1980-07-10

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to pose a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the current pay-out formula from a registered retirement income fund allows for very small payouts in the early years of retirement and very much larger payments as the pensioner approaches his or her ninetieth year, and in view of the fact that contributors to RRSPs should be able to draw larger amounts from their pension savings in the early years of retirement when they need the money most-as demonstrated by numerous representations which have been received by the Minister of Finance-I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn):
That this House direct the Minister of Finance to take the necessary action to amend the rules governing the pay-back formula from registered retirement income funds so that annual payments to pensioners can be equalized over the entire pay-back period between age 70 and age 90.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter as urgent and as pressing as next Monday, July 14, when postal stations in Ancaster and Dundas in my riding at least, and in many other Canadian communities as well, will begin closing a crucial 30 minutes earlier than the normal 5.45 p.m.
time, causing great inconvenience to many businesses in these communities.
In view of a formal letter of protest sent to the Hamilton postmaster by the mayor of the town of Ancaster, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean):
That this House directs the Postmaster General to make immediate alternative arrangements to these early closing hours in order not to create even further deterioration of Canada's postal service.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
When the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) announced on March 10 of this year that Canada would have a floating bank rate, this government effectively abdicated responsibility for the country's monetary policy. While the Bank of Canada has announced successive reductions in the bank rate, the chartered banks have chosen to pursue their own independent monetary policy, maintaining high interest rates.
The traditional spread between the central bank rate and the chartered banks' prime lending rates has increased by more than 200 per cent since April. In addition, chartered banks' profits, after taxes, in the second quarter of this year are up sharply over the same period last year. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That the government take immediate action to regain control over the country's monetary policy and curtail the monopolistic pricing practices of the chartered banks.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

July 10, 1980
5.0.	43


CHARTERED BANKS' INTEREST RATES IN EXCESS OF BANK OF CANADA RATE-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, my motion is similar to the previous motion under Standing Order 43, also in respect of a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
When interest rates in Canada were rising, the differential between the Bank of Canada rate and the chartered bank prime rate averaged about 1 per cent. Now that the Bank of Canada rate has been somewhat reduced, the chartered banks have not followed suit accordingly, thereby allowing the gap to triple-to nearly 3 per cent. In view of this unfair and inconsistent practice, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn):
That this House instruct the Minister of Finance to accept the responsibility for directing the financial institutions of this country to stop ripping off borrowers, particularly the struggling small businessman, and disallow the chartered banks to charge more than the traditional 1 per cent above the Bank of Canada rate.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

O)


DIVORCE
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In light of the strong objections of the Advisory Committee on the Status of Women to the transfer of jurisdiction over divorce from the federal government to the provinces, until the impact of this transfer has been thoroughly studied to assess its effect on women, and in light of the opposition of the Canadian Bar Association to this transfer, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That this House protest the proposal made by the Minister of Justice yesterday to the provincial ministers that control over most aspects of divorce be transferred to any province that wants it.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CROSS-COUNTRY MARATHON OF TERRY FOX ADMIRATION FOR MR. TERRY FOX FOR HIS EFFORTS ON BEHALF OF CANCER RESEARCH-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Douglas Fisher (Mississauga North):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43. In fact, I believe we may be a bit overdue in this instance.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Garant):
That this House extend its admiration and encouragement to Mr. Terry Fox for his cross-country marathon of hope on behalf of cancer research and, further, that this House support the request of Mr. Terry Fox that other Canadians assist his marathon through their donations to the Canadian Cancer Society.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House accept the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, noting that we are only three weeks away from the termination of the Canadian Wheat Board 1979-80 crop year, I want to say it is commendable that there has been a general improvement in the transportation of grain over this past year; however, in numerous specific communities congested elevators still exist and are denying farmers an opportunity to an adequate cash flow at the conclusion of this crop year.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Kinders-ley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight):
That this House advise the minister to take whatever initiatives are required, which may include special spotting of grain cars or an extension of the crop year, with the objective of relieving all prairie communities of congested elevators prior to the 1980-81 shipping season which will commence August 1, three weeks from now.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
July 10, 1980


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
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 view of the fact that the McDonald commission, Canada's longest running, most costly and least productive road show, has been in existence for almost three years, and in view of the fact that I have today been informed-and the Solicitor General will no doubt confirm-that there will be yet a further delay in the final report of the McDonald commission, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That in view of this intolerable further delay in the McDonald commission report, the Minister of Justice and the provincial attorneys general immediately begin prosecution and disciplinary action against those members of the RCMP who apparently have broken the law, and thereby reassure Canadians that the rule of law does indeed apply in this country.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NORTHERN PIPELINES
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Canada is importing some $3 billion to $4 billion of oil and $1 billion of coal per year. Canada's unemployment rate is rising rapidly, and its balance of payments is rapidly deteriorating. The pre-build section of the Alaska Highway gas pipeline will provide 150,000 man-years of employment, with some 30,000 to 40,000 man-years of employment in Ontario, a favourable balance of payments of $2 billion per year, an investment in Canada of $1.6 billion, with some $360 million in Ontario and Quebec. Therefore, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wright):
That the federal government immediately approve all Canadian aspects of the prebuilt Alaska Highway gas pipeline, while concurrently continuing negotiations with the U.S.A. for guarantees in regard to construction of the northern and Alaska sections of the gas line.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Carlo Rossi (Bourassa):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under Standing Order 43 concerning a condition which I feel deserves the immediate attention of the House; that is, the 13,500 retiring Canadians who have lost $23 million as a result of a prejudice ascribable to the Unemployment Insurance Commission. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Veillette):
That the House acknowledge that inequity and unanimously ask the minister responsible to take the necessary steps to reimburse the individuals involved in the shortest possible time.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: Collenette said "No".


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: Oral questions.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who will recall that on December 6, 1979, when he was criticizing the decision of my government to export Canadian natural gas he said, as reported at page 2101 of Hansard of that date: and I quote:
-exports of natural gas to the United States should be authorized only on the basis of, first of all, an ironclad commitment regarding the building of the whole Alaska gas pipeline.
1 wonder if that remains the position of the minister, or if he has changed his position.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, indeed, when we were in opposition we severely criticized the previous government for having approved the export of gas without having made any effort to

July 10, 1980
Oral Questions
get strong assurances from the American government, the American authorities, before approving those exports.
What we have indicated is that we wanted to have assurances, strong assurances and complete assurances, from the American authorities that the whole pipeline will be constructed. This is the matter that the cabinet is now examining, making sure that no approval will be given unless we have satisfactory assurances from the American authorities that the pipeline will be constructed.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I would call that an ironclad flip-flop.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: You know all about flip-flops.


Charles Joseph Clark: As the minister knows, our government approved exports, the pre-build and the whole pipeline. Foothills has now stated that they need a decision by next Tuesday in order to meet start-up requirements for construction this year. Does the government accept that as a firm deadline; and, if not, what deadline do they consider to be firm and applicable in these circumstances?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, from previous experience 1 thought that the hon. Leader of the Opposition did not like the word "deadline". 1 understand that the Foothills company have indicated that they needed a decision by June 15. We are in touch with the company-


An hon. Member:: July 15.


Marc Lalonde: By July 15. We are in touch with the corporation and we will assess whether this is really a complete deadline or whether there is flexibility.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the House of Commons would like to know the decision of the government at least by Tuesday, if they could find it in their heart to give it to us.
Let me put a simple question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has the Government of Canada made a decision on the pre-build? If so, what is that decision?


Marc Lalonde: The answer is no, Madam Speaker.


ALASKA GAS PIPELINE-EFFECT OF CONSTRUCTION ON CANADIAN ECONOMY
Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. 1 appreciate the minister's discomfort: all of us who have been here any length of time say things, either in opposition or in government, that we have to change later.


An hon. Member:: To swallow.


William Herbert Jarvis: Well, I have said many things I have regretted; there is no question about that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Herbert Jarvis: But this is not one of them. 1 think I can assist the minister in his embarrassment, particularly concerning yesterday when his colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, could not confirm in any way the impact on the economy of the pre-build portion.
Presuming that the Minister of Energy is the one responsible in cabinet for steering this through, can he give us today- either in terms of man-years or in terms of dollars, including or excluding the multiplier or spin-off effect-some indication of what the industrial impact, in terms of employment and infusions into the economy, might be from the pre-build? If he can give it in terms of regions of the country, I think it will be very helpful to the House.
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to correct my hon. friend on two points. However, I do appreciate his efforts to help me. First, there is no embarrassment whatsoever as far as I am concerned, and I want to assure him of that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You do not embarrass easily.


Marc Lalonde: The pre-build will be approved by cabinet only if it is to be an integral part of the Alaska gas pipeline. This is the view of this government. This was put forward in the act passed by Parliament a few years ago, and this is what we intend to stand by.
As far as his second point is concerned, 1 would like to correct the hon. member in terms of parliamentary or cabinet responsibility. Senator Olson, from the other place, is the minister responsible for the pipeline authority.


Mr. Nielsen:: You are the one who answers here.


Marc Lalonde: But I answer for him here. Third, the benefits for Canada of building the pipeline, even now or at a later date, are very substantial indeed.


Erik Nielsen: What is this later date?


Marc Lalonde: When we were considering a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43, the hon. member from Edmonton gave a number of figures which I do not dispute. I think those figures are, indeed, reasonably accurate. I would not want to confirm every single one of them, but in broad terms I would say they do represent reality.


Charles Joseph Clark: Why doesn't Herb know?


Marc Lalonde: This government is interested in building not only the pre-build portion but the whole of the Alaska gas pipeline, which will benefit all parts of Canada tremendously.


An hon. Member:: Get moving, then.
July 10, 1980


William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, I thought it was the minister who was having trouble with his cabinet colleagues. It may be Senator Olson. So by osmosis through the minister, maybe 1 can help Senator Olson, because on the other aspect which relates directly to what the minister has called his Canadiani-zation program the minister will be aware that, in terms of the gas-producing companies, it is not a conglomerate of multinationals; indeed, I think it is somewhere in the area of 250 Canadian independents whose future is at some risk in terms of the pre-build section. Therefore, can the minister give some indication to the House as to the accuracy of saying that there are about 250 small, Canadian-owned, independent gas producers whose future rests on the pre-build section? If so, has that evidence been brought before cabinet?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I must advise the hon. member that when his government precipitously approved the project last year, the main beneficiaries were a small number of large multinationals in terms of gas companies.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: Thanks to our efforts and work, the project now has been somewhat changed and there are a large number of small Canadian companies who will be the beneficiaries of this proposal.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: How?


ALASKA GAS PIPELINE-SWAP PROPOSALS WITH UNITED STATES
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The Leader of the Opposition referred to a speech made in this House by the energy critic, who is now the Minister of Energy, on December 6, 1979. In his speech he said this:
Second, there must be an arrangement for swaps in this agreement with the United States so that down the line, if Canada were to need natural gas, we would be in a position to obtain natural gas from the Alaska gas pipeline-
Can the minister now tell this House if there are any swap provisions in the pre-build proposal? If not, why not?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I can tell my hon. friend that the question of swaps was discussed for several hours with my American colleague during the course of the Summit in Venice. All aspects of this matter were gone into extensively.
As far as the content of any final decision one way or the other, the hon. member will have to wait until a decision is made and then examine the reasons for or against any particular decision that will have been taken by cabinet.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I take it what the minister is saying is there are no swap provisions so far and that is still being negotiated, so we could lose all of that gas.
Oral Questions
Let me ask the minister this. He referred to awaiting the cabinet decision. Can the minister tell the House how any decision can be reached on the pre-build when apparently there has been no report from the National Energy Board as to the result of their condition 12 hearings that were held recently? Can the minister confirm to this House that there has been no official report from the National Energy Board? Will he undertake to make any correspondence to Senator Olson or himself, from the National Energy Board, available to this House immediately so that the members of this House, as well as the cabinet, can assess whether the guarantees have been met?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member has some misunderstanding as to the procedure. I am advised by the National Energy Board that they have recommended to cabinet an amendment to condition 12. Before issuing a decision as to whether they are satisfied that the conditions are met or not, they need to first have a decision by cabinet on condition 12. They have to know whether cabinet would be ready to amend condition 12, allowing the recommendation of the Energy Board, before reaching a decision and making it public.
I can also advise the hon. member that I have received no correspondence from the Energy Board. 1 will inquire from my colleague in the other place, but 1 do not believe there is any correspondence along the lines to which he has referred.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, the minister is fond of telling me to get the facts straight, but if he reads what he just said he will see that it is an Alice in Wonderland procedure. He is telling the House that the National Energy Board is supposed to make a decision, then they are waiting for the government to decide, and then they will issue the proper decision. That is no procedure at all.
Let me ask the minister a final supplementary. I cannot ask him the contents of the legal opinion, but let me ask him this. Has the government asked for, or received, a legal opinion from the law officers of the Crown or the appropriate authorities as to whether it is legal that the government can approve the pre-build of the pipeline without bringing the matter back in the form of legislation before the House of Commons?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I will try and again enlighten my hon. friend as to the first part of his question. There are two elements in the Energy Board decision, or action. The first is to recommend an amendment to condition 12. The second is to decide, if cabinet were to approve condition 12, whether the conditions the Energy Board announced under condition 12, if it were amended, were met.
These are two different steps. Cabinet could still approve an amendment to condition 12, and the Energy Board could then say within that amendment they come to the conclusion that the conditions they have set have not been met. That is what 1 tried to explain to my hon. friend the first time he asked the question. There is no Alice in Wonderland problem there.

July 10, 1980
Oral Questions
[ Translation]
As for the second part of the hon. member's question dealing with a legal opinion, to my knowledge my department did not ask for a legal opinion-1 certainly did not. 1 suggest to the hon. member that it is not necessary to be a lawyer to understand the bill passed by Parliament. It is quite clear. One only has to read it. The meaning is obvious and I wonder why we would need another legal opinion to repeat what Parliament itself has so clearly legislated. You only have to read it to realize that.


ALASKA GAS PIPELINE-JURISDICTION UNDER NORTHERN PIPELINE ACT
Erik Nielsen: The minister knows, or should know, that cabinet action with respect to the powers exercisable under section 12 of schedule 3 is not necessary. It is the minister with whom that power is vested, or the board. Since the minister seems to have a misconception as to where the power resides under that section, can he inform us whether it is the intention of the government to invoke the provisions of section 14, which would provide the minister with those broad powers set forth in that section and in section I 5 of the act?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, unfortunately I am not yet in a position to answer the question raised by the hon. member. As the hon. member knows, these are internal matters pertaining to the operation of cabinet and if cabinet decides to act under the specific provisions of the act, it will reach a decision which will then be made public. Meanwhile, however, I do not think it is advisable to speculate on the possible use of this or that provision in the act.
* *
*


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Another August 1 is fast approaching, and since at the Venice conference the Prime Minister joined with other nations in signing a declaration which included a statement calling for determined fiscal and monetary restraint, would the right hon. gentleman tell us whether, as reported, consideration is being given to substantial cuts in government spending of a nature similar to those announced by the Prime Minister on August 1, 1978, bearing in mind that Dr. Stewart, the present deputy minister of finance, has indicated that government spending trends in coming years will mean 10 per cent to 12 per cent extra spending for Canadians; in fact, $250 for every man, woman
and child-needless spending, if the trend is not corrected- compared to that outlined in the Crosbie budget?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board, on behalf of the government, has indicated several times that restraint was still a practice of this administration and that he was very deeply engaged in following that practice. Every day, I believe, members of this House see examples of the government practising restraint when requests by the opposition for spending in their constituencies are resisted.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: How can you say that with a straight face?


An hon. Member:: How about your own members?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You hear them, Madam Speaker? They are each saying that their riding is an exception. But that is not the case.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In the case of the communication to which the hon. member referred, I would point out that the lines which follow nonetheless express a caution that we must ensure that the practice of restraint should not be pursued at the expense of the unemployed. There are cautionary words to that effect, and 1 think it is fair to say that the chairmen of the European Commission and the Canadian delegation were emphatic on this.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: To show some evidence of the restraint the Prime Minister is speaking of, and since it is now 27 months since we last had a fully-passed budget in this House, will the right hon. gentleman at least accept October 10 as the deadline before which a budget will be introduced setting out the government's budgetary program, bearing in mind that if he does not accept this deadline it will mean we have gone into the thirty-first month under his government with an aimless economic policy and no fully-passed budget program in position since April, 1978?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 think it is fair to say we shall try to do as well as the opposition in presenting a budget within a given date of the day on which we were elected. But since the hon. member is talking about a specific date, 1 would obviously have to consult the Minister of Finance before making an ironclad guarantee.
July 10, 1980


AIR SAFETY
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport; I hope we shall be acting on air safety a little faster than we are on the economy.
The minister is, of course, aware that two incidents occurred on the west coast, one in Vancouver in which a DC-8 and a DC-737 were involved in a near-miss situation, and another in Victoria in which a 737 and a Beechcraft nearly collided. Would the minister explain what action is being taken by his department with regard to investigating these events, and could he describe the effect of the government's restraint program on the reduction of the general level of air safety in the area?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: 1 am quite aware that there is a debate on the way investigations should be conducted following an accident or a near-miss. That is one of the major points in the Dubin inquiry, and I would have thought the hon. member would agree that it would be very wise to wait until we have the result of the extensive inquiry which the judge has been conducting.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I would point out in relation to the Victoria incident that we have been waiting for years for radar to be put in place in Victoria. The problem is one of expense. But people have already been killed because of the lack of these facilities.
With regard to the business of reporting, the minister is aware that we are not only awaiting some kind of statement or separate investigation: he also promised at the time to give us a report on the incident involving the 737. We are still waiting for that. Basically, I would appreciate hearing something about the installation-


Madam Speaker:: Order. I feel the hon. member should ask his question. There is no need for a long preamble, especially to a supplementary.


