1980-10-28

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to seek the permission of the House to move a motion on a matter of pressing and urgent necessity.
In view of the clear statement by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) last Thursday as reported on pages 3965 and 3969 of Hansard that the Special Joint Committee on the constitution could make its own decision on televising its own proceedings, and in view of the fact that on August 22, 1978, the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) ruled, when chairman of the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution of Canada, that committees did not have the power to authorize the televising of their own proceedings, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That the Prime Minister direct his House leader to bring a motion before the House authorizing the televising of the proceedings of the proposed Special Joint Committee on the proposed constitutional resolution.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PROPOSED RESOLUTION-REPRESENTATION OF SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS BEFORE JOINT COMMITTEE-MOTION UNDER
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, this government has denied representation in Parliament through closure. It now seeks to deny representation in committee to minority and special interest groups by preventing the committee from travelling. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle):
That, to use the government's own words in the very first paragraph of the proposed resolution for constitutional change that within the "reasonable limits as are generally accepted in a free and democratic society with a parliamentary
system of government" groups of Canadian citizens be recognized and enabled to travel to present their case to this joint committee, and that their travel costs be underwritten by this government using perhaps some of their surplus advertising dollars, since this government refuses to allow the committee to go to the people.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 in connection with certain recent events at Dorchester Penitentiary in New Brunswick.
In view of the allegation of the shooting of hundreds of prisoners in a crowded gym by a number of prison guards in June of this year, in view of the escapes of four convicted murderers, in view of the tragic death of a prison guard at Dorchester Penitentiary and the suicide of a prisoner, and finally, in view of allegations of beatings and gassings of prisoners both before and after the tragic hostage-taking incident, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong):
That this House call upon the Solicitor General to commission an independent, public, judicial inquiry into all the recent serious and tragic events at Dorchester Penitentiary in recent months.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of national concern and of urgent and pressing necessity. Because of the recent news reports which state that Chrysler Corpora-

October 28, 1980
tion is considering the closing of 16 of its plants, and in light of yesterday's announcement that General Motors had a loss of $567 million, the largest such quarterly loss of any American corporation, and because of the fact that 21,000 Canadian automobile workers have been placed on indefinite lay-off, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Jelinek):
That this government take immediate steps to ensure that Canadian automobile workers are protected from further disastrous lay-offs by seeing that no further Canadian auto plants are shut down.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ENERGY CONSERVATION
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to present a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Recently all public utilities commissions in Ontario received a bulletin stating that Canadian home owners would be provided a financial incentive to convert from oil to gas, electricity, wood or solar, as the case may be. In view of the fact that there is a very definite need to reduce the consumption of oil in this country, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis):
That the government confirm its intention to implement such a program and that such a financial incentive be made available to Canadian home owners and businessmen without delay.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INTERNATIONAL AID
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the amount of money which the Government of Canada has allocated for the purposes of international emergency relief- $5 million according to the 1980-81 estimates-is less than the $5.2 million which has been misspent on federal government polls since March of 1979, and barely one-sixth the new budget of the Canadian unity propaganda office, I move,
seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
That this House direct the government to be less liberal with itself so that it can be more liberal with the funds which it sets aside for those who are truly in need, as opposed to those only in need of humility.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NUCLEAR TESTING
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I should like to move a motion for which there may be favourable disposition around the House. In view of the recent Chinese atmospheric nuclear testing, recent underground testing by other countries and the reported possibility of an impending series of nuclear tests to be carried out by the French authorities any time now in the Mururoa Atoll, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser):
That this House expresses its deep regret and strongly urges all governments concerned to ban once and for all, for the benefit of mankind, all nuclear testing in all environments.


Madam Speaker:: Presentation of this motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: I have to ask again; I thought I heard a no. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL UNITY
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Given the fact that the Prime Minister's wilful adherence to an artificial timetable for the patriation of the constitution has caused, and will continue to
October 28, 1980

cause, ruptures in the fabric of Canadian confederation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid):
That this House censure the Prime Minister for his actions and advise him to wait for the fullness of time, for surely the universe will unfold as it should, without his insistent and divisive prodding.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the government is considering removing the tax exemption on imported essential educational materials, including chemicals, which will increase the costs of education, therefore 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes):
That this House urge the Minister of Finance to continue this tax exemption on imported educational materials that are essential to the education of young Canadians.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. I should like to ask the right hon. gentleman a question, a little sadly but seriously. In 1964 on the university stage as a professor, one Pierre Trudeau wrote:
-federalism is ... a pact or quasi-treaty in the sense that the terms of that compromise cannot be changed unilaterally.
Earlier this month, on television, the right hon. gentleman said:
Every member of Parliament from every corner of this land is asked to participate in this historic act.
Oral Questions
He was referring to the debate. On the political stage, however, the Prime Minister has acted unilaterally and has choked off debate. Could the right hon. gentleman please tell this House what role he intends to play when he goes west tomorrow? I am glad that he is going west and I hope he travels around other parts of the country. However, could the Prime Minister tell the House what role he intends to play and give us one good reason why we should believe anything he says, either in the west or in the east?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I am sorry the hon. member is satisfied with only one good reason; I could give him very many.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Name one.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He suggested that my reasons touched at least on two points, first on the nature of confederation and, second, on freedom to debate.
On the nature of confederation, I point out to the hon. member that the resolution before the House does not change the essential balance, Madam Speaker, between the federal and the provincial governments.


Mr. Crosbie:: Come off it, Pierre!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In a very real sense our federal structure rests upon the division of powers between these two levels of government, and there is no shift of power from the provinces to the federal government-


John Carnell Crosbie: Bushwhack!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -or from the federal government to the provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I hear the Tories murmuring their discontent. I would be happy to answer any number of supplementary questions, and particularly any that would show that there is a shift of power.


An hon. Member:: Here we are again.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The pact of 1867 giving certain powers to the provinces and certain powers to the federal government has not been altered in favour of the federal government, which seems to be the suggestion opposite.
So much for the statement 1 made in 1964, and which I repeat again today. If we had wanted to alter unilaterally some of these powers, Madam Speaker, we would, of course, have considered putting in a section to strengthen the Canadian economic union. This we carefully refrained from doing.
On the second point having to do with cutting off debate, I repeat the offer that was made to the opposition by many people on this side, that is, to have much longer hours.
4154

October 28, 1980
Oral Questions


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: You did not.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: The committees are sitting.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Rather than just proceeding with just one stage, as would be usual, with the resolution coming once before the Elouse, we provided for three stages-


Walter David Baker: No.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -so there could be three different occasions on which members of this Elouse and of the other place could debate the subject.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I suggest that we are all morally certain that if we had proceeded just with a resolution, without a reference to committee and a report then to the full House, with three occasions for debate, people opposite would have been the first to condemn us by saying: how can we examine this lengthy resolution in only one stage? It is because we anticipated these objections-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and in order to meet the concern of the opposition, we suggested that there be debate here for prolonged hours if necessary.


An hon. Member:: Dictator.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We have then referred it to committee so there could be discussion and the hearing of witnesses. Then there will be a third stage when it will come back to the full Parliament.


An hon. Member:: Order.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, 1 think that is living up to the commitment that I made earlier.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, obviously I cannot become engaged in the debate with the Prime Minister. I am very glad he took some time in answering the question; perhaps he has a guilty conscience for not participating in the debate.
Does the right hon. gentleman really think you help the future of the land by breaking faith with some of the past when you change from the tyranny of unanimity-which were the words the Prime Minister used-to what many people are quite rightly saying, namely the tyranny of unilateral action? In that respect, I ask the Prime Minister if he really thinks that the federalist forces would have won the referendum battle in Quebec if in Quebec they knew that the "renewed federalism" was going to be what it is today, a one-man show?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I ask the hon. member, whom 1 respect, to consider his question. He is suggesting that we are being tyrannical by using unilateral action-


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: They are both extremes.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -rather than getting the consent of the ten provinces.


Mr. Clarke:: That is not what he said.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is exactly what he said. Madam Speaker, I wish there would be a little bit of control on the other side and that they would at least listen to their own questions if they do not want to listen to my answers. That was exactly the statement by the hon. member, that I had gone from the tyranny of unanimity to the tyranny of unilateral action. Therefore, the hon. member behind him should stand corrected or sit corrected, and I hope he will stay sitting a long while.
Now, that being established, I want to point out to the hon. member that he and his party on two occasions supported what he calls the tyranny of unilateral action; once last May or June when all of us in this House voted that we should patriate, and there was nothing in the motion then, which we all approved, saying that we need provincial consent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Second, just last week his own leader and party moved that the House patriate with a certain amending formula without the consent of the provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I say without the consent of the provinces, and the opposition leader knows that.


Charles Joseph Clark: Not true.


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


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I did not know the Prime Minister was finished. In view of some of the remarks in that answer, I would point out that the motion put forward by my leader last week was between the two extremes of unanimity and unilateral action. It was something called the Vancouver proposal which obviously the government members do not agree with. My question is this. The Prime Minister must have been advised of this by the House leader. Can he now tell this House when closure was invoked by a government-and let us not talk about 1913 when Ichabod Crane was there, many years ago- when more government members had spoken than not only members of the official opposition, but the only opposition?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I must correct the hon. member when he refers to the Vancouver formula, which is the Alberta formula. I must tell him that the essence of his argument was that I was proceeding unilaterally without the consent of the provinces. That was the thrust, to patriate the constitution and do other things. I am now telling him and his party that last week that is exactly what they proposed, that without the consent of the provinces this House vote on a resolution to patriate with an amending formula.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

October 28, 1980


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INQUIRY WHETHER DISCUSSIONS HELD BETWEEN PRIME MINISTER AND LIBERAL LEADER IN QUEBEC
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Might I point out to him that the proposal he made last week at least allowed the constitution to be amended here in Canada, by Canadians, instead of through the intermediary of the British government.
As the Prime Minister is aware of the result of the referendum and is now committed to the promise he made at that time; as Mr. Claude Ryan said, in light of the proposal of the Prime Minister of Canada on the way to patriate the constitution, that if he had been told all he had to do was to listen to what the federal government is now saying, in a letter to the editor of the newspaper Le Devoir which the Prime Minister must surely have read, that he would never have been chairman of the No committee; and as last Sunday, the leader of the opposition in Quebec, Mr. Ryan felt obliged to ask the British parliamentarians to reject the request of Ottawa, I therefore conclude that there has been very little communication with the Prime Minister; and as the Prime Minister repeated yesterday, to a question put to him, that he did not know whether Mr. Ryan would change his mind, that he had no way of knowing; under the circumstances it seems that communications are totally lacking between the Prime Minister of Canada and his Liberal colleague in Quebec, and chairman of the No committee-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Is that the question of the hon. member, that is, that communications-would the hon. member put his question?


Roch La Salle: Right away, Madam Speaker. Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether, after the federal-provincial conference, he had the decency to discuss with his Liberal colleague who chaired the No committee, in view of some of the proposals contained in the Beige Paper, his decision to act unilaterally, a decision which had already been contested by his Liberal colleague in Quebec?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, since the preamble to the hon. member's question was fairly lengthy, I will reply to it in the terms I have just used to answer his colleague from the maritimes.
The hon. member is blaming us for disagreeing with Mr. Ryan because we are proceeding unilaterally. 1 think those are the words used by the hon. member for Joliette. I remind him that last May or June the House unanimously passed a motion introduced by one of his colleagues, the hon. member for Edmonton West I believe, which indeed suggested that Parlia-
Oral Questions
ment move to patriate the constitution. That resolution said nothing about provincial agreement. I indeed suggested that they should at least be consulted, which was done, of course, throughout the summer. But the motion introduced by the hon. member for Joliette and his colleagues asked for patria-tion by way of a resolution of this House and not by way of a resolution passed by the ten provinces. That is the first point.
The second point is, as I have already mentioned, that last week the hon. member himself voted for a resolution put by his leader asking that this House patriate the constitution, with an amending formula of course, but without the consensus of the provinces. So what is he complaining about? Of a unilateral patriation which he himself and his party have already endorsed?


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, if I may-and this is very important-1 shall remind the right hon. Prime Minister that our proposal required that amendments be made here in Canada, by Canadians and for Canadians. The Prime Minister stopped short of saying so and he has not answered my question either. Considering the present situation in Quebec, the embarrassment the proposal is causing their Liberal colleagues in Quebec and the respect we have for Mr. Ryan's proposals, does the Prime Minister intend to disregard the appeal Mr. Ryan has made for a re-evaluation and reopening of negotiations with the provinces instead of asking the British parliament to rule on fundamental rights for Canadians, which should be done in Canada? I ask the Prime Minister, Madam Speaker, if it is his intention at least to try to get the support of his Liberal colleague in Quebec instead of dividing the forces, as is now the case.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, 1 cannot hear without being amused the member who pleads that the Liberals should not tear each other to pieces. Madam Speaker, the member has sat on this side of the House as an independent. If he is so much interested in the union of my forces, he should leave his hypocritical party which suggested a unilateral patriation last week and which this week condemns us when we proceed in such a way. As for our intention to make amendments in Canada, Madam Speaker, this is the purpose of our resolution since from 1953 we have been unable to patriate our constitution, so that all major amendments made since then, whether they deal with unemployment insurance, the admission of Newfoundland in confederation, etc., have been legislation passed in England and not in Canada. Now, the procedure which we are following is not new, it has been in effect since 1867. All the amendments voted by the House must be ratified in Great Britain. This is exactly what is being proposed today, that it be considered and put to a vote in the House and then voted on in Great Britain, as has been the case for 113 years.

October 28, 1980
Oral Questions


HEALTH AND SAFETY
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. As a result of a one-week tour by the NDP caucus committee on occupational health and safety to the maritimes, we were shocked to learn of the state of anarchy in the field of health and safety caused by the fact that jurisdiction over health and safety is spread over 13 government departments and agencies, resulting in neglect of workers' safety and their lives.
I would like to ask the minister what specific measures he plans to correct this jurisdictional problem and to bring federal legislation up to provincial standards so that the one million workers under federal jurisdiction can receive the same level of protection as their provincial counterparts.


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question, but I think he will have to be more specific as to his area of concern. It is quite true that the ten provinces under our constitution have substantial responsibilities in areas of safety and health in the workplace because of the limitation of federal jurisdiction in labour. I certainly do not agree with the premise in his question that federal laws provide any less of a level of safeguard to the safety and health of workers than do the provincial jurisdictions' acts. There is a great variety-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald Augustine Regan: If hon. members opposite would just settle down a bit, they might be able to deal with this matter better. There is a great variety of provisions in the various provinces on the subject, but the hon. member will be aware of the fact that in mining, for instance, as a federal government we are responsible only in the case of the uranium mines in Ontario and Saskatchewan and in the case of coal mining through our ownership of Devco in Nova Scotia. All the rest of the mines, if those are the hon. member's concern, fall under provincial jurisdiction. I can assure the hon. member that the province of Ontario, in exercising for us health and safety inspections, does an excellent job and applies appropriate standards.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Madam Speaker, obviously the Minister of Labour has not talked to workers on the job site for a very long time. If he had, he would not have made that response.
My first supplementary question is directed to the same minister. In view of the fact that the government is considering eliminating the federal transportation regulation requiring truck drivers to maintain trip log books, and in view of the fact that these drivers are already forced to drive very long hours, particularly in the private sector in interprovincial traffic, will the minister assure this House that truck drivers' log books will continue to be maintained so that these drivers will not be forced to work or drive inordinately long hours-I am speaking of CN and CP now in particular-thus adding to the threat of death and carnage which already exists on our highways?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, the hon. member will be aware of the fact that because of the peculiarities of railway legislation in this country and its history the area of responsibility of the Department of Labour has some limitations. However, I can assure the hon. member of two things. The first is that I am wholly confident that there will be no reduction in safety provisions along the line he has indicated. Second, I have occasion to talk to more workers in the workplace in the course of a month than the hon. member has in his lifetime.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Madam Speaker, my final supplementary is directed to the same minister. It was very evident to the members of our committee that the inspectors under the minister's department have been extremely lax in the course of their duties at the CN diesel shop in Moncton. Will the minister instruct his department to inspect the brass and babbitting department as well as the degreasing tanks where there are workers exposed to caustic fumes due to inadequate ventilation? Will the minister also assure the House that measures will be taken to bring health and safety standards and procedures in all aspects of health CN operations in line with the best contemporary health and safety standards? I ask that in view of the fact that over 1,000 workers are killed in their workplace in this country every year.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, I certainly will take under consideration any representation an hon. member makes that I look into a particular situation or shop in relation to the standard of safety being practised there. In relation to the suggestion the hon. member makes about Moncton, I will have that situation investigated promptly. With reference to the other aspect of his question, I repeat that I am satisfied that the federal level of safety standards compares very favourably with those in the provinces. I will have the specifics mentioned by the hon. member fully reviewed.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS ENERGY PACKAGE-CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN PRIME MINISTER AND PREMIER LOUGHEED
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, I have a question which I should like to direct to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. It arises from his reply to Premier Lougheed's offer which was contained in a letter to the Prime Minister, delivered to his office on October 17, to the effect that the Premier of Alberta was prepared to fly, within hours' notice, to Ottawa at any time to meet with the Prime Minister in an effort to resume negotiations on arriving at an agreeable energy package.
Given the fact that the Prime Minister's response, as indicated by Mr. Lougheed, was to the effect that there was no
October 28, 1980

room for negotiation, that the federal government had locked up the budget and that the Prime Minister implied that it would be very inconvenient to alter it, why did the Prime Minister refuse any further discussions with Premier Lough-eed because they would inconvenience his timetable? Surely this action on the part of the Prime Minister seems to be less than co-operative and conciliatory.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, if the facts as stated by the hon. member were correct, it would indeed seem a bit strange. I point out to the hon. member that I do not know exactly what has been said by Premier Lougheed. However, quite the contrary, I invited him to come down and meet me in Ottawa. I was prepared to have discussions with him. Though his letter was dated the seventeenth, I do not know at what time it left Alberta. It was sent on a Friday; I received it Monday morning.


An hon. Member:: Tell Ouellet about that.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is not so unusual that a letter posted at perhaps eleven o'clock in the evening in Alberta would only reach my hands by Monday morning, but those are the facts.
I thereupon considered whether I would meet Premier Lougheed or not, and I repeat that I invited him to come down to meet me yesterday on this subject. The point is that I did not want him to come under the illusion that there would be major changes in the budget made at that point. I think even hon. members opposite will realize that the budget, which was going to be brought down eight days after I received the letter, was pretty far advanced in its preparation. So in fairness I told Premier Lougheed that I would be happy to see him, but if he had really wanted to suggest major changes I imagine he would have written me sooner than eight days before the budget was to be brought down.
There were discussions earlier in the month of October between ministers when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources-I believe on October 2 or 3 or thereabouts-went west and made a whole new series of proposals which were turned down. They were still open until, I would say, about the 1 5th of the month. But the hon. member and the House should realize that by October 20, since the budget was being brought in on the twenty-eighth, we were pretty close to a final package. I had to be quite frank with the premier on that, but I assured him that the budget would contain many pleasant surprises and that if he wanted to have a preview of them, he would be welcome, although it is probably contrary to the principle of budget secrecy. Since our provisions do impact in a very particular way on Alberta, I would have been prepared to give him a preview of the budget yesterday, which is well in advance of the usual timetable.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, there seems to be some conflicting evidence here, inasmuch as the Minister of Finance, as late as last Friday, indicated in an answer to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that budgetary options were still being considered at present. Given the fact
Oral Questions
that the negotiation of an energy package was of the utmost importance to the people of Alberta, and indeed to all Canadians, is it not true that the Prime Minister telephoned the Premier of Alberta Thursday afternoon, October 23, and said that there was absolutely no room for negotiation, that they had locked up the budget, that he implied that it would be very inconvenient to alter it, and that in any event there was no room for negotiation? The answer which the Premier of Alberta gave in the legislature yesterday indicated that the door was absolutely closed, notwithstanding the fact that the Minister of Finance said last Friday that options were still being considered. The Prime Minister cannot have it both ways, surely.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I was not in the House on Friday and therefore I am not quite sure to what suggestion from the NDP that answer was given. But surely no member in this House would think that three days before the budget is brought down such a fundamental question as energy pricing and the whole energy regime could still be renegotiated with any of the provinces. If that is the suggestion, let me point out that it is an absolute impossibility for such a thing to happen. Even the hon. member for St. John's West knows that the very printing of the budget is probably finished, except for very minor details, as long as three days before the budget is brought down.
Those are the facts and that is what I said to Premier Lougheed. I said, "We cannot, at this late stage, reopen the whole question of negotiations on energy; so if you are coming down for that, I am sorry, it is too late, but I am happy to receive you." I told him that he was the premier and he had budgets of his own-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Answers should be shorter. The question period is far advanced and we have not had many questions.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, my question as well is for the Prime Minister and it is with regard to the exchange of correspondence between him and the NDP which resulted in the unconditional surrender by the NDP of any principles or commitments they ever had-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Oberle: -with respect to human rights, the rights of minorities in our country, and particularly the very special rights which native people have in our society. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether it was entirely the letter of the NDP that was the basis of support on which the Prime Minister acted, not only to circumvent Parliament but to circumvent any meaningful further discussions with the prov-

October 28, 1980
Oral Questions
inces and with the native people, the aboriginal people of our country, before this action was taken in Britain, or is he now prepared, in recognition of the response which has been received in the House and from the native people throughout the country, to reopen the discussions and in particular provide access for these minority groups to the committee in a meaningful way?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it is not my role to defend the NDP; I am sure they can defend their own actions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: They are in your caucus; why don't you defend them?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 may have defended them many, many years ago, Madam Speaker, and I would have been prepared to defend them again had they accepted my offer to join this party when we formed the government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: The cat is out of the bag.


An hon. Member:: They are an extension.


An hon. Member:: You seduced them.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It still seems difficult to understand how they can be accused of having surrendered their principles when what they asked for was exactly what the western premiers were asking for-


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: False.


An hon. Member:: They got nothing.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not saying they did not ask for more. We know that the premiers are insatiable and that they asked for a great deal more. But I am suggesting that what was asked for by the NDP was action in the field of indirect taxation of resources and interprovincial trade on resources, which is certainly not going against the principles of anyone in the House; therefore, 1 do not see how it can be a surrendering of principles.
As for the entrenchment of the rights of native people, here again I fail to understand the logic of the party opposite. Because what we are doing is bringing back the constitution in the hope that then we will be able to deal with amendments relating to the native people and to many other subjects. I point out to the Tory party that that is exactly what they were doing last week when they proposed to this House-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Even the Chair is confused as to whether the question is still being answered or new questions are being asked. 1 ask hon. members to try to discipline themselves. I think today I cannot go on numbers, I will have to go on time and immediately recognize, in the normal order, members from the NDP and allow the rest of the time to the Conservatives. This question period has to be disciplined to some extent. Does the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River have a supplementary question? Will he make it short, please.


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, clearly we have two types of rights which need to be protected in the constitution, the rights as the Prime Minister perceives them-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member put his question immediately without a preamble, please.


Frank Oberle: Does the Prime Minister depend on the leader of the NDP to write a letter to Her Majesty the Queen and the British parliament to convince them that they should patriate a package, which is clearly a wanton denial of the basic rights of many people in this country, except for those rights which the Prime Minister wishes to entrench for his own purpose?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, put very simply, the Conservative party last week moved that this House adopt-


Frank Oberle: Bring the constitution home and let us deal with it here.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Patriate the constitution.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you sit down; you cannot answer the question.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. It is the Speaker who maintains order in this House. The Right Hon. Prime Minister will continue to answer the question, and I hope he will have peace so he can answer it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, very simply, the Tory party last week proposed a motion and voted affirmatively on that motion to patriate the constitution with an amending formula. There was nothing in that resolution, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Ottawa Centre in the debate, to protect the native people-nothing. The idea was to get the constitution here and then put something in to protect the native people. That is exactly what we want to do, to get it here and then put something in to protect the native people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
October 28, 1980


DROUGHT ASSISTANCE
Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, I would have liked to address my question to the Minister of Agriculture, as it is about the federal herd maintenance program. However, in his absence I would like to address my question to the minister's parliamentary secretary or to the minister in charge of regional economic expansion.
As I said, my question concerns the federal herd maintenance program and I have received in excess of 20 complaints from the constituents I represent in the area called Pierceland. The farmers and ranchers there who have applied have been told they would not be considered because they are outside of the designated drought areas, in spite of the fact the drought conditions are actually worse than those inside the drought area, according to local records.
I was wondering if the minister could give us some assurance that the boundaries of the drought areas would be extended to include these areas, specifically the Pierceland area, and generally other areas which have experienced severe drought and are not covered by the boundaries drawn around the major weather stations.


