadians are provided with a standard of living commensurate with other regions of Canada. The area of major expenditure in this context, of course, is the imported oil subsidy that ensures an equitable price structure to those areas of Canada which do not have access to our own domestic resources and have to import. It must be an equitable price structure for all Canadian consumers which enables our industries, farmers and fishermen to compete in international markets and thus provide jobs and opportunities for Canadians across this nation.
The transfer payments to the provinces for joint funding projects provide senior citizens with apartments through CMHC. 1 am proud of the fact that the Government of Canada is currently providing, by way of guaranteed loans, funding for these facilities to ensure that our citizens who helped build this nation have a retirement which is free of apprehension and want. I was sorry to learn tonight that the government of Ontario will be raising the rents on senior citizens' apartments by $18 per month when the leases come up for renewal. It seems very ironic that less than two weeks ago we in this House increased the guaranteed income supplement by $35 per household. The Liberals giveth, the Tories taketh away.
Another project funded by the same department is the sewage disposal projects and water purification plants where loans, forgivable loans and high cost grants were available, in some instances amounting to over 25 per cent of the total cost. The areas requiring massive amounts of federal funding, and rightly so, are the old age pensions, and of course to a lesser degree, the guaranteed income supplement, the Canada Pension Plan, unemployment insurance and family allowances. These programs ensure that our Canadian people enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world. I would suggest to
Borrowing Authority Act
the House that to cut expenditures in these areas I have mentioned thus far would be irresponsible and would cause a degree of suffering in Canada that has not existed since the dirty thirties. Therefore, it becomes obvious that, if we are'to maintain a standard of living which reflects equality for Canadians, we cannot dispense with either the transfer payments or the social benefits provided to senior citizens and those in need.
To ensure the continuation of these programs in relation to payments to persons we require current expenditures in this area which amount to 19.1 per cent of total federal expenditures. Certainly I hope hon. members across the House are not suggesting we cut back in this area and inflict untold hardships on those in need and those who have worked so hard to make this nation the best in the world. The federal government will spend 32 per cent of its total outlay on the health and welfare of Canadians in 1980-81.
If we are to ensure continuity of opportunity and quality of life across this nation, we must maintain a strong federal presence in these areas, so that the funds transferred to the provinces in need are used in a manner which does not create economic imbalance in other areas of Canada. I should like to point out that over 20 per cent of the main estimates represent transfer payments to the provinces, the territories or the municipalities. The major program associated with fiscal transfer programs is equalization. Perhaps we should not forget that we spend $5.7 billion for the financing of hospital insurance, medicare and post-secondary education. These contributions by the federal government to the provinces are intended to provide more stability in spending patterns and to provide the provinces with flexibility to administer their own programs. This federal contribution consists of a combination of cash payments and income tax transfers, both of which grow with our economy.
Certainly I hope hon. members across the way are not suggesting a cutback in the area of defence spending, which accounts for 10.5 per cent of our expenditures. With the unrest in the world today, our commitment to world peace must be honoured. I hope no one here would suggest we cut back our spending relating to food production or in any other area which contributes to our well-being, the creation of jobs or export opportunities in any region of Canada. It is in the area of economic development and support that we spend about 13.1 per cent of our total budget. While the expenditures may seem high, can we really do without the benefits provided by the central government? May I point out that only 18 per cent of our expenditures are used for government administrative services. However, if we were operating as a corporation or a company, naturally we would look at our borrowing requirements as an investment in our future. Let there be no doubt about it, we have a great future, but only if we utilize our resources, our human and renewable resources, and exercise care in the use of non-renewable resources which are so scarce in the world today.
There is no doubt that all of us have borrowed at one time or another for our businesses or our farms, to purchase our homes