Raymond John Skelly: Could the minister tell us when he might be prepared to report what occurred in this incident, what has occurred in connection with the 737 incident and, specifically, what he might be doing about radar installation at Victoria to prevent future incidents, regardless of what may happen at the inquiry?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will look into these two incidents immediately to find out whether the report of the inquiry is available. Members of the House are aware, of course, that every day there is improvement in the general equipment of our airports in Canada. Millions of dollars are being spent on that purpose. If the hon. member would like a list relating to airports in his own geographical area, I will be glad to provide him with one.
Oral Questions AIR TRANSPORT


HALIFAX-MONTREAL ROUTE
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the cabinet's recent decision to award the Toronto-Halifax route to Eastern Provincial Airways-a decision which, by the way, I applaud-and in view of the fact that CP Air has refused to serve the Halifax-Montreal route, would the minister please tell us what steps he or his officials are taking to ensure that the Halifax-Montreal route, normally served by Eastern Provincial Airways, is served by CP Air or some other carrier in future?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am, of
course, pleased that the hon. member is satisfied with the decision which was made by cabinet. Personally, 1 was rather sad that CP Air could not find its way clear to accept the compromise we had reached, particularly in view of the fact that at one point in time in the course of discussions with the parties we had the impression that they would.
On the subject of the Halifax-Montreal route which, as the hon. member will recall, EPA relinquished in the compromise we reached, I understand that Eastern Provincial Airways has asked the Transport Commission if it can continue to operate now that CPA does not appear to wish to do so. The Canadian Transport Commission has received this request and is communicating with the other parties, particularly with CPA, to see what they think of it.


INDUSTRY
Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and it deals with recent statements made in Detroit by President Carter regarding the ailing auto industry.
Could the minister inform this House whether he discussed the proposals set forth by the president during his recent meetings with U.S. officials in Washington; and if he has discussed President Carter's proposals-which I assume he must have-why has he not acted accordingly? Why are we taking a back seat again to every other country in the world as far as the auto industry is concerned?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, in our recent discussions in Washington we discussed a range of matters, including the areas covered by the president's statement. I have to tell my hon. friend that we had already begun acting on the same areas in our own country well before President Carter made his state-

July 10, 1980
Oral Questions
merit. President Carter, for example, first met with the automobile industry on May 14. We began meeting with the industry within days of taking office in March.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: President Carter said that he would begin studying changes in tax laws to assist the auto industry. We already have those kinds of things on the books in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: When it comes to dealing with the problem the Americans are trying to deal with regarding inventory levels of automobile dealers, an initiative taken by my hon. friends-1 am trying to be fair on this-in their last budget-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Charles Joseph Clark: You have lost the Speaker's vote, Herb.


Madam Speaker:: Order. The hon. minister is being cheered so much, he must be making a speech.


Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, under normal circumstances I am a patient man, but I am getting fed up with the runaround of rhetoric we have been getting from this minister for the last four months.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: Order. No speeches.


Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, 1 will leave the rhetoric to the minister, and I will ask him a simple question. Why does he continue to delay in taking any specific and positive action instead of just studies, which he has been doing for four months? Second, is he now prepared to propose forthwith all the positive plans as outlined by President Carter in Detroit and the many other recommendations which he has been receiving from this side of the House and from other interest groups such as the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association of Canada?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend is so wrapped up in his own rhetoric that he is not paying attention to what we have actually been doing. For example, we have undertaken some very successful missions with the auto parts manufacturers and with third country importers to facilitate greater exports of auto parts from Canada. Our program to provide loan guarantees to Chrysler alone has guaranteed in large measure the survival of some 40,000 jobs in Canada, something which the hon. member's party was unwilling to do when it was in office.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: More.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, we are proceeding to put in place further action of a kind that the auto parts manufacturers find very acceptable and-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I did not hear the minister's response to that question, so I believe not many people did.


Mr. Kempling:: You didn't miss anything.


Madam Speaker:: 1 therefore ask the hon. minister to give his answer in two sentences.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, we have already taken constructive action which has helped preserve the jobs of Canadian workers and the Canadian industry, and we are going to continue taking that action, unlike the flops on the other side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: You get one more sentence. Herb.


NOVA SCOTIA AND NEW BRUNSWICK-SUBSIDIES ON SHIPMENTS OF COAL TO ONTARIO
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, somewhat reluctantly my question is to the same minister. As the minister is no doubt aware, at the first meeting of the economic Summit in Venice, the right hon. Prime Minister stated that we will encourage long-term commitments by coal producers and consumers. The minister's colleague in the other place has made the statement that he offered to spend millions of dollars to subsidize Pacific Rim sales of coal to Japan.
Is the minister's government prepared to make the same sort of commitment to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick in order to enable them to subsidize shipments of coal to Ontario markets?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, we are prepared to make constructive commitments to help the coal industry in Nova Scotia and elsewhere in the maritimes, as we are for all parts of the country.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, I hope we can take that as a commitment that the minister and his government have changed their attitude that the maritime and Atlantic region is a rinky-dink territory.
On the commitment he has undertaken, could the minister now be specific and tell this House what it is that he and his government intend to do to promote the sale and production of coal in the Atlantic region for domestic markets in Ontario?
July 10, 1980


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, 1 think there already is a form of subsidy encouraging coal production in Nova Scotia, and if we have a specific proposal we will come up with a program at the federal level which will be in the best interests of Nova Scotia coal miners.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. About a week ago, in answer to a question I put to him, the Prime Minister indicated that in his discussions with President Carter he did not raise the important question of the Buy American provisions, particularly as they relate to urban transportation.
As this is an ongoing sign of increasing pressures toward protectionism in the United States, I ask whether the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, or the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has raised with the U.S. Administration the very serious concern of Canadians about the most recent example of protectionism, that being the move by New York state to control imports of steel products into the New York state market.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I would be very happy to inquire.


Miss MacDonald:: That is what you said a week ago.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker. I hope the Prime Minister is aware of the very important impact that protectionism in the United States is having on our economy in Canada, particularly in the steel industry. Now that he has had one week to think about it, perhaps the Prime Minister could have another week to ask the question of his ministers.
May I direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce? At the end of 1979, the Clark government had been working hard to settle the problem of the Buy American regulations as they affected the surface transportation industry, light rail transit. There was some hope at that time that we were reaching a breakthrough with the United States.
Would the minister advise the House the status of those negotiations and whether he raised these matters with Mr. Askew in his recent meetings? If so, what were the responses of Mr. Askew?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, with respect to the initiative begun by the previous government, it was not in a form which enabled us to reach a final agreement with the Americans. We
Ora! Questions
are continuing our discussions very actively because we recognize the importance of this. This was certainly a subject I did raise with Governor Askew, and I might add that our officials on behalf of the Canadian government very actively protested the New York state law regarding steel purchases by that government. We are continuing our efforts because the New York state law does not define precisely what is a "steel product" or the margin of protection. We are making urgent representations to the New York administration to have the application of that law defined as narrowly as possible to protect Canadian interests.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the minister responsible for CMHC regarding housing in the maritime provinces. In the northern peninsula of Newfoundland, the National Anti-Poverty Organization is assisting hundreds of home owners to repair rundown cottages in remote fishing villages. Since these outstanding efforts are in danger of failing because of inadequate front-end funding under RRAP, will the minister increase RRAP allocations, particularly to remote rural areas in the maritimes and in our north, and will he also revise financing procedures so that delivery agencies such as NAPO do not have to operate under a deficit?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question: it gives me the opportunity" to point out that as a result of the' govern^ ment's action in designating, for example, 5,000 additional starts in the public non-profit area, there has been some recovery in housing generally. The announcement of the widening of the RRAP eligibility program has demonstrated, as well, that there is a demand for that. As a result, starts picked up again in the month of June.
In response to the specific question, it demonstrates that the government is pressed by many members requesting new money and new projects to meet demand. I will certainly take the request of the hon. member under consideration. If we can find money from other areas that has not been drawn, we will attempt to respond. I am reminded of the response of the Prime Minister; certainly there are demands for needs, and that is contrary to restraint.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. It seems to me the minister does not realize that not one of those 5,000 units of non-profit housing can be used in the maritime provinces of Canada. His programs simply do not adapt to the circum-

July 10, 1980
Oral Questions
stances of those provinces. The Atlantic provinces have the highest rate of home ownership despite their poverty and high unemployment-I think they are very proud of this-because most families have built their own homes.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Inasmuch as-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should ask her question.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Since the minister, in effect, is destroying the co-operative building programs in the maritimes-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: -will the minister assure the House that he will assist maritimers to continue to build and own their homes, particularly modest ones, by extending non-profit mortgage schemes to cover homes built by building co-operatives?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I have to reply to the original comments of the hon. member opposite by pointing out that, indeed, 500 of the 5,000 units under non-profit additionally were allocated to the maritime provinces. In addition to that, there are 1,200 unallocated units and I have requests for further allocation in the maritime provinces.
Again, the demand for these non-profit units comes from the area which the hon. member represents. On the other hand she asks for her own riding, for her own province, and then she asks for another province. It is a difficult task to respond to these requests. Yes, the government will continue to analyse this program and we will continue to try to assist the home ownership aspirations of the people of the maritime provinces.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL COMMUNITY SERVICES PROGRAM
Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The minister may or may not be aware that recently the Union of British Columbia Municipalities advised all its members that they had been informed the federal government intended to restrict, reduce or even cancel their share of the joint federal-provincial community services program.
Is it the policy of this government to either restrict, reduce or, indeed, cancel their share of the joint federal-provincial community services program?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, the program presently in place expires at the end of 1980. I have recommended to the officials of the corporation and to the government that because of the time of year the program be extended for at least one year. It is fair to say,
again in response to the question by a member of the same party opposite about restraint, that we should look at the progam to see whether we can afford it and whether indeed the federal government can continue in total or in part; and in what way the program may be used to assist the federal government in its other objectives, for example, in response to the questions of the hon. lady opposite.


Vincent Martin Dantzer: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. As I understand it, the budget, or estimates tabled for this year are in the amount of $246 million. Do they intend to keep to that figure for this year's estimates?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I have had the opportunity of meeting with nine of the ministers of housing for the provinces. I have taken the opportunity of expressing to them, as 1 do to the hon. member, that that commitment will be made. Indeed, 1 have delivered cheques to show the good faith of that commitment.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare and relates to voluntary organizations. In committee last week, the minister indicated that she favoured the reduction and, indeed, the possible elimination of sustaining grants to national voluntary organizations. There are about 14 of these organizations, such as the Canadian Mental Health Association, Red Cross, and St. John's Ambulance. This relates to the services offered to Canadians by those organizations.
Has the minister changed her mind, or does she still stand by her view that she should reduce or, indeed, eliminate grants? Can the minister indicate when she expects to communicate her intentions to those organizations, and when she intends to meet with them?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, there is no need to say that I never said that. I find it a bit unfair of my predecessor to discuss in this House a long discussion that took place in a committee which I think, by the way, continues tomorrow morning at 9.30. That is not what I said. I presented my estimates, which included the usual sustaining grants to voluntary organizations. 1 explained in committee the policy of the government. I said that the task force report in the last decade which pointed to the problem of core funding was in opposition to what we favoured. We favour project-oriented action to promote the invaluable work of voluntary organizations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
July 10, 1980


David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, I waited until the record of the committee came out rather than ask the question last week. If the minister wishes to consult the record, she will see that in fact I used a quotation of hers from the record.
I have a supplementary question. At the same meeting, the minister indicated that the grants were not adjusted for inflation due to an oversight on the part of her department. Would she now assure the House that grants to national voluntary organizations will be adjusted and that oversight corrected in the supplementary estimates?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, I am sorry but I understand even less where my colleague is trying to take us with that question. It is even more unfair because he does not refer to the complete discussion of that topic. 1 would like to insist on that. I cannot give him the answer he requests because, if I remember well, that was put to my officials. I need technical advice right now which 1 do not have with me. 1 am sorry to insist that 1 do not understand why a question like that can even be asked in the House, when the matter is in committee right now and will be pursued tomorrow morning.


An hon. Member:: That is nonsense.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Recently the Northwest Territories Legislative-Coiwcil unanimously passed- a ..resolution supporting the Inuit Tapirisat's position that the ITC would undertake land claims negotiations with the federal government this year only on the assumption that their proposal for a new Nunavut territory would be dealt with by the federal government before any final agreement on the land claims.
Considering this important new support for the ITC claim, would the minister now agree to discuss these political aspects of the Nunavut proposal when his negotiators meet with the ITC soon?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, I met with the Inuit some considerable time ago when we discussed setting up land negotiations. I indicated that 1 would be prepared to appoint a negotiator as soon as they were ready. They said that if during the negotiations on the land claims we wished to raise political questions, we could abridge or at least stall any land claim negotiations until we found out where we were going politically. They agreed to it, and it is proceeding. That is the understanding we have.
Business of the House DIVORCE


PROPOSED TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION TO PROVINCES
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration, the minister responsible for the status of women. The Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, in its presentation to the minister, strongly objected to the proposed transfer of jurisdiction over divorce from the federal government to the provinces.
The minister at that time wholeheartedly accepted the recommendation of the advisory council, indicating he would fight in cabinet in respect of that particular matter. Has the minister communicated with the Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development or the cabinet regarding the position of the advisory council? If not, why not; and what is his response now going to be to that advisory council?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, in response to that question let me say yes, I have communicated the concerns of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women to the Minister of Justice. If the hon. member had been looking at the proposals put forward to the provincial ministers, he would know they indicate many of the concerns raised by the advisory council concerning problems of enforcement, problems which are in fact being recognized by the government and are now being negotiated as part of the constitutional problems.
The major concern of the advisory council was the enforcement and custody problems which would be brought about by split jurisdiction. The proposal put forward took those problems into account, and in fact we are negotiating at the present


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I am afraid the minister suffers from delusions of adequacy. 1 should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister.
In light of the response of the minister responsible for the status of women and the proposals which have been put forward to the ministers now meeting in respect of the constitution, in the area of divorce will the Prime Minister table in this House the position of the federal government and of the ministers, and what steps will the government take to ensure that problems in respect of custody, alimony and maintenance, as well as the whole question of jurisdiction of divorce, do not end up with our having some sort of Reno or Tijuana in Canada by virtue of the turnover of jurisdiction to the provinces?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the opening position taken by our Minister of Justice at meetings in Montreal is the one which was put to the federal-provincial conference publicly in February, 1979.
Since February, 1979, we have received representations from interested groups, including many organizations

Business of the House
representating women's rights. They have pointed out that they have difficulty with this matter. Our minister has been negotiating in Montreal on the possibility of adjusting that to meet the particular problem of execution, under different jurisdictions, of maintenance judgments or alimony.
Elere, as in everything else, the federal government is taking an extremely flexible position. We are prepared to accommodate the desires of the greatest number of Canadians and are trying to reconcile those with the desires of the provinces in order to simplify the whole area of family law. This has been our position-not reneging on our February position but indicating there was this real difficulty and that we would be anxious to try to find a solution in co-operation with the provinces.
* *
*


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is Thursday, the tenth day of July, and it is a very important Thursday. I wonder whether my friend would have any information for us in respect of what the plans of the government are as far ahead as he would like to see in terms of legislation for next week? While he is on his feet would he agree to designating next Monday as an allotted day-the seventh allotted day for the opposition?


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, this afternoon we will study Bill C-30. It is very important that we obtain third reading of that bill, hopefully before five o'clock. That will be followed by Bill C-3.
Tomorrow, after consultation with my colleagues, we have agreed to study certain bills in this order, if possible; C-13, C-31 and C-5 which has been reported from the committee or will be reported later on today. That is the Bretton Woods measure. We will need consent to proceed with that bill tomorrow, but I understand we have that consent. We will then proceed with Bill C-4 in relation to municipal grants and, if necessary, S-6, to terminate the day tomorrow.
[ Translation]
As for the next week. Madam Speaker, I confirm that Monday will be an allotted day, the seventh opposition day. Over the remainder of the week, we should no doubt complete what will be left from this week. In addition, we should consider Bill C-18, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act on which the committee will report today, Bill C-26, the Fort Nelson Indian Reserve Minerals Revenue Sharing Act, Bill S-2 concerning tax conventions and Bill C-34, the Judges Act, if we can agree to hold a reasonably short debate to dispose of that bill at all stages.
That is essentially the bill of fare for the next two or three days.
July 10, 1980


Walter David Baker: 1 have one other matter of concern, Madam Speaker. The government made a commitment, as I recollect, to the Canadian Commission on the International Year of the Child to refer the report to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. 1 wonder when that could be done, on the understanding it would be dealt with in very short order? Would the government House leader consider that, please?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, if I have agreement that this can be done today without debate I will agree to present it to the committee; if not, I will consult with my colleagues and try to work out something for tomorrow.


Mr. Knowles:: Madam Speaker, I thank the government House leader for giving us the bill of fare for the next few days. May 1 say in respect of Bill C-5 that we will give unanimous consent to that bill being proceeded with at the report and third reading stages tomorrow. I do not think any of the other bills he has listed require unanimous consent, but we do agree on that one.
Just to keep the record clear, what happens to Bill C-34 is still a matter of negotiation. I believe the minister put it that way and 1 confirm that that is the situation.
In looking over the order paper I have wondered, and sometimes my colleagues have asked me, when we were going to complete the debate on the throne speech. He might tell us some day when we are going to have day number eight in that regard. Surely the government does not want to carry on forever without having the confidence that goes with the conclusion of that debate.
1 have just one other thing to say to the minister. He probably does not think it is really Thursday because I cannot ask him when he is going to bring forward the bill regarding veterans. I can tell him that the campaign starts today for a bill to amend the one we passed yesterday in order that 24,000 of the widows who, by that bill, are entitled to their pensions will not have to wait for one to six and a half years to get it. I hope within a matter of months, perhaps when the House comes back in the fall, the minister will agree to the suggestion 1 am sure the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) will make, that we take care of that fault. We almost did it yesterday but for four votes.
*
* *
[ Translation]



THE ROYAL ASSENT

['Madam Speaker, with regard to this matter, I would point out to the hon. member that the Minister of Justice will be appearing before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs next Monday, July 14. At that time I am sure he would be only too happy to answer the question raised by the hon. member.']
Madam Speaker:: 1 have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

[July 10, 1980
Government House Ottawa
July 10, 1980
* Madam,
I I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Brian Dickson, Puisne ljudge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor (General, will proceed to the chamber today, the 10th day of July, at 5.45 p.m., Ifor the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be. Madam,
Your obedient servant, Edmond Joly dc Lotbiniere Administrative Secretary to the Governor General



[Stage Direction]
MR. McGRATH-SALMON fishery-reply of minister of I	FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, I have a point of order arising from a reply yesterday by my hon. friend, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc), to my colleague, the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain), in respect of the continuation of compensation payments to commercial salmon fishermen in the maritime provinces.
I know the minister would not want to deliberately mislead the House, and I know that his answer in this respect, in that it was misleading, was inadvertent. He did say that his predecessor terminated the compensation. He knows that when another year of compensation was granted by Treasury Board, that is for fiscal 1979, it was done on the understanding that that would be the final year in which compensation would be made, because fiscal 1979 was the seventh or eighth year of a program which was scheduled to last for only five years.
In fact, that was the reaction which I received initially from Treasury Board, and it was my understanding that 1 would not be able to get an extension beyond 1979 of the compensation program. However, I did agree to a modified continuation of the program. In that respect we were looking at ways and means of continuing payments to bona fide fishermen who were still active fishermen and terminating payments for those fishermen who were no longer active. We wanted to find a way to continue payments to those fishermen who were still active.
That is the case, and those are the facts. I am sure that the minister, if he searches his memory, will find that it is so.