Mr. Marcel Ostiguy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, it is well known that a federal-provincial committee is studying this question. So I am making a note of the hon. member's question and we will reply in the House in due course.


Douglas Keith Anguish: My supplementary question is this. If the committee decide not to extend the boundaries, will they give some assurance to farmers and ranchers who are so severely affected by drought in those areas that if they must be considered after the applicants from the designated drought areas, can they assure us there will be enough money in the program to cover them under the herd maintenance program?
[ Translation]


Marcel Ostiguy: Madam Speaker, I maintain the answer I gave a moment ago. We will advise the House in due time.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works and has to do with the intentions of the government concerning the replanning of the old port of Montreal. Since this morning's issue of La Presse mentioned that the old port project has now been shelved, could the minister say whether it is true, first, that this
Oral Questions
project no longer has the agreement of other levels of government and second, that the government is on the verge of implementing a new global approach aimed at reviewing all such undertakings throughout the country, something which obviously would seriously delay the old port project of Montreal?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. It gives me the opportunity to say that the development of the old port is a ministerial priority with the Department of Public Works, and it is a personal priority with me. I have visited the site and talked to the mayor and officials. My officials and I will be coming forward to cabinet with a document to proceed with development of the port.
I might say that in the past I have visited the old port and it is a favourite of mine as, I am sure, it is of many Canadians. 1 am certain that many people across this country would like to see that development.


THE CONSTITUTION
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. It relates to his answer as reported on page 3965 of Hansard which I will quote in total:
The answer to the second question about television is that the committee, 1 believe, is master of its own procedure in this area-
The Prime Minister was stating his belief and he will now know that his colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in another capacity as co-chairman of the committee on the constitution in 1978, ruled that it is not within the powers of the committee to decide itself on that question. The Prime Minister will know he was wrong in his answer of October 23.
That being the case, and hoping that the Prime Minister wants the people of Canada to know what is going on in discussion of this constitutional resolution, will he now agree to present an order to the House of Commons which would allow live and full television and radio broadcasting of the committee sessions on the constitutional resolution?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, since giving my answer I have had the opportunity to check with our House leader, who has asked for opinions on this. It turns out that, exceptionally, I was not wrong and that, indeed, the committee is master of its procedure. We hope that the committee will address itself to this question. I do not know how they will decide but I hope they will address themselves to the question.

October 28, 1980
Oral Questions


Walter David Baker: Are you in favour of it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it seems that members opposite, including their leader, thought that the committee could not address itself to this question. I suggest it can.


Mr. Nielsen:: Are you in favour of it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am also asked by some of the backbenchers if I am in favour of it. I have no preference one way or the other, Madam Speaker. If the committee members make a good case to televise the proceedings, I think it would be a good thing. It will cost a little bit of money, but I am sure everyone will be prepared to chip in.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, we could undoubtedly cover the cost from the advertising program which the Government of Canada is mounting. I am sure the Prime Minister would admit that this question of having the public of Canada know what is being done about its constitution is sufficiently important that there should be a party position on it. While I do not wish to intrude upon his ground and speak for the NDP, I know that the NDP leader has already indicated his view as a party leader, as I have indicated my view as a party leader, that it would be well to have the proceedings televised and covered by radio. We would recommend that our members on the committee vote for that.
Will the Prime Minister tell us, in his capacity as the leader of the government party, if he will urge his colleagues on that committee to have the proceedings fully covered by radio and television so that Canadians will know what is going on about their constitution?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, that is a repeat of the same question. I just answered that I have no preference. I am not all that keen on television but I have no objection to it. If the members of this party in the committee decide that it is a good thing, and they have the support of our friends in the NDP-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and our great friends from the Tory party, then it can be done.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Yesterday we were informed by the translators' union that there had been some cases during the strike of senior management types in the Treasury Board doing some freelance translating on their own, drawing their own salary plus a freelance commission or freelance salary for doing the translation work.
I wonder if he could confirm that to the House, and if he can confirm it can he tell us what disciplinary action he has taken?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of any such circumstances, hence I cannot confirm it to the House.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I wonder if the minister is aware of a memo dated August 19 from Mr. Roch Blais, who is a director of special operations in the Treasury Board, in which he talks about the need for an internal freelance team to be established by the Treasury Board. I wonder if the hon. gentleman can tell us whether or not he is aware of the memo which went out to all of the translators, a copy of which I have here, and whether or not he thinks it is a violation of the conflict of interest guidelines that have been issued by the Government of Canada governing public servants. It says, and I quote:
No conflict should exist, or appear to exist, between the private interests of public servants and their official duties.
Is the minister aware of this? If he is aware of it, what disciplinary action has he taken? If he is not aware of it, may we have a commitment from him that he will look into this matter and take some disciplinary action?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of it. Furthermore, I cannot tell from the information which has been put before the House exactly what the nature of the conflict is or exactly what the problem is. Many of us do our own translations. In this part of the House, as a matter of fact, people usually originate their own material in both languages.


THE CONSTITUTION
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, we were all saddened these past few days to learn of the intent of the government to spend between $20,000 and $30,000 on advertising for 13 minutes during the Grey Cup. My question is to the Prime Minister. I have received a letter from an Indian reserve, signed and dated October 27 and delivered to my office, which says:
We will do anything. We will crawl to dignity and recognition in order to be heard in constitutional matters.
Will the Prime Minister answer this House with a simple yes or no. Is he going to make it possible for special interest groups like native people and women's organizations, to come to Ottawa and present their case to the government? Or is the Prime Minister expecting these people, as this native says, "to crawl with dignity" and ask for recognition when they do not have any funds? How are these groups going to get before this committee in order to present their case in the interests of human rights, native land claims, aboriginal rights and women's rights?

October 28, 1980


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, first I would point out that if we had not gone the committee route, a route to which the opposition is now objecting vigorously, there would have been no occasion for the natives to be heard. We are referring the matter to committee so that the natives as well as other special interest groups can be heard on this resolution.


Mr. Blenkarn:: How do they get here?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am asked how they get here. I indicated in answer to that question last week that 1 hoped the committee would set funds aside to provide those groups which have no other means of getting here with the funds to get here.


Mr. Andre:: You will give them a means test before they come.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, the response of the Prime Minister conjures up in my mind the last election.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, 1 have only said half a sentence, yet members opposite are asking for my question when they have delivered answers which say nothing for two or three minutes. My question to the Prime Minister is this. Is he satisfied that the legitimate concerns of women, who make up 51 per cent of the electorate, have had a fair opportunity for input into his unilateral action to bring in constitutional reform, and is he satisfied that women and native people in Canada have had a fair opportunity to present their cases on human rights before this government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, 1 have just been informed that we have already announced that some $400,000 will be available to each of the three native groups so that they can prepare and present their constitutional views. I am sure that out of this $400,000 they can find travelling money to come to Ottawa to present themselves before the committee.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Knowles:: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, may 1 draw to the attention of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) the fact that there have been certain discussions about when the recorded divisions might take place during the budget debate. I believe I can say that there has been agreement that instead of taking a vote this Thursday night, the votes on both our subamendment and the Conservative amendment will be taken on Tuesday night and that the final vote will be taken on Thursday night of next week.
Since I believe 1 am stating what has been agreed to among the House leaders, would the government House leader confirm what I have said and make the necessary designation?
Business of the House


Mr. Pinard:: On that subject, Madam Speaker, indeed we have the intention of designating Friday this week as an opposition day, which indicates that the votes will necessarily be held next week, Tuesday evening and Thursday evening.
To make everything clear I would like to confirm the days for the budget debate. The debate will begin tomorrow morning, after the budget speech this evening, and will continue on Thursday. 1 understand that the New Democratic Party intends to move a subamendment. The division on that subamendment will be deferred and held the same evening at the same time or imediately before the vote on the amendment of the Progressive Conservative Party, if there is one.
Friday being an allotted day, the third day of debate on the budget will be Monday, the fourth day next Tuesday and the two votes will be taken Tuesday evening if a subamendment and an amendment have been moved. The fifth day of debate will be Wednesday next week and the sixth on Thursday.
I understand that my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre has had the agreement of the House leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. That being so we on this side of the House agree as well and as soon as we are through with this point of order 1 would advise you. Madam Speaker, that I have another point of order to raise.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, 1 think that arrangement is agreeable. While we are discussing House business, with regard to its effect on the televising of the committee hearings and since the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has indicated he does not care one way or the other- and 1 would assume that the government House leader would take a position stronger than that-there would appear to be some considerable doubt, or at least differences of opinion, with respect to whether a House order, or an extension of the reference is required, or whether it can be done in committee.
Apparently there have been rulings both ways. My understanding is, and the government House leader can check, that at one time before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts in 1976, the parliamentary counsel, Mr. Joe Main-got, QC, gave evidence to the effect that in his opinion it would require an order of this House to ensure that the committee proceedings would be televised. My colleague can check that out, and I stand corrected if I am wrong.
If the matter is checked out and proved to be correct, given the agreement there is now in this House, at least among the opposition parties, that this constitutional committee be televised, and if it should be the opinion of the parliamentary counsel that an order of this House is required, will the government House leader now undertake to take such steps in the House as are necessary to have that matter resolved once and for all so that it is no longer a matter of debate, but rather a matter brought to conclusion?
4162

October 28, 1980
Business of the House


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, on this point let me first state very clearly that the committee will be public whether or not it is televised.


Walter David Baker: We know that.


Yvon Pinard: I am glad that hon. members opposite know that, but I would also like to make it clear to the people of this country. With regard to the very nature of the question, I am of the opinion, after consultation, that if we refer back to the order of the House on January 25, 1977, it will be determined that the House of Commons had agreed to the broadcasting of its proceedings not only in the House of Commons but in the committees as well, provided the concept of electronic Hansard was respected.
We have succeeded in implementing broadcasting in the House of Commons, and in my view this decision still holds. Consequently, I am of the opinion that the joint committee which will be established will have the power to determine whether or not it wishes its deliberations or proceedings to be broadcast. If it wishes to be broadcast, then obviously it will cost money to provide for the installations which are necessary if the concept of electronic Hansard is to be respected, because that is the essence and the spirit of the decision which was taken in this House in 1977. If such a request is made, then the matter must be approved by the Senate. We cannot speak in the name of the Senate in this House.
In so far as this House of Commons is concerned, my view is that we are not required to agree or disagree. If the committee wishes to be broadcast, then all that needs to be considered is the financing. The financing will be allowed if it is requested through the Commission of Internal Economy at this level. I for one do not intend to stop the broadcasting of the proceedings of a committee merely for reasons of money. That is my technical answer.
Once again, my views are that we do not need to determine the matter one way or the other in this House. It is up to the committee to make up its mind. If the committee would like to be broadcast, it is up to the Senate to approve the matter. If the Senate approves the matter then the Commission of Internal Economy will be required to approve the expenses and cost of such proceedings to be broadcast if the concept of respect for the electronic Hansard is followed.


Madam Speaker:: Is it therefore agreed that the votes should be deferred as determined and explained by the President of the Privy Council?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, it is about the composition of the special committee following the vote which was held earlier last week. The whip of the official opposition has indicated to me that at 5 p.m. he will be able to provide me with the names of the hon. members from his party who are
likely to sit on this committee. As he has suggested, therefore, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to revert to motions at five o'clock, so that we on this side may proceed with the appropriate motion dealing with the composition of the special committee.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


POINT OF ORDER
[Stage Direction]
MISS MacDONALD-PROCEDURE IN chamber
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order about which I feel very deeply. Yesterday, at the time when you informed the House about the death of the Hon. Judy LaMarsh, there was some confusion about timing and when members of Parliament might pay the traditional tributes that accompany the passing of a privy councillor, and therefore it was not done. Tributes, of course, have been paid to her outside the House but, Madam Speaker, I would beg your indulgence and the agreement of the House to include in the official record of this chamber-the chamber she served so well-a few words in memory of one who was a friend, a great parliamentarian and a great Canadian. I would do that, Madam Speaker, as an expression of our affection and admiration.


Madam Speaker:: 1 would certainly allow that. But yesterday there was no confusion, in my mind at least. It was just that nobody rose so I could not recognize anyone. If the hon. member now wishes to be recognized I would be glad to do so.

THE LATE HON. JUDY V. LaMARSH


TRIBUTES TO FORMER PRIVY COUNCILLOR
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, in the passing of the Hon. Judy LaMarsh, the Parliament of Canada and the people of Canada lost a friend, one who served her country well in war and peace.
Judy LaMarsh-or Judy as she was known far and wide- loved this House, loved the cut and thrust of debate, loved the challenges she had to grapple with on behalf of the people of Niagara Falls but, more than that, on behalf of all the people of Canada.
Carrying out her legislative responsibilities, many of them controversial in nature, certainly was not easy for her. She had to battle a tough opposition here in this chamber, and not always across the aisle-sometimes within the ranks of her own party. She had to do battle with the provinces on a number of occasions. She had to do combat with the media. But she was never one to back away from a fight, as anyone
October 28, 1980

who knew her can attest. She approached such challenges with relish. And this, of course, was characteristic of her approach to everything. Grab hold of life was her belief; pour all you can into it, get all you can out of it in the way of real satisfaction.
What made thousands of Canadians Judy LaMarsh fans was her great zest for living, her great humanity, her willingness to pour her heart out for a friend-indeed loyalty to friends was a great part of her credo-but, above all, her gusty, no holds barred performance in the arena of public life.
I said she loved this chamber. She knew how to work with it. Eler friendships cut across party lines often, but she was a faithful partisan in the best sense of the word.
As a minister, she had a record of legislative achievement that few others could match. She helped set the social and cultural structures that remain her monument to this day: the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Assistance Plan, medicare, the Broadcasting Act, Status of Women in Canada, and the Centennial year celebrations. All of these attest to her ability, her enthusiasm, her concern for people and, above all, her vision of Canada.
It was not always easy for her, but at a time when few women were active political figures she dominated the political scene in Canada. She was an inspiration to many others, and will remain so.
Courageous, controversial, warm-hearted, determined; she was all of these, and more. She always knew she had a job to do and she did not pussy-foot around it. She got on with it. And when things did not always go her way, she came to terms with that and got on with something else.
I saw her several months ago in hospital when she knew that her remaining time was limited. She had come to terms with that also. "After all," she said, "1 never wanted to be old and alone and a woman". Judy LaMarsh never will be old and alone. She will be remembered by thousands of Canadians as someone who contributed greatly to the betterment of our society; she will be remembered by members of this Parliament as a loyal friend, a tough opponent, a courageous parliamentarian, a dedicated Canadian. Madam Speaker, she will be sorely missed.
All hon. Members: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, I should like to join in the words you uttered yesterday and with the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) in the tribute she paid just now to the memory of Judy LaMarsh. Seldom have I heard words of tribute so well expressed as those just spoken by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. We all join in the sentiments she expressed.
I had the honour of meeting Judy LaMarsh for the first time on the day she took her seat in this House of Commons following a byelection 20 years ago this month. During the time she and I were both members of this House, I had a great deal to do with her because of our interest in social and other
Tribute to Former Privy Councillor
legislation. She made a mark on the history of this country that will be remembered for a long time.
As only the second woman to be a member of the federal cabinet, she pioneered in that area and millions of Canadians, for generations to come, will be grateful for the benefits of the Canada Pension Plan which was put through this House because Judy LaMarsh stuck with it in spite of a considerable amount of opposition of which some of us were aware.
We got to know her as a warm and friendly person. It hit us hard to learn that she had to end her days with so much suffering from such a serious illness and to die at such an early age. But life is measured not by its length but by its quality and its contribution. In those terms the name of Judy LaMarsh stands high in Canadian history, and we pay our tribute to her memory today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Jim Fleming (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the government and members on this side of the House, I am very honoured to have the opportunity of offering a few words of respect for the Hon. Judy LaMarsh.
I did not have the pleasure of sharing moments in the House of Commons with Judy because she left Parliament shortly before I arrived in this place. I have known Judy LaMarsh for more than two decades, however. I believe that 1 would not be in this House today, Madam Speaker, were it not for my activities in my own party at the University of Toronto in 1960, when I had occasion to meet Judy LaMarsh at a meeting in my home town of Kitchener. It was the spirit, the independence and the drive of Judy LaMarsh that led me to believe that if a member of Parliament could have all those traits, have so much fun in her system, be so full of goodness and be so principled, then to follow an interest in politics and perhaps a political career in the future would be a desirable thing.
Judy LaMarsh was a distinguished minister in this party. She was the first woman to serve in a Liberal cabinet. She served in two senior portfolios, as minister of national health and welfare and also as secretary of state, distinguished herself in both, and is particularly remembered for her role in the introduction and passage of the Canada Pension Plan, as other members have mentioned. Perhaps 1967 was the year of the first real awakening among Canadians from coast to coast that they could be proud and could respect our character, culture and diversity. Indeed all the things we seemed to discover about ourselves in centennial year were in the spirit of Judy LaMarsh, the minister who made that such a success.
When I met Judy LaMarsh she was not discouraged by the plight of our political party at that time. She was never discouraged in her fight that women should have a more just position in political life in Canada. In the last year or two she faced a terrible trial. Again, Judy's wonderful courage and

October 28, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Shields
ambition to succeed in the things that she believed in, life, health, and caring for others, once more carried her through.
If I may, I would just like to add the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) issued yesterday when we all received the sad news. This statement is dated October 27, 1980, and reads as follows:
I was deeply saddened to learn today that the Honourable Judy LaMarsh had finally lost her courageous struggle with cancer.
We are left, however, with many vivid memories of Judy-as a cabinet minister who developed Canadian social security into a program which is now the envy of the world-as the master impresario of Canada's great centennial celebration-as a successful and respected lawyer-as a committed champion of womens' rights-as a best selling author and, of course, as a deeply involved Liberal partisan.
No tribute from me would be complete without reference to Judy's characterization of me at the 1968 leadership convention. Even when it was at my expense,
I could not help admiring her colourful and frank style, which was always accompanied by an ongoing sense of dignity and a large measure of good humour.
Judy LaMarsh lived her life as a Canadian in full measure, and for this we can all be grateful.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Al MacBain (Niagara Falls):: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the people of Niagara Falls riding 1 wish to thank this House for its condolences on the untimely death of the Hon. Judy LaMarsh. Her passing is a time of great sorrow for Canadians everywhere. She served her country with distinction both in war and in peace. Hon. members will understand when I say that in Niagara Falls her loss is very great indeed among her people. Our feeling of sadness is very personal, and will be with us for a long time.
We appreciate your kind words of sympathy, Madam Speaker, and the tributes expressed to the voice of Niagara, which is now silent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning the matters of closure and government propaganda as they affect members of Parliament. These have been brought to your attention on many occasions in recent weeks, and I am sorry that I have to draw your attention to a very similar situation.
In my capacity as member of Parliament for the riding of Athabasca, I feel it is my responsibility to stimulate discussion and debate regarding the proposed constitutional reform. For this reason I had hoped to provide some of my constituents with material pertaining to the constitution and its reform so that they might make up their own minds.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is raising a question of privilege. He may raise a question of privilege
without notice if it follows from today's deliberations. I do not feel that what the hon. member is referring to now follows from the deliberations of today. If he wishes to pursue the matter, the hon. member should send me notice and I could hear him tomorrow. Of course, he knows that a question of privilege not following from the deliberations requires at least one hour's notice, which I have not received.


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, I will pursue the matter and send you notice, thank you.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I table, in both official languages a minute of a meeting of the committee of the Privy Council establishing March 31, 1981, as the reporting date for the McDonald royal commission.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan), who has just tabled this further extension of the sittings of a royal commission which was supposed to have wound down some long time ago, tell us whether he expects this to be the last extension or whether he expects to be back to this House with further extensions? Can the Solicitor General give the House some indication why it is felt necessary to extend the date for the royal commission's report?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, this is the final date being established now. The government does not contemplate any further extension.
As to it being an extension in itself, there was no reporting date provided at the time the McDonald commission was established. I believe it was only since the middle of 1979 that a regular practice was established. A practice has been in effect since then of providing definite termination dates within the order in council establishing all royal commissions. There have been five since that time and all of them have had a termination date.
Considering there has been no termination date for the McDonald royal commission, I do not consider it a reasonable observation, if I may say so, that this is an undue length of time. It provides almost six months which is not long for a commission which had not been looking forward to any particular termination date. On the other hand, it is a sufficient amount of time for the commission to complete matters it thinks should be completed and to put its report together.
[Translation\


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
October 28, 1980


Madam Speaker:: The hon. President of the Privy Council rises on a point of order.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I am advised that 1 made a mistake when I stated that the first day of debate would be tomorrow morning. If indeed I said that, it was not on purpose. It is clear that the House will sit tomorrow afternoon at two o'clock.


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 questions to be answered today are Nos. 1,364, 1,416, 1,435, 1,443 and 1,533.
Madam Speaker, 1 ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Halliday: For the fiscal year (a) 1977-78 (b) 1978-79, how many persons in the constituency of Oxford applied for assistance and received monetary assistance from the Woodstock, Ontario branch of the Federal Business Development Bank?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The Federal Business Development Bank advises: The Woodstock, Ontario Branch opened on September 1, 1979. Out of a total of 61 applications, 59 loans were authorized to the end of July 1980. Prior to September 1, 1979, the constituency of Oxford formed a part of the London branch.


Mr. Blenkarn: 1.	Did the International Development Research Centre make a contribution to the Brandt commission and, if so, in what amount?
2.	Will the recommendations of the Brandt commission cost the Canadian taxpayer any money and, if so, how much?
3.	Does the government accept the recommendations of the Brandt commission?
4.	Has Cl DA made any grants to the North-South Institute in the past four years and, if so (a) what was the amount (b) what were the grants for?
5.	Has the International Development Research Centre made any grants to the North-South Institute since 1976 and, if so (a) what was the amount (b) what was the purpose of the grant?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I am informed by the Department of External
Order Paper Questions
Affairs, the Canadian International Development Agency and the International Development Research Centre as follows:
1.	In 1978, the IDRC approved a grant of $100,000 for the Brandt commission in support of its study of the global issues arising from the economic and social disparities of the world community, the identification of desirable and realistic demands for development policy in the next decade and the preparation of proposals for accelerating social and economic progress in the developing countries.
2.	The Brandt commission report is still at a preliminary stage of examination within the international community. It is therefore unclear whether any future international agreements may derive directly from the report's recommendations. Canada has made no financial commitments with regard to the implementation of any of the report's proposals.
3.	The government has welcomed the Brandt commission report, which provides a comprehensive elaboration of issues currently being addressed in a number of international fora, as a timely and significant contribution to the north-south dialogue. The report, and the proposed emergency action program in particular, will likely prove useful as a frame of reference in the forthcoming United Nations global negotiations. The mutuality of interest between north and south, which is highlighted throughout the report and the emphasis placed on a consensus approach are both themes of considerable importance to Canada. The specific recommendations are being studied carefully. The government will certainly reflect upon the relevant ideas put forward in the report in the ongoing process of policy formulation. We have already indicated our support for the proposed north-south mini-summit which, if held, could be particularly useful in giving impetus to dialogue in general and the UN global negotiations in particular.
4. (a)	1977-78	75,000
	1978-79	88,000
	1979-80	68,300
	1980-81 to date	10,000
(b)	Financial contribution as a "Public Participation Program" N-S Round	225,000
	Table in Sri Lanka Evaluation of	2,800
	Powdered Milk Program	13,500
5. In 1976, the centre approved a grant of $75,000 for the North-South Institute to enable the institute to conduct independent policy-relevant research and analyses in the field of world development. In 1978, IDRC approved an additional grant of $375,000 over four years from 1978 to 1981 to enable the institute to continue to conduct independent policy-relevant research in the field of international development from a Canadian perspective, particularly the financial, political, and cultural relationships among developed and developing countries, and to cover part of the institute's administrative costs.