June 12, 1980
Borrowing Authority Act
or to further our education. Certainly we do this in anticipation of our potential. I submit that the potential in Canada is being developed in many sectors. For example, our offshore fishing rights have been extended to the 200-mile limit. This has provided stability to the industry in British Columbia and the Atlantic provinces, and has created jobs and opportunities which have brought increased sources of income to those particular areas. I am delighted another area of wealth and prosperity is being developed in the Atlantic provinces. I am referring here to the energy discovered off Newfoundland and Sable Island. I hope these new areas of prosperity will enhance the life styles of Canadians living in those regions, and that the need for central government transfer payments will diminish. As these needs diminish, and as these new sources of energy bring new wealth to this region, the need for energy equalization payments will no longer exist.
Bill C-30 provides borrowing authority of $12 billion for the year 1980-81. A few moments ago I referred to the fact that most of us at one time or another have borrowed funds in order to utilize our potential and realize our dreams. If we do not have this borrowing authority, must we cut back on the aid to our senior citizens? No, we must not place additional hardships on our senior citizens, the people who worked so long and hard to build this great nation. Should we cut back on energy transfer payments to the Atlantic provinces until their own resources come on stream? No, we must ensure that these Canadians have a continuation of their standard of living and not a deterioration of that lifestyle. Should we cut back on our joint funding programs? No, but we should carefully re-examine the method of transfer to ensure, for example, that all Canadians have access to hospitals and medical care, not to mention equal opportunities for secondary education.
I believe the government has shown responsibility over the last several years by curtailing growth of the public service in 1977-78, and reducing the size since that time. The net reduction for 1980-81 will be 5,840 person-years compared with the previous year. As Canadians we should be proud of our record over the last several years. While our per capita debt increased during the recent years of high energy costs, the federal per capita debt at the national level increased by less than half that of the province of Ontario during the same period. I am proud to point out that we have a lower per capita debt than our neighbours to the south. For example, the U.S. per capita debt is about $3,500 per person, while our Canadian debt is about $2,500 per person.
When we compare the base of our potential with that of other nations, it is obvious that Canada has a great future, a future that is the envy of the industrialized world. Bill C-30 seeks borrowing authority of $12 billion for the fiscal year 1980-81. This bill also seeks explicit authorization for the government to borrow in foreign currencies as well as in Canadian dollars. The government's projected budget and non-budgetary cash requirements for the Fiscal year 1980-81 amount to $11,730 million. This amount excludes requirements for foreign exchange transactions.
In addition to these forecast cash requirements, there is always the need for a substantial margin of borrowing authority to provide for contingencies. For example, there are major uncertainties arising from foreign exchange transactions, since either a major weakening or a major strengthening of the exchange rate would have an impact upon the borrowing requirements of the government. If the Canadian dollar were to be strong, then the government would have to raise more Canadian dollars to borrow foreign exchange. On the other hand, the Canadian dollar could be weakened. Under those circumstances, the government would then be faced with the need to borrow foreign currencies.
This margin of borrowing authority is being provided by unused borrowing authority obtained prior to November, 1979, which is not subject to automatic cancellation at the end of the fiscal year. This unused borrowing authority, which is available for use at any time and which shall be carried forward, amounted to approximately $2.9 billion at the beginning of the fiscal year 1980-81. All unused borrowing authority obtained under the Borrowing Authority Act, 1979-80, was cancelled or lapsed on March 31, 1980. That refers to the borrowing authority granted by the Flouse at the request of the former minister of finance.
Consequently to date, in fiscal 1980-81, new moneys raised have been charged to the $2.9 billion of unused borrowing authority obtained earlier and carried forward. However, these unused borrowing powers are rapidly being used up, and the government requires new borrowing authority to enable it to continue with the 1980-81 debt program. The borrowing authority of $12 billion now being requested, along with the remaining portion of the unused borrowing powers obtained in prior years and still available, should be sufficient to complete the borrowing program this fiscal year as well as to provide a margin for contingencies.
All outstanding and unused borrowing authority provided by this new act for fiscal 1980-81, in respect of which no action has been taken by the governor in council pursuant to section 37 of the Financial Administration Act, will be cancelled on March 31, 1980.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, the passage of Bill C-30 is required for the current fiscal year of 1980-81 to ensure the continuation of the programs so essential to the well-being of our citizens, and to ensure the continuing realization of our potential as a great and united Canada.


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, this is the third opportunity I have had to participate in a debate on a request by the government for the borrowing of some billions of dollars. It is a subject which is particularly close to my heart because, as the hon. member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski), who is sitting close to me now but was not so close in those days, will remember, that was the subject of my maiden speech in October, 1978.
One year later, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), who was for a brief period the minister of finance, brought down a request for some $7 billion, and I had an
June 12, 1980

opportunity to speak in that debate, as did certain other members, and I will refer to them later. Today we have a government which is requesting S12 billion in borrowing authority from this House. In the interests of consistency, but also in the interests of something broader, I would like simply to once again go over the arguments which were made by both opposition parties-first by the Conservatives and ourselves in 1978, and then the Liberals and ourselves in 1979, and now again the New Democratic Party joined in opposition by the Conservatives to this particular request.
The way in which the Government of Canada, whether it be a Liberal government or a Conservative government, has gone about requesting from Parliament the authority to borrow either on domestic or international markets some billions of dollars is something which we as a Parliament must consider, look at very carefully and ask ourselves, in as non-partisan a fashion as we can, whether this is really the best way to conduct our affairs.
The origin of Parliament lies in the control of the public purse. The origin of Parliament and the tremendous conflicts between monarchy and the people in the seventeenth century and afterwards took place in England because the monarchy refused to treat the people with sufficient respect. The monarchy insisted on conducting its foreign wars without going to Parliament for approval. As well as the conflict being a question of religion and of the rights of democratic principles, it was about taxation and representation. I suggest to the government that those principles are just as important now, if not more important, than they were at the time of the rise of Parliament, considering how we conduct our affairs.
We are being asked to allow the government to borrow billions of dollars anywhere in the world, at whatever rate it should or can. Such a request has not only been made by this government, and I do not think that it is a question of attacking-though I certainly will have something to say about the particular conduct of this government and its Minister of Finance-put by previous Liberal and Conservative governments. Where is the opportunity for members of Parliament to question? Some members opposite will always say, "You can always question in committee."
You, being an experienced member of this House, Mr. Speaker, know how our committee system works and how overburdened our committees are. You, sir, know how responsive ministers are to questions in committee. You know to what extent members of Parliament are really able to deal with the hard, difficult, tendentious matters and come up with conclusions.
I suggest to the government, as I suggested to the hon. member for St. John's West when he was the minister of finance, and to the hon. member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien) when he was the minister of finance, that it is no longer good enough to simply come into this Parliament and ask for a blank cheque without presenting a budget at the same time and without giving an indication as to what the revenue picture will be-in other words, where the money is coming from, how it will be raised, how people will be taxed
Borrowing Authority Act
and whether there will be indexation. Nor has the government explained how it intends to spend the money. Where is this money going?
It is in my view, Mr. Speaker, absurd for us to continue year after year with this cockamamy approach to the control of public expenditure and to this utterly cockamamy approach to the financial affairs of the country. As I say, it is not a partisan question. If 1 were a member of the government 1 would be equally concerned and if I were a member of cabinet I would be equally concerned. They know where these figures come from-the civil service. They give the economic policy here-the civil servants. Governments come and go-


Mr. Corbin:: Some do.