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, I obviously would not want to mislead the House, especially in relation to something at which the hon. member would feel aggrieved. 1 will check my memory and I will check the record. I suspect that my memory came from a
Privilege-Mr. Domm
rather strong exchange which took place in the House when 1 was on the other side. In that exchange it was alleged that 1 had agreed to terminate compensation, instead of Treasury Board having decided that compensation should terminate. If I remember correctly, I made the point in that heated exchange that I did not agree with Treasury Board in this case and that 1 thought a program should be put in place either to retire licences which were held by fishermen who were not using them, or to arrange for a buy-back or some other means. I felt that the provinces should participate since they benefited from any reduction in the commercial salmon fishing effort on the east coast.
That being said, I take the hon. member's correction as a point well taken, and I apologize for anything which I said which would make it appear as though the hon. member were misleading the House. Obviously, that was not my intention.
* *
*


PRIVILEGE
Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, as an Atlantic Canadian and a member from the maritime provinces, I rise on a point of privilege. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) in a question today to the minister of housing made reference to the province of Newfoundland and in the same context went on to make reference to the maritime provinces, which would indicate to the House and to Canada that the maritime provinces include the province of Newfoundland.
Newfoundland is a beloved part of Atlantic Canada. Besides that fact, although the party to my left, the NDP, make attempts to change everything else in our system, that should not give them the licence to attempt to change the geography of the country, simply because they have no members from that region. The fact is that Newfoundland is no more a part of the maritime provinces than is British Columbia, from which the hon. member springs, a member of the prairie provinces.
I would also add that, much to my amazement, the minister seemed to go along with this same sort of attitude and did not differentiate in his response.
[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: I have a feeling the hon. member gave us details he was very pleased to give the House, but I fail to see any question of privilege. 1 have heard him, but I doubt that 1 should allow further discussion on the matter.

Business of the House PRIVILEGE


MR. DOMM-ALLEGED DISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT SUFFERED BY HON. MEMBER FOR PETERBOROUGH
Madam Speaker:: The hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Fox) gave me notice that he wanted to add information to that he has already given in reply to the question of privilege of the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm).
When the question of privilege was brought up, he indicated that he would come back to the House with additional information. He has already been heard once on that question. Bearing in mind that he indicated that he would like to come back to the House to give more information, 1 am quite willing to hear him again if the House agrees.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, the case in question involves the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) who unfortunately cannot be here today because of another engagement. I wonder if the hon. gentleman would defer-certainly there would be agreement to defer-the information until the hon. member for Peterborough can be present. It may come about, as a result of what the minister says, that there would be an equal disposition of the House to allow the hon. member for Peterborough to speak. If we could, perhaps we should do it all at once. That would certainly be agreeable.


Madam Speaker:: Would the hon. minister agree to postponing his statement?


Hon. Francis Fox (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, 1 should be pleased to do so. My statement is really intended to make certain facts known from which stemmed the question of privilege of the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm), and to throw light on those circumstances, with a view to helping the Chair decide whether or not the question of privilege is valid. Accordingly, 1 should be pleased to accede to the request of the House leader of the opposition that my statement be postponed to a later date.
* *
*


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Nystrom:: Madam Speaker, my point of order reverts back to House business, if 1 may. I would like to ask the government House leader whether or not he can tell us if he is still planning tentatively to have a special debate on the constitution amounting to one day or two days. He did not refer to that matter.
July 10, 19801
The other question I want to pose is: Regardless of whether or not there is a special debate on the constitution, is he in a position to say whether or not it is the intention of the government to tabic before the House any documents that might be relevant to us on the constitution which are now being used by the government in negotiations in Montreal and in subsequent negotiations in Toronto and Vancouver? It may be useful to us as parliamentarians to have access to those documents, particularly if there is no special debate in the House.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the hon. member's suggestion to hold a debate on constitutional affairs or on current negotiations can be taken into consideration, but it will always be easy to deal with that matter either on an opposition day or on an adjournment motion if the opportunity arises this month.
As for his request to table documents, I cannot give him an answer at this moment.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, my point of order also relates to the question of House business. I would ask my question of either the President of the Privy Council or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, who I see is in the chamber.
Earlier in this session we were given an indication that the government would be bringing in, before the summer recess, legislation with respect to the decriminalization of possession of marijuana. Could we have some indication from either the President of the Privy Council or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice on this question? I am sure that all parties would be prepared to give speedy passage to such a bill.

'***ft
r. ?'*


Mr. Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Madam Speaker, with regard to this matter, I would point out to the hon. member that the Minister of Justice will be appearing before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs next Monday, July 14. At that time I am sure he would be only too happy to answer the question raised by the hon. member.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ English ]

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs-Mr. Cullen.
First report of Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections Mr. Foster.
[Editor's note: Ear text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings. ]

*
[Stage Direction]
uly 10, 1980

Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I should like to table, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), copy of the eighth report of the Advisory Group on Executive Compensation in the Public Service.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, 1 undertook on Tuesday of this week to table, under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), copies in both official languages of the membership of cabinet committees. I would be prepared to do that now, Madam Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, according to requirements of Section 7 of the Roosevelt-Campobello International Park Commission I would table copies in both official languages of the sixteenth annual report of the Roosevelt-Campobello International Park Commission.


EXTRADITION ACT
Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, in accordance with the requirements of section 7 of the Extradition Act, I should like to table in both official languages copies of three extradition treaties. Although these are separate documents, perhaps I might present them all at the same time.
The first is the Canada/Federal Republic of Germany Extradition Treaty signed at Ottawa on July 11, 1977. Second is the Canada/Denmark Extradition Treaty signed at Ottawa on November 30, 1977. The third is the Canada/France signed at Ottawa on February 9, 1977.
Order Paper Questions POINT OF ORDER


MR. KNOWLES-REQUEST MEMBERSHIP OF CABINET COMMITTEES BE APPENDED TO &quot;HANSARD''
Stanley Howard Knowles: A point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of a certain amount of interest in the personnel of cabinet committees, I wonder if the document previously tabled by the Prime Minister could be made an appendix to today's Hansard.


Madam Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.
[Editor's note: For document above referred to, see Appendix.]


PRIVILEGE
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I wish to give the Chair notice that I feel that I have a question of privilege arising out of the proceedings which were reported upon today by the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) in presenting the first report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. I intend to raise it tomorrow after I have had an opportunity of studying the report.


REVISED STATUTES OF CANADA, 1970 REFERENCE OF PROPOSALS TO CORRECT CERTAIN ANOMALIES, ETC., TO STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS
Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, 1 move that the document entitled "Proposals to correct certain Anomalies, Inconsistencies, Anachronisms, Errors and other Matters of a Non-Controversial and Uncomplicated Nature in the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, and other Acts Subsequent to 1970", be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
I understand, after consultation, that there is no objection to this being done without delay at this time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
*	* V

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following

July 10, 198
Order Paper Questions
questions will be answered today: Nos. 32, 37, 38, 39, 40, 78, 79, 183, 267, 371, 568, 740, 809, 884 and 932.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-SECURITY SERVICES
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was a statement issued by the press office of the Department of External Affairs on Friday, January 26, 1979, to the effect that the department's security services were being expanded and, if so, what are all the details of this expansion and for what reason was it considered necessary?
2.	What will be the total estimated number of employees or personnel as a result of the expansion and what was the total before such expansion?
3.	Did Mr. Eldon Black direct the expansion?
4.	Were any of the duties that the department will perform under such expansion presently or previously performed, internally or externally, by the RCMP and, if so, what were they?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. No such statement was issued. (There have, however, been two changes in recent years in the security area within the Department of External Affairs. The first was the appointment of Mr. E. P. Black as deputy under-secretary; this appointment, announced on August 3, 1978, did not involve any departure from existing responsibilities nor any expansion of the department's activities in this area. The second was the appointment in February, 1979, of a co-ordinator for emergency preparedness to ensure that the department's existing responsibilities in crisis situations are fulfilled in a co-ordinated manner. Both of these changes were designed to strengthen the ability of the Department of External Affairs to meet its existing security responsibilities. There has been no expansion of personnel apart from the appointment of the co-ordinator for emergency preparedness.)
2.	N/A.
3.	N/A.
4.	N/A.


MR. VLADIMAR IVANOVICH GAVRYUSHKIN
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was the government, prior to May 22, 1979, aware that Mr. Vladimar Ivanovich Gavryushkin, consul general of the U.S.S.R. in Montreal, was the representative of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in Canada since 1972 and, if so (a) did he maintain contact with certain members of Parliament (b) has he been contacted by employees of the House of Commons (c) did he regularly meet with members of the Communist Party of Canada, representatives of certain trade unions and representatives of the Communist Party of Quebec?
2.	Is the government aware that Mr. Gavryushkin was and/or is accompanied on many of his activities by cither identified or suspected Russian intelligence service officers?
3.	Was the government made aware of these facts prior to May 22, 1979, under I AC brief No. 7/76 and, if so, what action was taken, if any, in this regard?


Mark R. MacGuigan: The government is not aware that the activities of Mr. V. I. Gavryushkin ever went beyond the bounds of internationally accepted norms of behaviour for diplomatic and consular officials.


MR. A. N. POSTNIKOV
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was a visa granted in December 19-75, to A.N. Postnikov, a supposed Russian technical expert, to visit Canada?
2.	Is Mr. Postnikov designated in security records as a known member of the chief intelligence directorate of the Soviet ministry of defence commonly referred to as the GRU?
3.	Was the government aware, at the time the visa was granted, whether or not Mr. Postnikov had been declared persona non grata by the government of India in the city of New Delhi in 1958, and, if so, for what reason was he admitted to Canada?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. Yes.
2 and 3. It is considered that it would not be in the public interest to comment on questions of this nature.


MR. RYSZARD TRYC
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	To the knowledge of the government, was Mr. Ryszard Tryc an accredited Polish diplomat in Canada and, if so (a) on what date did he arrive in Canada
(b)	what position did he hold with the Polish embassy (c) was he found dead and, if so (i) on what date (ii) in what location (d) was a post-mortem performed and. if so (i) by whom (ii) in what place (iii) what was the cause of death (e) was any Canadian doctor, specifically a Canadian coroner involved in the case and, if not, for what reasons?
2.	What became of Mr. Tryc's remains and if they were returned to Poland, by what means were they returned and on what date?
3.	To the knowledge of the government, was Mr. Tryc in any way associated with any intelligence service of any country and, if so, what are the details?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. Yes. (a) September 15, 1978; (b) first secretary;
(c)	yes: (i) on July 20, 1979, (ii) in his office; (d) yes: (i) by Coroner J. A. Thomson, (ii) in Ottawa, (iii) a massive stroke; (e) yes.
2.	Mr. Tryc's remains were returned to Poland by air on July 24, 1979.
3.	It is considered that it would not be in the public interest to comment on questions of this nature.


LISTENING DEVICES
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Have any electronic listening devices or any articles whatsoever commonly referred to as "bugs" been found in any Canadian embassy in Eastern Europe including the Soviet Union within the past ten years and, if so (a) on what dates (b) what was the location of each embassy (c) what was the nature of the device found (d) what was the length of time it was estimated to have been there (e) the exact location in the embassy where it was found (f) in any case, was it discovered who placed the device and, if so, what was the identity?
2.	Was a commonly called "bug" found in a vacuum cleaner in the Canadian embassy in Moscow at any time and, if so, what are all details?
Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): It is considered that it would not be in the public interest to comment on questions of this nature.

I July 10, 1980


THE INSTITUTE OF THE U S A. I
Mr. Cossitt: j.'j I- Was the security committee of the cabinet or any other person whatsoever, I prior to May 22, 1979, aware of the existence of an organization in Moscow I called The Institute of the U.S.A. and Canada" and that the Canadian division I was founded in 1972, and that the director of the institute was Mr. Georgiy I Arbatov?
j| 2. Did Mr. Arbatov visit Canada in 1975 and, while here, did he meet with (a) I the Prime Minister (b) the then minister of external affairs (c) various Canadian I business executives (d) noted members of the academic community (e) senior I members of the Public Service in positions where they could influence Canadian I government policy and, if so, for what reasons?
|	3. Was the government aware, prior to May 22, 1979, that Mr. Vladimar
I Ivanovich Gavryushkin, consul general for the U.S.S.R. in Montreal, made I regular reports to Mr. Arbatov on certain Canadian matters?


Mark R. MacGuigan: I. The facts referred to were publicly available before the date mentioned.
;	2. Dr. Arbatov visited Canada early in 1975 at the invitation
of the Department of External Affairs, who arranged for him to meet the people indicated.
3. It would not be unusual for officials of the Soviet government to communicate with each other on matters of mutual interest.
I CUBAN SUBVERSIVE AND COVERT ACTIVITIES IN THE WESTERN j	HEMISPHERE


Mr. Cossitt: i I. Is there an IAC brief No. 28/75 entitled "Cuban Subversive and Covert I Activities in the Western Hemisphere" and, if so, on what date was it compiled?
;	2. Was the brief compiled by the security service of the R.C.M.P. and others
I and, if so, what is the identity of the other groups assisting in the compilation?
.	3. Did the government apprise the people of Canada of such subversive
I activities and, if not, for what reason?
i 4. Will the government consider making a statement on the subject?
'	5. Will the government, under a freedom of information policy, make known
to the Canadian people the activities, contrary to the Canadian democratic process except where such disclosures would have considerable serious harm to a security operation in progress?


Mark R. MacGuigan: It is considered that it would not be in the public interest to comment on questions of this nature.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Mr. Herbert: 1.	For each fiscal year (a) 1977 (b) 1978, what was the total revenue and net earnings or deficits for the Farm Credit Corporation ?
2.	For each year, what was the total (a) of direct or indirect subsidies or other benefits conferred by the government on the corporation (b) of loans, advances or guarantees extended by the government to the corporation (c) investment by the government in the corporation both before and after any write-off?


Hon. Eugene Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Farm Credit Corporation replies as follows:
1. (a)	1977-78
(b)	1978-79
S181,948,860 total revenue $	991,002 net income
$212,098,327 total revenue $ 2,287,438 net income
	Order Paper Questions	
2. (a)	1977-	78 - none 1978-	79 - none	(b)	1977-	78 - $297.4 million 1978-	79 - $266.4 million	(c)	Capital advances received, 1977-78	- $11.5 millionCapital advances received, 1978-79 There was no write-off.	- $10.3 million


P.E.I.-FRENCH LANGUAGE SCHOOLS IN SUMMERSIDE
Mr. Herbert: How many (a) elementary (b) high schools in Summerside, P.E.I. (i) are entirely French language schools (ii) include full courses in the French language (iii) have French language immersion courses?


Mr. Peter Stollery (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: The following information was obtained from the P.E.I. ministry of education.
In the Summerside area there are three elementary schools, grades one-six; two junior high schools, grades seven-nine; one senior school, grades ten-twelve. None of these schools is exclusively French, none has full courses in French other than in immersion. Immersion programs began in two of the three elementary schools three years ago and have now reached the grade three level where 80 per cent of the instruction time is in French (100 per cent in grades one and two). This is a progressive situation and immersion will be offered at the junior high school level when appropriate.
Within a distance of 15 miles west of Summerside in the Evangeline district, one elementary school and one high school are entirely French language schools.


HEALTH AND WELFARE-PERSONS IN THE SX CLASSIFICATION
Mr. Herbert: 1.	As of March 31, 1979 (a) how many persons in the SX classification were employed by the Department of National Health and Welfare (b) how many were (i) Francophones (ii) females?
2.	What are the present totals?
3.	Was there a structural change in the department since March 31, 1979 and, if so, what effect did such a change have on the number of SX's employed?


Monique Bégin: 1.
(a)	50;
(b)	i) 10; ii) 4.
2.
(a)	56;
(b)	i) 13; ii) 3.

July 10, 1980
Order Paper Questions
3. Yes. The Fitness and Amateur Sport Branch was transferred to Secretary of State on June 5, 1979. Four employees in the SX classification working with the Fitness and Amateur Sport Branch were transferred to Secretary of State.


MR. ALEXANDER S. ERESKOVSKY
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	(a) Was the government notified by the Soviet Union that it desired to replace Mr. Vladimar Ivanovich Gavryushkin, consul general for the Soviet Union in Montreal and, if so, on what date (b) was it known to the government at the time that Mr. Gavryushkin was a representative of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the U.S.S.R. in Canada and was it a matter of record in security files that he was a suspected or confirmed Russian intelligence agent?
2.	Did Mr. Alexander S. Ercskovsky replace Mr. Gavryushkin as consul general in Montreal and, if so (a) on what date was his diplomatic visa approved (b) on what date did he arrive in Canada?
3.	Were security checks made on Mr. Ercskovsky prior to the granting of his visa and. if so (a) who made them (b) were checks made with the United States authorities in Washington?
4.	Has he been labelled as a suspected intelligence officer in the files of any Canadian security service?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. (a) The Canadian embassy in Moscow was informed on December 18, 1979, that Mr. A. Ereskovsky would be appointed Soviet consul general in Montreal; (b) Mr. Gavryushkin was the dully accredited representative of the government of the U.S.S.R.
2.	Yes. (a) 18 January 1980; (b) 6 March 1980.
3.	Mr. Ereskovsky's visa application was processed in the normal manner. Visa processing is normally carried out in consultation with the security authorities.
4.	It is considered that it would not be in the public interest to comment on questions of this nature.


COAL-MINTO AND CHIPMAN AREAS-NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. Corbett: Is it the intention of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources to aid in the extraction, production and/or marketing of coal from the Minto and Chipman areas of New Brunswick and was financial assistance contributed for this purpose and, if so, in what amount and in which sectors?


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State, Mines):: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: No. EM and R has no plans to aid in the extraction, production and/or marketing of coal from the Minto and Chipman areas of New Brunswick at the present time. Over a five-year period commencing in 1968 the Government of Canada provided $19.6 million to rationalize production in the Minto coalfield.