Mr. Crosby: 1. Did the Minister of Transport take steps to review regional air policy and to establish a new regional air policy in the light of the decision of the Canadian

October 28, 1980
Order Paper Questions
Transport Commission concerning the Halifax-Toronto air route and, if so, what were they?
2. Who is responsible for carrying out the review of regional air policy and how will a new policy be adopted so that it will be binding upon the Canadian Transport Commission?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. 1 announced on August 5, 1980 that I intend to seek the views of cabinet in the fall on a new regional air carrier policy. This new policy will also include the national and local carriers.
2. Transport Canada is responsible for carrying out the review. After seeking cabinet's views, 1 intend to seek the views of the airlines, the provinces and other interested parties. I expect that the government will subsequently approve a new domestic air carrier policy, which I anticipate the Canadian Transport Commission will consider in making its decisions, in the same way as it considers other relevant government policies.


Mr. Crosby: 1.	Were steps taken to appoint members to the port authority for the port of Halifax following the lapse of appointments to the authority on December 31, 1979 and, if so, what were they?
2.	Since January 1, 1980, how many meetings have been held by the port authority and who headed the meetings?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: The National Harbours Board advises as follows:
1.	Yes. Members were asked to continue in office until the end of 1980.
2.	Two meetings: February 21 and March 14, 1980. Mr. G. E. Simmons, chairman of the port authority chaired both meetings.


Mr. Mazankowski: Does the National Harbours Board intend to turn over the port of St. John, New Brunswick to private enterprise and, if so, what date is forecast for the turnover and how will it be carried out?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: The National Harbours Board advises as follows: No.
[ Translation]


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, October 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Ouellet (for the Prime Minister) that Bill C-42, an act to establish the Canada Post corporation, to repeal the Post Office Act and other related acts and to make related amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac):: Madam
Speaker, I spoke during debate on this bill last Friday, and I would like to conclude my remarks now.
This legislation contains many of the measures that our party, through my colleague from Brandon-Souris, has advocated for a number of years. As 1 pointed out on Friday, the best intent of my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), seems also to be reflected in the bill. 1 repeat that I support this bill and look forward to its passage.
As I said last Friday, I oppose closing rural post offices on Saturdays. They are very important to the people of my riding, and I am sure they are equally important to rural Canadians across Canada. Because of the distances that many rural people must drive to get to post offices, the time constraints of farm life, and often stormy weather of Canadian winters, days of opening of rural post offices should not be curtailed. Rural Canadians depend on their post offices six days a week and 1 know they will not welcome Saturday closings.
Those members in this House who represent large rural ridings like mine, will know that in many of the towns and villages that dot their constituencies, the local post office is the only visible symbol of the federal government. The red and white sign outside the building names the postal station, and the Canadian flag flies proudly above. To close rural post offices on Saturday would not only cut off access to the mail, it would also serve to drive a wedge between rural Canadians and the only visible symbol of the federal government in their community.
I hope the new corporation will take a look at the condition of some of the rural post offices in Canada. In my riding the Denbigh post office is in a private home. Although 1 have made representations to post office officials to have a new station built, I believe the new corporation should look closely at this situation and adopt a policy of building post offices to replace postal facilities located in private homes, where the volume warrants.
It is my sincere hope that this bill will address the many serious problems that currently plague the Post Office. The matter of labour-management disputes has to be considered the most important of these problems. Other important issues
October 28, 1980

include electronic funds transmission, as my colleague, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), referred to in his remarks on Friday. Should this new technology become a widely accepted practice, as many people believe it will, the result will be devastating for the Post Office. It will mean a very significant decrease in the volume of first class mail handled by the Post Office. This will result in a great loss of revenue and, perhaps, more important, will mean a loss of many jobs for postal employees.
The tension between labour and management over this issue will become more serious. As management responds to this decrease in the use of the Post Office, they will certainly have to cut jobs that have become obsolete. Job security has always been a thorny issue for labour-management negotiations, and we can expect that situation to continue if the electronic transmission of funds becomes a reality.
If further instability results in the Post Office, it will inevitably mean more lost revenue, pushing the Post Office debt up even higher than its current debt of $485 million. Every time there is a disruption in postal service, the private courier services pick up more customers. Many of these customers are not temporary, they are permanent. This results in even less use of the Post Office, meaning even more lost revenue, less need for postal employees, and more opportunity for labour-management strife. The result is a vicious circle.
I mention this because it is a real problem that the new corporation has to deal with. I might add that I do not envy the responsibilities of the members of the board of the new corporation. They are inheriting a mess. The government has learned the fine art of incompetence over the past decade in its management of the Post Office. It has perfected this art during the debate on the constitutional resolution. It is this legacy which the new corporation will have to address, and 1 wish them the very best of luck in putting the Post Office back on track.
Before I conclude, I would like to mention that I deeply regretted the day that the government dropped the name of "The Royal Mail" for the Post Office. In the minds of many people this may not be a matter of much significance, but to me, Mr. Speaker, it is a reflection of an attitude which has invaded many quarters of the government that has resulted in the loss of many references to the tradition of the monarchy in Canada.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, 1 want to state my support for the legislation now before us. It is my sincere hope that turning the Post Office into a Crown corporation will give it a much-needed new start in labour-management negotiations. Hopefully this will result in fewer work stoppages, an increase in productivity, and create in the minds of Canadians a sense of confidence in our mail service.
Finally, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, 1 am greatly disappointed that I did not have an opportunity to speak during the constitutional debate because of government closure. I had looked forward to that opportunity and take deep offence that it was denied. However, the Post Office is something like the constitution which affects every Canadian,
Canada Post Corporation Act
and I am pleased to have had the opportunity to participate in the debate on this bill.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak on this very important bill, C-42, which will enable the Post Office to operate as a Crown corporation. As many of my colleagues know, 1 have had the privilege of serving on the Post Office committee on behalf of this party for some six or seven years, working with my colleague, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale). Most are aware of the trials and tribulations of the Post Office down through the years. 1 see the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) and his predecessor in the chamber. Both are aware of what the Post Office has gone through. Possibly when this bill is passed and the new corporation comes into being, it will work to the better for all concerned.
Many major problems have confronted the Post Office in recent years, especially when labour negotiations were going on with the various unions. It proved very difficult to arrive at a suitable settlement because of the interest in and participation by more than one government agency. For example, the Public Service Commission enters into the program when it comes to hiring. Treasury Board takes over when negotiating contracts. When it comes to plant maintenance and so on, we switch over to Public Works. These bureaucratic complications have certainly caused problems in labour-management relations. I hope the conversion of the Post Office into a Crown corporation will reduce many of the problems.
The Clark government was in the process of preparing legislation to create a Crown corporation when the election was called last December. Hon. members will recall Bill C-27 which was introduced by the previous Liberal government, and which we felt did not go far enough, died on order paper. There have been numerous studies since 1962 which recommended converting the Post Office into a Crown corporation. The Liberals continued to ignore this advice until 1978 when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced he was going to create a Crown corporation because he was fed up with the labour problems in the Post Office.
As I have already mentioned, Bill C-27 was introduced to convert the Post Office into a Crown corporation. It did not receive second reading. The Progressive Conservative Party objected to the bill because it proposed a two-tier system of management. We felt that such a system would aggravate labour-management relations.
The problem facing the Post Office and some of the reasons for conversion were as follows. First, there was a decline in the reliability and efficiency of the Post Office over the past ten years. I am certain that almost every member of Parliament has received letters and telephone calls from irate constituents lambasting the Post Office for this, that, or the other thing. Something else that does not sit well with the general public is the increase in postal rates. We must be realistic. It costs money to operate and more than it did years ago. Between 1968 and April, 1979, first-class mail rates have increased from six cents to 17 cents.

October 28, 1980
Canada Post Corporation Act
Earlier this year in a committee meeting, when the estimates of the Post Office were before it, I asked the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General a point blank question. I said that 1 would make a bet with him, and I will do it again. I said that by April 1, 1981, I was confident that it would cost 20 cents to mail a first-class letter. Would the Postmaster General take that bet now? He is engaged in a conversation, but 1 will get back to him.


Mr. Ouellet:: I am sorry.


Stan Darling: 1 am still stating that the Post Office, or the Crown corporation, if it is in effect, will raise the first-class rates to at least 20 cents by April 1. I will bet the Postmaster General a dollar to that effect, if he will take it.
Another matter which has been a cause for great concern and the cause of the increases is the deficit the Post Office has faced through the years from 1968 to 1979. The deficit rose from $67 million a year to $559 million a year. As was mentioned by one of my colleagues, I believe this past year it was in the $400 and some million bracket. One of the reasons for the unrest in the last ten years was the more frequent labour-management disputes. The decision by management in the late 1960s to go ahead with a billion-dollar automation program in order to cope with significant increases in the volume of mail certainly created a real furore with the unions. There was little prior consultation, and I think we are all aware that if one talks things over with employees to straighten the matter out, this certainly would bear a lot more fruit.
Approximately two or three years ago the hon. member for Brandon-Souris and I visited post offices in Europe, principally the post office in Great Britain. We spoke to corporate management heads of the post office there and also with the two unions. It was pointed out to us that there was grave concern at that time because the post office was starting to automate over there. But they ironed things out among themselves and the unions finally said, "All right, we will go ahead with it". The same thing applied in West Germany where we had discussions with the heads of their post office. In both of those jurisdictions the service being given to the public is amazing.
I concede that there is a difference in the sizes of Great Britain and Canada, despite the fact that it is 50-odd million to 24 million people. Therefore we cannot really do the same thing from one corner of Canada to another. The same situation applies in the Federal Republic of West Germany. Germany is a fairly large country with a population of some 60 million people, but 1 assume they are still operating a 24-hour mail service as they were when we were there. A first-class letter is delivered anywhere in Germany within 24 hours. Then they said-and this came as a shock to me-that they were trying to improve on it. I said, "How in the name of heavens can you improve on a letter being mailed today and delivered tomorrow?" They said they would be improving on it.
Another problem which will face the Crown corporation is the fact that the Post Office now has competition. Certainly
some of it is well-deserved because the public could not trust the Post Office to deliver mail within a reasonable time. As a result of that there are now various private couriers delivering mail. This was brought on primarily when there were labour disputes, strikes and so on. Even at the present time, when things are reasonably quiet and moving along in the Post Office, a tremendous amount of important mail is delivered by courier. The Post Office has lost that business.
I presume the new corporation will have to face a frightening situation in the future, that is, electronic mail. It will do away with a great percentage of the existing mail service and the ordinary delivery of letters. Probably the government will be one of the main ones to bring this about when old age pension cheques, family allowance cheques and various cheques are distributed electronically. On a certain date the cheque of an old age pensioner or a person receiving Canada Pension, as the case may be, will be in the bank; there will be no worry about delivery or anything. The Post Office will have to contend with that.
We know that two contracts are coming up for discussion and perhaps renewal by the end of this year, that is, the one with CUPW and the one with the letter carriers. I am not holding any great brief for Mr. Jean-Claude Parrot as the quietest and the most wonderful head of the union through the years of his tenure following that Scotsman, Mr. Joe Davidson. My ancestors came from Scotland, but I think we were glad to be rid of him. I am not sure whether we went from the frying pan into the fire, but he drove a hard bargain and a settlement was reached. Of course the then postmaster general averted a strike and, in the eyes of many, it cost a good deal. When it comes up at the end of this year, let us hope that something can be worked out so that there will not be a disruption in the mail service. Just because it goes to the end of December does not say that there could not be a lot of problems. We know the important time for Her Majesty's mail is during the Christmas period.
Also we are aware that presently letter carriers are discussing their contract. Certainly their union is a very excellent one. Members of the committee have met with their union at various times, and we have found it to be very straightforward. From reading the latest report of Mr. McGarry and company, they will be talking pretty tough this time. Of course this again will cost taxpayers or the users of the Post Office a considerable amount of money.
Members of the committee have been asked time and again about mail services in the rural areas and small post offices. 1 believe it was mentioned before by one of my colleagues that there is a proposal the Post Office will close its branches in small towns on Saturday morning. As I have mentioned before, and as I have pointed out to the Postmaster General, the five-day week in the cities seems the norm, that is quite in order, but in small towns Saturday is a busy day. A lot of people in small towns work during the week in larger centres. Some of them may be away for the five days and come home on the weekend. They want to be able to go into the post office to purchase money orders, get their mail, or whatever. They
October 28, 1980

would like to see the post office remain open on Saturday morning. 1 hope the Postmaster General, in his wisdom, as long as it is under his jurisdiction, will see that that continues.
I come from a small town, and in some small towns postmasters encounter some problems. I am not sure whether the Postmaster General is aware of this, but there is vandalism in post offices and post office lobbies. In two or three of the towns in my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka the postmasters have requested permission-and I suppose unilaterally made the decision-to close the lobbies because of young vandals going in at all hours of the night or early in the morning. In one case they set fire to a waste basket. In another they kicked in walls. I ask the Postmaster General whether this is correct or not, but as I understand it, according to the rules post office lobbies are to remain open 24 hours. Is that correct? I am just wondering if the Postmaster General would nod this head as to whether that is correct. When vandalism such as this occurs, I certainly feel that the postmaster of a particular jurisdiction should have the authority to close the post office and let it remain closed until he feels it is wise to open it again.
There is another thing about which I was not too happy. The post offices across Canada in many cases are beautiful old buildings. We might even say they are the most historic buildings in the towns. Two particular post offices in my riding come to mind. A few years ago the government decided to change all the lettering on post offices. Some of them had beautiful lettering carved above the doors. I will cite today the case of the post office in the great village of Burks Falls where 1 live. On the two doors there were the words "Post Office" and then carved in stone "Burks Falls Post Office". Under the new ruling "Post Office" was chiselled off and replaced with one of those yellow signs, an ugly looking thing compared with what was there.
This was also done in the town of Gravenhurst. There is another beautiful and historic building there. The words "Post Office" and "Gravenhurst" were chiselled off and up went that red or yellow or red, white and blue sign which could hardly be read. It was much smaller, and the other was huge.
Last year I brought this matter to the attention of the then postmaster general, the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), and, believe it or not, we were able to get the lettering back on both of those post offices. It was absolutely ridiculous to me that the lettering was removed in the first place, and I hope that something will be done to put the original lettering back on other post offices which have been disfigured that way.
In view of the electronics with which we are faced there is a growing awareness that Canada made a mistake ten years ago when it went to automation. At that time we bought automatic machines. 1 am thinking of Gateway and the terminal at Alta Vista here, as well as other large post offices. We bought equipment which came from Germany, I believe, which was felt to be obsolete. We paid a pretty big buck for it. I am sure there were hundreds of millions of dollars poured into this
Canada Post Corporation Act
automatic equipment, but besides making employees as mad as the dickens, it also did not speed things up, as we are all aware.
Many years ago when I was a small insurance agent I could post my mail at the village of Burks Falls up until midnight, and it would go on the train at midnight to Toronto. I knew that a letter mailed at that time would be delivered at the insurance office by nine or ten o'clock the next morning. If I had to have a policy, I could telephone Toronto, and I knew that if it was prepared and mailed before 4.30 or five o'clock, it would go on the train and be delivered to Burks Falls the next morning just as sure as shooting. Now we know the horror stories. To get mail from my constituency office in Burks Falls to Ottawa during the recess takes five, six or seven days, even under so-called normal conditions. This automatic machinery which was so wonderful certainly is not doing the job it was meant to do, and as I mentioned before, there certainly will be revolutionary ideas in the future with respect to electronic mail equipment. I understand that technology is now in place to do away with communication by mail entirely.
As we know, both the United Kingdom and the United States have set up Crown or state corporations, and we certainly hope a Crown corporation will be set up here. The Postmaster General certainly has the support of this party. We have spoken very strongly in favour of this in the first place. Let us hope that it will be put into place before too long.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker,
I will be as brief as possible this afternoon because it is my hope that we will be able to get this bill into committee as quickly as possible.
Unfortunately 1 could not be here on Friday afternoon to put forward my party's position on this bill, but I have read the remarks of my respected colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), and 1 must admit that the quality of his speech was such that I could not possibly have matched his eloquence had I been here.
It is my hope this afternoon to enumerate the three areas of concern my party has about this otherwise good piece of legislation. I could, like some of the Conservatives who have preceded me in this debate, go off on a wild harangue against the postal service in Canada, but I do not feel that such a speech would serve the House well. The postal service in Canada is certainly in bad shape.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order, 1 am just wondering if the hon. member who is speaking now could give us examples of the wild harangue he says Conservative speakers to this point have made. I have been here throughout the entire debate, and I do not think I have heard any.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, if there are any questions, I will be prepared to answer them after my speech.
I moved a motion with regard to the poor shape of the postal service just last spring, which led off a debate in this chamber. There is no question that major changes are required especially, as I indicated last spring, in the management structure of

October 28, 1980
Canada Post Corporation Act
Canada Post. However, surely this is not the time to go over old ground. Surely we must use this debate to look to the future rather than to complain about the past. The fact of the matter is that the government has finally accepted a demand which we on this side of the House have been voicing for years, a demand that Canada Post be turned into a Crown corporation. What possible point is served in using the opportunity to discuss such an important proposal once again to make those tired old arguments about how terrible the postal service is? Frankly, the official opposition is once again being obstructionist and leaving the real job of opposition and constructive criticism to the members of my party. We take on the job with pride, and we will leave the braying to the Conservatives to my right.
I said that we will offer constructive criticism, and I meant it. We have three very specific concerns about this legislation, and if the government listens to our arguments 1 think it will quickly realize that the changes we are recommending will strengthen the bill and make it more effective.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: The three are ready, aye ready!


Sidney James Parker: The first and most important concern is with respect to clause 5(2) of this legislation. As the minister pointed out in his opening remarks on Friday, this is far and away the most important provision in the bill. This clause guarantees that Canadians will continue to enjoy basic customary postal service. Naturally we agree with that sentiment, but we are not sure what is meant by basic customary postal services. Does the government mean that all Canadians living in residential communities over a certain size will continue to receive daily home delivery of mail, or does it mean that all letters will be sent to some large green box in the middle of the neighbourhood and that Canadians will have to trudge through the ice and snow to pick up their mail? I ask this question in all seriousness because in a large number of large Canadian cities, especially in western Canada, that is what basic customary postal service has come to mean.
Does this phrase mean that rural post offices will continue to stay open six days a week, or does it mean that the new corporation will follow through on this government's promise to reduce service by at least one day a week? Does this phrase mean that some rural towns on the Canadian prairies will be able to keep their post offices and, through that, their only link with the federal government, or does it mean that these small post offices will be closed?
This phrase will be considered very carefully by judges in the not too distant future when they will try to determine whether or not the new corporation is adequately fulfilling its mandate. Quite frankly, we are concerned that a judge might not interpret this wording in quite such a wide manner as the minister did on Friday when he introduced the bill. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, we will be proposing amendments to this clause in committee which would clearly spell out what is meant by customary postal service. I am sure that if the
minister is as concerned with this issue as he was on Friday, he will have no problem in supporting our amendments in committee.
Our second major concern with this legislation is in clause 22(2). This clause is very short and, on the surface, does not appear very serious. All it says is that the new corporation will be able to enter into any contracts it likes. The problem with this clause, quite frankly, is that it gives the corporation the power to dismantle the Post Office altogether. Let us say, for example, that the corporation's board decided that it did not like its letter carriers' union. Under this clause it could simply tender a contract with some firm, pay the firm a set amount of money, and let them worry about finding letter carriers and paying them a fair salary. This is not a wild idea since it is already occurring in several communities across the country. We are finding that Canada Post is going into the contract business with unscrupulous businessmen who are hiring cheap labour to deliver the mail at the minimum wage. The government is able to stop worrying about labour relations, the contractors are making money hand over fist, and the workers are being shafted. For there to be any kind of labour co-ordination in the postal service once Canada Post becomes a Crown corporation, it is very important that we look into these problems.
Under this provision in the legislation the corporation will be able to contract out virtually every function with which it is being charged. This is not a reasonable situation and must be corrected before the bill is out of committee. We will be proposing an amendment to the effect that the corporation will not be able to contract out any work which, by its very nature, is an essential part of the postal service.
Our third major concern focuses on clauses 14 and 15 which deal with the exclusive privileges of the corporation. Naturally we agree with the government that the Post Office must have a monopoly over the delivery of letters, but we cannot understand why they have decided to allow the continued use of private parcel post delivery systems. Our argument is very simple and we hope that the government will pay heed to it.
Everyone knows that parcel delivery is the most profitable area of postal service. It is in this field that the Post Office makes up for its losses in the delivery of letters. Clearly, it is more profitable to deliver a parcel across town than it is to deliver a letter to Old Crow in the Yukon. By letting private couriers compete with the Post Office in parcel delivery, we are letting them skim the market. We do not let the railways skim the market, nor do we let the airlines skim the market, so why on earth should we let United Parcel Service and Purola-tors Courier Service skim profits from the Post Office? All this will mean is that letter rates will go sky high, especially since the government has announced its intention to make the new corporation self-sufficient.
United Parcel Service has decimated the postal system in the United States. I beg the government not to do the same thing here in Canada. I hope that hon. members opposite will support my proposal to amend clause 14 to ensure that parcel post delivery remains the exclusive privilege of Canada Post.
October 28, 1980

We have other concerns with this bill, Mr. Speaker, but they are not too serious and 1 am sure they will be dealt with in committee. I am not sure why the government changed the wording in clause 40 so that it is now an offence to open mail without a lawful excuse, rather than just an offence, period, as it is under the current act. In other words, they have added the phrase "without lawful excuse." We hope that this is not a back door attempt to legitimize RCMP openings. We are concerned when the minister talks about union representatives on the board of the corporation and we wonder whether he is not talking about putting the likes of Senator Ed Lawson on the board and claiming that such people represent the average working people.
All in all, Mr. Speaker, 1 want to reiterate that my party supports the thrust of the bill before us and that we are fully prepared to give it speedy passage through committee so long as the government gives our proposed amendments the attention which we are convinced they deserve.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, I am not at all excited about this bill. I believe that state ownership, of which the last speaker spoke so highly, has been the cause of the mess in the Post Office today, and that any organization will have a most difficult time to get it back on the tracks again. If the Post Office is an example of state ownership, then I am sure Canadians will never support the NDP in its efforts to nationalize other corporations.
I would like to deal now with two or three clauses in this bill. First I wish to refer to the phrase "maintaining basic customary postal service." I have looked in vain for a definition of that phrase and I do not know whether it means the elimination of the basic service we have today, and whether or not it will put an extra burden on our rural people and on many of our urban people to whom mail is delivered customarily. It is difficult enough now at times without making it any more difficult, and 1 hope the minister, when he closes the debate on this bill, or in committee, will give us a definition of "maintaining basic customary postal service."
1 wonder if the practice that has been followed for many, many years in the Post Office of keeping a post office open when other businesses are open will be included under the definition of basic customary postal service. Today there is a move on foot to close the rural post offices in our towns and villages on Saturdays. These days Saturday is not the business day it once was in many parts of this country. But Saturday is still a very important day and many rural people go to town on Saturday to do their shopping, and expect to get their mail. 1 strongly urge when this thing is being considered that we don't simply say we are going automatically, and in a blanket way, to close all post offices on Saturdays. Many people work long hours, from the early morning until late at night, to make a livelihood for themselves and their families. I have some correspondence to indicate that the only time a person has to go to the post office and do his postal business is on a Saturday.
Canada Post Corporation Act
Another point in connection with basic service which bothers me is the hours of work. Today, for instance, in our Calgary post office, it operates from 7 a.m. to 5.15 p.m. Out in Airdrie, just a few miles away, the Post Office does not open until 8.45 a.m. So that means workers cannot get there and do their postal work before they go to work, and it is closed by the time they finish their work day.
I would like to suggest that the major aim of the Post Office should be to serve the people of this country, to get them their mail and give them service of which they can be proud. Several years ago there was no difficulty in the Post Office. You mailed a letter with the utmost confidence that it would reach the person to whom you addressed it within a very short period of time. Now we have no such assurance at all; it may get there in three days or it may take 17 days. This is not good enough, and if that is going to be the basic postal service which we have today then we are not going to satisfy anybody by simply calling it a Crown corporation. 1 think it is very important to realize that changing the name and changing some of the set-up may not have the desired effect. That in itself is not going to give us good postal service. There must be some very basic changes made in the present set-up.
One of the things about this bill which worries me a great deal is the constancy with which I see the words "appointed by the minister", or, "with the approval of the minister", or, "shall be appointed by the governor in council". The president, chairman and directors are all appointed by the governor in council to hold office during pleasure. Are these people going to be responsible to the cabinet or responsible to the people of this country?
We already have a situation where the minister is responsible to the people through this House, and I am wondering if this is going to put them beyond the reach of this House. Will we be able to consider the difficulties which may arise with regard to post office services? Will we be able to represent the people who send us here by having someone to whom to direct our questions? At the present time we may ask the minister, and the minister endeavours to answer our questions. If there is something wrong he can take steps to have it corrected. Are we putting the Post Office beyond the reach of the people, through their elected representatives? If so I am not going to like it at all.
We must have definite assurances that we will be able to make representations, that those representations will be heard, and that those who are appointed as chairman, president and directors are to be responsible to the people by reporting to the members of the House of Commons. I think that is a very basic and important item.
Another point of concern to me is that of the chain of command. If this bill is not going to alter the chain of command I do not think we will see any improvement in our postal service. In my view that is one of the basic things wrong with the present postal service.