Bob Rae: Yours did and it will again. It is the entrenched force of the civil service which is there forever and it is that force we as members of Parliament have to be able to question, to grill, to find out what they intend to do, where they intend to raise the money and what they intend to do with it.
While browsing through the previous debates on this subject I came across the intervention last year by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) who is known in my part of the world as "Amazing Gray". He spoke on October 23, 1979, in his then incarnation-he once was fired but now he is hired. Amazing Gray-as the official spokesman for the opposition on financial matters.
The minister was in the House a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, and I am sorry he is not here now to listen carefully to his own words. All you have to do is change the label "Conservative" for "Liberal" and you have a very strong argument. I wonder if it is the same argument he makes in cabinet. We will never know. This is quite a long quotation but I think it is worth putting on the record. He said, as reported at page 509 of Hansard:
Rather than using what appears to be a device to enable it to borrow to finance the activities of government if revenues fall because of economic growth being lower than predicted for the balance of the fiscal year, the government should move more quickly than it intends to present a budget. It should be a budget that contains measures of a focused and specific nature-
I wish he would tell the minister what the word "focused" means. He went on:
-to help our economy become more productive and efficient and to deal with our deficit in current account.
While the government may argue it does not have a lot of room for manoeuvre-
How many times have we heard ministers of finance, Tory and Liberal, Liberal and Tory, tell us that they do not have any room for manoeuvre. To continue:
-it has just given us a new explanation of its stimulative deficit, just the opposite of what it said before and during the election-
How many times have we heard ministers of finance say just the opposite before and after an election. He went on:
I believe it does have some room in a budget for measures of the kind I have suggested, measures which would at least blunt and contain the adverse effects

June 12, 1980
Borrowing Authority Act
on the economy of the slow-down, the recession which is likely to be, unfortunately, already under way.
Then the final paragraph from Amazing Gray when he said:
But there is another serious flaw in the way the Conservatives-


Steve Eugene Paproski: Here comes the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Resign.


Bob Rae: The minister went on to say:
-are proceeding with this first financial measure they have called for debate in this new Parliament. They are seeking this $7 billion in borrowing authority in Bill C-10 without first presenting their own budget to Parliament. We do not have from the Conservatives a statement to this House, in the form of a budget, on what they expect the revenues and expenditures of this new government to be, and what will be the resulting deficit and cash requirements to be financed by borrowing for the balance of this fiscal year.
That was October 23, 1979, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: How soon we forget.


Bob Rae: How soon we forget the basic principle. The basic principle that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce was putting forward in 1979 was that the Conservative government at that time should not be asking for billions of dollars without first presenting a budget. If that principle applied six months ago why does it not apply today?


Mr. Beatty:: Because the Grits are the government.


Bob Rae: The hon. member says it is because the Liberals are the government. Let me say to that hon. member that his government was exactly the same in 1979, and when they were in opposition in 1978. On this particular question it simply will not do for us to go back and forth every six months with the parties in opposition saying what they would do if they were in government, then becoming the government and doing the reverse. The people making the decisions on our financial affairs are exactly the same, apart from those people who are frothing about on the surface of our political life, the members of cabinet. The critical question is, who is in charge?
The basic principle we are putting forward is that there should be, at least three or four times a year, a presentation by a minister of the Crown to this House. It should be in the form of a statement on motions, about which he could be asked questions, and which would be referred to a committee, or in the form of a budget about which members could ask questions and cross-examine, or a statement as to where the money is to come from, what the taxation plans of the government are, where it will go and how they intend to spend it.
It is fantastic that we continue to conduct our affairs in this manner. It is fantastic that the only statement we have had from the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) regarding his views of the economy and what he might or might not do, what is possible, what may be the case or may not be the case, are the tealeaves that he left on the floor of the House of Commons on April 21 which we have been trying to read since, and the droppings he leaves after any question period
which we have to examine to try to determine what the position of the government is.
We had the famous trial balloon on the question of the deficit from the Minister of Finance. He gave an interview- one of the exclusive interviews which he gives to the odd, favoured, members of the press, not to members of Parliament-to Le Devoir. He said it was probable-not possible, but probable-that the government would de-index the deductions and exemptions on income tax, and thus hoped to raise over $1.5 billion.
Then the deputy minister of finance spoke to the newly established Senate committee on the national finance, where all the important people seem to go these days. Dr. Stewart, the deputy minister, and Governor Bouey were there recently, giving their views on the economic situation. Dr. Stewart raised the same possibility that de-indexing in a general way might take place.
Today in this House we put another question about the tax system and the Minister of Finance gave us an answer to the effect that it was pure speculation, whether the government planned to de-index. It is not pure speculation, Mr. Speaker. This is coming from one quarter and one quarter only-the Department of Finance and the Minister of Finance. This is an odd way to conduct affairs.
In the latest edition of The Economist, the British magazine of economic affairs, there is an article in the World Business section about our Minister of Finance. 1 am surprised he stopped long enough for them to focus the camera, but there is a picture of him. Underneath the picture is the line, "MacEac-hen's ballooning". Among other things the article points out that the economic cost to this country of having no budget from last December until next year is:
-that fiscal measures are still in limbo while monetary policy, set on a moderately restrictive path, carries the anti-inflation load for the time being until a budget can be agreed.
I honestly do not see how the government can expect us to pass, to accept, or to vote in favour of a request for $ 12 billion when it has not told us what its taxation policy is, or what are its spending plans. In fact, this government has abused the House, played with the House and sent up trial balloons which are then shot down. This government has indicated that taxes may have to be raised in a general way, but we are not told which taxes have to be raised. The hon. member says this will come in a budget. In that case, the government should not be asking for $12 billion until such time as it is prepared to present a budget, so that we can pass on the whole financial picture.
The government cannot have it both ways. This government cannot conduct its financial affairs in a complete fog, the fog of dust, led by the Minister of Finance. Every time he makes a statement he totally confuses the public. It totally confuses the business people and destroys business confidence. It destroys the confidence which the average person has in the Government of Canada.
June 12, 1980