COMPUTERS
Mr. Beatty: As of May 5, 1980, were the identities routinely and automatically logged by the host software of all individuals who attempt to gain access to (a) CPIC (b) computers used for storage or processing of income tax returns (c) computers used for storage or processing of information concerning (i) old age pensions (ii) Canada pensions (iii) unemployment insurance claims (iv| family allowances (v) Canada Manpower?


David Michael Collenette: I am informed by the Solicitor General and Treasury Board as follows: (a) Yes, (S.G.); (b) and (c) Yes, (T.B.).


POSTMASTER GENERAL LETTER FROM CONSTITUENT OF LEEDS-G RENVILLE
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 884

 Mr. Cossitt:
1.	Did the Postmaster General receive a letter from the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville dated April 3. 1980, requesting information concerning the reduction in the number of months per year of postal service at Chaffey's Locks, Ontario, and. if so, did he answer the letter and (a) if so. on what date (b) if not. for what reason?
2.	Did he write directly to (he constituent making the inquiry without advising the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville of the department's decision not to assist the box holders and. if so. for w hat reason'.'
3.	Is it government policy to show equal courtesy to members of Parliament who are not members of the Liberal party in replying to inquiries they make and. if so. for what reason was such courtesy not shown in I his case?
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: 1.	Yes;
(a)	No;
(b)	For the reason that a copy of the original letter to the constituent sent May 6, 1980, was sent to the hon. member.
2.	Yes, the Postmaster General wrote directly to the constituent making the inquiry but not without advising the hon. member.
3.	Yes.
There was no intention of being discourteous to the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville. As the constituent's letter preceeded the hon. member's letter by a few days, the latter was recognized as a follow-up and the response given to the constituent was made available to the hon. member.


CF101 VOODOO FIGHTERS
Mr. McKinnon: 1.	Was a contract let to repair and overhaul spare parts and accessories for CF10I Voodoo fighters at a cost of $3,837,000?
2.	How long a period is envisaged for the future use of the spare parts and accessories?
uly 10, 1980

3.	How many Voodoos does Canada plan to use in the future and for how ng?
4.	Is there any program contemplated (a) for repairing and overhauling (b) to xtend the life of the Voodoos and, if so, what is its estimated cost in 1980 ollars?


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (Parliamentary Secretary to Minis-er of National Defence):: 1. Yes.
2.	The use of spare parts and accessories is planned until hase-out of the aircraft.
3.	Fifty-five until gradual phase-out starting about 1982.
4.	(a) Yes. There is a continuing depot level inspections nd repair program scheduled to terminate in 1981. In 19801 this program will cost $3,837,000.
(b) No.


David Michael Collenette: While on my feet, I do not usually give a unning commentary on questions asked of me, Madam peaker, about the presentation of these questions, but in all ourtesy I think I should point out to the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has just tabled part of the answer sought in question No. 970, and the balance will be brought forward next week, probably on Wednesday.
The reply to the motion of the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) for the production of papers No. 16 and to questions Nos. 734 and 735 will also be brought forward next Wednesday.
Motion for the production of papers No. 2 in the name of the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt) is being worked on and we will try to have it ready before the adjournment.
Madam Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that Bill C-30, to provide supplementary borrowing authority for the fiscal year 1980-81, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Borrowing Authority Act
Madam Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Pierre Bussières: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
He said: Madam Speaker, I will be very brief as I do not want to take up too much of the House's time, but I wish to remind hon. members of the purpose of this bill. It is to give the government a borrowing authority for $12 billion. With respect to this, during the second reading debate as well as the debates of the standing committee of the House, many criticisms were heard and I wish to take this opportunity to point out some aspects of the government's policy. First, this request for a $12 billion borrowing authority can lead some to believe that the government has decided not to continue its fight against inflation. For the benefit of hon. members, I would like to repeat that the government still considers the fight against inflation a priority. I would also like to reaffirm the government's wish to reduce its deficit in an orderly manner and by that, we mean in a way which takes account of all situations.
For example, recently some people have expressed their fears because of the form of recession experienced by our neighbours to the south and suggested that the government might examine ways of increasing some expenses to ward off the negative aspects of this recession. This wish to reduce the deficit in an orderly way does in fact take into account the global economic situation and also a wish to continue the programs designed to help the have-nots in our society and those who might be hardest hit by the current situation.
I would also like to point out that during the standing committee's discussions a proposal was made by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) which was also seconded by members of the Conservative party to the effect that the government's borrowing authority should be reduced from $12 billion to $4 billion. Of course, the government objected to such a motion. This motion was linked to the idea that the government should submit a budget and that we should not give it a borrowing authority until it does so even though the government might, after submitting its budget, make another request to extend its borrowing authority up to $12 billion, the need for which it would have explained in the budget.
I would like to remind the House that in April, as soon as he had an opportunity to do so, during the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) took that opportunity to indicate to the House and the people of Canada the requirements of the government for fiscal year 1980-81 and say roughly how much he expected in terms of receipts and expenditures, and justify in this way this request for borrowing authority before the House.
2752

Borrowing Authority Act
Recently, the government had to face limitations in the implementation of its public debt program because the borrowing authority of $2.9 billion that was available at the beginning of the fiscal year had nearly been all used up. That is why the government needs this additional borrowing authority to continue its treasury bills and negotiable bonds program. The borrowing authority will also have to be sufficient to face the Canada Savings Bonds program when sales reach their peak in November.
Normally, the major part of the sales of Canada Savings Bonds occurs in November while the following months are characterized by net redemptions of those bonds. In the last three years, for example, net sales of Canada Savings Bonds in November totaled on the average $2.1 billion. During the first three months of the current fiscal year, the government raised $2.3 billion of new money by issuing treasury bills and $2.5 billion through the issuance of negotiable bonds. Obviously, to pursue our public debt program, a borrowing authority of $4 billion at this time would not be enough to cover the requirements of the next four or five months.
The previously mentioned issuance of negotiable securities was made possible by redemptions of Canada Savings Bonds totalling some $1.8 billion which actually increased the borrowing authority available to the government. More generally speaking, the proposed amendment would not have allowed the government to carry out a healthy public debt program and to implement it so as to benefit to the fullest from market opportunities.
When the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood moved his amendment, he suggested that he would like to see-1 am sorry, it was the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), I believe, who moved an amendment in committee. I hope that the hon. member will excuse me, Mr. Speaker, since he was the one who moved the amendment and he received the support of the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood when the vote was taken. I want to make this clear and to ask the hon. member to excuse me and thank him for having pointed out my mistake.
However, as I remember it, during the discussion-I believe that the hon. member for Mississauga South has a good memory and that he will be able to correct me once again if need be-the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood had, for his part, indicated that he would like to see a more orderly system that would enable the government to introduce its borrowing program for the next fiscal year at the same time as its budget; in other words, we would have a budget and then the government would ask for the borrowing power required for the year following the tabling of the budget. I must say to the hon. member that I agree completely with this suggestion and that the government intends to follow this procedure in the future.
On the other hand, it is easy to understand our present situation. We are all aware of the successive elections, and 1
would like to emphasize that if there is a budget next fall, it will deal to a greater extent with the next fiscal year, 1981-82 This will really be the case as concerns expenditures and revenues. Therefore, this fall, in view of the amendments madel to this year's expenditures, the emphasis will be placed to a greater extent on the spending projects of the government for 1981 -82 and the following years.
As for revenues, the tax changes will have only a very limited effect on this year's revenues. The first effects on one full year will therefore be felt next year. This will be the case particularly in view of the amendments to personal income tax concerning the holding back of payments, which normally do not go into effect before the next calendar year. It would therefore be appropriate to obtain the borrowing power for 1981-82 following a budget which might be brought down in the fall. The government is willing to consider this procedure if it can result in more orderly planning and consideration of these important financial matters. However, it would scent that any attempt to obtain another borrowing power for this fiscal year following a budget in the fall would give the impression of wasting the time of Parliament and could even represent certain risks for the financial management of the government, as I said earlier.
Consequently, the government opposed the proposal of the hon. member for Mississauga South and maintained its original decision to request this borrowing power of $12 billion which covers the 1980-81 fiscal year.
I did say at the beginning of my comments, Mr. Speaker, that I did not want to abuse the time of the I louse. I know that other members would like to make some comments and I shall therefore be content with these few words to give other members the opportunity to speak in this debate and to allow the House to be as efficient as the standing committee has been and to conclude third reading of this bill very early today.

Is:;
..


[ English |


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his kind words regarding the amendment that was introduced on this bill in committee. I must say that I am glad the minister received something out of the committee meeting. On the other hand, we in the opposition received verbiage. We received no promises of a budget date. Indeed, the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for a budget date today. He even suggested October 10, but the Prime Minister could not oblige in that connection.
In committee I asked the minister if he could introduce a budget by September 15. He threw up his hands. I asked him if he could do it by October I and he threw up his hands again. I asked him if he could do it by the end of October. He said that he did not know but he hoped so. He said, "In the fall''. 1 want to say right now to the government and to the minister that most Canadians regard winter as coming when the snow flics. The budget had better be out before the snow flies, and I remind the minister that we are not talking of the snow flying

*X*'


July 10, 1980

in Victoria, British Columbia. We are talking of what happens in western Canada and what happens in some of the ridings in northern Canada. The fall comes pretty early there. We want a budget because the people of Canada want to know where we are going.
As the hon. member for York-Peel pointed out earlier today, this country has not had a proper budget, a proper plan, a proper direction where the statutes proposed were passed by this House, for the past 33 months. It has not been a question of election after election; it has been a question of the impossibility of this government getting down to brass tacks. Even in the three months that we have been sitting in this Parliament we have not been presented with the budget measures involved in the budget statement of November, 1978 or in the statement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) on April 21 last.


Mr. Chenier:: What about your budget?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: We have had nothing but drift, indecision and incompetence from this government. This government's attitude is to ask for a Chargex card so that it can go out and spend money. 1 say to you, sir, that this government knows how to spend money. It does not know how to budget or to control money, but this government knows how to spend it.
The trouble with this bill is that it gives the government a blank cheque; it allows it to go out and spend $12 billion. This is more money than the ordinary person can even begin to contemplate. The spending of this federal government this year will be in order of $60 billion. The deficit this year will be in the order of $14 billion. We are not sure because they are not sure. The debt outstanding right now according to Bank of Canada figures for July 5 is $74,489 billion. It keeps going up and up. It is forecast that it will be very close to $84 billion by the end of this fiscal year. Where are we going? That is what the people of Canada and this party want to know. We must have some direction from this government.
Total government spending this year would be enough to buy a new home valued at $70,000 for every household in British Columbia. The interest that this government is going to spend will be enough to buy every household in Calgary a new house valued at $70,000. The interest is going to cost every taxpayer $1,187. That interest alone means that the entire income tax of every person who pays personal tax and earns $20,000 a year or less will go to pay just the interest on the debt that this government has incurred.
What we have from this government is nothing but pious hope that they can somehow save a billion. That is what the Minister of Finance said in his April statement. Somehow we will get a blender in terms of the oil price agreement. Somehow we will make up some money somewhere and with that blender and pious hope maybe we can somehow, some day, reduce the deficit. The minister said in committee and 1 quote:
In my April 21 statement I said that it was our intention to reduce the deficit as jobs and economic growth resumed in the economy and that is my intention. I
Borrowing Authority Act
think I made it clear yesterday that in light of the current economic circumstances, with a weakening of the Canadian economy that it is my view this year may not be the year to attempt to cut the deficit.
In the election campaign the Prime Minister said it was their intention over time to reduce the deficit. How much time? When is the time up? When do we get the direction? It will never be the right time for this government to balance its budget and reduce its deficit. It will always be jam tomorrow, never jam today. "Alice in Wonderland" would feel at home in Canada with this government.
The whole question of where we are going came up in committee. I want to read into the record a question the hon. member for York-Peel addressed to Dr. Stewart, the deputy minister of finance. 1 quote:
I take it then when you have reiterated the statement that expenditures will not exceed the growth of the GNP that indicates a change of policy from Mr. Crosbie's position where he contemplated a zero growth as far as federal government spending was concerned, you in effect are saying as long as you do not go up any faster than inflation plus real growth you are happy-over a three or four year period your expenditure level could easily end up 10 or 12 per cent higher than was anticipated over the Crosbie budget?
Mr. Stewart replied:
I guess that is the consequence, sir.
They have no intention of doing anything but spending more, building a larger and larger bureaucracy, complicating the affairs of Canada more and more and creating more and more wasteful programs. 1 draw to the attention of hon. members remarks made by Cliff Pilkey, president of the Ontario Federation of Labour, reported in the Toronto Star of June 21 last, headed "Is our economy managed or is it mangled?" I quote:
If governments "simply throw the money into the air" in their attempts to improve the wishy-washy economy, the results might be as good as those now obtained . . .
The attempt to run economies in the closely supervised way in which we run corporations and personal affairs has had many crashing failures. Yet we demand that governments keep trying.
The disasters are well-documented. In some cases, industrial and employment support programs laid out $4,000 or more annually for each job preserved.
This week, a couple of economists told the Canadian Council on Social Development that the nation spends billions of dollars every year on income security programs which mostly just reshuffle money within the middle class. Many other studies discover much the same thing.
What's the point? Think of the rake-off needed for administration and operating costs of moving money around to little purpose. More important, effort is diverted from necessary and productive programs.
This government operates very much like Parkinson's law- "expenditure rises to meet income". In the case of this government, we are going to see expenditure rising to meet borrowing authority. This Parliament has been manoeuvred into approving borrowing for undisclosed, non-budgeted and hypothetical expenditures. We are being forced to approve today a pig in a poke with no real explanation, notwithstanding what the minister just said. Notwithstanding the vague outline given to us, what we had was a non-budget, a Mickey Mouse budget. In fact, when my secretary was imprudent enough to ask for a copy of the budget of the Minister of Finance of April 21, the minister's staff said it was not a budget. It certainly was not.

July 10, 1980|
Borrowing Authority Act
We are being asked to give this government carte blanche. Maybe it cannot reach an oil pricing agreement. Maybe it is just a convenient way of copping out of its responsibility to come to grips with the problems of Canada. The government that was in office before this government had this House of Commons in session for 44 days and produced a budget. This Parliament has been in session since April 14. Monday will be July 14, three months later, and we still have not had a budget. The last government was criticized for not producing a budget until December.
The six-month period that this government will be in office will be up on September 15. This government, which was so great at calling for the defeat of the former government, cannot tell us that it will produce a budget by September 15, six months after taking office. All we have received from this government so far is a Mickey Mouse financial statement. That was on April 21. The important business of the people of Canada conducted in this House of Commons is to make sure that the financial affairs of Canada are in order. The principle job of the Government of Canada is to operate and manage the economy of this country. The only economic statement this Parliament has received to date is the Mickey Mouse statement bootlegged in, as the hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) says, during the Speech from the Throne. It is the only thing we have received in this House of Commons, which has been sitting for nearly three months- three months on Monday.


Mr. Paproski:: Shame!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Why $12 billion? Well, $12 billion happens to be a nice round figure-a billion dollars a month. That is the attitude of the government. It is a nice round figure, a billion here and a billion there-


An hon. Member:: That's $23,000 a minute.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I asked the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) in committee how much money was needed before the Minister of Finance brings down his next budget. Here is what the minister said: he replied: "Mr. Chairman, that is a very hypothetical question."


Steve Eugene Paproski: A great answer!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: A hypothetical question, he called it. Mr. Speaker, this is a hypothetical government. This is a government which was prepared to say it would produce some kind of financial accounting in the fall, perhaps in October.


Steve Eugene Paproski: When things are not so good in Inverness, Nova Scotia.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: One of the things 1 want to do is to compare some of the costs associated with that statement made by the Minister of Finance on April 21 and the budget which was defeated on December 13 last. When you compare those budgets you will find in the non-budgetary advances a difference of $500 million. In other words, the statement produced by the Minister of Finance, the April 21 statement, contemplates the Government of Canada having a non-budgetary expense of only $600 million, whereas the Crosbie projection of December allowed for non-budgetary expenses amounting to $1,100 million. The difference is $500 million. Where was that extra money going? The extra money the Crosbie budget was spending-this was extra spending-was for energy investment purposes to help make this country self-sufficient in energy.
I want to say that the amount provided in the Crosbie budget was not sufficient, but this minister, when he says we are going to need $1 1.7 billion, makes no provision whatsoever for energy investment. If he had made the same provision for energy investment which he has not made-we would have to borrow even more money, even more than the $1 1.7 billion. Anyway, the hon. gentleman does not know anything about energy investment because he does not really believe in selfsufficiency in energy; the government has no policy with regard to it at all. But if you look it the other way, and if you looked at the Crosbie budget and said: "Well, if you did not spend the money on oil self-sufficiency, what would you have to borrow?", then all you would have to borrow would be $7.8 billion, nearly $5 billion less than is required by members sitting across the way.
One of the problems which arises in connection with this borrowing authority legislation was the subject of discussion in committee, but 1 think we should explore it again this afternoon. When the House passes a borrowing authority bill of this nature, the question arises: just how much money can a government borrow? At the present time we are at the top limit of borrowing ability. Mr. Handfield-Joncs, the government witness in the committee hearings yesterday, indicated that the best the government could do was to place a new bond issue every six weeks, and the maximum the government has been able to borrow in fresh money on the market is about $1.25 billion every six or eight weeks.


Steve Eugene Paproski: And the sports minister wants to issue bonds for sport.


Mr. Rae:: Handfield-Joncs did not say that.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The hon. member says he did not say that. If he will look at the record he will find that I am correct.


Bob Rae: 1 was there.