October 28, 1980
Canada Post Corporation Act
A regional post office takes a great deal of blame, such as the Calgary regional post office, and in my cases properly so. The mail from Edmonton is delayed in Calgary for sometimes as long as seven days-I am told-before it gets through Calgary, which is where the bottleneck takes place. But you cannot put the whole blame on the regional post office in Calgary because the director there has no authority. If he has a poor employee who is not doing his job he must write to Ottawa. I was informed, on good authority, that it is sometimes three months before a reply is received from Ottawa. By that time eveyone has forgotten what the incident was about and why the man should have been discharged on the spot.
Unless your employees are responsible right down the chain of command you will not get good service. Whether it is a business or whether it is a government department, there must be a chain of command. The head of that, the president or chairman of the board, should be able to put his finger on the person who is causing the hold-up. Sometimes it is the management at fault, not the workers at all.
I was amazed when I was informed that during the last public service strike the managers of one of the regional post offices in Toronto were all going to work even though there was no mail being delivered. The security was all there even though there was no mail to protect and no employees present to do the work. The upper echelon went each day and played cards, and got paid by the taxpayers. 1 do not think that is responsible at all. Surely the taxpayers should not be ripped off in that way. If the workers are not in, then we should not be paying the managers to be there. That is one of the difficulties today; there is no chain of command in our Post Office. Almost everything has to be directed to the top in Ottawa. The simplest things have to be done that way, and this costs a lot of money and causes a lot of concern.
No wonder workers get frustrated when they see somebody slacking on the job while they are working full time doing their utmost to earn their pay, while beside them the person sloughing off is getting the same pay. And nothing is done about it because no one is responsible. They must write to Ottawa and say "Mike is not doing his job, may I fire him, please?" Or "May I slap him on the wrist?" Or "May I discipline him?" Surely if we are going to have a Crown corporation we should look to private enterprise as an example. Private enterprise would not put up with that. They would not stay in business if they did. And whether it is a Crown corporation or a government department, we should not put up with it either.
The chain of command is something which I will be watching very carefully as the legislation comes into operation. 1 hope that the chairman, president, and the board of directors will give that matter a great deal of attention because this is one of the things which today is causing chaos in our post office system.
We invested thousands of dollars to get automation in our Post Office. I am told that there is equipment which has been purchased, costing several thousands of dollars, and it has never been used. It has never been used and it is still silting there. Again, that tells me there is no chain of command.
Nobody is taking the responsibility, and that should not happen. This instance can be supported time and again across this country. 1 raised the matter in the Standing Committee on Public Accounts two years ago. I was amazed at the representatives of the Post Office who seemed to think that everything was okay.
These occurrences also happen in Toronto. There was an incident there where a little screw caused the shutdown of an automatic machine. The operator went out and bought a screw for 15 cents and installed it in the machine. The machine was fixed and it started to work again. This man was reported to management because it was felt that he had done something terrible.
He was called before management because they wanted to know why he had taken this action. Management told him that the next time he would be discharged if he did such a terrible thing. This individual should have followed procedure, written out a requisition for the screw and taken it to the office. It would probably have been sent to Ottawa, then things would really have been screwed up and the machine would have been out of work for three weeks. When we hear about incidents like this, it is no wonder that we are not getting our mail. A chain of command must be established. If people such as this workman wish to do something well, then let us congratulate and commend them, not tell them they will get fired the next time they go out and buy a 15 cent screw.
Another thing which bothers me about the post office is that there seems to be no vision toward the future. Somebody said the other day that where there is no vision the people perish. I can take hon. members to post offices across this country which were built just two years ago, three years ago and five years ago, and which today are unable to cope with the amount of business. I realize that in some places there is reason for this inability to cope.
For instance, I can cite the town of Airdrie in the province of Alberta. This town has grown probably faster than any other town in the whole of Canada. From a population of between 1,000 and 2,000 people just a few years ago, it now has a population of 10,000 people. It is expanding like a mushroom. The post office is not meeting the situation, nor has it met the situation for the last four years.
Since 1 have been elected, I have written to each postmaster general, and I always receive the answer from civil servants, "we know that the postal service is bad and that people have to stand in line for 30 minutes to get their mail from the wicket and that there are not enough boxes". But why has something not been done about the matter?
In the case of Airdrie, over half of the population, some 6,000 people, are living on the east side of the highway, and they must cross the highway into the town to get their mail. One drugstore, and perhaps there are a dozen other businesses, has offered to instal a post office. Why is there this dilly-dallying by those who are in command when these people are not
October 28, 1980

receiving their mail and are waiting from 15 to 45 minutes in line because there are no boxes?
There is also the fact that they must travel the distance to the post office. There is an underpass for the people on the east side of the highway, but they still must go the distance to the post office. The underpass is there as a result of the efforts of the Alberta government, not of the federal government. In any event, they are not getting their mail, so they are unhappy and there is discontent.
Again, if there is a chain of command, surely there can be the vision that when a town begins to grow the post office should immediately increase its service, the same as private enterprise would do in such a situation. If a private entrepreneur were operating a store and saw that he could not handle his customers, he would expand and build another store, and another, to serve his customers. That is what the post office should do, serve the people.
Another example is the town of Okotoks. There the post office is in a Crown-owned building, but there are not enough boxes. Again, the town has grown and grown, and there are subdivisions. When subdivisions become evident around a town, why are steps not taken to provide boxes for those subdivisions? There are no boxes, and the people of that town stand in line for general delivery. Yet the Post Office says to people, "You cannot expect to get your mail unless you have a box", and these people cannot buy a box for love nor money. The town of Strathmore is another case. I have pointed out three very definite cases where the evidence was there but nothing was done.
1 do not blame those who ten years ago did not foresee this eventuality, but I certainly blame those who did not foresee the occurrence of such a situation in the last two years, three years or four years, when the situation became more evident all the time. Now we have the situation, for example, in the town of Airdrie where 10,000 people are trying to obtain their mail from a little post office. There are no boxes, and these people must stand in line for 45 minutes.
How would the hon. members of this House like to stand in line every day for 45 minutes? Let us bring it down to our own case and see how we would like it. These people have things to do. They are earning a living for their families.
I am also bothered by some of the ridiculous regulations which are introduced, not to give better service to the people, but to give them poorer service. There are post offices which follow the directive from somewhere in Ottawa that if a box number is not on a letter it must be returned. Thank goodness there are also some postmasters who have enough common, ordinary horse sense that when they receive a letter for John Jones without a box number, they say, "Well, I know John Jones because he has lived here for 25 years. I will put it in his box".
There is a postmaster in my own riding who returns the mail because there is no box number. How in the world can Mary Jane living in Toronto know the box number of Harry Jones in Airdrie if it is the first time she has written to him? These
Canada Post Corporation Act
postmasters should use a little, ordinary, common horse sense.
It would solve an awful lot of problems.
I am also bothered a great deal by the fact that the Post Office chisels on its smaller post offices. The postal workers in these places are not paid the same rate as people in the larger centres, yet they have more responsibility. For instance, there is a post office in my riding of Bow River which has been provided by the postmistress who has pulled in a trailer. This trailer is now costing her a great deal to operate. If the Post Office officials did not want to provide a building and accepted her offer to provide a building, why were the terms of rental not worked out before she pulled the trailer in and had it converted? Rather, the Post Office has told her that they will not even pay her enough to meet the monthly payments on the trailer. There is also the wages of this postmistress who is paid at the rate of $2.50 per hour. In larger centres the employees receive $7.50 per hour.
Larger centres have supervisors and people to audit and check the books. In small post offices the whole thing is done by the postmaster. And because they are a small post office, we chisel on them so that they can hardly make a living. Some businesses depend on how much mail they receive. The mail takes so long to get through the regional post office that those who can afford to pay and who should be doing their business at the post office cannot afford the loss of time, so they rely on private couriers. This has taken a tremendous amount of revenue away from the Post Office.
Each hon. member should look at the matter from the perspective of his own riding. In many small towns in the southern part of my riding some businesses have lost more than half of their business because the mail takes too long to arrive. Businesses such as grain elevators and insurance companies cannot afford to pay the price of couriers. An agent in Turner Valley told me that the Post Office was ruining her business. She said that she could not expect her clients to wait for the assurance that their house, car, or whatever it is they are insuring, is covered. They may wait as long as seven days before the mail arrives, when one could walk the distance in less than a day.
These are the types of things that we have to consider-and we must always consider people. Let us not say that the smaller post offices are hurting the system; in fact, we are hurting them. They provide an excellent service and we need them, and we need to have them open on Saturday as well, Mr. Speaker.
When it comes to the use of automatic equipment, Mr. Speaker, I think we must realize that there will always be parcels that are not properly wrapped. The problem is, however, that even those that are well wrapped take a severe beating as they travel down the delivery trays and bounce along the conveyor belts.
I have here a letter from a friend and constituent, an excellent school teacher, who spent some time in Hawaii. On his return he wrote to me about his problems with the Post

October 28, 1980
Canada Post Corporation Act
Office and I forwarded the letter to the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet). Among other things, he wrote as follows:
1 solicit your aid in seeing that the correct personnel are made aware of the utter disgust I feel toward the Canadian postal system. Not only is it an inept, bungling department of national disgrace, but a large number of its personnel have no ability to work with the public.
He went on to say:
We shipped five parcels and all five arrived damaged, some of them utterly destroyed.
Surely we can expect better than that from our postal service, Mr. Speaker.
The letter continues:
For example, we packed a dried crab shell in feathers in a box 10 times its size. The box was wrapped in brown paper and butcher twine yet the shell arrived in 33 pieces. When I complained, I was told to take my complaints to the U.S. post office. I shipped a box of books on July 25th, totalling 18 books and magazines. The parcel arrived on September 10th, totally demolished and numbering 9 books.
Half the books had disappeared, Mr. Speaker. It is no wonder the Canadian public is disgruntled in the face of such service.
The letter goes on:
How long is this national disaster going to be allowed to waste tax dollars and destroy property?
In turn, I asked the Postmaster General-how long?
Later in his letter he refers to an occasion when he was expecting a letter which took from August 20 to September 10 to reach him in Strathmore from Humboldt. Yet it only takes eight hours to drive to Humboldt, Mr. Speaker. He goes on to say, "I have just about decided to throw in the towel." That is because he thinks no one cares.
Surely the government should sit up and take notice when hard working people who contribute to the good of this country come to the conclusion that no one in the government cares.
At the present time it takes from nine to 17 days for a letter to travel from Edmonton to Strathmore.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Gordon Edward Taylor: I could give a lot of other examples, Mr. Speaker, but I shall not go into them now. 1 am not trying to hurt the people in the Post Office-unless they are responsible for some of these delays. If that is the case, then in my view they should be fired immediately.
I hope that when the Post Office becomes a Crown corporation it will have a chain of command that will get rid of those people who do not care and who take no responsibility for the service. They are no good to the Post Office, no good to themselves, and they are no good to this country.
If the problems of the Post Office are to be solved, some of these situations must be corrected. I hope there will be a difference when it becomes a Crown corporation. Unless radical changes are made, however, we will simply have another Crown corporation to deal with, and no improvement in the service. If things go wrong and the remedy is beyond the reach
of members of this House, then we are not living in a democracy, Mr. Speaker, but in a totalitarian state.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I rise today with some sense of sadness. The last time I tried to rise to make a speech in this House was last Thursday. My freedom of speech in relation to the most important issue facing the country, the patriation of the Constitution of Canada, was denied by the actions of hon. members opposite-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: It is something that is hard to forget-


Mr. Cousineau:: Mr. Speaker, I believe the House is now studying Bill C-42, not the constitution.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. What the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Cousineau) observes is correct-the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) is not yet addressing himself to the bill. The Chair has to give some leeway to hon. members, however, who may want to make a reference as they proceed. I have been listening to the hon. member's remarks and I am well aware of that possibility, but 1 do not think hon. members ought to be cut off too quickly.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Thank you for your ruling, Mr. Speaker. 1 appreciate it. I chose that method of introduction because it speaks to the sense of wonderment in me as to whether what I have to say about the Post Office bill might be listened to by hon. members opposite. I have watched the debate proceed, and on relatively few occasions have there been more than ten members present. If we on this side of the House are to fulfil our role as the official opposition, I think it is important that we be able to speak on those parts of a bill that we agree with and also on those parts with which we disagree. I also think there should be enough people in the House who have influence in the government caucus, to listen and pay attention.
We are at second reading stage of this bill-the debate in principle-on the desire of the Government of Canada to change the operation of the Post Office and to create a Crown corporation that will manage and hopefully straighten out the postal service in Canada.
I think it is interesting to note that a version of this bill first appeared in the House of Commons in October, 1978. Now, almost two years later, we are still at the first stage of debate. One of the privileges that we have as members of this House is that of making amendments at this stage. The normal process to be followed with bills is that when we complete debate in principle, the bill then goes to committee where we can speak to it as often as we want. There is no time limit at committee stage and amendments can be accepted. The bill then returns to the House for third reading with full and complete debate and, possibly, some amendments, and there is an opportunity to speak on those amendments. This is the process that has

October 28, 1980

been followed for some four years with the Bank Act and, as you know, Mr. Speaker, that is not yet concluded.
We follow this procedure with government legislation because this House, representing the people of Canada, has a responsibility and a right to examine the legislation for its strength and its weaknesses, so that the laws which govern the people of Canada will have desirable rather than undesirable consequences.
It is interesting to contrast the foregoing with the nine weeks from the time the new constitution first saw the light of day to the use of the Post Office to send a resolution off to England. The most fundamental law in this country was debated for 24 hours in this House of Commons without any guarantee of further debate. That is quite a contrast when dealing with fundamental law versus the care and attention that should rightfully be given to this bill regarding the Post Office.
I appreciate what the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) said when he opened debate a few days ago. With remarkable candor he told the House that ten years ago-and I am almost repeating his words verbatim-the government moved too quickly to institute a modernization program. The consequence of the quickness of that move is plain to everybody in 1980. Are Canadians happy with their postal service? The answer is no. Are Canadian workers who work in the Canadian postal service happy? The answer is no. Is the management of the postal service happy? The answer is no. The present Postmaster General identified for us the irregular, spotty service, which many members could address. Certainly new members of Parliament get many letters on the inadequacy of the Canadian postal service. Strikes and the staff turnover are the outcome".
The minister told us that employees back in 1970 were not sufficiently informed about the changes coming about. He did not tell us that sufficiency of information might not have been enough, or that the quality might be important. In his introductory remarks the other day he said that a wise postmaster general in 1970 would have and should have had the full co-operation of the postal leaders. He neglected to say, although I think he might concur, that with wisdom modernization should have proceeded, not just with the full co-operation of labour leaders, but with the full co-operation of postal workers.
It is self-evident that the Post Office can only succeed if the people who work within it are willing to commit themselves to it. I suggest that is not unlike a nation, a nation intending to undergo radical change as a consequence of an act taken in secret which is not unlike what happened to the postal service of Canada. This is something which the little people-the ordinary people whom my friend from Bow River mentioned in his speech-might begin to resist and rebel against. I wonder then if that kind of thing happened and as that kind of thing grows whether we have the kind of Canada we had before. Certainly our experience in the Post Office suggests that in
Canada Post Corporation Act
this decade we have not had the kind of postal service that we had before.
The minister has told us the root cause was an inadequate decision taken in haste, without consultation, co-operation and support. Yet that same minister sat here last Thursday evening and helped to cut off the consultation process and freedom of speech in this chamber so that the resolution would proceed without an opportunity for all points of view to be heard. We are dealing with the fundamental law in this nation which will affect the lives of each and every Canadian in frightening unknown ways. If we knew the ways, I would feel more comfortable.
The minister told us in his introductory remarks that that "procedure was very wrong". I ask him, although he is not paying much attention because he is reading a letter, whether he might just reflect on his introductory remarks and their application to something as fundamental and important as the Constitution of Canada.
The minister told us the treatment in 1970 in the Post Office was so quick that "employees felt threatened and pressured". Quick action, lack of consultation, these things can be applied today to Canada. Canadians each day are feeling more threatened and more pressured. Their political leaders are feeling more threatened and more pressured. If the people who worked in the Post Office of Canada ten years ago were asked whether it was their intention to separate from the Post Office or to quit their jobs, had a Gallup poll been taken the answer would have been no. But the Post Office the workers were committed to was pulled out from under them in secret and without consultation. They resisted. The level of service deteriorated, the number of strikes increased, and with it a terrific turnover in staff. The workers did not leave the Post Office, but a decision arrived at in haste took the Post Office out from under them.
I suggest that we are about to engage in a very similar process with the Constitution of Canada. The patriation process and more important, the amendments which are being smuggled through because they are not well understood, are likely to give us the same kind of consequences.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member is referring to the remarks I made in introducing this bill. If one listened carefully to his arguments, they have nothing to do with the bill we are discussing today. He is merely taking out of context remarks that I made dealing with the changeover of the Post Office into a Crown corporation. He has tried to establish that a constitutional discussion should have followed a process of more extension consultations.
I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member's entire remarks so far have nothing to do with the Post Office. He is merely arguing on the constitutional issue. I say to the hon. member that we are getting close to five o'clock and we have a chance to pass the bill in this House. I hope the hon. member will speak to the subject and be fair to the Post Office workers, who are waiting for this bill and hoping that it can

October 28, 1980
Canada Post Corporation Act
pass second reading today, instead of using the time to argue on the constitutional issue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Why don't you invoke closure?


Mr. Fraser:: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to respond to the hon. minister. No one in this House is more anxious to see this bill brought in than I am. However, I must say through you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister who is my good friend, and to hon. members on the other side, some of whom are my good friends, that it ill behooves anyone on the government benches to get too nit-picky about any speeches made from this side because they happen to reflect and draw parallels between something the minister said and something which happened last week in this House. I have to say that what happened last week is deeply offensive to this side of the House. I also have to say through you, Mr. Speaker, to all hon. members on the government side, that this bill will go through without any undue debate. But I say clearly that it ill behooves anyone on the government side to come along now and ask for favours after what the government did last week.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Allen Fraser: I know the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) is anxious to put this bill through. 1 know also that much of what is in this bill is what I was trying to do as a minister of the Crown. I appreciate that, and the minister knows it.
There will not be undue delay with this bill. However, I will not sit here quietly in my seat and have the suggestion made that members from this side of the House cannot clearly and fairly express themselves.
I have been in this House since 1972 and I have seen far more variation on a theme than I have heard so far from the hon. member who has been speaking. I ask Your Honour to keep that in mind. I recognize the fairness of your ruling and understanding of this House. I ask that you understand the mood of this House, and perhaps with a little passage of time we can dispense with some of the rancour which has been exhibited lately. I speak most profoundly to all members of the government who did not care much about our sensibilities last week. I am not going to sit here and have them give any lecture to any member of Parliament on my side.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Maybe the Postmaster General wants to send in the protective staff to get this bill through.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order. The difficulty is that it probably is not appropriate for the occupant of the chair to encourage hon. members to make the business of the House go forward. The responsibility of the Chair is to make it possible for the business to go forward, not to encourage it. Therefore I do not think I will assist if I comment on the observations made by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser).
As to the point of order raised by the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) the issue is whether or not the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) is in order in the sense of relevancy. It is an extremely difficult proposition for the Chair. It is particularly difficult because in this House of Commons, in comparison with some others, the most generous interpretation is given to the rule of relevancy.
I might point out the difficulty for the Chair in comparison with the British House of Commons, for example, where the hon. member for Calgary West would have long since been ruled out of order. I have to deal not only with the standing orders, but with the traditions of this House. It is part of the tradition that the occupant of the chair, when he finds himself in that situation, makes an appeal to the good faith of the hon. member. I ask the hon. member to attempt to address himself to the bill before us perhaps a little more narrowly than he has so far.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, if I can respond kindly, I have not been long in this House. If I strayed, it is perhaps because of newness. If I resist any part of your ruling and come to the thin edge of the wedge, perhaps it is because I feel deeply that the lives of Canadians will be changed in dramatic ways by the constitution. I might also indicate to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is difficult to see people sitting in the chair who voted to cut off our rights. I turned around and found policemen behind me. The situation is difficult.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I understand that the situation is difficult, but I now have to ask the hon. member to please address himself to the bill before us.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was encouraged by the Postmaster General's statement that the bill before us today was discussed sentence by sentence and word by word, and all the wording has been well thought out so that there can be no confusion or misinterpretation. He said the bill is not perfect, but it represents the collective efforts of those who will be most affected by it, those who work for and manage the Post Office and who represent the employees through their unions.
It is incumbent upon us to look at Bill C-42 and judge whether the minister's comments about the care and attention of the wording are relevant. We must go one step further and assume, because of our recent history in the House, that the bill before us, as with the constitution act of Canada, will become law. In that light there is a provision which says that that law shall be paramount. Therefore, any other law, including the one before us today to create a Crown corporation, will be subjected to the test of the constitution act, 1980. If the bill we are being asked to consider here today, Bill C-42, to create a Crown corporation for the Post Office, is found to be contradictory to the constitution act of Canada, the bill before us, or relevant portions of it, will be declared to have no force and effect.
If that were to be the final consequence of the passage of this bill, and if it were to have no force and effect, we would
October 28, 1980

have wasted the time of the House. We would then have to reconsider, redraft, and start again. It is in that context that we must begin to wonder whether these carefully crafted and carefully worded sentences really do attend to the will of Canadians as members opposite tell us the constitution act expresses that will.
One of the problems the minister identified is the problem of staff morale. Can we get adequate people, can we keep them, will they be happy and productive? By bringing forward this legislation the minister is telling us that by creating a Crown corporation we will be in a better position to recruit staff, train them, retain them and keep them efficient. However, I have to wonder if these employees will be happy working for a Crown corporation, in effect an extension of the government under the provisions of the constitution act, 1980.
I gave as an example clauses 15(1) and (2), which deal with discrimination rights. I pull one out of that bill. It says we shall not discriminate on the basis of age. Does that have an implication for employees of the Post Office? I do not know, but some people with legal training have told me that they suspect it will.
I raised the issue of whether the only way to deliver money to senior citizens, those who have retired from the Post Office, in the future might be through the application of a means test because all laws in Canada which put age into them will be discriminatory. Our entire life insurance program and our pension plans will be potentially threatened as a result of that one simple provision.
There are other consequences. If postal employees move to a particular community and expect their child to start school at age six and receive a fairly decent education, what if some parents wanting their children to start at age four sued on the basis of this act and the courts ruled that they could not be denied? Say the funds available to a local community to provide schooling have to be provided for four-year-olds as well as five-year-olds, six-year-olds and up. I wonder whether the morale of postal workers would be affected by that kind of provision. I wonder whether the age to drive and the pensionable age would also be affected.
I raise these matters because we do not do this House of Commons or the people of Canada a service unless we examine legislation in the context in which it comes into being and can be enforced. We are examining a postal bill here today with some sense of fear on this side of the House that the social and cultural climate in Canada, the difficulties created by the constitution act, 1980, will reverberate, that this effort and the considerable expense required to change the postal service of Canada into a Crown corporation may in fact be undermined by the simultaneous entry into the Canadian mosaic of a piece of legislation that was not well thought out.
I understand, Mr. Speaker, you are indicating that I have run out of time. I believe I will have the floor to continue the next time the debate comes up.
Electoral Representation


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member is correct. When debate continues on another day, he will be privileged to continue the debate on this bill.