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bob Rae: I see 1 have stirred up some of the sleeping lions who 1 know will vote for whatever measure the cabinet puts forward, and we have seen evidence of that, regardless of how strange it may be. I just want to speak to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Evans) about his own contribution and the contribution of the Minister for Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray). Perhaps the minister will stand up and tell us how it is that events are now so different that a budget was required in October before he was prepared to accept the request for $7 billion and yet somehow, strangely, a budget is not required in June when his government is asking for $12 billion?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Tell us, Herb.


Bob Rae: That is a riddle or a conundrum I would like the minister to try to answer for us tonight in the House of Commons. The government cannot answer that question. There is a total contradiction between the kinds of statements and the kinds of things that were being said about deficits, about spending, about the nature of stopping deficits, the nature of taxation, the nature of the recession and what the Liberal party would do when it was elected, and what its record has been since it was elected.
There has been a total contradiction in the statements that were made by the financial spokesman for the Liberal party prior to the election and what the government has been saying since the election. There is a complete contradiction, and that contradiction has to be brought home again, again and again to the Canadian people. But above all else, this party opposite is a party without a shred of principle, without a shred of conviction and without a shred of belief in anything, either political or economic.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bob Rae: The only principle which keeps that motley band together is the lust for power. That is the only thing that keeps them there. When did we hear, prior to the election, from the Liberal party that a higher deficit was causing inflation? We heard that statement from the Liberal party when it was in opposition.


An hon. Member:: They will divorce you if you are not careful.


Bob Rae: In opposition, it was the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) who said that deficits are less important than people. That is what he said. When will we hear that statement from the Minister of Finance, from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, from the Parliamentary Secretary or from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)? When will we hear those statements? When will we have a clear indication, now when the economy is heading into a recession, when our capacity for utilization of our industries is falling to 80 per cent, when in some industries it is below 70 per cent, when our unemployment rate for the fiftieth month in a row has been
Borrowing Authority Act
over 7 per cent of our labour force, that the government will reduce the deficit? If it is going to reduce the deficit, how will it be done, how will it raise the taxes and what expenditures will be cut?
The parliamentary secretary says that we have to get the deficit down. There are only two ways to do it, either by cutting expenditures or raising revenues. That is a statement with which no member of this House who has the moderate knowledge of mathematics, which the parliamentary secretary possesses, could disagree. That is not the question. They are the government. I ask them what they are going to do. Will they raise revenues or will they cut expenditures? I ask when and how will this be done? Until the government answers those questions, it does not deserve to get a penny authorized from this House, not a cent.
We should return to the historic role of Parliament. Parliament has to control the purse. Parliament has to exercise authority over the affairs of the country, not the Senate, and not by the Deputy Minister of Finance going to the Senate and giving a long philosophical discussion of what he might or might not do. This will not be done by the governor of the Bank of Canada giving speeches right across Canada saying what the economic policy of governments past and present have been or will be because whatever happens, Bouey XVI will be there for years to come. That is not the way policy is supposed to be made. Policy is supposed to be made here in Parliament, and it should be accountable to Parliament. We are the people who have been elected and we are the people from whom the rest of Canada expects some leadership and accountability.
We have this ritual that we go through with this government-and we went through it with the Tory government-of waiting months and months for a budget, having no indication of what its policy is, having dribs and drabs of statements, some saying the deficit has to go higher and the Prime Minister saying one moment that he is not particularly concerned about the deficit, the Minister of Finance saying that it is a very serious problem, Governor Bouey saying he is not worried about the fact that there will be extensive capital investment which will cause tremendous problems to the country in years ahead, and Dr. Stewart saying the reverse a week later in front of exactly the same Senate committee. This is no way to conduct the financial affairs of the country. It is certainly no way to conduct the financial affairs of Canada.
In closing, I want to make one point perfectly clear.


Henry Perrin Beatty: The last person to say that was Richard Nixon.


An hon. Member:: That is not a comparison.


An hon. Member:: That is a good parallel.


Mr. Chenier:: Now he is lost for words.