An hon. Member:: That docs not mean anything


Donald Alex Blenkarn: If this bill passes, the government could go to the market and attempt to borrow fresh money, about $1.25 billion. It might be able to go again in September to do so. But if we look at the borrowing requirement we begin to wonder where they are going to get it all. The government's usual program is to go to the people of Canada in November of every year and ask them to buy Canada Savings Bonds. We have all seen the advertising which has been put out in connection with these issues. It is too bad that the Minister of
July 10, 1980

Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Oueilet) is not here because this year 1 will expect him to discipline more effectively the advertising agency which tries to sell these bonds; some of the promotion which has gone on in the past would put any other person advertising in like fashion in jail.
Be that as it may, the effect of the government's handling of Canada Savings Bonds has been that purchasers have redeemed about $2 billion worth since the beginning of this fiscal year. In the year 1979-80 there was a total reduction in the value of Canada Savings Bonds held by the people of Canada amounting to $1.25 billion. It may well be that, having seen how Canada Savings Bonds are managed, the people of Canada are perhaps a little smarter than some of the market people buying market bonds, and are saying to themselves: Do we really want to trust this government with our money?
Where has the debt been contracted? We are now up on treasury bills to $ 18.6 billion. As of March 31,1977, just three years ago, there was only $8.2 billion in treasury bill debt. That is the way things have been going. The market has been able lately, perhaps, to absorb ordinary government commercial bond debt but it has not always been able to do so, and it is very possible, with the level of borrowing the government is contemplating, that we might get into a situation in which the market cannot absorb the debt. Indeed, as reported on June 25 last, the Bank of Canada disclosed that the bank had to increase its treasury bill holdings on that date by $459.3 million. In that week alone, the government had to increase the money supply by a total of $625 million. This was done by the bank, in effect, just printing currency.
As we go along on this and take a look at what the Bank of Canada has to hold in government securities year over year, we find that as of the last statement from the Bank of Canada for this year the Bank of Canada holds $2,368 billion more in government debt than it did a year ago. That situation cannot go on if we intend to have a solvent and sound currency.
The only thing that can be done somewhere along the way in order to solve our borrowing requirements and to get our house in order is to look at certain tax changes. The government has to try something else. If it is going to continue with its over-spending, it is going to have to continue with over-taxing, and so it has to look at certain other places from which to get revenue.
There are several things the government could do. It could do what was suggested in the Crosbie budget, that is, to put an excise tax on gasoline. That is a method of raising money, keeping debt down and making the consumer of gasoline or oil products pay the cost of imported oil. It could do that kind of thing. However, it promised not to do that, so it will not do that.
The government could go to the country honestly and increase the income tax, but it appears it does not intend to do that either. One of the real options it is looking at is getting rid of the indexing in the Income Tax Act. The elimination of indexing could raise money as surely as a tax increase but be
Borrowing Authority Act
less visible. Inflation would do all the work and take all the blame. That is what the Edmonton Journal said on June 16, 1980, and other newspapers reported the same thing. This country knows that the only winner in inflation, if there is no indexing in the personal income tax scheme, is the government, and what a beautiful way of increasing taxes!
That is what the government intends. That is one of the reasons we insisted in committee that we receive from the Ministry of Finance a table as to what happens to the average, typical married taxpayer with two children. This year, without indexing, the taxpayer who earns $15,000 would pay $240 more income tax. That is nearly $5 a week or $20 a month. The taxpayer who earns $25,000 would pay $460 a year more. Some say indexing only helps the rich, but if I earned $100,000 a year-that is four times $25,000-I would pay only $1,300 a year more.
To the well off indexing is not a big deal, but to the ordinary Canadian who works and pays the freight in this country, indexing means a great deal. It means at least a 10 per cent across the board tax increase for him and, indeed, more. If that is the kind of program the government is going to eliminate-whatever fairness there is in the tax system-in order to raise revenue to pay for the spending and lack of direction and concern of the government, then that program will be opposed by this party and, I am sure, by our friends in the New Democratic Party.
A number of other issues were raised in the committee. My friend, the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae), raised the point that in many cases the provinces have a great deal of money and that their revenues, particularly those of the western provinces, are burgeoning. Three of our western provinces now have heritage funds. They do not even need all their revenue, yet equalization continues to be paid to the province of Saskatchewan. I only single out that province because it can afford a heritage fund, but it can also get equalization because nothing has been done with respect to bringing that problem into perspective.
Back in the thirties there was a great depression on the prairies, and hon. members will recall that we passed the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. I wonder if the prairies will ever be rehabilitated. When a person is put away for life, he normally is paroled after 25 years; but it has been 45 years since this act has been in place, and we are still spending gobs of money on rehabilitating the prairies. We are spending some $30 million to $35 million a year under that program, most of it going to Saskatchewan but a good part going to Alberta as well.
That is the kind of thing I wonder about when we have a government here which is short of cash, which has to go out on to the market to borrow and which strains the financial resources of the country. Some provincial governments have a lot of wealth, and I wonder why the federal government does not come along and say, "Let us rearrange some of the responsibilities and things which are happening".
I mentioned in committee the question of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. That corporation lost

July 10, 1980
Borrowing Authority Act
half a billion dollars last year, it is likely to lose three-quarters of a billion dollars this year, yet the same management and the same team which was running that corporation is still running it, and its budget this year will give it $1,242 billion. They do not know where they are going and they do not know what they are doing with their repossessed houses, and we do not have a new program from the minister.
A new look at the thing has not been taken, despite studies which have been made. If we were to examine some of those programs, we might be able to reduce some of the costs, overhead, waste and duplication in government, and maybe we could get back to the borrowing requirements of the December budget and not the kind of borrowing requirements, for no investment, which are needed by this government at this time.
I want to repeat that it has been 33 months since we have had a budget passed by the House. I want to repeat the statement made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray), who was the finance critic of the government party when the government was in opposition, that no borrowing authority bill should be passed without a budget. That is the case.
I want to say that Parliament has had the obligation, since the time of King John and Magna Carta, to prevent taxation without consultation, and borrowing is a form of taxation. When we allow a government to borrow, we allow that government to pay interest on its borrowings. That becomes a compulsory requirement for the government, and so it is a form of taxation. This bill represents $12,000 million in further spending.


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, the question of the government's requesting some $12 billion in borrowing authority gives us an opportunity to assess where we are going in our national accounts. It also gives us the opportunity to ask ourselves certain questions. Why do we borrow money? What is the purpose of this borrowing? What is wrong with the economy and the system of accounting the government has at the moment?
We face an economy which is in recession. Unemployment is going to be up over 9 per cent this year. Inflation will be up over 10 per cent. Real personal disposable income will be down and over-all growth in economy will be down.
Unemployment and inflation are the obvious challenges facing Canadians, but underlying structural problems in our economy are even more severe. We imported $17 billion more in finished goods than we exported. We ran a deficit of some $9.6 billion in our service account in 1979. Over the last 33 years we have exported more than $48 billion in interest and dividend payments out of the country.
The point is not simply, as the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) said, that we need a budget. Obviously we need a budget. We have needed one since we did not get one from his colleague, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). We have needed one since we did not really get
one in November, 1978, when the current Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) was minister of finance. We have not had an indication from the government as to where it thinks we should be going since April, 1978.
It is not simply that we need to have a budget in the shorter term; it is that we need an indication from the government that it understands the implications of budgets in the solution of our longer term problems. We need budgets which guarantee, in co-operation with our provinces, that our renewable resources in fact are renewed; that our forests and trees in fact are regenerated so that they can continue to be used; that our fishing supplies and tremendous resource in the fishing field on the east and west coasts are not depleted and destroyed by overuse; that our grain on the prairies can be grown and grown again, taken to the ports and exported. We need to ensure that we transform and refine more of our resources on which we are so dependent here in Canada.
There is much talk of getting off oil. I think it is just important that we in a sense get off the notion that it is solely the export of our natural resources which will provide for the future of our country. Just as it is true that "A barrel of oil sold is a barrel of oil gone forever", to quote the words of the Saskatchewan minister of finance, Mr. Tchorzewski, it is also true that a ton of ore sold is a ton of ore gone forever, a ton of uranium sold is a ton of uranium gone forever. Those resources are being depleted as they are sold. We need to develop an industrial, transport and energy base which is sufficient to provide for the employment of Canadians today and in the future. In fact we need to create a diversified, Canadian-controlled mature economy. We have a long way to go before reaching that goal.
Finally, I think we need a budget which recognizes that the problem and challenge of poverty in Canada and the rest of the world of which we spoke about today in committee is just as important now as it was in the 1950s and 1960s, and as it was in the 1930s. We have an orthodoxy which tells us why it is we cannot take the investment decisions that might lead us out of the current economic morass in which we find ourselves. There is a Liberal-Tory orthodoxy. It was expressed timidly by the minister. It was expressed vividly by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) today and by the minister responsible for housing. It was expressed in a slightly more brazen and bald form by the hon. member for Mississauga South, as we might expect. But still the underlying intellectual, if I may use that word to describe it, roots of that orthodoxy are exactly the same; that is, our budgetary deficits are responsible for and contributing to the inflation we are suffering from, that they are so immense we cannot possibly either stimulate the economy or provide for the longer term solution of our problems. In this view it is monetary and fiscal restraint alone which are essential in order to restrain the excess demand which is the main cause, in this view of the economy, of inflation.
In this conventional wisdom, as it is frequently expressed by the hon. member for York Peel (Mr. Stevens) and expressed in a slightly more pallid manner by the Prime Minister, borrowing and debt are evil and wrong. It is what I call a Calvinistic
Ijuly 10, 1980

lor theological view of the economy which bears no relationship Ito the hard realities of the economic world. The fact of the |matter is that the question is not: Is borrowing good or evil?
The question is: What is the purpose of the borrowing? iThere is a distinction between borrowing in order to invest for Ithe future and borrowing simply in order to spend. Everybody (understands that. The average Canadian understands the difference between borrowing in order to buy his house and (borrowing in order to pay debts. There are very few Canadians (who can afford to buy a house without having to borrow. That (is what a mortgage is. Nearly $14 billion worth of mortgages (were arranged last year. I do not think all those Canadians are (evil. They did that because they were borrowing to invest. For | most Canadians the only investment they will ever make is in (their own home. The average Canadian understands the difference between borrowing in order to do that and borrowing from the bank in order to pay off Chargex or being forced to | use credit in order to buy groceries.
Businesses account for this in the same way. Look at the I annual reports of any business. They are all in the business of borrowing. Look at the debt offerings of public companies. They were up over $20 billion last year. That was borrowing;
| that was debt; that was people paying interest. But the point of it is that there is a difference between borrowing in order to invest and borrowing in order simply to spend.
To launch a broadside attack on all borrowing or on all deficits, as if all of it was evil, is quite simply ignorant. It is ignorant of the difference between borrowing in order to invest and borrowing in order to spend. It is an ignorance that is generated in our own public accounts. Our public accounts do not make the distinction between investment and current spending. We have no way of telling in our public accounts, because of the way the expenditure is expressed, whether this expenditure will eventually reduce either a budgetary deficit or a deficit on current account. We have no way of telling whether it is an expenditure that is simply a current expenditure which will go up over time and will not generate any return to the government.
We must appreciate that there is a critical difference. It is a tragedy for our country that we now have governments which are so terrified of the concept of borrowing itself that they are unable to make a distinction between the concept of investment and the concept of current spending in the way in which they handle their own accounts.
To say simply that it is deficit spending alone which is responsible for inflation, and that it is the federal deficit which really provides the picture, ignores another reality, and that is that when one looks at the economy of Canada, one must look at what is the deficit picture of all levels of government and not simply at what is happening to the federal government.
The fact of the matter is that in 1979 the deficit at all levels of government was some $3.6 billion less than the deficit of the federal government. Most observers expect that by 1984 the over-all budgetary situation of all provinces, the federal government and local governments will be in balance. There are
Borrowing Authority Act
those who would say that is because the provinces being run by Tory governments are really keeping their expenditures way down.
An hon. Member; Right on.


Bob Rae: That is completely false. The level of Tory spending is just as high and just as far above inflation as that of the federal government. The reason is related to another cause altogether, and that is the fact that some of our provinces have access to a source of revenue which is growing like Topsy. There is no source of revenue in Canada which has grown with the speed, and which will grow with increased speed, as the revenue we derive from our resources, and those royalty revenues go to the provinces. They increased at the rate of 30 per cent a year in the last decade and we can anticipate that, with the inevitable increases in price for oil and natural gas, they will grow even faster.
The thinking of the Liberal-Tory group fails to recognize that inflationary interest rates also inflate the federal deficit. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the thinking of the Liberal-Tory group fails to appreciate that prices are not coming down, even with dramatic fall-offs in demand. Can we honestly say that because of the collapse in the demand for automobiles the price of automobiles has dropped? Have people not noticed that General Motors announced just ten days ago it was increasing its prices? Does this not run contrary to every principle we would expect to see working in a free market economy? Where there has been such a collapse in demand, there would also be a significant fall-off in price.
Something else is going on in our economy. We are moving away from a market economy where there is a direct relationship between supply and demand, where we can see these effects right away, to an economy that is increasingly controlled by fewer and larger actors. The problem of corporate concentration and restriction on the supply side is what is really responsible for the current round of inflation, be it in the oil products field, the food field, or wherever it is that we are suffering.
The thinking of the Liberal-Tory group fails to recognize a simple fact, and that is that when you analyse a budget you cannot simply look at what is being directly expended or invested; you have to look at what is being spent or invested on the tax side as well. In other words, we have to look at our system of tax expenditures in order to understand why our deficits are as large as they are.
The hard fact of the matter is that our tax system has become more aggressive in the 1970s than it was at the beginning of this decade. We have now moved further away from the notion that "a buck is a buck" than in 1964 when we appointed the Carter commission. We have to recognize the fact that the runaway growth in tax spending, particularly on the corporate side, has contributed not only to our deficit but has also financed corporate concentration and foreign domination.

July 10, I98C
Borrowing Authority Act
1 want to suggest some proposals from this party of a positive nature to address these problems. They really come in two or three parts. The first is that we need to have a new system of accounting, a new system of public accounts and a new system of budgeting which makes a distinction between investment and current spending and allows the government to say it is investing in a given area, be it energy, as mentioned by the hon. member for Mississauga South, in industrial restructuring funds, or in training of manpower-because investment in human capital is just as much an investment as investment in any other form of capital if you think it is going to give you a return.
On the spending side, government should look very carefully to determine what are those sources of spending which are purely and simply a drain, and which are completely unproductive. Those are the items of expenditures and of spending where we must be determined.
Ironically, one of the ways of closing off those items may be in fact to increase investment. Let me give an example. The oil import compensation fund, the minister has told us, is going to cost us $3.6 billion. With that amount of expenditure-it is a drain and there is no question about that-we have a subsidy which is increasingly large and on which we have to put a handle. I think everybody recognizes that fact. However, finding a handle and reducing that current expenditure can only be done if we invest on the supply side, if we invest in alternative forms of energy and if we invest in urban transportation in such a way as to reduce our reliance on oil, be it Canadian or foreign, but especially foreign oil.
That is why it is that an increase in investment may be necessary in order to decrease the current expenditure we see as not productive. We also argue on the current account side that the government should establish what we call a national heritage account for renewable and non-renewable resources in order that Canadians can see exactly what resources we now have, what resources are being depleted and how they are being replaced, if indeed they are being replaced at all.
We can no longer as a country go on simply exporting from one end of the nation to the other resources which in many cases are not replaceable, without having some sense as to how it is we are using the revenues from these sales in order to generate alternatives and in order to generate our industrial base.
There is also significant room, in our view, for changes on the revenue side. Twenty-four Canadians in 1977 who earned more than $200,000, according to the government's own statistics, did not pay a single penny of income tax in that year. They should be given an award. We would call it the "golden loophole award". It is an award we should be giving on an annual basis. This year we want to make that award to those Canadians and their accountants who have, in a sense, robbed the rest of the Canadian public, because when those people are not paying any taxes other people are paying more. When 520 Canadians who earn more than $50,000 are not paying a single penny in tax, it is the average Canadian who is earning between $10,000 and $15,000 whose rates will have to go up.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Highway robbery.


Bob Rae: Therefore, we are suggesting that this House establish a permanent committee on tax reform to close those loopholes. I urge the minister that in the budgetary process he give every consideration he can to see that there is a closing of those kinds of grotesque abuses which make a monkey of our tax system. I believe it was Oliver Wendell Holmes who said that every time he paid his taxes he liked to think that he was buying a piece of civilization and that the annual process of paying his taxes was for him one of the sign of being a civilized man. 1 do not know how we can say that in our present society.
We have a government which docs not distinguish between H different kinds of spending. We have 224 Canadians earning H nearly a quarter of a million dollars apiece who do not H apparently want to buy a piece of civilization because they H think that they can buy it on their own.	H
We are also arguing that the government should consider the reimposition of a national tax on Canada's wealthiest estates, an estate tax which would exempt transfers between spouses, family farms and small businesses, but would concentrate on the fact that we have the greatest concentration of corporate wealth and private wealth in our society that we have ever had. The concentration of wealth in Canada is greater today than it was ten years ago, and ten years ago it was calculated that as a result of the decision to eliminate death duties this Liberal government gave a windfall benefit of $4.5 billion to Canada's wealthiest citizens.
It is a tax which, if reintroduced, would reintroduce Canada into the western economies. There is one state in the United States, Nevada, which does not have a death tax. In the western world there is one country, Canada, which does not have a federal tax on estates, gifts and bequests. The revenue implications of something which concentrates on Canada's wealthiest and most privileged elite may not be great. I know that many provinces abandoned the succession duty field because the revenue implications were not that great. Only Quebec is involved in that area now.
In this concept of paying for civilization, every citizen must have faith in the tax system and the feeling that he is not being taken advantage of. That, it seems to us, is a critical tool. One could go on about the changes in the corporate tax system. Our resource taxes have been so depleted by the abuse of the capital cost allowance by the government-not by the companies-by the abuse of the super-depletion, by the abuse of the investment tax credit, that we have now effectively reduced the rate of tax for our largest and foreign-owned resource companies to less than that of a Canadian small business which is in the 25 per cent bracket.
We started under Carter at 50 per cent. We went down to 46 per cent. The banks are now down to 18 per cent. The oil companies are down to under 20 per cent. The average Canadian pays taxes at a higher rate than that. 1 think it is lunacy when the average guy with a family of two, earning $15,000 per year, pays higher taxes than an oil company or
uly 10, 1980

bank. I know the minister will say, "Well, we closed off the income debentures". The fact that they did not close off the income debentures, that they only grandfathered them, means that we have been losing over $300 million a year since November, 1978.
The minister well knows that that is the reason the income tax rate of the banks is absurdly low. It may be of interest to the House that in 1970 our chartered banks paid taxes of about $250 million on profits of about $500 million. Their tax rate was 52 per cent. In 1979 because of this loophole which was organized and engineered by the Liberal government our banks paid taxes of $230 million-$20 million less than they paid in 1970-on profits of nearly $1.3 billion. Then the government comes in here and says that it does not have any money. Of course it does not have any money because it has been giving it away for ten years, not only to the wealthiest corporations but to the wealthiest citizens as well.
This government, since the Carter commission gave its report, has created more loopholes and a more anachronistic, regressive system than when we went into tax reform in 1964. Tax reform is an idea for which the time has clearly come again. It is simply no longer acceptable for this government willy-nilly, budget after budget, to take taxes off here and increase write-offs there, and make little changes here and there which have an over-all impact of a $32 billion tax expenditure budget, almost half the amount of direct federal spending.
I do not need to tell the minister that in contrast to direct federal spending-much of which is directed to Canada's least favoured citizens-tax expenditures goes all the other way. In all the benefits, whether one looks at the RHOSPs, RRSPs or whatever, the people who are at the highest level are those who receive the most income. I think this country has been cheated.
I think Canada has been cheated because twice it voted for economic change. It voted for economic change in May and it received the same old orthodoxy, only in spades. It voted for economic change in February, and it received the same old orthodoxy, but this time with a different suit of cards.