[DOT] <noo)


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Charles Turner (London East) moved:: That the members designated to serve on the part of this House on the Special Joint Committee to consider a proposed address to Her Majesty the Queen concerning the Constitution of Canada be: Mr. Beatty, Mr. Bockstael, Miss Campbell, Mr. Corbin, Mr. Crombie, Mr. Epp, Mr. Fraser, Mr. Henderson, Mr. Irwin, Mr. Joyal, Mr. Knowles, Mr. Lapierre, Mr. Mackasey, Mr. McGrath and Mr. Nystrom; and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, private bills, notices of motions.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order No. 6, the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). Shall the order stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Stand by unanimous consent.


REPRESENTATION AND ELECTORAL DISTRICTS READJUSTMENT ACT (ONTARIO) ELECTORAL REPRESENTATION OF NORTHERN ONTARIO IN HOUSE OF COM MONS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma) moved: that Bill C-211, to readjust the representation of Ontario in the House of Commons and to readjust the electoral districts in Ontario, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-211 before the House this afternoon in private members' hour essentially is designed to ensure that the representation of northern Ontario in this House of Commons would not drop below the 11 seats which now exist from that area of our country. It would set a lower

October 28, 1980
Electoral Representation
limit or a floor under the number of constituencies established in northern Ontario.
The bill is designed especially to counteract the kind of thing which happened in the 1976 redistribution when the number of seats in northern Ontario was reduced from 12 to 11, while at the same time, with the redistribution which took place in the rest of the province, the number of seats was increased from 88 to 95. Of course this bill would not affect the number of seats in any other province. It would only provide a floor of 11 seats as the representation of northern Ontario.
We are concerned with what the Electoral Boundaries Commission, which of course is an independent commission, might do after the 1981 census. Because of the number of seats established after the 1976 redistribution, all but three were in the lower quarter of the population range, that is, the population range in Ontario from 61,000 to 101,000 people. All but three of those constituencies after the 1971 census were in the
60,000	to 70,000 population range.
We are concerned because the population growth between 1971 and 1976 in northern Ontario was .67 of 1 per cent, whereas across the province of Ontario it was 7.2 per cent during the first five years of the decade. Beyond that, the growth trend-of course-would be mainly in the cities, not in the large rural ridings into which most of the constituencies of northern Ontario fall. Even in cities such as Sudbury, which traditionally had a very rapid growth during the early part of the 1970s, in the last couple of years, because of the change in the economics of nickel mining and so on, the population or the number of workers has declined.
Members of the House might ask why we are requesting a floor under the number of seats from northern Ontario. First I point out that northern Ontario is a very distinct geographic area of our country, and certainly of our province. It is important to note that of the geography of the province of Ontario 88.06 per cent of the land mass is located in northern Ontario, and out of the 95 seats for the province only 11 represent that 88.06 per cent of the land mass. It is a big area with 368,800 square miles. For example, the constituency of Kenora-Rainy River, which is the largest in the province, has 148,700 square miles and Algoma, which is the fifth smallest riding in northern Ontario has 13,200 square miles. They are very large constituencies.
It is not only that. For example, the Algoma constituency is about 400 miles long. Literally it is made up of dozens of organized townships, hamlets, villages and Indian Reserves strung out along the Trans-Canada Highway, and various geographic areas like Manitoulin Island which in itself is 100 miles long and 40 miles wide. These small rural hamlets deserve representation and service, but with the population not growing nearly as rapidly as in the rest of the province of Ontario, it makes the boundaries grow larger. Most of these people are far away from government offices, agencies and services. They tend to depend upon their member of Parliament for the many government services which are readily available in city constituencies. Any reduction in the number
of seats would only exacerbate and make the problem that much more difficult.
This bill is supported by all members from northern Ontario, and I believe by all fair-minded people who want to see a reasonable representation from such a large geographical area. Certainly it is supported by the people of northern Ontario who remember what happened in the 1976 redistribution. During the redistribution from 1972 to 1976 there were a number of appeals; there were private members' bills in the House; there were large court battles in which the redistribution was challenged; thousands of dollars were raised in northwestern Ontario especially to challenge the redistribution. I would hope we could do it here in the House of Commons. After all, we are the masters of our own House. We are able to establish a fair and reasonable redistribution arrangement.
I would point out that the Ontario legislature has established or has seen fit to guarantee some 16 seats for northern Ontario in its legislature. I do not see why we cannot do the same thing here and ensure that there is reasonable representation in the House of Commons from this vast geographical area.
I believe this bill will be a fair and reasonable one. I certainly ask all members of the House to support it, so that it can move to committee for further study and discussion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add a few comments to my colleague's remarks on Bill C-211. When this matter came before the House a few years ago, I also spoke in support of it. In fact I spoke in support of the suggestion that the 12 seats should remain. Now we are down to 11 seats.
I represent the riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka which, as far as the Ontario government is concerned, is classed as part of northern Ontario. For many years I served on a municipal council. The council would go to Toronto and ask for certain things, and we were told that we were part of northern Ontario. Then when we would go and ask on another basis, we were told that we were part of southern Ontario. I suppose the Parry Sound district is the dividing line between north and south. My colleague will probably get a smile out of this, but I recall at one time saying that we are neither fish nor fowl. I said it seems that the district of Parry Sound is in never-never land.
Northern Ontario is certainly the great bulk of the province, and time and again when I get really annoyed when talking to my southern colleagues, the thing to do is bring out a map of Ontario and point out that little insignificant boot at the south of it which controls the whole thing. I can assure my colleague that 1 certainly support this floor of no less than 11 seats at all times. Again it is the old story of representation by population. That sounds very good in a great many cases, but the geographic angle should also come in. I have also stated time and again that if we went the other way entirely and went on the
October 28, 1980

basis of geography, northern Ontario would be represented as it should be, and our friends in the south would really be crying.
Many times I have spoken to my colleagues who represent that small village of York on Lake Ontario. 1 believe there are 22 members of Parliament from there. Some of the ridings there might be 20 blocks long by ten blocks wide, and some of them not even that. I see my hon. colleague from northwestern Ontario listening with some interest because I know he represents a huge riding. Our urban colleagues from Toronto, Hamilton and, yes, from right here in Ottawa, the capital city, do not know what it means to represent a large area, to try to service it and to try to get around it. That is the reason why I feel that the House of Commons is the place to decide, and the House should say definitely that there should be no less than 11 seats representing northern Ontario. At one time 1 was hoping it would remain at 12.
As 1 came into the chamber from a committee meeting I was talking with one of my colleagues from the New Democratic Party, and he said, "Well, what the hell are you going over there to speak about?" He pointed out that there are 11 seats representing northern Ontario and that the fewer seats there are the better it is for me. In that case we should reduce the representation to just one large seat! I am quite sure that in the years to come the Conservative party will be represented there, but in my view the people of northern Ontario should be represented on a fair basis.
As the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) mentioned, and as 1 believe it to be the case, the minimum is 61,000 up to 101,000. Certainly members of Parliament from those ridings which have 61,000 have a great many miles to travel. The people are greatly in need of the services of members of Parliament and of the various departments. It is not a case of picking up a telephone, like it is in Toronto where there is a regional office or a head office. Therefore it is much more important that northern Ontario be properly represented. 1 see the Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola) nodding in acquiescence. The hon. minister is from Nickel Belt, not Sudbury, and Nickel Belt is a fairly large riding too.
I certainly support this bill. I hope it will be sent to committee and approved so that down the pike-I believe it is in 1981-when there will be another census there will be no way to carve up northern Ontario again, and again take a seat away from it and give it to Hogtown. I like Toronto too, but Toronto has enough seats, and it is very important that the situation be left as it is. If there are to be more seats in the House, a wall can be kicked out, or something. I find no fault with having perhaps a few more seats, but certainly not at the expense of northern Ontario.
When the number of seats was increased from 88 to 95 many of us took a pretty dim view because, instead of southern Ontario getting seven seats, which was the case before, southern Ontario stole one from northern Ontario and now has eight seats. Let us not have that happen again.
Electoral Representation


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, in deference to my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling), 1 want to remind him that I represent a riding in southwestern Ontario from the centre of which one can drive 17 miles in any direction and be outside the riding. However, I am still standing on my feet this afternoon to defend this bill for my friends in northern Ontario. I want the hon. member who just spoke to realize that not everyone in southern Ontario, the land of milk and honey, forgets about northern Ontario and the problems of that part of Canada.
I should also say at this time that I was born in northern Ontario, so perhaps that is the reason 1 am so sympathetic to this bill.
Before 1 give my reasons for supporting this bill I want to make one or two very important points. We would not have to be worried about northern Ontario and its representation here in the federal House of Commons, we would not have to be worried about the census in 1981 and we would not have to be worried about people leaving northern Ontario, particularly young people, educated people and skilled tradesmen and women, if the federal Liberal governments over the past 20 or 25 years, and the Progressive Conservative governments at Queen's Park, had introduced, established, and implemented industrial strategies for northern Ontario which would have developed that part of central Canada, provided industry, and expanded mining and primary industries using our resources. This would have kept young northerners in northern Ontario.
Instead, due to Liberal neglect federally, and Conservative neglect provincially, certainly many parts of the regions of northern Ontario are slowly dying. All one has to do is go through some of those small and rather pathetic-looking northern Ontario communities, which 20, 30 or 40 years ago were viable economic units, and see them today. As I say, some of them are literally dying, simply because the one company in most of those communities, having finished its mining operations or its logging operations, has picked up and left. The governments either here in Ottawa or at Queen's Park said nothing, and when the one company from one community left, then the young people began to pack it in too.
1 think we should keep those points in mind when we discuss this bill. 1 do not intend to hold it up. I hope it is referred to committee. In fact, I understand that it or its subject matter will be referred to committee. 1 feel that it is virtually impossible or it is becoming almost impossible for members of Parliament to give adequate service to their constituents when the constituencies are so large and disparate and so geographically far-flung. This is what is happening in northern Ontario.
If we reduce the number of ridings, those which are left will become even larger than they are now. 1 hope when the subject matter goes to committee that northern Ontario will be guaranteed the maintenance of at least 11 of the present ridings because if we break up these constituencies or re-draw the boundaries, what will happen is that perhaps one, two or three remote communities which are interlocked socially, ethnically, certainly in a family sense, economically and so forth, will be split off. Heaven knows that today federal members of Parlia-

October 28, 1980
Electoral Representation
ment with the largest geographic ridings in northern Ontario and indeed in other parts of Canada will find it even more difficult than they find it now to service those communities.
We have talked about long distance telephone service. We have talked about mail and how slow it is in some of those communities. We have talked about driving and flying conditions in the winter, and so forth. It is very difficult. I sympathize with hon. members who represent far-flung constituencies and remote ridings not only in northern Ontario but also in Quebec, north central Canada, the west coast and so forth. Frankly I do not know how they do it. 1 do not know how they can do a good job much of the time.
But I hark back to what I said at the outset. I hope the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), who is on the government side, and other members on the government side will try to press the government, the cabinet, as well as all the backbenchers over there who represent northern Ontario communities, and will make representations at Queen's Park as well, to try to revitalize the economy of northern Ontario so that more people will stay there, not just in Sudbury because of Inco and not just in the Sault because of Algoma Steel, but in all the other communities as well so that they will revitalize and rebuild a once dynamic economy in northern Ontario. We hope people will remain there and that we will not, in ten years time, have to come back and worry about the next census and about more people leaving what is a truly beautiful part of Canada.
As I said, 1 was born in Sault Ste Marie, I lived there for a number of years and I often go back to that part of the country for vacations. 1 have a great deal of respect for northerners, both those in public life and those in private life. I certainly wish northern Ontario well and I hope that the content and intent of this bill will receive the attention it deserves when it goes to committee.


Mr. Bruce Lonsdale (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to rise today to address this bill proposed by my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), as this is my first occasion to speak in this House formally, other than to move motions under Standing Order 43 or to ask questions.
First of all, I want to pay tribute to the very hon. gentleman who preceded me and who previously represented the district of Timiskaming in this House. I am referring to my colleague and friend, Arnold Peters from New Liskeard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bruce Lonsdale: If I can represent the riding half as well as Mr. Peters did, I am sure that my constituents will not be wanting in terms of constituency service.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If you don't, they will send him back.


Bruce Lonsdale: This bill is of particular urgency to the people of Timiskaming and, indeed, to all the people of northern
Ontario. The intent of the legislation, put briefly, is to impose a floor on the number of seats in the north. Over the decades we have watched as our representation in this House has dwindled to, now, 11 seats; 11 seats to represent nearly 800,000 people and 370,000 square miles, eleven seats, Mr. Speaker, to represent an area that is greater in extent than all but two provinces and, indeed, greater than many countries in the world, indeed greater than France and Japan combined, greater than Germany, Great Britain and Sweden combined, and greater than Italy, Spain and Portugal combined.
Why has our representation fallen to this low number? Why have members from the north had to represent progressively larger ridings, which are so very difficult to travel around? Is it because the north has grown smaller? Has our population been leaving for warmer climes and greener pastures? No, Mr. Speaker, our population has been growing steadily, our towns and cities have been expanding, our industries and resources have become even more important to the national economy.
The reason for this serious decline in terms of our representation has been the growth of the southern part of our province, especially the metropolitan Toronto area. It has simply been a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Paul, that is, the southern part of Ontario, has 84 members, who do an excellent job of representing their constituents. Peter, that is, northern Ontario, has 11 members, and if the trend continues we will soon have only ten. If that happens, Mr. Speaker, the ridings will get bigger and it will be even more difficult to do an adequate job of representing our people.
As an example, Mr. Speaker, my riding of Timiskaming is
30,000	square miles in area. This weekend I will be travelling to the northernmost part of it to visit my constituents in Moosonee and Moose Factory on the shores of James Bay. To get to Moosonee, I have to fly from Ottawa to Toronto, from Toronto to Timmins-where I have to stay overnight-and then in the morning take the plane from Timmins to Moosonee. The trip takes a day and a half by plane, let alone if I had to drive or take the train out there. I am not complaining, Mr. Speaker, about this travel time. I knew the size of Timiskaming when I ran last winter. Indeed, I travelled over all of it then through the snows of January and February, and I realize the great extent of the territory.
What I am concerned about, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that it is so difficult for me to meet my constituents face to face. All hon. members know that a large part of the job of a member of Parliament is to provide assistance to our constituents with their problems with the various levels of government and in their day to day activities. All members know that this can be next to impossible if personal meetings are not possible. It is very difficult to solve personal problems over the telephone, and our constituents suffer for it. To make it even more difficult for us to reach them is, in my opinion, unjust and unfair.
It is not only in contacting their members of Parliament that our constituents are at a disadvantage. In my riding, for instance, it is impossible to reach the majority of offices administering government programs without incurring long
October 28, 1980

distance telephone charges. I and some northern members have installed inwatts lines in our offices to make ourselves at least more accessible to our constituents. Since most people hesitate to call long distance, many of these calls for information or assistance come to us and we deal with them or pass them along to the proper departments.
If the people in Timiskaming want to discuss an unemployment insurance matter or an immigration matter, they have to go to Timmins. If they want to discuss revenue matters, they have to go to Sudbury. If they want to discuss Canada Mortgage and Housing questions, they have to go to North Bay. But all a person in downtown Toronto has to do is to jump on the subway and get to the regional office downtown.
Our northern Ontario constituents deserve the same level of service from their government as do those Canadians who live in the metropolitan areas. 1 just had my researcher compile the average size of ridings. My riding is about 30,000 square miles; metropolitan Toronto averages 11 square miles; metropolitan Montreal, 49 square miles.
Perhaps some comparisons might be in order, not just with Toronto or Montreal but with other ridings in this country. The average riding in northern Ontario is 33,544 square miles; in Quebec, excluding the Montreal metropolitan area, it is 11,639 square miles; in Newfoundland, 22,294; Prince Edward Island, 592; Nova Scotia, 1,952; and New Brunswick, 2,841. Moving west, we find the average member in Manitoba representing a riding of 17,779 square miles. Saskatchewan comes to 17,973; Alberta, 12,152, and British Columbia has an average 13,048 square miles, compared to the average riding in northern Ontario of 33,000.
You can see, Mr. Speaker, that the northern Ontario members already have the largest and most widely spread ridings of any province in the country. We do not ask, Mr. Speaker, that our ridings be made smaller. We do not ask that extra ridings be created in the north. We simply ask that the status quo remain, 11 ridings to serve the enormous area of the north, which is so vital to the future development of Canada, 11 members to serve 800,000 people and 370,000 square miles. We are already spread pretty thin across the north. Please do not ask us to spread ourselves any thinner.
Hon. members will recall, as the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) mentioned, that this issue arose after the last census as well. At that time northern Ontario had 12 members. The protests of the people of the north were ignored then and the size of their ridings was reduced from 12 seats to 11. Indeed, the former hon. member for Cochrane lost his seat in that redistribution. Now we are faced with the prospect of being reduced even further with this new 1981 census. Where will it end, Mr. Speaker? Will there some day be only one member of Parliament for all of northern Ontario? I sincerely hope not, but avoid that lamentable situation we must draw the line, and we must draw it now.
I therefore urge the House, Mr. Speaker, to allow this bill to proceed to the committee stage. Simple justice and the principles of fair democratic representation demand it. What is more, Mr. Speaker, the people of the north, so often denied
Electoral Representation
equal opportunities in the past, demand it now. They deserve no less representation and services than other Canadians receive in this country. They should not have to settle for less representation in the future, and they do not ask for anything more. I therefore move, Mr. Speaker, that that question be now put.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Lonsdale) moved that the question be now put, I should state perhaps what the government's intention was because I might not have made it clear to him or to other members of the House. If the question is now put, then this bill, unfortunately, will be talked out. For various reasons which I want to outline in the course of the debate, the government is prepared-I understand there is agreement on all sides-for the subject matter of this bill to go to committee. So I ask that the hon. member consider withdrawing his motion pending further discussions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He did not have a seconder anyway.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I think we can sort this out. As has been observed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Lonsdale) neglected to provide a seconder in this case. So, if I understood it correctly, the parliamentary secretary has indicated that he is prepared to put a motion before the House to the effect that the subject matter of the bill would be referred to the standing committee, moved and seconded-


David Michael Collenette: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In all fairness, it is not my turn to speak and I was planning to wrap up so that we could leave early and put the motion. But there are other members who wish to speak and at the time you recognize me to speak in the debate, Mr. Speaker, then I will move the motion.


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure all members of the House that I have no intention of prolonging this debate unduly. I have some brief remarks which I wish to make. As the seconder of the motion, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) for bringing forth this bill today.
I think it is important to recognize that the geography of our country has to be taken into consideration when we are designing the representation of the people of Canada in the House of Commons. Certainly the Fathers of Confederation had this in mind when the British North America Act was passed. They wrote into that act a clause which states that no province can have fewer elected representatives in the Parliament of Canada than it has members of the Senate. Some will say that representation in Atlantic Canada is disproportionately high for that very reason when you compare the population of Atlantic Canada to that of other parts of Canada.
While that is true, the argument is false. I say this particularly in light of the comment of the hon. member for Brant

October 28, 1980
Electoral Representation
(Mr. Blackburn) who made a plea that an industrial strategy be designed for northern Ontario, to increase the population. I remind hon. members that had it not been for the original industrial strategy of this country the populations of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, particularly, would be much higher than they are today and we would not have to rely on our Senate representation to maintain our representation in the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, we recognized in this House about two years ago, I believe, the principle of making ridings in this country manageable from the point of view of representation, when we passed a bill dividing the Northwest Territories into two federal constituencies instead of one. I think that today we should bear the same principle in mind. I agree with several previous speakers, particularly the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) and the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Lonsdale) when they spoke about the lack of government services in many of these large constituencies.
Compared to Timiskaming, my constituency is very small, but it is still one of the largest in Atlantic Canada. For instance, it is larger than Prince Edward Island and contains half the population of Prince Edward Island. But I do not begrudge the Island its four members in the House of Commons because it is a province and it should have representation which can speak for the interests of that province in the Parliament of Canada.
I close by saying that the lack of services may mean that the federal member and the provincial member, or members, representing a particular rural area are the only elected representatives those people have, because, in many areas, there is no municipal government and there are no government services. The only elected representation they have is in the House of Commons and in the legislature of the province. So I give this measure my wholehearted support, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that we can deal with it very soon in committee.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to support this bill. I think this is the third or fourth time I have spoken on this matter in the House since about 1973. I do want to add one or two comments, but I do not wish to keep the debate going.
I want to congratulate the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Lonsdale) on a very fine first effort. I think he covered the subject extremely well and there is not much left for me to say. It appears to me that if we in northern Ontario, seat-wise, were in any part of any other province in this country or were a province on our own-and there are many people in northern Ontario who think that is what we should be-we would never have lost the seat in the last redistribution, because between 1966 and 1971 the population of northern Ontario went up by 5.3 per cent. We lost one seat. The population of southern Ontario went up by 11.8 per cent and they gained eight seats. There is something wrong with that.
We are saying there are very good reasons for needing more representation, or at least for keeping the representation we have. 1 had a smaller constituency before 1979 than I have
today. I know the amount of extra work that is involved after picking up one community of 5,000 people who have a lot of problems. I know the time which must be spent. A number of factors are at work here, one of them being the absence of services. A city has regional offices, district offices and various government departments. These offices do not exist in the smaller communities. So those services are provided, for the most part, by the member of Parliament. He is not able to have a constituency office in each community, although I happen to have an office in two communities. That is because we managed to get cheap rent in Thunder Bay and were able to do the same thing in Atikokan. It is not possible if one has five or six such communities. There are all kinds of difficulties this member encounters. For instance, there is the matter of travelling the day and a half the hon. member for Timiskaming talked about to get from one point to another. It is absolutely essential in northern Ontario, which is a very large region, a very different region-not necessarily a homogeneous one, but still very large-that we have more members.
I rise to support the bill. I think that if the people of northern Ontario were to lose more representation they would have to take another look to see whether or not it is fair for them to be in Ontario at all. They would have to say that perhaps this is the reason they should form their own province in order that this should not happen to them.
I am very pleased the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) has introduced the bill before us. I hope it is looked at by the government with favour, and that it goes to committee. I hope the substance of the bill becomes part of the redistribution act of the future.