Bob Rae: The economy is heading into a serious recession. The American economy is heading into a more major recession than was ever anticipated. This is no time for the government to be contemplating serious tax increases when there is no

June 12, 1980
Borrowing Authority Act
evidence of excessive demand in the economy, either in the government sector, the private sector, or from consumer demand. That statement has to be made. It is many times said, almost as an incantation of faith, that the current deficit is causing major inflation and that we have to raise taxes in order to fight it. That is an incantation of faith which has no basis in fact. The fact is the general level of demand in the Canadian economy is dropping, dropping dramatically and dropping seriously. This is no time for the government to be contemplating, in any way, shape or form, tax increases which would only have the effect of hurting the average Canadian and of hurting the level of growth in our society.
It is all very well for the Minister of Finance to talk about inflation being public enemy No. 1, or the major problem facing the Canadian economy. Of course it is a major problem. Let me suggest to the government opposite that it was an obsession with the deficit and an obsession with using monetary and fiscal policy in order to fight inflation that led to the' defeat of the Conservative government in December, 1979. The Liberal Party of Canada was not elected as a government in order to raise taxes at the present time, or to reduce expenditures at the present time, or to dramatically reduce the deficit at the present time. That was not the message the hon. member for Windsor West took to the Canadian people at that time. Nor is it the message that the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) and the hon. member for Timmins-Chap-leau (Mr. Chenier), who has been so noisy this evening, took to them. The message they took was quite the opposite. Their message was that people were important, that the Tory budget was unfair and that they would not introduce the same budget. They have broken faith with the Canadian people more than once.
I want to give notice to the government that we will fight every inch of the way any effort by this government to tax the Canadian people in a punitive way as our economy is heading into a serious recession. It is economic suicide. It may be politically popular in some circles, possibly for those whose financial help keeps the heads of those in the Liberal party and the Tory party above water, but that is not the reason they were elected. It is certainly not the reason we were elected to Parliament and we have no intention of letting them get away with it.


Mr. Roger Simmons (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-30 on which we are to vote in the next half hour or so will give the government borrowing authority in the order of 12-


Mr. Taylor:: On a point or order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not our turn to speak at this time?


Mr. Anguish:: 1 believe it is.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect, there is a division between two sides of the House. I understand a certain
number were recognized on one side and on the other side. I am not aware that there is any break in the order.


Gordon Edward Taylor: There was a PC speaker, then a Liberal speaker and then there was an NDP speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to hear what the hon. member who just intervened has to say on this subject. Since we on this side have been asked so many questions by those in opposition, I think we should take some time to respond and give our side of the story. I would like to talk for a few minutes about the bill before us, which would give the government borrowing authority of $12 billion for the fiscal year 1980-81.
I listened with some interest to the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson), who unfortunately is not now in his seat. I see he is elsewhere in the chamber. He talked a great deal about how much the government has spent over the last 12 years. I wonder why he chose 12 years as opposed to some other number, why he did not go back a little further. Had he gone back just a few more years he would have been able to talk about a party in government of his own particular stripe, a Tory government.
When he was lamenting the size of the deficit being in the order of 24 per cent or 25 per cent, he could have made a very good comparison with another government, a Tory government, which sat in office here in Ottawa between 1957 and 1962. It had a deficit of something around 34 per cent, not 24 per cent or 25 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Roger Simmons: That member very conveniently chose his time period. He wanted to avoid talking about that period of government. I can understand that he did not want to talk about the eight months of interim government led by the hon. member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark). Perhaps it is not fair to make too many comparisons. However, when he wants to go back ten or 12 years, I invite him to go back 16 or 17 and give us a fair comparison and tell us how high the deficit was. Before he goes looking, I can tell him the percentage was 34 per cent under the last Tory government, save that of the hon. member for Yellowhead, not 24 per cent or 25 per cent.
The very first requirement of any member who stands before this House is that he give the facts in some balanced manner, that he not misrepresent his case before the House. I submit the hon. member for Assiniboia did exactly that. He misrepresented the case of government spending over the past few years. I invite him to set the record straight on that.
If the hon. member wants to talk about Liberal spending and Liberal programs versus Tory programs, I will spar with him any day of the week. If he wants to talk about what the Liberals are doing for the people of Canada today, let me pick a specific example. We just kept a commitment, and I get a smile from some of the guys on the other side who kept raising questions-
June 12, 1980


Erik Nielsen: Honourable guys.