An hon. Member:: The two of clubs.


Bob Rae: Yes, the two of clubs, any way you care to look at it. It comes out in a more pallid form. The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) is now more evasive and less provocative than his predecessor, but the substance of what the government is trying to do is substantially exactly the same.
Ironically it was expressed very vividly today by the Prime Minister and by the minister of housing. The minister of housing told us today that the government was considering closing down the community services program. Their program provides sewers, bridges and the basic infrastructure for each and every town. This government is telling us that because of the way it has fouled up its own spending and because of the fact it does not have a handle on the difference between investment and money down the drain, it does not have sufficient funds to invest in basic infrastructure for our towns and cities.
Borrowing Authority Act
It is a lunatic prospect which we see before us. We know what they are like because we had the misfortune of sharing a side of the House with the Liberal party for a certain time. I had the opportunity to travel with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) when we were both members of the Canada-United States Interparliamentary Committee, and I know the views he expressed at that time about the gas pipeline. We all know what Liberal candidates were saying in our ridings when we ran against them.
The minister said I am not embarrassed by this change, by the abandonment of the commitment on the pipeline. Nothing embarrasses the Liberals because they do not know the meaning of shame. They are without shame; they are shameless. Just as it abandoned the commitment on the pipeline, so too they left a false impression with the Canadian people-that if they were put back into power they would do something about getting the economy going, and "wasn't Mr. Crosbie's and Mr. Stevens' budget terrible because of the way in which it focused on the deficit?" This government has about as much understanding of the concept, means and notion of borrowing in order to invest as it does of the meaning of honesty, and that is to say nothing at all.
I believe it is time that the government talked sense to the Canadian people about budgets, deficits and the notion of borrowing. That is precisely what we have tried to do with the economic statement which I released today and which I discussed today in the House. We should not be authorizing borrowing by a government which does not have the decency to bring in a budget. Budgets and borrowings should go together because we need to see the purposes for the borrowing before we, as the House of Commons, can agree to allocate money.
We have to bring our method of managing a modern economy into the twentieth century-into the sunlight. We have to bring our tax system into the twentieth century so that it is fair to all Canadians and can be seen as being fair. We have to get governments and civil servants to understand that you cannot have an economy or a budget that is in balance when there is 9 per cent or 10 per cent unemployment. You cannot have an economy or a federal budget which is in balance when you do not know what is going on in the provinces. You cannot conceivably have a budget that is in balance when you are spending over $32 billion on the tax side on concessions.
That is the reason we released the economic statement today and that is the reason we are opposing the government's request to borrow a further $12 billion.


Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the comments made by the hon. member who just resumed his seat. I was not only shocked and amazed but also amused by some of his observations. For instance, he tried to portray an alliance of some kind-possibly philosophically-between the Liberals and the Conservatives. Of course, he has not been here too long, but if he were to look at history, I think he could not escape the


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Alexander Bell Patterson: This was indicated most clearly and decisively in the events of last December when a motion was proposed by the New Democratic Party and supported by the Liberal party.
One or two other statements that he made bear comment, Mr. Speaker. He endeavoured to show that we were proposing restraint as the only way to solve the problems of the country. 1 suggest this is a very simplistic statement and is far from the truth.
If I understood him correctly, the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) indicated that a motion had been proposed by my colleague, the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), and supported by the New Democratic Party, that the borrowing authority be reduced to $4 billion. If I am wrong in that, then I apologize, Mr. Speaker. In view of the hon. member's statements about borrowing, I wonder why members of his party supported the proposal to reduce the authority set out in this bill from $12 billion to $4 billion?
The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) has presented the economic proposals of the New Democratic Party and has ridiculed everything else as far as an economic policy for the country is concerned. He presents his party's views as the sole and sure solution to problems in Canada.
I point out that only a few years ago when the New Democratic Party was in power in British Columbia they carried out an experiment that had catastrophic consequences.
I would say God help us if we ever have another government of that party in our province.
I just wanted to make those few observations before dealing with the issue before the House, Mr. Speaker.
This bill concerns an act to provide supplementary borrowing authority for the fiscal year 1980-81. In view of the concern expressed by many of my constituents and people across the country about the policies of this government regarding expenditures and additional borrowings, I would be remiss if 1 did not speak on this bill today and express that concern.
The statement made by a former auditor general-and possibly confirmed by the present auditor general-that spending had gone out of control is very true.
Another institution was put in place with the appointment of the Comptroller General. Some of us felt that he might be of assistance in bringing some order to the wild spending policy of the Liberal government, but we do not see very much difference, Mr. Speaker. I realize that the Comptroller General did not have authority to reduce expenditures but only to make sure expenditures were made in a businesslike fashion.
I am amazed that the Liberal government is now asking Parliament for additional borrowing authority of $12 billion. When the Progressive Conservative Party took the reins of
It took Canada 100 years to reach a budgetary level of $10 H billion a year. This is a figure which doubled in the following H three years, doubled again during the regime of the former H minister of finance, John Turner, and went onwards and H upwards until now our budgetary deficit is billions in excess of H the $10 billion total expenditure of 1967; and our borrowing H alone is $2 billion greater than the total 1967 expenditures. I H think this shows just where we are heading as far as govern- H nient expenditures are concerned.	H
I think we are heading in the direction which was outlined H by my colleague from Mississauga South, and the Speech from H the Throne served notice that this type of activity was going to H be carried on. Canadians can only look forward to another H
July 10, 1980

four years of free spending, to intervention in the marketplace by the Liberal government, to more waste, more patronage and more spending of money which has nothing to do whatsoever with increasing the economic base of Canada and the welfare of Canadians.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) outlined programs not too long ago which involved millions of dollars of expenditure to help make jobs available for people. I say that expenditures do nothing at all to strengthen the economic base of our nation.
I realize that under the present government such band-aid measures may be necessary, but they are no substitute for policies that will strengthen the ability of our country to finance its operations and to promote a strong and vibrant economy in Canada.
I believe I indicated that 1 did not intend to speak for too long because my colleagues have presented in detail the various objections that we have to this type of program. They have called attention to a great many of the issues that are involved in it. However, 1 want to say very clearly today that I support wholeheartedly the opposition that has been raised against this bill. We believe that if we are going to develop our economy and we are to place Canada in a position where it can go forward and progress, develop and expand the economy, increase productivity and provide for the needs of the Canadian people without bankrupting the country, then we will have to move in a different direction altogether.
May I say that when my party was in office one of the major goals was to move the country in that direction. It was diametrically opposed to the direction in which previous governments and the government of today leans. So I think in this matter of make-work programs, although they may be necessary at times, we must have policies which will contribute to this particular objective. The programs which have been put in place are an acknowledgement by the government that they do not have those policies in mind and are not able to implement them.
One of the reasons we have raised such objection to this particular measure at this time is that the government has refused to bring in a budget. It has been recommended, urged and demanded that we have a budget, yet we find that up to the present time the government has failed to indicate its intention to bring in a budget at any specific time. Nor has it given us any hope that a budget will be introduced in the near future.
At page 160 of Hansard the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) stated:
I will certainly bring in a budget as soon as possible, but I do not see that possibility within the near future, or even beyond the near future.
I suggest that this is blatant arrogance of the highest degree. It seems to me I accepted the premise when I came to this House many years ago that a budget must be introduced. It was expected and it was required in every Parliament in order for the government to have the opportunity to give an overview of the Canadian scene and to say what it intended to do about
Message from the Senate
it, along with presenting its expenditures and revenues so that we are able to assess the programs and the viability of the legislation.
But here we find the Minister of Finance saying that he cannot see even in the near future or beyond that the necessity of bringing in a budget. I think the Minister of State for Finance when he was introducing this measure on third reading today said "if there is to be a budget this fall". I notice that the minister does not object, so I would assume I am correct. I repeat, he said "if there is to be a budget." I find it incredible that a government would take the position that a budget is not necessary, that it is not an important thing, or that we should not be making any fuss about it. It seems that the attitude is that the government will bring in a budget when it wants to bring it in, and if it does not want to bring in a budget, the government will be in no hurry to do so. This kind of thing leaves us up in the air, as it were, as far as the government's assessment of the situation in Canada is concerned and what the government is going to do about it.
I say that is not good enough, Mr. Speaker. A lot of traditions have been thrown out from this place, but this is an absolutely essential one. Maybe it is constitutional; maybe the government has to bring a budget in; but nevertheless the government is taking the attitude that it is inconsequential and that we ought to be able to tell the government to go ahead and borrow, borrow, borrow, and spend, spend, spend, as my colleague has just said, and that we should not have anything to say about it. I say it is not good enough, and I certainly oppose this bill at the present time.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Five o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. It being five o'clock, as the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) has suggested, may I deal with one or two matters which the Chair has responsibility to deal with at this point.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)- Employment-Programs to create jobs; the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty)-Computers-Use by government of Databanks; the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong)-Health and Welfare-Health hazards in certain chemicals and pesticides-Review of drugs, pesticides, food additives request for progress report.

July 10, 1980'
Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bills: Bill C-19, an act to amend the Employment Tax Credit Act; Bill C-22, an act to adjust the accounts of Canada and to make related amendments to certain acts, without amendment.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
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, private bills, notices of motions (papers), public bills.
There being no items on the order paper under the heading of private bills, the House will proceed to notices of motions (papers).


FRESHWATER FISH MARKETING CORPORATION
Thomas Edward Siddon: That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence, telegrams or other documents exchanged between the government, its departments and agencies and the governments of Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the territorial council of the Northwest Territories, since January 1, 1978, relating to the review and restructuring of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation.
He said: Mr. Speaker, before going into the basis for requesting the production of papers as cited under motion No. 19, I would like to provide a little bit of history relating to the importance of the review which was commissioned by the previous minister of fisheries, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), a review of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation commissioned under his ministry.
As a consequence of that, a number of well-known and publicly-known concerns have been raised with respect to the conduct of affairs by the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation in recent years. The minister, as well as many members of Parliament and individuals in the freshwater areas of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta, northern Ontario and the territorial area of the Northwest Territories, have been receiving expressions of concern from numerous fishermen and groups in those areas with respect to the evolution of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation into its present form. Concerns have also been expressed, in Manitoba in particular, by aspiring businessmen who would like to see competition return to the fish processing, storage and marketing areas.
It is a fact that some 84 per cent of the fish volume caught within the jurisdiction of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation comes from the province of Manitoba, with 60 per cent, and from Saskatchewan, with some 24 per cent of the catch. The lesser amounts of fish caught in the northern areas of Alberta, northwest Ontario and the territories are caught by and large by the native communities. For many years those communities have relied on the income from fishing.
I called for the tabling of documentation relating to the review which was commissioned last October, as I said earlier, by the hon. member for St. John's East because we on this side of the House at least are very concerned that that review is in suspension or is proceeding much more slowly than the previous Progressive Conservative government advocated.
I was surprised by the response of the government in declining our request to table the documentation, telegrams and correspondence relating to this review. 1 cannot understand why there is a need for secrecy in this matter. What possible confidences might be embarrassing to the federal government were this correspondence to be released? Most of the concerns that have been expressed, including all of those I will indicate this afternoon, are well known to the public. In this enlightened age of freedom of information, it appears in the eyes of the Liberal government opposite that freedom of information is but an ideal. They refuse to put that ideal into practice by sharing with the people of Canada the documentation relating to the progress of this review.
In a public press release under the signature of the previous minister of fisheries, it was indicated that, as a consequence of a meeting of the minister of fisheries with his counterparts from the provinces and territories, a committee of officials would be working on certain tentative proposals which were put before them. By the end of April of this year, that committee was to have reported back to the minister of fisheries and ultimately to Parliament on certain proposed structural changes to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Agency. That report has not yet been forthcoming.
1 will now proceed with some of the concerns about the corporation which we would expect to be addressed in that review process and be reported promptly to this Parliament. The original concept of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation was a marketing board only, to be engaged in the buying and selling of fish primarily into the international markets, the American market in particular. That marketing board concept did not envisage a vertically integrated corporation which would be into the ownership of vessels or loans with respect to vessels. It would not be involved with transportation of fish, storage and processing. It would merely be involved with the marketing of those fish species, in particular to international customers.
That original concept was recommended by the Mclvor commission in the late sixties and advocated by the Conservative government of Duff Roblin in the province of Manitoba. What that concept of a marketing board has become is, as 1 said a moment ago, a monopolistic, vertically integrated Crown corporation, like so many of our Crown corporations,
July 10, 1980

which handles the product from the lakeside all the way to the consumer, whether the consumer be in the fish buying markets of New York state or Poland.
I suggest what we have now is a system of monopolistic dominance in the fish marketing industry, in the prairie provinces in particular, which is a far cry from what I understand to be the principle of democratic socialism where free enterprise and the private sector can operate in competition with one another. What we have is virtual communism in all of its forms in the example and illustration of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. Complete monopoly powers are reflected in part III of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act to buy, sell, trade and engage in all handling of fish caught in freshwater areas of Canada. This monopolistic corporation comes complete with its mandarins and represents a significant drain on the public purse.
Why all the concern about the corporation? First, it is well known that by taking over all the small plants in northern Canada, particularly in the northern areas of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the territories, the small community native-run fish processing operations have been eliminated. Family employment has been taken away from those communities. The spouses of the fisherpcrsons, to use that term, and the children that were once involved in a community effort in the processing and sale of fish, no longer have employment. The fishermen catch the fish, it is loaded on trucks, packed in ice and sent to Winnipeg, by and large, where it is processed in a very impressive new fish processing plant, built to some extent with the generosity of the taxpayers of Canada to process and store fish for sale in the export market.
One of the concerns that is well known is that local community centred fish processing operations have been destroyed. Second, it is well known that the advent of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation has led to the gradual erosion of the Co-operative Fisheries Limited, a co-operative in Saskatchewan which was a government-managed co-operative in the sense of the traditional co-operatives of Saskatchewan. It is a co-operative which reflects the movement of co-operativism which has flourished in Saskatchewan over several decades. 1 commend that type of involvement in the marketing and consolidation of products such as fish. That co-operative effort has been destroyed by this monolithic, monopolistic corporation managed out of Ottawa.
It is also well known to some of the fisherpersons and communities in the north that the trucking of their catch to Winnipeg, Transcona in particular, is very annoying. Furthermore, fishermen in local parts of Canada, whether they be in Edmonton, Saskatoon, Lac La Ronge or Hay River, are not allowed under the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation Act to sell directly to consumers. They are not allowed to sell directly to the public or to local supermarkets or fish markets. The corporation takes the product to Manitoba, packs it in nice boxes and sends it back to convenient Safeway stores somewhere in northern Manitoba where the price is roughly double the price paid to the fishermen. They cannot understand why they cannot sell directly in these regional areas.
Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation
This leads to a fallacy in respect of the principal reason for which the FFMC was established. It is often contended that in the interests of orderly marketing and eliminating the so-called illicit buyers of fish who once operated in these regions, big brother government must step in to secure an increase in prices paid to fishermen. So the corporation, in its most recent annual report covering the year 1978-79, tells us that the price paid to fishermen now represents 62 per cent of the sales dollar. But if we look further into the report we find that in fact the amount paid to fishermen came to $17 million last year out of a total sales volume worth $34 million. In other words, the percentage paid to fishermen amounts only to 50 per cent, not to 62 per cent. So there is obviously a misleading reference in the annual report to a 62 per cent return to fishermen. Such a return is non-existent.
What the corporation does is deduct the cost of transporting the fish to Transcona along with the cost of processing and storing it there; it does not concede that these were legitimate costs incurred by the private operators which it replaced. Nor will the corporation admit that when the private operators returned about 48 per cent to 50 per cent of the sales value of the commodity to the fishermen the situation was virtually the same as it is now. If one deducts transportation costs and costs of processing and storage at Transcona, as the corporation does, the fishermen still only get 50 per cent of the sales value of their product. Nothing has changed.
Perhaps I should not say nothing has changed, Mr. Speaker; there is an illusion of higher prices. There is an illusion of price stability. No competition is allowed from the private sector. Private entrepreneurial instincts in the freshwater area are suppressed. Private companies have been forced into bankruptcy-they are not even allowed to pursue the marketing of special products and underutilized species in which the corporation is not interested. This is particularly annoying to people who believe in the free right to do business in this country without government intervention.
Of course, as a result of this federal monopoly there is a yardstick by which to determine whether the fisherman is getting fair value for his product. In the absence of private sector competition how do we know that fishermen are getting the right price? The government says, "Trust us". And now we see this fallacy which is regularly used as a governing principle by some individuals, namely, that the government can always do it better, that the be all and end all of the fish marketing industry is orderly marketing and so-called single desk selling. This is an attitude one often finds, especially in government circles and it is reflective of the big brother era which we are rapidly approaching. I believe the present minister, who is not in his place this afternoon, has a similar philosophy. I say it is the beginnings of communism in this country because it takes away from the individual the right to compete.
Also, in this case, the chairman of the board of the corporation, a political appointee who has close relationship with the cabinet and the government, is engaged in the day to day management of the corporation. He is a political sales agent