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State, Mines):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, rise in support of this bill and congratulate the member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) for bringing it before us.
I would also like to thank the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) for his support. This shows that when northerners have a cause, we unite.
I would like to bring to your attention a problem which I think might create a very special circumstance for those of us who live in northern Ontario, in view of the fact that the census will take place within a year prior to what I predict will be quite a population growth within the area. Contrary to what the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) said a few moments ago, 1 would like to state that there is a period of growth predicted during the next decade for northern Ontario.
I would like to cite some of the projects which are currently under consideration. We are looking at the immense expansion of the Texas Gulf operation in the Timmins area. We are looking at a population growth in Elliot Lake from the current
15,000	to what is predicted to be close to 25,000. We are looking at a refinery at Blind River which will be employing 225 people. This project will probably not be in full production until 1983. Our pulp and paper industry is not only stable, it is vital and growing. We are looking at an immense expansion of the Algoma Steel operation, a $300 million expansion creating 500 new jobs. We are looking and examining with the Ontario government the possibility of a generating station based at the
October 28, 1980

Onakawana lignite deposit. That study is under way now. We are looking at a phosphate deposit in the Cargill area and at the development of a gold mine at Detour Lake. All of these projects will bring on stream a great number of construction workers and also a great number of permanent employees who will not be counted in the census of 1981.
They will certainly be part of the population of northern Ontario during that decade and for decades to come. So I, too, support this bill and recommend that it be moved to committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise for only a moment because my colleague, the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn), has already made clear our support of the subject matter of this bill. I am glad to know that the government is prepared to send that subject matter to the appropriate standing committee.
I rise only because when history is recited in this House, I like it to be correct. I am looking at the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne). 1 do not mind his giving all the credit he wants to the Fathers of Confederation, but it was not those old so and so's away back in 1864 or 1867 who wrote into the constitution the provision that no province shall have fewer members than it has senators. That was not done until 1915, just a few years ago. If the hon. member wishes to check his history, he will find that that is the case, that that provision is as recent as 1915 and that the Fathers of Confederation did not think of it.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: That makes my argument all the more relevant.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, the government is quite prepared to see the subject matter of this bill go to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. Before I sit down I will move an amendment to that effect. This whole matter has been discussed a number of times in previous Parliaments. Indeed, 1 remember in the Thirtieth Parliament that there was agreement among all parties to keep the floor of 12 seats in northern Ontario prior to the last redistribution. Unfortunately, it was not unanimously accepted on all sides of the House. I believe there was a reservation expressed by someone or it was accidentally talked out.
I think it is fair to say that there is a genuine sympathy on all sides of the House toward regions in the country which are losing population or have lost population over the years, and a desire that they not be denied their representation. Some may argue that we should adhere to the traditional British parliamentary principle of representation by population. But as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) this principle has become varied in Canada over the years.
Electoral Representation
In the case of Prince Edward Island, I think there was original constitutional provision made in P.E.I. that there could not be any fewer members of Parliament than Senators.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That did not come until 1915.


David Michael Collenette: My colleague for Winnipeg North Centre says it came about in 1915. The point is that there are regions in the country which have been allowed, through acts of Parliament, to maintain effective representation notwithstanding changes in the population. Perhaps the Northwest Territories is another example. It is a principle which is fairly established in this country. I believe we find in the British North America Act-although it may also be 1915-with respect to Quebec the provision that the floor there be 74 seats. In other words, Quebec has a base of 74 seats notwithstanding the population figure. It must be underlined that this principle has been accepted over the years. That is the reason the government is willing to allow the matter to go to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, in 1982 there will be a report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission after the decennial census. At that time this whole matter will be discussed as it applies to other regions of the country, not just as it applies to northern Ontario.
I would, Mr. Speaker, subject to your approval, move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Irwin):
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word 'that' and substituting the following therefor:
Bill C-211, An act to readjust the representation of Ontario in the House of Commons and to readjust the electoral districts in Ontario, be not now read a second time but that the order be discharged, the bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Shall I dispense?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Dispense.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is there agreement to send the matter to committee?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: A base rumour has reached the Chair that hon. members may have other matters on their minds related to the proceedings later this evening and that there may be a desire to call it six o'clock. Is that the case?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six o'clock!


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Since we are calling it six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At 5.45 p.m. the House took recess.

October 28, 1980
The Budget-Mr. MacEachen AFTER RECESS The House resumed at 8 p.m.




Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance) moved:: That this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.
He said: Madam Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Hees:: That is the last applause you will get, Al.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -I am honoured to have the opportunity to present to Parliament the first budget of this new decade. It is a budget which sets new directions for the economy, directions which will ensure both energy security and economic security for Canadians in the years ahead.
It would be no service to this House, or to Canadians, to deny that there is a deeply troubling air of uncertainty and anxiety around the world and, I am sure, in the hearts and minds of Canadians. As well, we have inherited many difficulties from the decade of the seventies. But it would be just as wrong to deny that the decade of the eighties provides extraordinary opportunities for Canada and Canadians.
Only ten years ago, the world was riding high on the long wave of postwar economic expansion. While inflation was beginning to creep up in many industrial countries, we all felt confident in our collective abilities to manage growth as the world economies expanded in concert. But ever since the oil crisis of 1973 industrial countries have had to struggle with the problems of inflation and stubbornly high rates of unemployment. In 1979 the world was shaken by a second major oil shock. For the industrial world this has meant a sharp renewal of inflationary forces and real income losses. For the developing world this second oil shock has been a tragedy. Their international deficits are now three to four times the sum they receive in aid from the rest of the world.
The long-heralded recession in the United States has become a reality with a sharp drop in real output in the second quarter and output is drifting downward in almost all OECD countries. The rate of inflation in the U.S. remains disappointingly high despite the recession. Interest rates fell in the early summer but have risen again in recent months.
Barring some new disruption in international oil supplies, it seems reasonable to expect that the period of sharp decline in U.S. output is over, and that the worst of the dramatic surge in
international inflation directly associated with the OPEC price increases is behind us. It is widely recognized, however, that the world economy now faces an extended period in which recovery from the recession is likely to proceed at a relatively modest pace and in which gains on the inflation front will only be won slowly.
In this environment the tasks of economic policy obviously present a great challenge. Within industrial countries, we have all learned that we cannot achieve full employment, stable prices and other economic goals simply by influencing the demands for goods and services by cutting taxes or by increasing government expenditure-or alternatively by raising taxes and cutting spending. The problems are obviously deeper and more complex, and they relate to our basic ability to produce. The oil problem is an example of that. The world is having to use higher-cost sources as the cheap ones are used up. Even more generally, the amount of goods and services which each worker produces on average is not growing as fast as it was, because we are not investing enough and because we are not doing enough to keep up the pace of technological improvement. Shortages of resources and slower productivity growth mean that costs go up faster and this makes the problem of inflation more intractable.
We cannot live with double-digit inflation for two fundamental reasons. It is unfair to those who cannot protect themselves, the less fortunate members of society and especially the elderly. It also imposes a very heavy cost in terms of lower output and loss of jobs. It could well endanger our ability to compete in world markets. It means high interest rates. It weakens the incentives for business investment. It undermines consumer spending and slows down the building of houses.
So these two problems of the high real costs of additional output and inflation compound each other. They are not just Canadian problems, Madam Speaker, they are world-wide problems. At the Venice Summit and at meetings of finance ministers of the IMF and OECD, we have seen these new themes emerge-the need to direct attention to the fundamental problems of productivity growth through attention to technological change, investment and incentives to greater effort and the overriding importance of slowing down inflation to lay the basis for the sustained growth of output and jobs. [Translation]
The economic problems the international community is facing cannot be solved by nations acting on their own. This government fully realizes the difficult challenges posed to international economic co-operation in the unsettled period ahead of us and is ready to assume its full share of responsibilities in achieving an international economic system adapted to the world of the eighties.

We are particularly concious of the plight of the developing countries and so we must put new momentum behind our aid programs and our support of international lending institutions both public and private. I was most gratified by the welcome
October 28, 1980

given by the Commonwealth finance ministers to our decision to restore the growth in our official development assistance.
As a great trading nation and as a responsible member of the world community, Madam Speaker, we in Canada cannot insulate or isolate ourselves from the rest of the world. I cannot understand why we would wish to do so. In our energy resources, our other natural resources, our developed industrial structures and our people, we are a nation with opportunities second to no other nation.
We have experienced falling output this year. Productivity has dropped quite sharply and the inflation rate has moved back up to 10 per cent. It is time that we moved to realize our great potential. We are more likely to do so if we understand that the problem is not a simple matter of ensuring an appropriate demand for goods and services but is more deep-seated. There are no quick solutions, so we will need to be patient and plan in a longer-term framework. There are no single solutions either, so we need to combine structural, industrial and regional policies with the right setting of fiscal and monetary policy. But we can then feel confident that we are dealing with the fundamental issues and embarking on the new directions which can secure the future of the country.


THE ECONOMIC STRATEGY OF THE GOVERNMENT
[Stage Direction]
Like previous ministers of finance, I have sought and been offered a wide range of advice on the management of our nation's economic affairs. Much of that advice has been, in my view, extreme. Some urge a dramatic retrenchment by government and an almost exclusive reliance on the mechanisms of the private marketplace. Others have urged us to intervene broadly, not only in shaping our industrial purposes, but in controlling the setting of prices, wages and the distribution of economic benefits generally. 1 reject both these extremes. Instead I have sought a strategy that I fervently believe will serve our national and individual interests while preserving essential individual freedoms.
[Stage Direction]
It is a strategy which balances restraint with essential measures to give support to the growth of productivity and productive capacity. It is a strategy in the best traditions of the Liberal party. It is a strategy totally in keeping with the commitments we made to the Canadian people in recent election.
Its elements in brief are as follows:
the maintenance of government expenditures within the rate of growth in the economy to ensure that the federal government does not take up an ever-growing proportion of the flow of income;
over the period to fiscal 1983-84, a steady reduction in the government deficit and financial requirements;
the avoidance, in so far as possible of personal and corporate tax increases;
The Budget-Mr. MacEachen
a resolve to support the Bank of Canada in its pursuit of monetary policies that will not accommodate inflation;
within the commitment to expenditure restraint, the need nonetheless to provide for major new expenditures in energy, economic development, industrial adjustment and manpower retraining;
the need, also, to expand our assistance to the developing world;
a resolve to sustain social and economic assistance to those people and those communities most in need; and a resolve to see the competitive forces in our economy strengthened and the weight of government regulation reduced.
These are the central elements. Madam Speaker. They are designed to ensure a steady reduction in the rate of inflation, the resumption of strong investment and productivity growth and the restoration, over time, of a fully-employed, strongly-growing, non-inflationary society. I wish to say a few words about each element of the strategy before developing the principal themes more fully.
One of my main tasks as Minister of Finance will be to reduce the very large deficits in the government's accounts to more manageable proportions. This is important not only to restore our flexibility to meet future needs and to slow growth of our interest payments, it is also essential if the rate of inflation is to be brought down. Otherwise we will run the risk of a new outbreak of inflationary pressure. The immediate outlook is for rather slow growth and I, therefore, judge that only a modest reduction in the deficit is needed next year. But larger declines in the deficit will be required as growth speeds up. 1 see great disadvantages, however, in general increases in taxation other than those which form part of the energy program. Higher sales taxes have a direct impact on prices. Higher income taxes reduce incentives as well as dampening consumer spending and may well lead to demands for higher increases in wages and salaries. I am glad to say that I have been able to avoid such general increases. Indeed, I am delighted to be able to announce that I have made no changes to the indexing of the personal income tax-
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and, therefore, will be describing later the income tax reductions that flow from this decision.
In order to achieve the essential reduction in the deficit, great restraint over expenditures has, therefore, been required. On the side of monetary policy, the Bank of Canada will have my continuing support in holding down the rate of monetary expansion. This is now widely agreed to be a pre-condition of success in the containment of inflation. It makes it clear that we will not accommodate double-digit rates of inflation.
Perhaps the most critical area demanding an active government role is energy. I have been working closely with my
4186

October 28, 1980
The Budget-Mr. MacEachen
colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), in the development of our energy policy. I will shortly provide the House with a brief outline of its main features. The new energy policy limits the rise in prices of oil and gas to domestic consumers and thus continues to protect us from the violent shocks of OPEC price increases. It strengthens our specific measures to promote the most economical use of energy and in particular the displacement of oil by other fuels. It provides new impetus to the development of new sources of supply, through direct government programs and through new incentives of particular value to Canadian-owned producers.
[ Translation]
Energy policy is only the most urgent element of our new strategy. Renewed growth in productivity and lower costs are needed throughout the economy. Within the over-all expenditure plan which 1 will lay before the House, we have assigned clear priority to economic development. Sufficient funds have been made available in the expenditure plan to finance major expansion of our activities in such areas as industrial development programs, research and development, export promotion and the improvement of transportation.

We are also very much aware of the shortage of skills in this country. Even in the midst of recession, those shortages were apparent in many trades and employers have had to look for skilled craftsmen in other countries. Our manpower training and mobility programs will be redirected to deal with this problem.
One of the best ways of ensuring that prices are kept in line and efficiency is maintained is to foster healthy competition. We are seeking to do so in our legislation relating to financial institutions and in our concern over business concentration. We believe that small business makes a vital contribution to the economy by keeping it competitive. Competition means that the most efficient and enterprising will flourish and grow; it also means that the less efficient decline. That should not be prevented, and measures to assist declining industries to adjust to changing economic circumstances should be limited to helping the process of adjustment and easing the social costs.
We intend to reduce the burden imposed on the economy by unnecessary regulation. The work of the Parliamentary Task Force on Regulatory Reform and of the Economic Council of Canada will be of great assistance in this endeavour.
Madam Speaker, I believe that the various elements of our strategy when taken together do indeed create a framework within which we can look forward with confidence to declining inflation and sustained economic recovery. They do not guarantee these results in the short run, however, for we live in an uncertain world in which all forecasts are at risk. We could do better if we enjoy good fortune at home and abroad. But we could also do worse, if we are faced with new shocks coming from the price of oil or food or if the upward momentum of costs and prices proves impervious to the economic climate 1 am seeking to create.
I have noted suggestions for new measures to limit the growth of prices and incomes, either by direct controls or by the use of the tax system. The objective of reducing the rate of inflation at less cost in lost output is one we can all embrace. I am most reluctant, however, to contemplate the massive degree of government intervention and perceived inequities which would inevitably be required. Moreover, I am conscious of the fact that any new program of controls would be much more difficult than the 1975 program. There is no scope this year and little next for the real income increases that were part of that program. Furthermore, there is little evidence of unreasonable price increases or unreasonable wage demands.
What is important now is that we should continue to act with moderation and work together to make the economy more productive and efficient. I hope I have fostered a wider understanding of the fact that our future prosperity depends on getting the rate of inflation down. I look forward to a further discussion with my provincial colleagues of these fundamental economic issues. It is time to consider how we can broaden the existing processes of consultation among government, business and labour.
I am confident that the strategy 1 have described tonight is the right one. But I want to make it quite clear that the pre-condition of our success must be the achievement of lower rates of inflation. If continued indexing is interpreted as a readiness to accommodate unlimited inflation rates, I may be faced with no alternative but to impose some limit on the indexing factor. As Canada's national government we have responsibilities and we will not shrink from them.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
[Stage Direction]
Madam Speaker, I would like to speak first, in detail, about energy. To fail to solve our energy dilemmas would be to fail to realize our greatest source of opportunity in this decade. It is, therefore, of utmost strategic importance. As we all know, energy has been the subject of intense debate in Canada for a number of years, and the negotiation of an agreement on oil and gas pricing and revenue sharing with the producing provinces, particularly Alberta, has been a major preoccupation of the last two federal governments. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has made repeated efforts to reach agreement with his provincial colleagues. The Prime Minister carried on intensive discussions with the Premier of Alberta.
Time is running out. While Canada is a net exporter of energy and is dealing from a basic position of strength, the chink in our armour is our dependence on imported oil. Today, we are a net importer of oil and, under a continuation of previous policies, we could expect to become increasingly dependent on foreign supplies and, therefore, unnecessarily subject to the vagaries of the world oil market. The federal government feels compelled to put Canada's energy house in
October 28, 1980
[Stage Direction]
order. On behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, 1 am tabling tonight the Government of Canada's National Energy Program. I would like to present some highlights of what is a very comprehensive program.
It is founded upon three basic principles: security of supply and ultimate independence from the world oil market;
opportunity for all Canadians to participate in the energy industry, particularly oil and gas, and to share in the benefits of its expansion; and
fairness, with a pricing and revenue-sharing regime which recognizes the rights and needs of all Canadians.

[Stage Direction]
Madam Speaker, at the time of the last federal election we promised to establish a blended pricing regime for oil in Canada. Effective tonight, the framework for such a regime will be put in place. The principle is simple. Henceforth, the price of oil paid by Canadian consumers will be an average of the cost of foreign oil, for which we must pay the world price, and the cost of domestic oil. The mechanism for blending in higher-cost supplies will be a petroleum compensation charge levied on all refiners. The new regime will be phased in so that the increase in the wellhead price plus the import component of the compensation charge will be less than $4 per barrel in 1980.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: A charge of 80 cents will be effective immediately. This will be in addition to the $3 increase in wellhead prices which has occurred this year. The increase in the wellhead price plus the increase in the compensation charge will be $4.50 in each of the three subsequent years. Madam Speaker, this fulfills the government's commitment to the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Crude oil price increases will be smaller than those proposed in last December's budget and gasoline prices will be considerably lower. And there will be no increase in the excise tax on gasoline.
For conventional oil, the wellhead price will rise by $1 per barrel every six months, beginning January I, 1981. Starting January 1, 1984, the semi-annual increase will be $2.25 per barrel and, in 1986, it will be $3.50 per barrel semi-annually and these increases will continue at that pace until the wellhead price reaches the "reference price". The reference price, Madam Speaker, is a special incentive price which will be offered to synthetic crude from the oil sands. Effective January 1, it will be $38 per barrel escalated annually by the consumer price index.
The government is also prepared to offer incentive prices for enhanced oil recovery and for upgraded heavy oil.
The Budget-Mr. MacEachen
The blended oil pricing regime which 1 have just described should result in a made-in-Canada price which is well below international levels. This made-in-Canada price will rise over the decade and will never be allowed to exceed 85 per cent of the price of imported oil or the price of oil in the United States, whichever is lower. A competitive advantage for Canadian industry will, therefore, be preserved.
To complete the picture on oil pricing, my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will be taking measures to remove the anomaly that marine and aviation fuels used in international transportation have been eligible for the lower prices available to domestic consumers in Canada. Finally, the government proposes to pay to the producing provinces, Alberta and Saskatchewan, 50 per cent of our collections from export charges on crude oil.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The price of natural gas to Canadian consumers will increase less quickly than the price of oil and will, therefore, provide a major incentive for consumers to switch off oil to gas. As in the case of oil, natural gas prices paid by consumers will be significantly less than those proposed in the December budget. Specifically, the price at the Toronto city gate will go up by 30 cents per 1,000 cubic feet on November I, 1980, by 15 cents in 1981 and by 45 cents in 1982 and 1983. The mechanism for bringing this price about in the case of natural gas is different from the one I have described in the case of oil because of our very different situation with regard to the two products. We do not import natural gas, and we, therefore, do not have the problem of sheltering consumers from world prices. On the other hand, we export large quantities of natural gas and the producing companies and provinces gain the benefit from world prices. The logical solution to this problem and our preferred approach was to impose an export tax which would recapture some portion of the difference between the world price and the Canadian consumer price. The producers under this solution would ultimately have received some premium over the price paid by domestic consumers for the gas being sold in Canada. The producing provinces have strongly objected to this proposal, even though export taxes are fully within the federal government's jurisdiction.
In these circumstances and after careful consideration the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and I have concluded that it would be desirable to abandon our preferred plan and seek an alternative approach which we hope will meet the concerns of the producing provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Under this alternative approach there will be no reduction in the current returns to producing companies and provinces for gas sold in the U.S. market and they will continue to receive the great bulk of the revenues derived from the higher prices prevailing there.

October 28, 1980
The Budget-Mr. MacEachen
This alternative approach involves the imposition of a new uniform federal tax on all natural gas. It will also apply to liquefied petroleum gases, except those produced from oil. Initially, the tax will be set at 30 cents per 1,000 cubic feet, effective November 1, 1980, for domestic sales and February 1, 1981, for sales to U.S. consumers. This tax will be increased by 15 cents on July 1, 1981, January 1, 1982, and January 1, 1983.
Taking account of the increases in consumer prices I have announced, there will be no increase in 1981 in the field price of natural gas sold in the domestic market. Thereafter, the current practice of increasing the producer price by 15 cents per 1,000 cubic feet for every $1 per barrel increase in the wellhead price of conventional oil will be continued.
The new pricing regime for both oil and gas will be established under the Petroleum Administration Act. The relevant parts of the act will be proclaimed in effect as of today. For oil, the regulations governing prices will be effective as of today while for gas the regulations will be effective as of November 1, 1980, the expiry date of our gas pricing agreement with Alberta. For provinces willing to enter into agreements on the basis of prices set out in the National Energy Program, the federal government is prepared to rescind the pricing regulations.
Madam Speaker, before 1 leave the pricing question let me emphasize again that the prices of both oil and natural gas will be less than the prices proposed in the December budget.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Indeed, given the changes in OPEC prices that have occurred since that time and given the fact that the prices proposed by the former government would have escalated dramatically because they were tied in the later years to those OPEC prices, our prices will be considerably less.
And as I turn to the question of revenue sharing I would emphasize that the benefits accruing to western Canada over this and the next three years will be at least equal to the $40 billion which was promised in the December budget.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REVENUE SHARING AND TAXATION
Allan Joseph MacEachen: The question of oil and gas prices is, of course, bound up with the issue of revenue sharing. In the absence of changes in the fiscal regime, rising prices for oil and gas would generate excess profits for the industry and result in an inappropriate balance between governments. The difficulty is that the federal government has borne much of the burden of energy price increases but receives few of the benefits.
The new natural gas tax will yield revenues of $250 million in 1980-81, $1.3 billion in 1981-82 and $6.6 billion over the whole period to 1983-84. I am also announcing tonight a federal tax, effective January 1, 1981, to be levied at a rate of 8 per cent on net revenue from the production of oil and gas in
Canada. This will yield $1.4 billion in 1981-82 and $5.1 billion over the next three fiscal years. These new revenues will finance the major federal spending initiatives in the field of energy and the western development fund which I will shortly describe.
In recent years, the federal government has received about 10 per cent of petroleum production income. Producing provinces have received somewhat more than 45 per cent and the industry has received somewhat less than 45 per cent. As a result of the pricing regime and the new tax measures which I am announcing tonight, the federal government's share will increase to about 24 per cent over the four-year period 1980 to 1983. Provinces will receive about 43 per cent and industry about 33 per cent.
In establishing the new fiscal regime, the federal government has been careful not to intrude into areas which provinces regard as their own. The federal taxes reflect the capacity of the oil and gas industry to pay and bring its contributions more closely into line with what other industries are required to pay.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am satisfied that the regime will provide the financial capacity necessary if the national government is to meet its responsibilities for economic management and energy policy. Any additional changes required to the sharing arrangement will be for provinces and the industry to resolve.