Roger Simmons: One day they lambaste us for not keeping commitments. Today in his preamble the hon. member deplored the government for keeping a promise. We happen to be proud of keeping our promises.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roger Simmons: One commitment we kept recently was to increase the guaranteed income supplement by $35. That is not news to this House. This House participated in it. What might be news to this House, and therefore I wish to get it into the record, is what the Tory government of Ontario has done since that increase came in. It moved to take some, and in some cases all of the increase back from the recipients of the GIS.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Roger Simmons: The Tory government in Ontario raised the rents in senior citizen homes by $18 a month in the past few days. How can you win? The great Liberal government wanted to do right for the people of Canada, but how can you win with so many Tory governments out there taking out of their left hands what they just received in their right hands? I am talking about' the ordinary people across this country. It is shameful.
I say to the hon. member for Assiniboia that there are all kinds of examples of what this government is doing with the people's money. There are very good examples. I have just given one. I make a bargain with the hon. member; I will undertake, as my own personal crusade, to see that the money over here is spent even better, if he will talk to his Tory friends across the country, like Bill Davis in Ontario, who are gouging the senior citizens. How can we help them when Bill Davis insists on taking it away from them?
I make a deal with the Tory member for Assiniboia, that he talk to the Bill Davis' of this country and I will talk to the ministers of finance of this country as well as to the people of my caucus. That is a fair deal. Now for the NDP-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roger Simmons: What they lack in quality tonight they make up in quantity. I am glad the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) has come back into the chamber because he is the one who preceded me when speaking to this particular bill. The gentleman from Broadview-Greenwood is the armchair socialist in the NDP. The old enthusiasm has gone. It is not there any more. He has no more heart for it, not the same fire in the gut as he used to have. That happens to all armchair socialists. It happens to all those intellectuals who have it up here but do not believe in the cause. Around him, though, are some real socialists. I learned from the papers in the last day or two that the hon. member's leader is a real socialist. He is going over to Oslo to attend a meeting of the SI-the press release from NDP headquarters did not bother to mention what the SI is, but apparently the letters stand for
Borrowing Authority Act
Socialist International. So there are some socialists in the NDP.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roger Simmons: I don't know what the socialist from Oshawa is going to do when he gets over there, I don't know where he stands on the views of the Dominican Revolutionary Party- they are members of the Socialist International, too-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roger Simmons: -or the socialist workers party from Luxembourg. I am sure he will have a lot in common with them and 1 hope he will be able to throw some light on their discussions. And what about the unitary socialist party of San Marino, or the National Liberation Party of Costa Rica, or the National Revolutionary Movement of El Salvador?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roger Simmons: Bedfellows all!


Bob Rae: Do you like the generals in Latin America? Are they better?


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Roger Simmons: But while there are socialists in the NDP there are also quasi-socialists, armchair socialists.


Walter David Baker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know it is difficult for you, but it is most unseemly that lovers should quarrel that way.


An hon. Member:: What a contribution!


Roger Simmons: I thank the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) for coming in. He is a bit late, but he has obviously dined well. Welcome anyway. We have a few minutes left befoie we close down for the night. Nice of the hon. member to drop in.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about Bill C-30?


Roger Simmons: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) wants to talk about Bill C-30. I have a few things to say about that but as a preliminary to answering the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) I was attempting to assess the vantage point he speaks from. It is not the vantage point of a socialist who skips all over the world, attending conferences in Oslo with his brethren from El Salvador and other places. He speaks from the perspective of an armchair socialist-one who thinks about these things but does not feel them very much.


An hon. Member:: How do you know?

June 12, 1980
Borrowing Authority Act


Roger Simmons: It is not the perspective of a real, gut socialist like the hon. gentleman who sits behind him; not the perspective of the pseudo-socialist who sits to his right normally, but the perspective of an intellectual, an armchair socialist, one who has the solutions in his head to all the problems. Don't ever challenge him to put them into practice because he would be lost.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, we seem to be hitting a nerve with the armchair socialists.


An hon. Member:: Say something!


Roger Simmons: He talks about control of the public purse in the best and most serious vein he can muster and he says, with a maturity which belies his years-


Bob Rae: You should be so lucky!


Roger Simmons: -that there has been no opportunity to ask a question. Mr. Speaker, he was in committee this morning asking questions. Did anybody stop him there? Is he telling the House that he has been muzzled? If so, let him come forward and raise his complaint in the proper fashion. He is misleading the country when he says there has been no opportunity to inquire into these matters. There have been all kinds of opportunity. Of course, he does not want to admit that because it belies his version of the facts. He talks about allegations that we have done one thing in opposition and another in government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roger Simmons: One thing is certain, at least; when we were in opposition, we could not be accused of the type of flip-flop the NDP has done in opposition. First of all, that party is never going to be in government anyway.


Douglas Keith Anguish: What about the Liberals in western Canada?


Roger Simmons: In the second place, as we have seen on so may occasions, most notably in connection with the referendum in Quebec, they are capable of taking both sides of an issue depending on what they think is the popular thing to say. They don't need to be in government to change gears. They do it just about twice every day on just about every issue. For instance, their finance critic, when interest rates were high, blamed the government for it. Now, when they are coming down, he gets upset if the government begins to take any credit. He cannot have it both ways. Either he cannot blame the government for the high interest rates or, if he does, he must allow us to take credit when interest rates are lower. Not only did that hon. member criticize the government for high interest rates, when interest rates began coming down very quickly he was on the air, that week, expressing concern that they might come down too fast.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roger Simmons: That was his concern, then. Yes, he was on both sides of that issue, too. He was against high interest rates
but equally he was against low interest rates and he was pontificating on the CBC about the detrimental effect of low interest rates.


An hon. Member:: Rubbish!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is very difficult to hear what is being said.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tell us about Bill C-30.


Bob Rae: Tell us what you are going to do with the $12 billion.


Roger Simmons: We are going to spend it for the people of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roger Simmons: We are going to use it well for the people. That is what we were elected to do, and we intend to do it well. They are all out tonight; the real socialists and the closet socialists are all out tonight. The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood, the armchair socialist, says this is no time to increase taxes, and he is right. There is not a Canadian anywhere from coast to coast who disagrees with him on that. This is no time to increases taxes.