July 10, 1980
Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation
for the corporation. And in the hands of that one man rests the price paid to fishermen based upon some $34 million of sales each year. This one man and his assistants concentrate their selling effort in certain countries, through certain connections and acquaintances.
How does the poor fisherman ever know he is getting fair value for his catch when there is no standard for comparison? It was my understanding that Crown corporations must operate at arm's length from the government. This means that the board side, the policy-making side, those who are appointed at pleasure by the governor in council, should operate independently of day to day administrative decision-making. I think it is clear in the case of this corporation that they have a chairman of the board, or did so until recently, who is also paid as a consultant to secure markets for the product. 1 think it is also well known that, in the eyes of individuals and fishermen's groups, there is a lack of dialogue between the corporation and its administrative structure and the fishermen. The policy of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation has not been open to scrutiny and to criticism. I think this is unacceptable.
In my estimation, the notion of orderly marketing is somewhat different from that held by certain individuals within the department of fisheries. My notion of orderly marketing is that you smooth out the bad years of operation by skimming off the good years. This implies holding a reserve account; earnings are retained over the years so that in the poor years prices can be maintained to the fishermen by drawing from the fund. But we have no way of knowing whether the last fiscal year was a bad year or a good year for the corporation. It is a fact of history that the corporation has continually gone back to the federal public purse and to the provincial public purse to subsidize its operations so as to maintain price levels to fishermen. So what happens is that in the good years they pay the best possible price and in the poor years they go to the public trough and pull more out.
The consequence is that the corporation presently carries some $5,600,000 worth of operating loans from the federal government and some $4.5 million worth of direct equity loans which the taxpayers of Canada are underwriting. This is not orderly marketing by my concept. Why is there no reserve account held by the FFMC? It brags about payments to fishermen, even if they are only 50 per cent of the selling price, but it is easy to brag if those payments are subsidized by the people of Canada generally.
The corporation pays interest charges on its indebtedness amounting to a million dollars a year. Why should it? If it were a properly run private corporation it would be holding some reserves to tide it over bad years. We have to ask ourselves whether the corporation has not, perhaps, become an instrument of social welfare and unemployment relief. If that is part of the role of the corporation, so be it, but let the government and the corporation admit it and not do as an hon. member from the other side did this morning, and that is try to blame the provinces for forcing this form of social relief upon them, suggesting the federal government was dragged into this
situation so as to provide a social benefit which the provinces desire. After all, it is the federal government that calls the shots in this case. This is a federal Crown corporation and this government cannot weasel out of the situation easily.
There is one further important question which needs to be addressed. Last year, in late 1978 and through the 1978-79 fiscal year, the corporation bragged about the sale of some five million pounds, or $3.9 million worth, of old white fish which had been held in inventory for a considerable time. They bragged about that sale to Poland, eliminating their inventory and being able to balance their books for that particular year. But in so doing, Mr. Speaker, they threw in an access quota to the Polish fishing fleet allowing them to fish for squid off the Atlantic coast. This represented a direct transfer of income from the fishermen of Atlantic Canada into the pockets of the fishermen being served by the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. 1 think the fishermen of Atlantic Canada might well want to ask some questions about the propriety of what was done on that occasion.
I see my time is drawing to a close. I believe there are a number of options to be considered for the restructuring of the corporation. The former minister had been considering these options, ranging as they do from the retention of the status quo to the complete disbandment of the corporation, which would involve selling its assets to the province or reverting to the private sector.
I believe the studies which were undertaken and the joint discussions of provincial and federal officials would have led to a compromise which would have allowed some competition to return to the freshwater areas and which would have created a situation in which the corporation would have reverted to its original function, which would have been to provide a marketing board service and nothing more.
I believe that that report should be filed soon. I would like to see the documentation relating to the review tabled. That is the thrust of the motion before the House. This action, this information and the report should have been presented in April and decisions should have been taken to restructure the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation in time for the current fishing season, which would resolve many of the problems to which I have referred.
Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Speaker. I commend to all hon. members the importance of making these overdue changes in the corporation and, as a first step, having this documentation placed before this House.


Mr. Flis:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member came very close to accusing this government of communism.


An hon. Member:: He did.


Jesse Philip Flis: 1 suggest that the hon. member go and live for a year in the Soviet Union; then he would know the difference between a democratic form of government and a communistic
uly 10, 1980

orm of government and the difference between liberalism and ommunism.


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: Apologize.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I should warn the hon. member that it is quite obvious that that was not a point of order. It was debate. However, I will recognize the hon. member for Richmond-South Delta.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that as much as the hon. member opposite, I have visited many communist countries, and what I have seen and pinpointed here is the first signs of what would lead to that type of government being established in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Fleming:: Unadulterated nonsense.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair is obliged to recognize a member who seeks the floor on a point of order. I have no choice but to recognize the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis) if he seeks the floor again on a point of order. However, I have to point out and underline the fact that the hon. member has had an opportunity, under the guise of a point of order, to enter into debate, and it is the responsibility of the Chair not to permit that. I have no choice but to recognize the hon. member, but it should be on that which is a point of order.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, this is exactly a point of order. My point of order is that the hon. member should withdraw the statement he just made. He just reconfirmed that he is labelling this government what it is not, and I ask, on a point of order, that he withdraw those comments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I do not necessarily appreciate the degree of concern the hon. member has with respect to the government's being referred to as communist. The government can be referred to as communist or as the mafia or anything else, but it is a matter of debate, not a point of order.


Mr. George Henderson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate this afternoon about the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, a Crown venture which has performed, in my opinion, very well and because of its success has been the subject of some discussion.


Mr. McDermid:: It will come back to haunt you.


George Roland Henderson: The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) has already expressed, in the clearest terms, his reasons for asking the hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon) to withdraw his request that copies be tabled of all documents exchanged between the government and the governments of Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta
Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation
and the territorial council of the Northwest Territories since January 1, 1978, relating to the review and restructuring of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. The minister has requested this withdrawal because a comprehensive review of the corporation is presently under way, and the presentation of the documents presented would not serve a constructive purpose and would be premature.
Furthermore, with all due respect to the hon. member, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has stated that he would be very pleased to table the report on the corporation when it has been completed subject, of course, to the consent of the participating provinces and territories.
It seems to me that this discussion of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, to which 1 humbly add a few words, is useful and opportune. I say it is useful and opportune because of concern that the corporation has not blown its own horn and has allowed its own record to stand as its voice. The record is good, the voice is strong, but it has obviously fallen on some deaf ears. I have looked at the record and 1 can say that I am impressed. But before I pursue the exposition of the corporation's record, 1 feel it important to preface this with an overview of why the corporation was formed in the first place and what it was given as its objectives so that the record can be viewed in this light.
The establishment of the corporation, provided for by the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act passed in the 1968-69 session of Parliament, ushered in a new era in the freshwater fish industry. Prior to the control of the freshwater fisheries in western Canada being centralized through the corporation, there were many problems facing this industry. These problems were perceived by the governments of the prairie provinces as stemming from the extreme fragmentation of all sectors of the industry. The prairie provinces were concerned about the recurring weakness of prices for freshwater fish, particularly in the export market, and the well-being of the primary producers who ultimately bore the brunt of weak prices-the fishermen themselves.
The province of Manitoba originally stated its position in a brief to the National Fisheries Conference in January, 1964. Problems of disorderly marketing, too many exporters, poor processing equipment, low quality control facilities and fishermen receiving too low a share of prices, which were constantly fluctuating, led the province of Manitoba to recommend the establishment of a regional marketing board to meet the marketing problems of the industry.
As a result of the concerns expressed by the prairie provinces and because the freshwater fish industry operated inter-provincially and internationally, the federal government, the assistance of which was requested, appointed by order in council a commission of inquiry in 1965 to inquire into and report upon the marketing problems of the freshwater fish industry in the provinces of Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and in the Northwest Territories.
Mr. George H. Mclvor, the commissioner, concluded at that time that the export market was weak because there were too many exporters in Canada to counter the control exercised by

Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation
the few importers in the United States, then taking upwards ot 90 per cent of exports. The commission also concluded that the fisherman was the one who was being penalized most directly, and of course he was penalized in his pocketbook as a result of this situation.
To counter this problem, the commission's principal recommendation was the establishment, under federal legislation, of a freshwater fish marketing board. The Mclvor commission's recommendations were studied extensively by the federal-provincial prairie fisheries committee, which reported to the freshwater fisheries ministers on April 21, 1967. Their report basically endorsed the commission's report. The outcome of all this study was the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act.
The basic philosophy underlying the legislation was that returns to freshwater fishermen could best be increased through the establishment of a single selling desk with the exclusive right to market and trade in fish interprovincially and internationally.
The corporation was therefore obliged to purchase all fish listed in the schedule to the act which was offered for sale to it by licensed fishermen. It was contemplated in the legislation that the corporation would set initial prices for each species, by grade, at the opening of each season and distribute to fishermen in a final payment any additional earnings obtained through marketing of the catch.
Also, the corporation has the power to make loans for working capital on a seasonal basis to persons engaged in fishing for commercial purposes in a participating province and in the Northwest Territories. The magnitude and complexity of the production and marketing programs which faced the newly-established Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation were considerable. The geographic area served by the corporation covers over 1.5 million square miles, most of it in a remote area, with very limited transportation and communication facilities, as hon. members know.
The approximately 3,500 fishermen who were the primary suppliers to the corporation were thinly scattered throughout this vast territory. They represented several ethnic groups, with many language dialects, which further compounded communication problems. Facilities for receiving, handling, packing and caring for a highly perishable product were in very many cases primitive and/or unsuitable generally. Processing plants designed and equipped to prepare modern frozen foods to serve in a highly competitive twentieth century marketplace were largely non-existent. During its first year of operation, the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation was confronted with a mercury contamination problem which presented difficulties of staggering dimension in the Canadian industry.
The principle of sharing the high and the low of the market on a seasonal basis with all fishermen was not generally practised prior to the establishment of the corporation. It was quite common for a few seasonal enterpreneurs who might not necessarily depend upon fishing for their main income and were conveniently located in respect to major markets to hire
and outfit fishermen for low wages and short terms. The lakes! would be fished during peak periods of demand. While this was quite lucrative for the entrepreneur, the fishermen failed to share the largesse. Futhermore, the proximity of these choice markets created a situation whereby the great majority of fishermen struggling to earn a livelihood from limited resources in the more remote unsettled areas generally were excluded from sharing the benefits of the very important high market price periods.
Upon its inception the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation was faced with the task of largely reconstructing a fragmented and neglected industry, an industry that had exploited the lakes and species which were marketable in the whole fresh or frozen form with little or no attention given to product development or market management. In its efforts to rectify this situation, the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation set out to implement policies aimed at attaining the objectives as defined in the act. The major operational objectives were:
1.	To bring about a smooth program of transition assuring as little disruption to fishermen as possible
2.	To develop and implement a uniform pricing system to fishermen.
3.	To initiate the concept of single desk selling
4.	lo devise a network of private and/or co-operative agents to serve fishermen at the production level.
3. To initiate at till levels a program of quality control.
6. lo study and initiate, in co-operation with agents, plans for expanding and upgrading receiving and handling facilities at the production level.
7 To investigate all existing avenues that might be economically utilized to provide adequate facilities to process fish particularly the so-called "rough" varieties into convenience foods, institutional items and new products while concurrently attempting to develop markets for same.
In order to design a uniform pricing system for fishermen prior to the commencement of each season, the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation prepared objectives of total production, percentages of the total that are to be filleted, how much will be frozen, how much will be sold fresh, and an estimate of the sales value of each segment. In this manner an estimated sales return f.o.b. point of delivery is arrived at. From this is deducted the estimated costs of packing, processing, freezing, administration, etc., thereby arriving at a price to fishermen for loose fish f.o.b. designated point of delivery. From this loose fish price are deducted transportation costs from lakeside to the corporation, thereby establishing a price to fishermen at the lake. This assures fishermen regardless of their location that they will receive a price related to market. At the same time it docs not penalize the fisherman who is closer to the delivery point for transportation costs from remote lakes. This method of uniform pricing is complex because of the numerous lakes involved and the complexities of transportation. There are something like 250 lakes involved.
The principle of single desk selling has been initiated by the corporation consistent with provisions of the legislation. Previously prices for fresh fish were extremely erratic. As might be expected, high prices were in effect when production was minimal, while during periods of peak production prices reflected the oversupply of product. However, through adherence



July 10, 1980

to the single desk selling principle the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation has been able to establish and maintain a reasonable product price. It supplies fresh product to the market in quantities the market can absorb, while the surplus is marketed in either frozen or filleted form.
Integration of the industry from lakeside handling to market has been achieved. The corporation buys fish from fishermen through its agents and sets lakeside prices. Directly or indirectly, it controls the product from the lake to the processing plants into cold storage and to market. It specifies processing methods and product type. It determines the packages or boxes in which the fish is carried and sometimes the mode of transportation. It sets packing and processing allowances. It sells directly to processors, wholesalers, some chain stores, and indirectly through brokers.
The corporation now disposes of virtually all freshwater fish produced in Canada outside of the Great Lakes. This represents approximately 50 per cent of total annual production. This activity involves the main facility at Transcona, Manitoba, as well as processing plants at Hay River, The Pas, Edmonton and La Ronge. Unquestionably, the degree of rationalization and integration achieved to date has had the effect of increasing returns to fishermen.
I am not reluctant to say that the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation is a success. The record of the corporation speaks for itself. The figures are very plain and clear and provide the evidence that the corporation has lived up to the objectives which underlined its creation over 11 years ago. As the central objective of the corporation is to maximize returns to commercial fishermen, the single most important statistics are the prices to fishermen and the percentage of the final sales dollar returned to fishermen.
Payments to fishermen in the corporation's first year of operation totalled $7,700,000. Payments to fishermen in the fiscal year 1978-79 totalled over $17 million, or more than double; 61 per cent to 63 per cent of each sales dollar is now returned to fishermen, regardless of what the member said. We should compare this to the rate which prevailed prior to the establishment of the corporation. I think it is very important. We should take a look at what was taking place in the freshwater fish business before. It was a rate of only 40 per cent to 55 per cent when the competition between Canadian exporters, and the lack of organized systems, resulted in the downward manipulation of prices for products paid by the biggest buyers, a handful of American importers.
There are other statistics 1 should like to mention which provide further support to the fact that the corporation has lived up to another of its primary objectives-promoting international markets for and increasing interprovincial and export trade in fish. Net sales during 1969-70 were $14,400,000. Net sales during 1978-79 totalled $34 million. That is a very impressive increase of approximately 240 per cent, with little change in the volume of fish.
The average annual increase in total payments to fishermen has been 12.4 per cent since the crisis years of 1971 to 1973.
Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation During those years the corporation was hit with a number of problems, including the closing of some lakes due to mercury contamination and delays in construction of the Transcona processing plant due to a strike, 1 think, by construction workers. Since then, however, it is obvious the corporation has regained its feet and is continuing its recent impressive gains.
Active international marketing has meant a great deal to the corporation's profit picture. In 1978-79 the corporation's net income was over $5.1 million before final payments to fishermen, by far the highest profit recorded in the history of the FFMC. A good portion of this figure is attributable to a sale of a large quantity of whitefish to Poland. Further marketing efforts of this nature were carried out in 1979-80 and, although final figures are not yet available, there was a substantial sale of mullet to Great Britain at favourable prices, which permitted fishing through the winter season.
I have only a few more figures to quote as I do not want to over-burden hon. members opposite. These figures demonstrate that although a major portion of the corporation's sales are to the United States, and even though I say that is not such a bad thing in itself, the marketing activity successfully increased the overseas component of the sales pie from 14 per cent in 1977-78 to 23 per cent in 1978-79, reducing the U.S. slice from 70 per cent to 61 per cent. These sales figures and the diversification of markets are, according to any analysis, proof of a Crown corporation meeting and exceeding its mandate.
Of course the corporation has had its problems, and will continue to have them in dealing with the many factors affecting a business of this nature and magnitude, as well as in fulfilling its unique function as a Crown corporation.
The management of the corporation has been and has indicated it will continue to be responsive to the needs of its suppliers as well as the interests of the provinces and territories within its area of jurisdiction. I am concerned and hopeful that the corporation will be permitted to continue to carry out its mandate and to evolve, as all such operations must, so that the freshwater fish industry, and the backbone of this industry, the fishermen, will continue to be well served.
Those are all the comments 1 have to make at this time, Mr. Speaker, and I thank all hon. members for their attention.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Nickerson:: Mr. Speaker, I had not anticipated speaking at this time as I felt the honour should have gone to my colleague to the left.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The hon. member is quite correct. 1 should have recognized the other hon. member. If the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) is prepared to allow the Chair to correct this error, I will recognize the other hon. member. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