PRODUCTION INCENTIVES AND ENERGY INITIATIVES
[Stage Direction]
Madam Speaker, our energy strategy incorporates major new production incentives and expenditure initiatives.
The depletion allowances in the Income Tax Act for oil and gas exploration and development activities have primarily benefited large established corporations which are for the most part foreign owned or controlled. They have been of little use to the smaller Canadian-owned corporations which do not have sufficient income to benefit from tax incentives. As part of the national energy program, these allowances are to be fundamentally altered. Among the most important changes are the elimination of depletion for development expenditures effective January 1, 1981, and the phasing out of depletion for exploration over the next three years. Depletion will be retained only for selected activities, such as tar sands plants, and for frontier exploration. These changes in the depletion allowance will not affect the mining industry.
[ Translation]
The government remains committed, however, to providing strong incentives to the industry. The orientation of the incentive regime will be changed in a way which will encourage Canadians to participate more fully in this country's oil and gas future. A petroleum incentives program will be established to provide grants of up to 80 per cent of exploration expenditures in the north and the offshore, and up to 35 per cent in other areas. Grants of up to 20 per cent will also be provided
October 28, 1980
[Stage Direction]
for development expenditures in all areas of the country. The grants will vary according to the level of Canadian ownership and control of enterprises. Details of these changes are described in the documents I am tabling tonight.
[Stage Direction]
A number of other federal initiatives will help both individual Canadians and industry to meet Canada's energy objectives. For example, grants will be offered to assist home owners to move off oil, and onto natural gas, electricity and other fuels which we have in greater supply.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: To ensure the rapid expansion of gas distribution systems, market development bonuses will be provided to distributors as an inducement to vigorous action.
Madam Speaker, because of the nature of our country, any energy program for Canada must have a regional dimension. The program does, therefore, incorporate measures designed to meet the special needs of eastern Canada and the west.
As a matter of national priority, the government will ensure that the natural gas pipeline system is extended beyond Montreal to Quebec City and the maritimes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: To encourage the early penetration of gas in those markets, gas prices in Quebec City and Halifax will be set at the same level as in Toronto and Montreal. Under the new pricing regime the private sector has a strong incentive to proceed with the pipeline's construction. But if an immediate commitment is not forthcoming, the federal government will take whatever steps are necessary.
The Atlantic provinces are more heavily dependent on oil than any other region of the country. For this reason, a fund will be established to support the conversion of oil-fired electrical plants to coal. Financial assistance will continue to be given for interprovincial electrical connections and federal equity will be provided in support of hydro development on the Lower Churchill river in Labrador. Net funds will also be available to find ways in which the large reserves of Cape Breton coal can be used to enhance energy security in the maritimes. The P.E.I. conservation and renewable energy agreement will be extended. An industrial conservation program will be implemented and a housing retrofit program introduced for Newfoundland, P.E.I., the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
The total of our new energy initiatives will cost $8.4 billion between now and 1983-84. They come on top of our existing energy programs which will cost $3.1 billion over the same period.
The resource wealth of western Canada has laid the base for rapid economic growth in that region. This is already occurring, and it is leading in turn to a diversification of the western economy as further processing of the resources develop and as the growth of the market attracts new industries. These trends
The Budget-Mr. MacEachen
are being strongly promoted by the provincial governments. The federal government is also anxious to play its part; a number of the growth supporting policies which are required fall within our areas of responsibility. We have, therefore, allocated $4 billion to a western development fund, of which we expect to spend $2 billion over the next three years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Specific development initiatives will be selected in consultation with the governments of the western provinces. They will be designed to address the major economic opportunities and constraints which will challenge the west during this decade. For example, the federal government is hopeful that through consultation with interested groups in the west, agreement can be reached on the modernization of the western grain handling and transportation system which is so vital to the growth and diversification of the prairie economy. We will also consider initiatives relating to industrial diversification and examine ways in which trade and industrial policies can better serve western development. To co-ordinate these efforts and to ensure early action, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has established a special group of ministers led by my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy).


CANADIAN OWNERSHIP
[Stage Direction]
The energy sector is of crucial importance to Canada. It is now dominated by a few large firms, virtually all foreign-owned and controlled. It is the belief of this government that Canadians should be given the opportunity to participate to a greater extent in the energy future of their own country. Specifically, the national energy program establishes the following objectives:
at least 50 per cent Canadian ownership of oil and gas production by 1990;
Canadian control of a significant number of the larger oil and gas firms; and
an early increase in the share of the oil and gas sector owned by the Government of Canada.
Many of the initiatives in the national energy program, for example, the incentive grants which 1 have announced tonight, will help to achieve these goals. But we are prepared to go further. Petro-Canada will be charged initially with the task of acquiring the Canadian operations of one or more multinational oil companies.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As in the past, the financing of such acquisitions will be obtained in large part by borrowing in foreign capital markets. But additional infusions of equity capital may be required. To provide that capital the government will establish a Canadian ownership account. Revenue for the account will be provided by a Canadian ownership charge imposed on all oil and gas consumption in Canada which will come into operation as the acquisition program

October 28, 1980
The Budget-Mr. MacEachen
progresses and will be set at a level to ensure that the program will be totally self-financing, and in no way affect the government's deficit.
In summary, Madam Speaker, the national energy program which is being put forth by my colleague is a bold one which establishes a consistent set of policies to meet Canada's energy needs. Taken together, the pricing and expenditure measures will enhance Canada's energy security by reducing oil consumption and, by 1990, ending our reliance on imported supplies. We will accomplish this with a policy which provides for a fair return to the industry, the producing provinces and the federal government without imposing an undue burden on the Canadian consumer. Finally, I expect energy to be a growing source of strength for the economy as a whole. It is, therefore, particularly important that all Canadians have an opportunity to participate in the development of Canada's energy resources and to share in the employment and production benefits which will accrue to other sectors of the economy.


THE EXPENDITURE PLAN
[Stage Direction]
I now turn, Madam Speaker, to the expenditure plan of the government which constitutes a second major element in our over-all strategy.
As I indicated earlier, the achievement of the desirable degree of deficit reduction without general increases in taxation has required strict control over the rate of growth of our spending.
Our expenditure plan fulfils the promises we made in the election campaign. And it does so even though we have responded to the priority needs of energy, economic development, defence and aid. This has required hard choices. They have been facilitated by the development of the new expenditure planning system. The foundations of this new system were laid under the previous Liberal government. Important further advances were made under the Conservative government. Now we have reached the point of being able to set out for the first time the agreed planning levels for each major category of expenditure or envelope in a multi-year time horizon. This new system requires the government to identify its priorities within the framework of over-all restraint. It permits the delegation of responsibility for program decisions to the policy committees of the cabinet. It provides a framework within which departments will be encouraged to develop medium-term plans and increase the efficiency of their operations, and in which choices can be made between cash outlays and tax expenditures. Throughout the decision-making system, it creates an incentive to find ways of saving money in existing programs, in order to finance new high priority activities.
My present estimate is that total outlays this year will amount to just under $60 billion, an increase of 13.2 per cent over 1979-80. This high rate of growth stems from large increases in oil import compensation payments and in public debt charges. These increases, however, are not as large as seemed likely in April, partly because of the decline in interest rates in the early summer and partly because the new blended
price policy reduces the net cost of oil compensation for the balance of this year. The only major new spending programs are the enrichment of the guaranteed income supplement for our neediest old people and in the start-up of the new energy initiatives.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We plan to reduce the rates of growth of our spending to 12.8 per cent in 1981-82, to 10.5 per cent in
1982-	83 and to about 10 per cent in 1983-84. This will hold the growth of our spending within the trend growth of GNP. Total outlays, the sum of our budgetary expenditures and loans, investments and advances, amounted to 20.3 per cent of GNP in 1979-80. This ratio rises in 1980-81 and 1981-82 mainly because of the lack of real growth in the economy, but it falls again as economic expansion resumes. By 1983-84 it will be back down to 20.3 per cent. Turning now to the envelopes, or the expenditure groupings in the plan, the details are set out in the tables and notes which I am tabling with this budget and I will just summarize the highlights.
A new energy envelope has been established and this includes the new energy initiatives which I have discussed, as well as the cost of petroleum compensation payments net of revenue from the petroleum compensation charge. Funding for new and existing energy programs, excluding net petroleum compensation payments, will almost triple in 1981-82, and increase by a further 21 per cent in 1982-83 and 17 per cent in
1983-	84.
Funds allocated to the economic development envelope increase by 22 per cent in 1981-82.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This will enable the economic development committee of the cabinet to expand existing programs and launch new initiatives in support of research and development, industrial expansion and export development. These programs which are now under intensive development will contribute to the renewed gains in productivity and to the high levels of business investment on which we depend for our prosperity in the years ahead. This envelope also includes expenditures from the western development fund. The social affairs envelope will continue to be by far the largest block of spending and will remain one of the government's most basic priorities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We are pushing forward with a review of the whole area of pensions and retirement income generally. The present system is defective. While many Canadians are well provided for in their later years, many others have to rely on the old age security and guaranteed income supplement. Not only is the present pension system uneven, it also hinders labour mobility. We are going to have to work out the best way of improving the system, and the respective roles of the private sector and such public institutions as the Canada Pension Plan. Even a large role for the CPP would not,
October 28, 1980

however, involve a major call on new expenditures from the social affairs envelope. Our new spending initiatives in the field of social policy will be directed to those individuals who are most in need.
A large element of our expenditures, especially in the social affairs envelope, consists of transfers to the provincial governments. 1 have already indicated to my provincial colleagues that we will be examining these programs closely as they come up for renewal, and we expect to achieve significant savings here. This will also help to bring about a clearer division of federal and provincial responsibilities which has been one of the stands in recent constitutional discussions. These have also emphasized the high priority we attach to equalization. [Translation]
I would like to announce at this time that a special allocation of $350 million over four years has been made to promote industrial restructuring and manpower retraining and mobility in areas of particular need. The total amount has been divided equally between the economic development and social affairs envelopes. My colleagues, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) and the Minister of Employment and Immigration, will soon be announcing program details. [English]
The envelopes of expenditures administered by the external affairs and defence committee will grow relatively rapidly. We have undertaken to increase our foreign aid programs sufficiently rapidly to reach the target of 0.5 per cent of GNP by mid-decade. Our defence spending will rise by 3 per cent in real terms, reflecting our commitment to our NATO allies to beef up our defence capabilities. We have already contracted to buy the new fighter aircraft and we will be re-equipping our land and naval forces.
General operating expenses of the government will be closely controlled. Departments are being required to meet rising levels of services demanded with no increase in person years apart from those needed for identified purposes like the census. This will require the achievement of further increases in productivity.
I should explain at this point that our expenditure projections make no allowance for the impact of turning the Post Office into a Crown corporation. When this happens, the expenditures of the government will include only the amounts required to cover any deficit of the Post Office, rather than its total expenditures. The new Crown corporation will be expected, however, to cover its costs. For the purposes of my fiscal projections I have, therefore, assumed that postal revenues will rise until they equal postal expenditures.
A major item in the budget is the interest we have to pay on the public debt. This is projected to increase by nearly 19 per cent to $12.4 billion in 1981-82, and will amount to more than one-sixth of total outlays. I am convinced we must slow down the growth of public debt charges, and this is one of the reasons I am determined to reduce the deficit. By 1983-84, the
The Budget-Mr. MacEachen
projected rate of growth of public debt charges is less than 13 per cent.


THE TAX STRUCTURE
[Stage Direction]
Madam Speaker, I turn now to questions of taxation. I have a special responsibility to ensure that our tax system is fair and that it contributes to the achievement of our economic and social objectives. On the whole, our tax system is one of the best in the world. Canada's individual and corporate taxes are lower than in many other industrialized countries, including the United States.
One of the reasons for this is our system of indexation. I have already indicated that I have been able to secure an appropriate reduction of the deficit by restraining our spending. I have thus been able to avoid a general tax increase and to continue indexing for 1981. The exemptions, tax bracket limits and the child tax credit will rise by 9.8 per cent over their current levels. The child tax credit will be increased from $238 to $261 per child. As a result, the tax payable by a family of four earning $15,000 will be reduced by $248, or nearly 20 per cent. For 1981 alone, indexing will reduce federal taxes which would otherwise have been paid by $1,580 million. The cumulative reduction of federal taxes since indexing was introduced amounts to $11 billion.
We will only maintain a good tax system, however, if we keep on looking for ways to make it better. I am particularly concerned to ensure that the tax system is fair and seen to be fair. Three areas of the tax system are worth examining from this point of view.
First, tax expenditures. Hon. members will be familiar with the concept, which was described in a paper tabled by my predecessor last year. Within a short period of time I intend to table an updated tax expenditure account. The incentives and preferences identified in the tax expenditure analysis raise important issues. They are expensive and it is incumbent on government to ensure that the incentives are effective and that their cost is justified.
Tax incentives tend to pyramid with the result that a number of profitable corporations or wealthy individuals pay little or no tax. Other countries have responded to this by introducing minimum taxes or special levies on tax preferences. While this approach may be an answer to the problem, perhaps a fundamentally different one would be preferable. We now have a tax system characterized by higher tax rates relieved by a complex network of incentives and tax preferences. One questions whether the economy might not be better served by a tax system with lower rates but with fewer and more selective incentives.
Second, Madam Speaker, let me say a few words about the commodity tax structure. Because the federal sales tax is levied at the manufacturing level, it falls unequally on commodities wherever there are differences in the degree of value added by wholesalers and retailers. It is particularly worrisome that the tax generally falls more heavily on goods produced and sold in Canada than on competing goods imported from
[Stage Direction]
October 28, 1980
The Budget-Mr. MacEachen
abroad. I would hope to be in a position to make a final decision on this fairly important issue in the next budget.
Third, I will be releasing shortly a discussion paper on the taxation of capital gains. The paper notes that, while the system has imperfections, the taxation of capital gains is an important source of government revenue, has important tax structure implications and is essential for the equity and fairness of the system. I look forward to the discussion of the important issues raised in the paper.
I turn now to more immediate matters. In April this year, I tabled a ways and means motion proposing changes to the Income Tax Act and undertook to put forward draft amendments before introducing the legislation. I did so in August, and have received a number of representations and useful suggestions which will be given consideration before the final legislation is introduced.
I wish to announce four important initiatives. First, the small business development bonds will be extended for three months to March 31, 1981. Second, I am proposing to reintroduce the incentive for the construction of multiple-unit residential buildings, the so-called MURB provision, to take effect tonight until the end of 1981. Third, I propose an extension of the extra 4 per cent capital cost allowance incentive for railway track and grading to the end of 1982. This measure, along with the special depreciation allowance of 6 per cent on railway investment and the 7 percent investment tax credit on railway transportation equipment, will provide important incentives to the railways to upgrade their infrastructure, especially in western Canada.
[ Translation]
Finally, on the advice of my colleague, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. De Bane), I am proposing a bold and experimental new program to help deal with regional inequalities in this country. For new manufacturing investment in specially designated areas of the country, characterized by high unemployment and low income, I propose an investment tax credit of 50 per cent terminating at the end of 1985.

[Stage Direction]
Madam Speaker, I am proposing certain changes in the federal sales and excise taxes.
The substantial increase of the tax on fortified wines has had an adverse impact on the industry. I am, therefore, proposing that wines with an alcoholic content of over 14 per cent be taxed on the same basis as table wines. The excise tax on fortified wines will be reduced immediately from $3 per gallon to $1.25 per gallon.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It has been customary for excise taxes on alcoholic beverages and tobacco products to be levied as specific amounts per unit of the product rather than on an ad
valorem basis. I recognize that when changes are made periodically to specific taxes to maintain their real value, the process can be disruptive, and I am particularly sensitive to the changes in the weight of taxation as between the various products. Accordingly, I am proposing that these levies be automatically adjusted each quarter to reflect changes in the price indexes for these commodities. This measure will commence on April 1, 1981.
I am proposing, at the request of my colleague, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) an increase of $2.50 in the air transportation tax for international travel and a similar increase in the ceiling on the tax for domestic air travel. These increases will be effective April 1, 1981, for tickets purchased in Canada and July 1, 1981, for tickets purchased outside Canada.
Persons who prepare goods for sale by, for example, assembling, blending or packaging, other than in a retail store, will be required to account for tax on their sales of those goods.
I am extending the sales tax to advertising fliers and catalogues distributed as newspaper inserts. Full details of these and other changes are provided in the ways and means motion and supplementary information I am tabling tonight.


CUSTOMS TARIFF
[Stage Direction]
I am introducing tonight several amendments to the customs tariff.
One set of tariff changes stems from a Tariff Board review related to goods imported by institutions established for scientific, religious, educational and similar purposes. In line with the board's recommendations, I am proposing that the provision for duty-free entry of scientific and educational equipment be modified so as to permit applicatiion of normal customs duties when such equipment is available from production in Canada.
Another Tariff Board report relates to antiques, collectables, amateur radio and other hobby equipment. I propose to provide duty-free entry for most of the goods for which such treatment was recommended by the board, although some departures were made to take account of recent changes in domestic supply capability.
Other tariff changes include removal of the duty on TV captioning devices for the deaf and microfilmed books.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am announcing on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, that effective January 1, 1981, the weekly rate of unemployment insurance contributions will be raised to $1.80 per $100 of insurable earnings.
October 28, 1980


Mr. Broadbent:: That is $1 billion per year.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The employer rate of contribution will be increased to $2.52. These increases largely reflect the changes in the financing of the unemployment insurance program first put forward by my predecessor in his December 11, 1979 budget speech. These changes involve the financing by employer and employee contributions of all the costs of unemployment insurance benefits except those associated with high regional rates of unemployment. In addition, the new premium structure reflects the impact of the extension of the variable entrance requirement and of the reduction in the minimum earnings requirement approved by the House earlier this year.


THE ECONOMIC AND FISCAL SITUATION AND OUTLOOK
[Stage Direction]
Madam Speaker, I will now summarize my forecast of the economy and the federal government's fiscal situation given the measures and spending plans just announced.
In a paper accompanying this budget, our medium-term economic projections are set out in some detail, so I can describe them quite briefly. It now appears that real output for 1980 as a whole will be significantly weaker than expected at the time of my April statement, and may decline by something like 1 per cent. The recession is nearing its end, but the recovery is likely to be rather gradual in the face of the world economic situation, continued high rates of inflation and the recent increase in interest rates stemming from the United States. Thus the real level of output in 1981 may be only about 1 per cent higher than in 1980. However, we are expecting real growth rates in the 4 per cent range to commence in the latter part of 1981 and to continue for some time thereafter.
Exports and business investment are vital to sustaining non-inflationary growth, and we look to them to be the leading forces in the recovery. Canadian industry enjoys a favourable competitive position in the world, given current exchange rates and the fact that many countries have experienced faster inflation than we have. Despite the U.S. recession, our trade surplus has remained very favourable this year because our industry has done well in overseas markets. If we succeed in maintaining our competitive strength, we will be able to take full advantage of world economic recovery. Our industrial and research and development policies will foster the growth of investment and the improvement of our trade balance. Moreover, our new energy policy is designed to provide a framework within which a wide range of energy developments can go forward, with beneficial results.
Despite the reduction in output this year, employment continued to expand, and as a result productivity declined by about 3 per cent. This, of course, was troublesome for our cost position, but it meant that unemployment has risen rather less than 1 expected in April and remains below 8 per cent. I think it unlikely that this will continue. Unemployment could average about 8.5 per cent next year, and then decline gradually as output picks up.
On the inflation side, the outlook for the remainder of this year and for 1981 is for a continued rate of increase of the consumer price index in the 10 per cent range as higher prices
The Budget-Mr. MacEachen
of foods and energy are absorbed. I am confident that the strategy outlined in this budget will contribute to a gradual decline in inflation after 1981. In projecting the government's fiscal position, I have based the revenue forecast on these economic assumptions and have taken into account the tax changes announced earlier including the energy taxes.
Budgetary revenues are forecast to rise by 12.6 per cent in 1980-81 and then by 17.1 per cent in 1981-82 and by 16.4 per cent in 1982-83 before dropping off to less than 13 per cent in 1983-84. These rapid increases reflect the impact of the energy taxes, especially in 1981-82, and the resumption of better rates of economic growth especially in 1982-83.
I expect the budgetary deficit to decline from $14.2 billion this year to $13.7 billion in 1981-82 and then more sharply to $12.1 billion in 1982-83 and to $11.8 billion in 1983-84. These declines result from a growth rate of revenues appreciably higher than that of our planned expenditures.
With rising sources of funds from the non-budgetary accounts, financial requirements decline more rapidly than the budgetary deficit. They decline from $12.2 billion this year to $11 billion in 1981-82, to $8.4 billion in 1982-83 and to $7.2 billion in 1983-84. The financial requirements will drop from 4.3 per cent of GNP in 1980-81 to 1.8 per cent in 1983-84, the lowest level since 1974-75.
It is my intention to introduce a borrowing authority bill for fiscal 1981-82 following completion of the budget debate. Hon. members will then be able to consider the request for borrowing authority in the light of the comprehensive information contained in this budget.
I would now like to table projections of the government's revenues and expenditures together with explanatory notes, the notices of ways and means motions, supplementary information giving details of the measures I have announced tonight and a background paper on the medium-term economic projections. On behalf of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, I am tabling his paper setting out the national energy program. I would ask the consent of the House to include in Hansard the tables which provide projections of the government's fiscal position on the public accounts and national accounts basis, and of the principal components of budgetary revenues.
Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For tables referred to above, see Appendix.]


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I should like to conclude by thanking my colleagues for their assistance in preparing this budget. I should also acknowledge the support I received from members on this side and perhaps offer my thanks to members on the other side who have been very ingenious in recommending how I ought to contrive the budget.
4194

October 28, 1980
The Budget-Mr. Crosbie


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I should, indeed, say a word of thanks also to the media who have been equally fertile in suggesting what I might include in the budget.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have sought in this budget to lay out a strategy which can bring us to a full realization of our opportunities in this decade. 1 cannot promise instant wellbeing-that is not the nature of the world, or the nature of the problems that we face. However, 1 count on the patience and the collaboration of all Canadians. I have avoided those prescriptions in the budget which would have had the Government of Canada retreat from its concerns for issues on unemployment and the distribution of income and wealth among regions and individuals. But I have also resisted those who would urge vastly greater intrusions by the state in the daily lives of Canadians.
I have made it clear on other occasions that the concept of sharing seems to me to be close to the distinctive fibre of the Canadian tradition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1 do not believe the state can be the only agency by which sharing is effected or compelled. On the contrary, I believe our destiny will rest on the acknowledgment by individual Canadians in their private lives of the nobility of our sharing commitment. We have shared in the struggle and victory of achieving a great nation against what many still see to be improbable odds. If our will to share is sustained, great good fortune could still lie ahead.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Before I recognize the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), is there unanimous consent to append to Hansard the tables referred to by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen)?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I suppose I should congratulate the minister opposite for having done his best.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: I am glad he is getting loud applause in here because he will get it nowhere else except from his own side of the House.
This could be called the shell game budget. Where is the pea under the shell? During the course of my remarks tonight and tomorrow afternoon, I hope to point out where some of those peas are under the shell.
The hon. minister must have been reading the recent book called "The Northern Magus". He, or course, is the Celtic magus.


Walter David Baker: The maggot!


John Carnell Crosbie: Or maggot-the Celtic maggot.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Because this has been a magical budget.
How less can be more and how an increase in spending of 15.2 per cent can become less-the minister talks about it almost as a decline in spending- is beyond me. The minister said in this House several weeks ago on October 10 that he was going to keep and fulfil all the Liberal campaign promises. The Liberal campaign promises were not much. The Liberals did not make many promises. But the ones they made in the economic area have all been sabotaged by the hon. minister. For example, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in his famous economic speech in Toronto on January 12, 1980, said:
We will hold the line on government expenditure growth to under the rate of GNP.
Tonight the minister tells us that the rate of GNP has declined one per cent this year and the budget shows us that the minister's spending has increased 15.2 per cent this year. That is not a decline. That is an increase this year.
The inflation rate is around 10 per cent, a huge increase in real spending. I am not even including the sleight of hand. For example, the Liberals have removed from their spending in these estimates, under the import compensation fund, $1.2 billion which should be there because they netted out the figures. They have imposed a new tax on the Canadian consumer of oil and gas products and expenditures have been reduced by $1.2 billion less than they should have been because that fund this year will cost $3,950 million for the import subsidy. But in these figures that amount, less $1.2 billion, is shown. So on and on it goes through this document. This is a document of deception, a document that attempts to deceive the Canadian public as to what is in it. The promises have not been kept. The Liberals said they would review the tax system to ensure that all sectors of the economy make their fair contribution to future needs. Well, we have made our contribution by preventing the minister from de-indexing the income tax!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Our campaign and the $30,000 we spent on ads-our own money, not the Canadian taxpayers' money- saved the Canadian taxpayers this year $1.6 billion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: The minister still leaves a threat in his budget. He threatens that if things do not turn out very well, he might still have to de-index the Canadian income tax. Well, if he ever attempts that, he will have stout opposition from over here.
October 28, 1980

The Prime Minister promised the deficit would be reduced in a phased and orderly fashion, but not at the expense of jobs, growth and the attack on inflation. The deficit has not been reduced. The deficit has gone up $3.6 billion, compared to our estimates, to in excess of $14 billion. The financial requirements are up over $12 billion. The deficit has not been reduced. It is neither phased, orderly nor reduced. This is done at the expense of jobs because the minister has forecast unemployment next year at 8.7 per cent. The minister has not done one iota, one jot or tittle in his budget to attempt to fight that unemployment situation next year, and this after the crocodile tears that were shed on the floor of this House last December when our budget was brought down.
What else did the Prime Minister say? He said:
This party will not simply stand by and let the recession come. We will fight it and overcome it.
We have had a recession for six months. The minister has held his portfolio since February. The Prime Minister, that well-known fighter, that judo expert, has had all of that time to fight this recession and overcome it. What has happened? The recession has worsened. We are losing 1 per cent of our GNP this year and the unemployment next year will be 8.7 per cent. And the growth next year is supposed to be 1 per cent. The minister has let the recession come. He has not fought and overcome it.
The Prime Minister said this, again on January 12:
We must increase the economic might of Canada by strengthening each of the regions.
Tonight, one of the main features of the budget is to weaken a region, namely the west. And other regions are completely ignored.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: The Prime Minister said in his statement on January 12:
Wc must endorse the right of every Canadian to have a job.
But 8.7 per cent of the employed in Canada will be out of a job in Canada next year. There are around 800,000 out of work tonight as we sit here in this chamber.