Bob Rae: Talk to the deputy minister of finance.	.


Roger Simmons: Even when I agree with the NDP, they do not want to hear it. If they listen, they might just get an angle on this one. Can anybody find one single Canadian who would agree that any time is the time to increase taxes? The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood thinks he has again latched on to a popular issue when he tells the country tonight that this is no time to increase taxes.
When interest rates were high, the hon. member was telling us to get them down low. He changed his mind afterward, but that is another issue. He always manages to peddle what he considers a popular line.


Bob Rae: It works in Broadview-Greenwood.


Roger Simmons: The hon. member says it works in Broadview-Greenwood. He can fool some of the people some of the time, but he will find sooner or later that he does not fool all the people all the time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roger Simmons: That is where the crunch will come for the hon. member. He can sit here and laugh at the people who elected him-


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if there might be unanimous consent in this House that the hon. member who has the floor discontinue his speech and let the previous speaker carry on with the intelligent conversation he had-
June 12, 1980


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons).


Roger Simmons: It is all right, Mr. Speaker, I now have some information. As I was saying, the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood can sit and laugh at those who elected him if he wants. He can poke fun at them for the next two or three years, but he is going to have to go back and meet them at the polls again in three or four years. Instead of looking for short-term cliches which fool some of the people, whether in Broadview-Greenwood or wherever, he ought to address himself responsibly to some of the problems of this country. If he did, he would long be remembered, and his contribution in this House would be much greater.
No time is ripe to increase taxes. No one on this side of the House is advocating that. I do not believe anyone who sits in this chamber, in opposition or in government, knows at this time whether there will be a tax increase.
That brings me to the rumour we hear from opposition benches about tax increases of all types. Nobody on this side of the House has decided whether there will be a tax increase. Where did the rumour come from? It is another convenient invention of the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood. He is trying to fool a few more people. The hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) has been fooling people for years.


Mr. Orlikow:: He was a Liberal and a Conservative.


Roger Simmons: We got rid of him. He was a Liberal, but he went to where he belonged. A convenient rumour has been invented by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood and the hon. member for St. John's West to fool a few people and to convince them that somehow they are fighting their battles.
Whatever happens to be in the budget this government will bring to the House, there is one thing which will not be in it. If hon. members want specifics, I have them tonight. I have had a talk with the Minister of Finance. Facts are coming in all the time.


An hon. Member:: Here comes John Evans.


Mr. Deans:: Do you believe him?


Bob Rae: If you believe Evans, you will never get anywhere. He wants to raise taxes.


Roger Simmons: I can tell the armchair socialist from Broadview-Greenwood one thing about the budget; it will not contain an 18-cents a gallon gasoline tax.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bob Rae: Will it be 17 cents or M'A cents?


Roger Simmons: He has started another rumour, Mr. Speaker. He can even make a rumour out of a suggestion of fact. This fellow can even twist a non-fact.
He has started his rumour-mongering already. Now he will rush out and say it will not be 18 cents but that it might be 17'/2 or 17'/4.
Borrowing Authority Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are all Newfoundlanders like that?


Mr. Lefebvre:: Only the good ones.


Roger Simmons: One of the real socialists opposite is the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish). To his credit, he is one of the real socialists. Why he is not going to Oslo with his brethren from Costa Rica I do not know. There is a difference between the real socialists and the armchair socialists like the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood. There is a difference not only in title and style but also in substance. The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood calls for letting the deficit go to fight unemployment and to stave off recession. That is his cure-all, but the real socialist from The Battlefords-Meadow Lake has a different view altogether. As the NDP representative on the public accounts steering committee he says that the deficit of this government, which he says last year was $16 billion-he is only $4 billion out, but that is another issue-is shameful.


An hon. Member:: The year is not over yet.


Roger Simmons: The differences over there are very great. What is presented to the House as a united party is indeed a group of people searching The Globe and Mail for something about which to ask questions. That is the only thing that unites hon. members opposite. They all read The Globe and Mail at about 5.30 every morning to see what they can ask in the House.
I have a few more words to say about Bill C-30, which would give this government borrowing authority. It has become the in thing and the trendy thing all over the country to lament the size of the deficit.
You gain a special respectability as a Tory if you go out and say the deficit is large. You do not remind the people of the Tory deficit when they were in power some years ago, a long time ago. They are not in power very often, but the last time they were in power for a length of time, back in 1957, 1958 and 1962, the deficit, if you remember, was about 34 per cent as compared to 24 per cent or 25 per cent now. They do not remind people of that, they just go on talking about how large the deficit is. This is the respectable thing to do. It establishes your credentials as a Tory to go around talking about the deficit and how large it is. To put it in another way, it is the litmus test.


An hon. Member:: You better learn the language or you will get nowhere in the cabinet.


Roger Simmons: It is the litmus test. If you wish to qualify as a profound scholar of public finance in this country, you have to talk about deficits and how large they are. It is the trendy thing to do these days. As I said, you have passed the litmus test; it shows you qualify as a Tory.


An hon. Member:: As a Liberal, Roger.

June 12, 1980
Borrowing Authority Act


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, 1 told you that fellow was an armchair socialist. Now he feels constrained to defend the Tories.
1 would say to the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) that he should be careful of the kind of help he is getting from the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae), very careful indeed. Is it that the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood cannot listen for a moment? He might learn something. I am not sure he would, but perhaps he would.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Give us something to listen to.


Roger Simmons: 1 would say that the member for Broadview-Greenwood makes a lot more sense now when he is sitting down than he did when he was standing up.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roger Simmons: I want for a moment to refer to something the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) mentioned when he spoke on this bill a day or so ago. He said then:
Rather interestingly, in this new Parliament what has now been given to us in the economic statement is an indication that the federal level of spending in relation to the gross national product will grow by 2 per cent-
He is playing loose with the facts, Mr. Speaker. I want to say to the House that that is not true at all. It will not be of the order of 2 per cent, and I want to get that into the record.


An hon. Member:: What will it be Roger?


Roger Simmons: It will remain in the range that it had been in 1975, not the increase about which the hon. member for Edmonton East spoke.


An hon. Member:: Which is what?


Roger Simmons: Now I want to come to the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens), the former president of the Treasury Board, who spoke about the consumer price index figure. In his speech in the House a day or so ago he alleged, or stated as though it were a fact, that a noted international publication had ranked Canada as sixth among the industrialized nations in terms of the consumer price index figure, the increase in those figures. Once again, he misleads the House. If he will read a very respected British periodical, The Economist-a good Tory periodical from which the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood quotes, badly, but he quotes from it-he would see that the facts are not at all as the hon. member for York-Peel says. We do not rank sixth, we rank fourth, very closely behind West Germany, Holland and Japan. We are ranked a long way ahead of such countries as France, way ahead of Italy, Sweden, the United States and the United Kingdom.


An hon. Member:: Where are we on unemployment?


Roger Simmons: This member who should know better, the former president of the Treasury Board in the Tory regime, if
he is going to read all kinds of statistics in the House, the very least you can ask of him is that-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 9.45 p.m., pursuant to the order passed on Monday June 9, 1980, it is my duty to interrupt these proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the motion before the House.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no point of order at this time. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.
The House divided on the motion of Mr. MacEachen, which
was agreed to on
the following division: (Division No. 8) VEAS Messrs.	
Allmand	Collenette	DuquetAppolloni	Comtois	Ethier(Mrs.)	Corbin	EvansBachand	Corriveau	FergusonBaker	Cosgrove	Fisher(Gander-Twillingate)	Cousineau	FlemingBeauchamp-Niquet	Cullen	Foster(Mrs.)	Daudlin	FrancisBegin (Miss)	Dawson	FrithBerger	De Bane	GauthierBlais	de Corneille	GendronBlaker	Demers	GimaielBloomfield	Deniger	GingrasBockstael	Desmarais	GourdBossy	Dingwall	GrayBujold	Dion	GuayBussieres	Dionne	GuilbaultCaccia	(Chicoutimi)	HarquailCampbell	Dionne	Henderson(Miss)	(Northumberland-	Herbert(South West Nova)	Miramichi)	Flervieux-PayetteCampbell	Dubois	(Mrs.)(LaSalle)	Duclos	HopkinsChenier	Dupont	IsabelleChretien	Dupras	Johnston
June 12, 1980

Borrowing Authority Act
Messrs.
Kaplan	Mackasey	Roberts	Howie	MillerKelly	MacLaren	Robinson	Jarvis	MitchellKillens (Mrs.)	Malepart	(Etobicoke- La keshore)	Keeper	(Mrs.)Lachance	Marceau	Rooney	Kempling	MurtaLajoie	Masse	Rossi	Kilgour	NeilLalonde	Masters	Roy	Knowles	NickersonLamontagne	McRae	Savard	Kristiansen	NielsenLanders	Munro	Schroder	Lambert	NowlanLang	(Hamilton East)	Simmons	La Salle	NystromLaniel	Nicholson	Smith	MacDonald	OgleLapierre	(Miss)	Stollery	(Miss)	OrlikowLapointe	Olivier	Tardif	(Kingston and the Islands)	Paproski(Charlevoix)	Ostiguy	Tessier	Mayer	RaeLapointe	Ouellet	Tousignant	Mazankowski	Reid(Beauce)	Penner	Trudeau	McCain	(St. Catharines)Leduc	Pepin	Turner	McGrath	RiisLefebvre	Peterson	Veillette	McKenzie	RobinsonLoisclle	Pinard	Watson	McKinnon	(Burnaby)MacBain	Portelance	Weatherhead	McLean	MacDonald	Prud'homme	Whelan	(Cardigan)	Reid	Yanakis-124.	
MacGuigan
Roche
Sargeant
Scheilenbergcr
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Shields Stevens Taylor Thacker Thomson Vankoughnet Waddell Wilson Wise Young Yurko-77.
	NAYS	
	Messrs.	
Althouse	Crombie	FretzAndre	Crosbie	FriesenAnguish	(St. John's West)	FultonBaker	Crouse	Gass(Nepean-Carleton)	Deans	GurbinBeatty	de Jong	GustafsonBlaikie	Dinsdale	HallidayBlenkarn	Ellis	HamiltonBradley	Elzinga	(Qu'Appelle-MooseCardiff	Fennell	Mountain)Corbett	Forrestall	Hawkes


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Madam Speaker:: It being after ten o'clock, this House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.
At 10.13 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
59

Friday, June 13, 1980