John Edward Broadbent: Let us hear your forecast!


John Carnell Crosbie: It is not the same. The peanut gallery on the left will have their turn tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: They are the group who threw out our budget for this mess of pottage which they have today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: On January 19, 1980, the Prime Minister said in Vancouver:
Liberals believe that we should use all the instruments at our disposal to try and stem the tide of the coming recession.
The Budget-Mr. Crosbie
Where are the instruments? Why did Canute not try to stop the tide? Or did King Canute, or the Prime Minister, put his foot out to stop the tide, and the tide would not stop? What happened to old King Canute who was going to stop that recession?
The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) damned my budget as socially regressive. Tonight he announced a $1 billion increase in contributions to the unemployment insurance fund by the working people of this country. He increased their contribution from $1.35 per $100-not to $1.60 as I suggested last December, which caused the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to have a fit in this House, but to $1.80 per $100. He is going to take $1 billion from the working people of Canada this year through increased unemployment insurance. He said my budget was socially regressive; his budget is socially deformed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: What did the Prime Minister say about the provinces on February 2 in Sudbury, Ontario this year? He said:
We (the Liberals) would not try to set one province off against another. We would have responsible negotiations with the provinces and wc would work out a price.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: We see tonight how they have worked out that price since last February. We see how they would not set one province against another. A bribe was given to the province of Saskatchewan. Half of the revenue from the export tax on oil is being given to Saskatchewan, the only real beneficiary.


Mr. Lalonde:: Alberta, too.


John Carnell Crosbie: Alberta makes nothing off it. The Broadbent pay-off presumably was made to Saskatchewan in that way. There is a tax, not just on exports of natural gas, but on both the exports and domestic sales of natural gas. It is an over-all tax on natural gas, including an export tax on natural gas.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A consumer tax.


John Carnell Crosbie: It is a consumer tax. It is not just on the American consumers. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was just going to lump it to the Americans. He was just going to give them an export tax. However, the Minister of Finance lumps in to the Canadians as well. His tax is imposed on Canadians as well as foreigners. The foreigners will not pay the tax anyway because they are not prepared to pay the price for natural gas that we are trying to get for it.
The whole course of the Prime Minister since February has been to set one province off against the other. His Machiavellian memorandum done by Machiavelli Kirby, or whatever his name is, set out the strategy. We see another example of it here in this budget tonight. We will not have a confederation if we get much more of this in the next three or four years.

October 28, 1980
The Budget-Mr. Crosbie
Confederation will be dissolved if this kind of tactic is continued, this kind of bullying.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: The minister has a majority in this House. He has not got the courage of a castrated lemming. This budget does nothing. It does not fight inflation. There is nothing in this budget to fight inflation. There is no control over expenditure. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) has surrendered. He has no control over expenditure.
The advice of the Bank of Canada has been ignored. What was the advice of the Bank of Canada? Governor Bouey on May 29, 1980, before the Senate, talking about the deficit, said:
When they see that deficits are increasing more and more, that tends to feed inflationary expectations so I guess I would say 'let's keep it from increasing, if we can, as a minimum'.
Instead of keeping it from increasing, the minister whopped it up $3,600 million. That is how much attention he is paying to governor Bouey. Governor Bouey fights the fight against inflation alone because this minister has turned his back on him. Even with his big majority in this House, he is not prepared to institute measures that might fight inflation, so inflation will go on. In his economic forecast, the minister says that next year it will go to 10.2 per cent. Well, it will go over 10.2 per cent. We can see that from the figures he gave us for the increases in food and energy costs.
What is the minister doing about this? Where is the thrust against inflation? What is the minister doing to help productivity in this country? This year productivity declined by 3 per cent. What is he doing to help investment in this country? He is doing nothing but slamming the oil and gas industry with savage taxes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Bust the consumer. We can see now what economic geniuses run this country. They cannot even see that the oil and gas industry will pass it all on to the consumer. These taxes are mostly on the consumer in any event. What has the minister done for employment policies and programs? He announced that $250 million extra will be spent over the next three years on some employment and skills training programs. That is not as much as we were going to spend in one year, as we stated in our budget last year.
What has the minister done? Where does the country go, under this budget? The country keeps going down the tube. There is nothing new in his budget. It is just out of control. They say, "We are in power and we do not want to deal with these tough problems. We do not want to deal with these deficits that we have allowed to grow and grow".
Next year we will pay in excess of $12 billion in interest on the debt. Over one out of every four of our tax dollars will go for interest on the debt. The minister does not care about that. Let's come to the oil and gas section of this.


Gerald Augustine Regan: It sounds like sour grapes from you.


John Carnell Crosbie: It will be very sour grapes for the taxpayers who will have to swallow these oil and gas price increases. It will be very sour.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: The budget means that the average Canadian will pay at least $125 more to heat his home and $100 more at least to run his car. That is what this means. It means that at the end of four years' time the people of Canada will look back and say, "My God, I wish we had had John Crosbie's budget".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: They are going to say, "If only we had accepted that 18 cents. It looks good compared to this $1 a gallon it has cost us over the last four years".


An hon. Member:: One dollar, nine.


John Carnell Crosbie: Or the $1.09 it will cost. Who can tell what the cost is going to be, because there is to be a new animal, the PetroCan takeover, the multinational tax levy. No one knows what it is going to be or what it will come to. However, the oil and gas consumers of this country are going to pay it. Tonight we heard about a petroleum compensation charge of 80 cents a barrel this year, $2.50 a barrel next year and God knows what it will go to in the future under the spendthrift crowd of les miserables opposite. That, by the way, is going to be paid by the consumer. No one else is going to pay it. That 80 cents a barrel is going to be paid by the man who heats his home, not only by the man who drives his car.
Last year we felt for those who have to heat their homes. But not those people opposite. They do not care if you have to heat your home. They say, "Let them get fur coats. If they cannot heat their homes, let them buy good, heavy fur coats".


An hon. Member:: Wear a tux.


John Carnell Crosbie: We have the petroleum compensation charge, 80 cents a barrel, going quickly in January to $2.50 a barrel. How do you like that? That is the crowd which did not like the 18 cents. Then we have the new natural gas tax. Well, it is not new to hear about gas from the hon. people opposite, but this is a new natural gas tax. That will raise from the consumers next year $1.3 billion. The consumers of gas will pay, not the companies, not those bad old companies, those oil and gas companies that this government made rich, that this government permitted to pile up billions in profits over the 20 years they have been in power. No, it will be the consumer.
It is that group which permitted this hydra-headed Frankenstein of an oil and gas industry to grow, completely dominated by foreign companies. The government opposite which allowed this to happen now says it is going to take them under control. The consumer is going to pay for this lack of attention by hon. gentlemen opposite for the past 20 years. It will be 30 cents a cubic foot to start off with, and 80 cents a barrel going to $2.50 a barrel. Then there is to be the federal tax on net

October 28, 1980

revenues which the oil and gas companies will collect from the consumer, and after that, the Canadian ownership charge.
We are going to have the "PetroCan at any price" charge imposed on all oil and gas consumed in Canada. Are you an oil consumer? Are you a gas consumer? Get ready, brothers and sisters, you are going to pay for PetroCan hereafter because you are going to pay this. What is the maximum limit of that tax? Four dollars a barrel. Next year we might all be paying $4 a barrel more for PetroCan to take over Petrofina or somebody or other. Who knows what or who they are going to take over, except the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), and even he does not know. Robespierre is smiling. 1 hope his head goes on the block before the consumers have to pay for that!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: We do not even know how much that tax will cost us. This is another piece of deception. Tonight I am only brushing the surface of the canvas which I will fill tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: In this document here we are told the minister actually assumes that in the hereafter the Post Office will have revenues which balance its expenditures because it will be a Crown corporation. He makes the assumption that he will not have to pony up any money for the Post Office. Well, that means that the Post Office will have to collect $400 million more in revenue next year, is that the figure?


Some hon. Members:: $500 million.


John Carnell Crosbie: It will be $500 million. Will anyone go for a billion? That is at least $500 million which is not included in these expenditures because as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow over Parliament Hill, there will be a $500-million deficit in the Post Office next year. Either the minister will pony it up from government expenditures or the public will pay it in the price they pay for stamps. How do you like the idea of a 35 cent stamp to send a letter from here to downtown Ottawa? How would that go over? That is just another little omission from this budget.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: It will never get there anyway.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Now, last year in our budget we over here who were scorned as heartless wretches treading on the poor people of Canada, introduced an energy tax credit because we saw that the people of Canada would have to pay more for oil and gas and the products that come therefrom. We introduced an energy tax credit. It was designed to give medium and low-income people of Canada assistance to meet these increased costs. They were to get $80 for each adult and $30 for each child in a family. Refundable. If you paid in cash, you did not
The Budget-Mr. Crosbie
pay income tax; you got the maximum if you earned under $21,380. Did we hear a word from the Minister of Finance tonight about assistance to lower and medium-income Canadians?


Walter David Baker: No, sir.


Some hon. Members:: No!


John Carnell Crosbie: Is there any energy cash credit in this budget for them? There is no assistance for lower and medium-income people in Canada, but those who work will pay $1 billion more to the unemployment insurance fund. That is how this party opposite acts in office, as compared to the fuss and the furore they caused here last December 11, 12 and 13 and the abuse they heaped on me, sensitive soul that I am.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Everywhere 1 turn I see another betrayed section of the population, for instance, the home owner and the tenant. Now, last year the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy)-he is not here at the moment; he has gone west with his $4 billion, I suppose.


Mr. Epp:: To the Russian front.


John Carnell Crosbie: "Yippee-yiyo-kiyay, I'm on my way". But I warn him, don't go to Alberta, brother!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Last year we tried to introduce a plan to help the home owner and those who wanted to buy homes meet their interest costs, and the interest rates now are higher than they were when we were in office. That is another thing hon. members opposite neglected to do when they got into office- to carry out their promise about interest rates.


Charles Joseph Clark: Resign, Herb!


Some hon. Members:: Resign, Herb!


Charles Joseph Clark: Keep one promise.


John Carnell Crosbie: 1 do not think the minister will resign. He has a pretty thick hide. They promised last year that they would help the tenant. They were to make a shelter allowance available to tenants. They were to do more for home owners than we skimpy hearts over here were going to do. We are supposed to be conservative. Well, we are 100 times more progressive and we have more heart. One of us here is equal to 100 hearts opposite, when it comes to helping.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Where is the help for the home owner and the tenant in this budget? Not one jot or tittle, but there is $15 million there in MURBs, multiple unit whatever it is. It is a MURB. It is a tax shelter for the wealthy of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

October 28, 1980
The Budget-Mr. Crosbie


John Carnell Crosbie: Who put a stop to that tax shelter for the wealthy of Canada? Why, old hard-hearted right here that you see before you. He put an end to MURB, but MURB is resurrected and the wealthy of Canada can thank the minister. They have a friend in the Minister of Finance in this country. His heart beats for the "MURBers" of this country.
It will cost the treasury $15 million while the wealthy put their money into building apartment buildings, condominiums, multiple units or whatever they are to get tax relief. Where is the home owner? Where is the home owner and the tenant of Toronto getting help? Now, remember, do not blame all your problems on the hon. gentleman opposite; blame the NDP also. They made it all possible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: We will vote against this one, too.


An hon. Member:: Who cares?


John Carnell Crosbie: This is a budget which is a "tricks without treats" budget. It is an apt Hallowe'en budget. There are a lot of tricks in it and we will dissect them and point them out in the budget debate in the next six days. It is a shameful budget. It is a budget that a majority, who have allowed Canada to get into this economic shape over the last ten or 12 years, have not got the courage and the guts, when they have a solid majority in this House, to do anything about it but talk, obscure, be sly and devious and try to pretend they are doing what they are not doing.
It is a "promise-breaking" budget. It is a "shaft the province" budget. It is a "shaft Alberta" budget by the Prime Minister who was going to conciliate all the provinces and
would never discriminate between them. This budget is cleverly constructed to shaft Alberta. I do not think this government or this House should prepare anything to shaft anyone, and certainly not one of the provinces. It is not good enough. There is no serious attempt to deal with the oil and energy problems, but it will result in the people of Canada paying far more than they would have when we faced them directly with the policies we put forward last December. It is a "shaft the private sector" budget. This is what it is. It is a "shaft deficit restraint" budget. It is a "shaft oil self-sufficiency" budget. It is a "shaft the Bank of Canada" budget. Poor governor Bouey is probably spinning in his office tonight to see all his advice to the government disregarded. He cannot fight inflation with monetary means alone. He needs fiscal policies adopted also, and he has been ignored. It is a "throw away our potential" budget. It is a "smash and grab" budget. It is a disappointment. It is a heartrending disappointment to the people of this country who thought they were electing a group who would do what they promised. We have seen tonight that on every fundamental aspect they have done nothing they promised and they have made a shame of themselves and a shame of this House. I move:
That this House do now adjourn.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: It being ten o'clock, I do not think we need an adjournment motion. This House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At ten o'clock the House adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
October 28, 1980


APPENDIX
[Stage Direction]
Table 1

[Stage Direction]
Summary Statement of Transactions-Public Accounts Presentation
	1979-80	1980-81*1'	1981-82"' ($ millions)	1982-83"'	1983-84"'
Budgetary' transactions
[Stage Direction]
Revenues
[Stage Direction]
40,159
[Stage Direction]
45,200
[Stage Direction]
52,935
[Stage Direction]
61,600
[Stage Direction]
69,420
[Stage Direction]
Expenditures12'
[Stage Direction]
-51,534
[Stage Direction]
-59,350
[Stage Direction]
-66,640
[Stage Direction]
-73,725
[Stage Direction]
-81,215
[Stage Direction]
Surplus or deficit (-)
[Stage Direction]
-11,375
[Stage Direction]
-14,150
[Stage Direction]
-13,705
[Stage Direction]
-12,125
[Stage Direction]
-11,795
[Stage Direction]
Non-budgetarv transactions
[Stage Direction]
Loans, investments and advances12'
[Stage Direction]
-1,428
[Stage Direction]
600
[Stage Direction]
-985
[Stage Direction]
-1,000
[Stage Direction]
-1,060
[Stage Direction]
Annuity, insurance and pension accounts
[Stage Direction]
1,943
[Stage Direction]
1,860
[Stage Direction]
2,920
[Stage Direction]
3,445
[Stage Direction]
4,140
[Stage Direction]
Other transactions
[Stage Direction]
415
[Stage Direction]
735
[Stage Direction]
790
[Stage Direction]
1,265
[Stage Direction]
1,560
[Stage Direction]
Net source or requirement (-)
[Stage Direction]
930
[Stage Direction]
1,995
[Stage Direction]
2,725
[Stage Direction]
3,710
[Stage Direction]
4,640
[Stage Direction]
Financial requirements (Excluding foreign exchange
[Stage Direction]
transactions)13'
[Stage Direction]
-10,445
[Stage Direction]
-12,155
[Stage Direction]
-10,980
[Stage Direction]
-8,415
[Stage Direction]
-7,155
[Stage Direction]
Total outlays*2'
[Stage Direction]
52,962
[Stage Direction]
59,950
[Stage Direction]
67,625
[Stage Direction]
74,725
[Stage Direction]
82,275
[Stage Direction]
">
Numbers in these forecast columns should be interpreted as mid-points of ranges of estimates.
(2>
Total outlays are composed of budgetary expenditures plus loans, investments and advances.
These figures do not reflect foreign exchange transactions in 1979-80 which were a requirement of $128 million, thereby increasing total financial requirements to $10,573 million. Foreign exchange transactions to the end of September are estimated to have provided a source of $61 million in the current fiscal year. No forecast is made of foreign exchange transactions for the balance of the period.
Note: This table reflects changes in the Accounts of Canada outlined in the appendix on the fiscal projections.
Financial requirements do not include direct market borrowing of agent Crown corporations. See section on loans, investment and advances in appendix.
[Stage Direction]
October 28, 1980
Table 2
GOVERNMENT OF CANADA Fiscal Position-Public Accounts Budgetary Revenues
[Stage Direction]
1979-80
[Stage Direction]
1980-8 D"
[Stage Direction]
1981-8 2n) ($ millions)
[Stage Direction]
1982-83<i>
[Stage Direction]
1983-84''>
[Stage Direction]
Personal income tax
[Stage Direction]
16,327
[Stage Direction]
18,425
[Stage Direction]
20,675
[Stage Direction]
23,945
[Stage Direction]
27,445
[Stage Direction]
Corporation income tax
[Stage Direction]
7,537
[Stage Direction]
8,630
[Stage Direction]
9,250
[Stage Direction]
10,770
[Stage Direction]
12,030
[Stage Direction]
Petroleum and gas revenue tax
[Stage Direction]
0
[Stage Direction]
0
[Stage Direction]
1,410
[Stage Direction]
1,745
[Stage Direction]
1,965
[Stage Direction]
Non-resident tax
[Stage Direction]
787
[Stage Direction]
925
[Stage Direction]
1,015
[Stage Direction]
1,115
[Stage Direction]
1,225
[Stage Direction]
Sales tax
[Stage Direction]
4,698
[Stage Direction]
4,975
[Stage Direction]
5,550
[Stage Direction]
6,315
[Stage Direction]
7,150
[Stage Direction]
Customs duties
[Stage Direction]
3,000
[Stage Direction]
3,150
[Stage Direction]
3,405
[Stage Direction]
3,725
[Stage Direction]
4,065
[Stage Direction]
Oil export charge
[Stage Direction]
750
[Stage Direction]
755
[Stage Direction]
1,010
[Stage Direction]
1,230
[Stage Direction]
1,350
[Stage Direction]
Natural gas and gas liquids tax
[Stage Direction]
0
[Stage Direction]
255
[Stage Direction]
1,285
[Stage Direction]
2,220
[Stage Direction]
2,880
[Stage Direction]
Other tax revenues
[Stage Direction]
1,914
[Stage Direction]
2,160
[Stage Direction]
2,345
[Stage Direction]
2,850
[Stage Direction]
3,565
[Stage Direction]
Total tax revenues
[Stage Direction]
35,013
[Stage Direction]
39,275
[Stage Direction]
45,945
[Stage Direction]
53,915
[Stage Direction]
61,675
[Stage Direction]
Non-tax revenues
[Stage Direction]
5,146
[Stage Direction]
5,925
[Stage Direction]
6,990
[Stage Direction]
7,685
[Stage Direction]
7,745
[Stage Direction]
Total budgetary revenues
[Stage Direction]
40,159
[Stage Direction]
45,200
[Stage Direction]
52,935
[Stage Direction]
61,600
[Stage Direction]
69,420
[Stage Direction]
1,1 Numbers in these forecast columns should be interpreted as mid-points of ranges of estimates.
October 28, 1980
[Stage Direction]
Table 3
GOVERNMENT OF CANADA Revenues and Expenditures-National Accounts Basis
	1979-80	1980-81'"	1981-82'" (S millions)	1982-83'"	1983-84'"
Revenues
[Stage Direction]
Direct taxes, persons
[Stage Direction]
20,325
[Stage Direction]
23,230
[Stage Direction]
27,080
[Stage Direction]
30,985
[Stage Direction]
35,140
[Stage Direction]
Direct taxes, corporations
[Stage Direction]
7,545
[Stage Direction]
8,285
[Stage Direction]
10,585
[Stage Direction]
12,210
[Stage Direction]
13,535
[Stage Direction]
Direct taxes, non-residents
[Stage Direction]
890
[Stage Direction]
1,015
[Stage Direction]
1,110
[Stage Direction]
1,215
[Stage Direction]
1,330
[Stage Direction]
Indirect taxes
[Stage Direction]
10,992
[Stage Direction]
13,210
[Stage Direction]
17,775
[Stage Direction]
21,740
[Stage Direction]
25,165
[Stage Direction]
Other current transfers from persons
[Stage Direction]
20
[Stage Direction]
20
[Stage Direction]
20
[Stage Direction]
20
[Stage Direction]
20
[Stage Direction]
Investment income
[Stage Direction]
4,706
[Stage Direction]
5,100
[Stage Direction]
6,160
[Stage Direction]
6,955
[Stage Direction]
7,835
[Stage Direction]
Capital consumption allowances
[Stage Direction]
709
[Stage Direction]
770
[Stage Direction]
860
[Stage Direction]
980
[Stage Direction]
1,100
[Stage Direction]
Total revenues
[Stage Direction]
45,187
[Stage Direction]
51,630
[Stage Direction]
63,590
[Stage Direction]
74,105
[Stage Direction]
84,125
[Stage Direction]
Expenditures
[Stage Direction]
Current goods and services
[Stage Direction]
12,717
[Stage Direction]
14,050
[Stage Direction]
15,600
[Stage Direction]
17,175
[Stage Direction]
18,950
[Stage Direction]
Transfer payments to persons
[Stage Direction]
14,935
[Stage Direction]
17,300
[Stage Direction]
20,175
[Stage Direction]
22,175
[Stage Direction]
24,100
[Stage Direction]
Subsidies
[Stage Direction]
3,822
[Stage Direction]
5,625
[Stage Direction]
7,025
[Stage Direction]
8,600
[Stage Direction]
10,300
[Stage Direction]
Capital assistance
[Stage Direction]
644
[Stage Direction]
1.200
[Stage Direction]
1,900
[Stage Direction]
2,700
[Stage Direction]
3,275
[Stage Direction]
Current transfers to non-residents
[Stage Direction]
793
[Stage Direction]
875
[Stage Direction]
960
[Stage Direction]
1,125
[Stage Direction]
1,275
[Stage Direction]
Interest on the public debt
[Stage Direction]
8,281
[Stage Direction]
10,250
[Stage Direction]
12,265
[Stage Direction]
14,225
[Stage Direction]
16,050
[Stage Direction]
Transfers to provinces
[Stage Direction]
11,852
[Stage Direction]
12,775
[Stage Direction]
14,150
[Stage Direction]
14,925
[Stage Direction]
15,900
[Stage Direction]
Transfers to local governments
[Stage Direction]
321
[Stage Direction]
375
[Stage Direction]
425
[Stage Direction]
475
[Stage Direction]
525
[Stage Direction]
Gross capital formation
[Stage Direction]
1,047
[Stage Direction]
1,100
[Stage Direction]
1,150
[Stage Direction]
1,200
[Stage Direction]
1,250
[Stage Direction]
Total expenditures
[Stage Direction]
54,412
[Stage Direction]
63,550
[Stage Direction]
73,650
[Stage Direction]
82,600
[Stage Direction]
91,625
[Stage Direction]
Surplus or deficit (-)
[Stage Direction]
-9,225
[Stage Direction]
-11,920
[Stage Direction]
-10,060
[Stage Direction]
-8,495
[Stage Direction]
-7,500
[Stage Direction]
,!) Numbers in these forecast columns should be interpreted as mid-points of ranges of estimates.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, October 29, 1980