July 10, 1980
Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation


Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) for ceding me the floor.
it is with a great deal of pleasure I rise today to speak in this debate concerning the tabling of documents regarding the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation.
As a member of Parliament representing many of the freshwater fishermen in the province of Manitoba, this matter is of particular importance to me. No doubt this debate will also be of great importance to all the freshwater fishermen from Thunder Bay to the Rocky Mountains.
Let me say at the outset that the New Democratic Party stands four square behind the concept and practice of orderly marketing of most foodstuffs. Needless to say, we feel the creation of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation in 1969 was a positive step for Canadian freshwater fishermen.
1 believe it is worth mentioning to hon. members present the situation which confronted fishermen prior to the FFMC being set up. Basically it was an open market, free enterprise system and, as one might well expect, the major beneficiaries of this particular arrangement were not the fishermen or the small local processors, but the large, well-organized American importers. The result was that both the fishermen and domestic processors were receiving inadequate-indeed some might have said subsistent-prices for their catch.
Just this morning in committee the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) made the comment that one of the reasons the FFMC was set up was to protect fishermen in remote or small communities. This is very true, but similar protection was required also for fishermen in larger and not so remote areas. Indeed, in my home town of Gimli there were many fishermen who suffered because of the practices of these private enterprises. Typically, at the beginning of each fishing season the companies which give advance payments to the fishermen so they could buy nets and other equipment necessary, would quote a price for fish at that time. Invariably at the season's end the final price would be lower than the initial quote with little or no final payment coming to the fishermen. In many cases the company owned a man's fishing boat, and in some communities they even owned the house in which he lived. One is reminded of the old coal miner's song about owing one's soul to the company store. This is indeed what the companies in Manitoba and in much of the prairies wanted.
1 well remember as a teenager in Gimli talking with friends whose fathers were fishermen. For many years my friends' fathers fished as independent operators. By the mid-1960s most of these fishermen had been reduced to the status of underpaid, indebted employees of these fish companies. At this time in the late sixties it was widely rumoured that there were only two completely independent fishermen left on Lake Winnipeg. 1 believed the rumour at that time, and I still do.
It was with this background that this legislation was passed in 1968-69. It represented a response by the federal government to a request from the central provinces, led by the government of Manitoba. Rather ironically the minister leading the battle for Manitoba was Sterling Lyon, now the premier of that province, who last fall led the battle attempting to dismantle the FFMC.
The need at that time was for unification of the trade in freshwater fishery products. The perception was that economic distress among primary producers was attributable to fragmentation of assembling, processing, and the exporting operation. In 1969, after discussions dating back to 1964, the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation was established by federal statute. Its area of jurisdiction is the three prairie provinces and for a while some of Ontario and the Northwest Territories. It was the exclusive responsibility of the FFMC to market fish originating in this area in interprovincial and export trade. The objectives of the corporation were defined as follows: one, marketing fish in an orderly manner; two, increasing returns to fishermen, and three, promoting international markets for and increasing interprovincial and export trade in fish.
Over the ten-year period in which the corporation has been in existence, freshwater fishermen have seen the price per pound they receive for their catch increase by as much as 150 per cent. As the previous speaker has mentioned, the final payments, or total payments, to fishermen last year amounted to $17.2 million. In 1970 they were a mere $7.7 million. That is a substantial increase, and it has meant a substantial increase in the quality of living for the fishermen in the prairie provinces.
I believe it is fair to say that the marketing corporation has been a modest success over its ten-year history and, as well, it has brought some stability to freshwater fishermen's incomes. However, having said that, I think it must be said that fishermen and processors in western Canada are facing some problems.
In the last six months my office has dealt with dozens of fishermen who have been placed on unemployment rolls, or forced into accepting welfare. The problem in Manitoba is not that they cannot make a living fishing Manitoba's lakes and selling their catch to the corporation. The problem is that the provincial government last October decided to change the rules as they pertain to fishing licences. The result was that fishermen who had for years made their living fishing Lake Winnipeg, Lake Manitoba, Winnipegosis, Cedar Lake and many others have now found they do not qualify for a licence under the new regulations.
During December, and January of this year, the fishermen in the various communities discussed these new regulations proposed by the provincial government. There was near unanimous consent that these new rules were not in the best interests of freshwater fishermen.
Discontent grew to such a level that in January the Conservative government, fearing that this unfavourable program would affect the chances of federal Conservative candidates in the affected communities, ordered the suspension of the proposed guidelines. However, by that time much of the damage
July 10, 1980

had been done and unemployment in my riding soared to over 9 per cent. It is really little wonder that my friends to the right did so poorly in Manitoba during the last election; they were faced with the problem not only of defending the policies of their own government but also the policies of acute, protracted restraint that have been mercilessly practised by the Tory government in Manitoba.
1 would like to return more specifically to the motion before the House calling for documents concerning the future of the FFMC, such as correspondence between the federal, provincial and territorial governments to be laid before the House. I am of the opinion that this is a worth-while motion, not so much because it will show grave reservations on the part of the partners in the FFMC about its operation, but because such tabling of documents will undoubtedly show widespread and general satisfaction with the performance of the corporation. The information that 1 have would indicate that there is now general agreement among the participating agencies, after a thorough review of the possible options, that the corporation is functioning reasonably well and that only fine tuning adjustments were necessary.
I would point out that even the province of Manitoba, which was championing the cause of privatization that is so dear to the hearts of my associates to the right, has now come around to a position virtually in support of the status quo. Hon. members may well be asking themselves how a government like the Lyon Progressive Conservative government, the very epitome of neo-Conservatism, could come to the conclusion that the FFMC was not so bad after all. It is like this; in October the government sent up a trial balloon suggesting privatization or competition with the FFMC, but in the months since then they have been surprised to learn that fishermen in Manitoba do not want to see the government make such changes. In fact for the most part fishermen felt that the FFMC was working in their favour and should not be radically tampered with. The power of public opinion is sometimes awesome, and in this case it was powerful enough to change the opinion of a government of the like of the one that now, temporarily, occupies the corridors of power in Winnipeg.
The government of Saskatchewan also had some concerns regarding the operation of FFMC. But they were not concerns about the fundamental principle that the corporation represented. They were, instead, concerns with over-centralization of processing to the detriment of smaller processors in their provinces. However, I believe it can be safely said that some of Saskatchewan's concerns have now been ameliorated.
I believe that the principle of orderly marketing of freshwater fish for which the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation stands is important to the continued viability of the freshwater fishing industry in Manitoba and the other provinces involved. Orderly marketing protects the fishermen from the erratic behaviour of the free market, and in so doing ensures them a stable income. Of course, even orderly marketing cannot protect fishermen from ridiculous licensing practices on the part of a provincial government, nor can it protect them against the ravages of biological transfers that could occur should our
Committee Report
country be unable to halt the progress of the Garrison diversion in North Dakota.
1 have no doubt that the FFMC has made a large, very positive difference in the lives of freshwater fishermen in Canada. While there were definitely some bumpy years and, I think, some bad decision-making by corporation management, I have no doubt that the FFMC is now well on line. I would strongly oppose any moves made to change its set-up fundamentally and so, too, would a vast majority of fishermen.
There is some room for change and for improvement, but there is absolutely no room to allow the dismantling of the FFMC. To return to the pre-1969 system would be to religate thousands of freshwater fishermen to a poorer quality of life.
Let me give one illustration. During the campaign I visited Matheson Island, an island fishing community on Lake Winnipeg. 1 remarked to the person showing me around on the number of very handsome large, new houses owned by the fishermen. Without hesitation he told me that these houses had all been built since the FFMC had been set up. Further down the island he pointed out some small, very run-down shacks. These were the houses that had been owned by the fishing companies and which the fishermen had lived in before the establishment of the marketing board. Fortunately, no one is forced to live in such buildings any more.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Madam Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Madam Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And being returned;
Madam Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
Bill C-39, an act to amend the Bank Act and the Quebec Savings Banks Act-Chapter 12.
Bill C-19, an act to amend the Employment Tax Credit Act-Chapter 13.
Bill C-35, an act to amend the Regional Development Incentives Act- Chapter 14.
Bill C-7, an act to amend the Saltfish Act-Chapter 15.
Bill C-15, an act to amend the Livestock Feed Assistance Act-Chapter 16.
Bill C-22, an act to adjust the Accounts of Canada and to make related amendments to certain Acts-Chapter 17.
[Stage Direction]
July 10, 1980
Borrowing Authority Act
['Agreed.']
Madam Speaker:: The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. Therefore, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At 6.10 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

Mr. Penner:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been meeting all day to hear witnesses and to study clause by clause Bill C-26, a bill of great importance to the Fort Nelson Indian Band of British Columbia. At 6.30 this evening the work of that committee on that bill was completed. At this time 1 would ask the unanimous consent of the House to revert to "Presenting Reports of Standing and Special Committees" so that the report could be tabled this evening.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. Hon. members have heard the request made by the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Penner). Is it the pleasure of the House to agree to the request?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development-Mr. Penner.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Bussieres (for the Minister of Finance) that Bill C-30, to
provide supplementary borrowing authority for the fiscal year 1980-81, be read the third time and do pass.
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I understand the question will be put later. However, I appreciate the enthusiasm of hon. members across the way.
I want to begin by first associating myself with the comments made by members on this side of the House, particularly the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). I wish to reiterate the very deep and genuine concern that we on this side have regarding the passage of this bill, which provides spending or borrowing authority of some $12 billion, without having been given some details as to the future plans of the government. As my colleague for Mississauga South indicated, we are giving the government carte blanche authority without having any definitive program outlined in terms of what the spending program will be, and with the lack of a budget, and so on.
I found it rather amusing when the spokesman for the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae), said that the people of Canada had been cheated by the introduction of this bill. I find that rather strange coming from that corner of the House. 1 think it is fair to say that if anyone has been cheated, the people of Canada have been cheated by the activities of the NDP opposition-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -when not too long ago they exercised their political opportunistic tricks to defeat a government which was attempting to put the economic house of this country in order and to establish some sanity and stability in terms of where we are going in so far as reducing the deficit, and putting into place some discipline in the spending and taxation in connection with the fiscal and monetary policies of this country. This is the typical hypocritical doubletalk we hear from that side of the House. It has become a very significant trademark for that group of people. I must say that particular caucus is the champion of doubletalk and hypocrisy.
We are talking about a lot of money here. When we talk about a bill like this in the House of Commons, we have a tendency to overlook the significance of a million or a billion dollars. It is always very difficult to try to put a billion dollars or a billion of anything into its proper perspective. About a year ago 1 came across a little definition of a billion which I thought was rather significant. I would like to place it on the record because it does put into perspective the magnitude of a billion. The little definition goes like this.
It is entitled "What is a billion?". A billion seconds ago, the first atomic bomb had not yet been exploded. A billion minutes ago, Christ was still on this earth. A billion hours ago, men were still living in caves, yet more than a billion dollars ago, in terms of federal government spending that was one week ago. 1 think that brings into focus the magnitude of a billion. If you
July 10, 1980

were to stack a billion dollars one on top of the other, I could not imagine how high that would be, but it would certainly be a very significant pile of dollar bills.


Pierre Bussières: What do you have to say about relativity?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: There is another rule, in Beauchesne, which says members should be given sufficient latitude to make their point. That is precisely what 1 have attempted to do. This bill should not be passed until a budget has been presented to the House. It should not be passed until we have heard from the government a statement of its fiscal and monetary policy. 1 am not sure we have passed the 1978 budget in all its details-


An hon. Member:: No!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: My hon. friend says no. So the last budget we passed in detail was the 1977 one. Moreover, earlier today the minister left us with the impression that there is no assurance of a budget forthcoming this fall. So where are we going in terms of an economic and financial program?
There is a second point and one which is clearly related to our economic fortunes. It is the lack of an oil pricing agreement.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: We had one.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We had one in December. Since then there has been shilly-shallying and wavering. We are farther away from agreement now than we ever were last year. What are the priorities which guide this government?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: They have none.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We have been dealing with housekeeping legislation. 1 thank my hon. friend from Mississauga. He has made a couple of good speeches and he is helping me with this one. His interventions indicate the depth of his feelings on this legislation. A great deal was said in the Speech from the Throne, but no concrete proposals have been forthcoming to put those varied promises into effect. In spite of all the hoopla at Winnipeg, nothing came out of it to indicate where Canada was going, and I must say westerners are increasingly suspicious of the government. There is not much to boast about in terms of what the government has done for the west. The Speech from the Throne talks about the development of our economic potential. That is sheer rhetoric, Mr. Speaker.
I could quote a passage from a popular magazine in Alberta, The Alberta Report, a magazine which I will bring to the attention of all those who claim to be interested in Alberta. It points out that notwithstanding the government's professed renewed commitment to western Canada, over the last 12 years the Liberal party while in power has made every conceivable attempt to destroy western Canada. The Western Economic Conference in 1973 committed itself to expand markets for chemical and agricultural products in the United States. But it provided nothing.
Borrowing Authority Act
The same Liberal government promised to improve the grain transportation system. The last year in which this new-old government held office was the worst on record in terms of grain movement. It cost hundreds of millions of dollars, as well as a lot of our reputation.


An hon. Member:: You seem enthused.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am enthused because I have a very deep feeling about this doubletalk. I heard someone suggest I should talk about the rest of Canada. 1 thought members over there wanted to know more about western Canada. They say they are committed to western Canada. I would give them a lesson, if they would shut up and listen. This is the government which in 1974 vigorously opposed wage and price controls- and then introduced them. This is the government which promised federal aid to municipal transport systems-and produced nothing whatsoever. It is the government which, in 1968, called for restraint-and in the next ten years quadrupled government spending. It is the government which, elected after pledging an increase of less than $4.50 per barrel of oil, now says that it meant less than $7.50. That is in a report from The Alberta Report of May, 1980. That is not coming from my lips. That comes from the lips of a dedicated, earnest, and committed publisher in Canada who has witnessed the history of this country and who has seen what is happening.
What are the priorities of the party over there? What about a deep sea fleet? The minister says he is in favour of it, but the rest of the cabinet says we cannot afford it. What about improving the marine sector? There has been no statement of policy from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin). What are we going to do to improve the operations of the Seaway and give its users a greater opportunity to manage and operate it? What about the coastguard service? What are we going to do to improve the effectiveness of that service, particularly in terms of re-equipping the coastguard fleet which, like the state of our armed forces, has long been deteriorating?
The rhetoric we read in the Speech from the Throne has not been followed up by definitive proposals. The only thing we have heard is the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) fanning the flames and warning the provinces, comparing the actions of Alberta to the seperatists' motives in Quebec-I hope I do not see the minister nodding his head in the affirmative. The Minister of Transport suggested that Alberta is engaged in a war over economic sovereignty and compared it with Quebec. Shame on that minister! The fact was, they wanted it their way or no way at all. And at the same time the Speech from the Throne lectured us on the need to represent the nation to the west. I ask the government to do likewise-to represent the nation to the west and also to represent the west to the rest of Canada, particularly in the House of Commons and in the hallowed halls of the cabinet.
What are we offered? There is the ludicrous proposal of twinning. I say it is preposterous and insane. If that is representative of the actions we can expect in the future, I am sure the great desire of members opposite to attract political support in western Canada will not get off the ground. All we

July 10, 1980
Borrowing Authority Act
have heard is double-tracking and doubletalk, and the doubletalk has caused uncertainty in connection with projects such as the one planned for Prince Rupert. The Prince Rupert port development has probably been deferred for a year or six months. I notice that an article which appeared in The Globe and Mail of May 29 said the site preparation planned to start this summer will not get under way at least until fall. Why? The deal has been made but, because of some little detail, the whole thing has been placed in jeopardy and deferred.
Consider the position of the government with respect to branch line retention or abandonment. It is interesting to note that in Winnipeg over the weekend the party opposite took the position that the Government of Canada should reaffirm the present guaranteed status accorded to prairie branch lines so that all branch lines now in the permanent system might remain in that system. Mr. Speaker, if participatory democracy means anything to the government, the Minister of Transport should not now be undertaking a review of a decision which was made by the former government, one which is now the law of the land.
They have cast confusion over the development of Roberts Bank. They cannot get their act together. What about the coal deal in northeastern British Columbia? There is a lot of huffing and puffing, but no action.
We do not know who in this House is responsible for grain transportation. The Minister of Transport says he is not responsible, but in the same breath he says he has to answer. The hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen) would do a much better job. We wish he were in the cabinet-


An hon. Member:: So does he.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -because I think he would go out and learn. The hon. member for Timmins-Chapleau (Mr. Chenier) does not have to talk because he knows that when my party was in office, and particularly through this former minister, we looked after all regions in Canada, including his own home town.


Mr. Corbin:: It took you only three months to take away my passenger train service.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That was an initiative which was started by the hon. member's government. Why does he not talk about the passenger services which we retained and which we expanded?


Eymard G. Corbin: And you did not finish our airport.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: If I had had another six months. 1 probably would have given the hon. member his airport, and I would not even have needed a twin to do that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: One of the first things this government did when it assumed office was to announce a reduction in the
initial prices of wheat, and then in its press release it said that it was increasing the initial price of wheat. It was increased from the government's original initial price which it announced. We increased it, but hon. members opposite reduced it back to the old level. We increased the initial price of wheat from $3.50 to $4.25. They came along and reduced it. How can the people of western Canada have any faith in this government?
What about the two-price wheat system? We were in the process of establishing a minimum floor price of $6 per bushel based on the cost of production and the realities of the marketplace. This government came along and established a minimum price of $5 per bushel. Our proposal was to have been put into effect on February 1, 1980, and if that had been the case the farmers of western Canada would have been $25 million richer. Under this administration they are $25 million poorer, and the range of $5 to $7 is outdated before it has even been implemented because, right now, international markets indicate that the price of wheat is close to that figure of $7, and it should go up.
Everyone in the grain trade would indicate that wheat prices should go up, and that is why it is important that this government get on with the job. We increased prices, and we were well under way in working out a satisfactory international grains agreement. I wish the minister in the other place, who was a strong advocate of that, would now be as ambitious in that regard as he was when he was in opposition.
What is really happening right now is that the western farmer is subsidizing the consumer. Farmers are selling their wheat domestically at less than the international price. That is not the only commodity with regard to which we have that anomaly. Oil is the other commodity which is sold at less than the world price. As a matter of fact it is sold at about 40 per cent of the world price. Why is it that two commodities which are very precious to western Canada are sold at prices which are far below the world price? In the case of oil the percentage is about 40 per cent, and in the case of wheat it is 20 per cent. Those are our major commodities. Last year the increase in the price of oil did not even reflect the inflationary factor. I believe the inflation rate was about 9.5 per cent, and the price of oil went up 8 per cent.
This Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in this House and across the country compares Alberta to Kuwait. He accuses Albertans of being selfish and greedy and of being fabulously rich. He also says that Alberta is not sharing and is not prepared to share. In other words he is desperately trying to pit the rest of the country against the province of Alberta. I see that as being very despicable. As a matter of fact it is almost treasonous. I want to deal with that issue because, as I said before, there are two commodities which are produced in western Canada and which are sold domestically at far below world prices, and I challenge any hon. member opposite to tell me what other commodities are sold on that same basis in the country. Let them name them.


An hon. Member:: Asbestos?
July 10, 1980


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Is it any wonder that there is a feeling of alienation and a sense of frustration, both political and economic?


Mr. Cousineau:: It is still Canadian oil.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Westerners cannot understand why they must pay at least internationally competitive prices and in many cases more for commodities which are sold to them from eastern and central Canada. We do not mind that. That is fair, but what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. It is a reciprocating deal.
This government gets down on its hands and knees and pleads with Mexico to sell us more oil at the world price. What benefit does that give Alberta, western Canada, or any region of Canada? 1 do not understand the eagerness. At the same time hon. members opposite deny oil price increases to realistic levels. As a result they are scuttling development. They are scuttling megaprojects which are very important. Asa matter of fact I am told that the deferral of two megaprojects, the oil sands and the Gold Lake heavy oil project, is costing the Canadian economy some $25 million every day. There is dislocation and unemployment.
On July 7 The Globe and Mail pointed out that any development in Alberta reaps benefits for the whole of Canada, and particularly for the province of Ontario. The article to which 1 refer reads in part as follows:
Let us say that the oil price rises to the point where tar sands oil is economically feasible. One $7 billion Alberta oil sands plant would mean, to Ontario alone: $800 million for the iron and steel industry; $370 million for metal-working firms; $325 million for the transportation industry; $740 million for other manufacturers and processors; $750 million for the trade and service sector. That money would be working in the community producing consumer demands, making jobs, increasing government revenues.


Mr. Forrestall:: And more dollars for us in eastern Canada.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I will get to that. My colleague says "more dollars for eastern Canada", and that is true.
In total... one $7 billion project like the proposed Alsands plant (now in doubt because of Liberal hesitation about oil prices) would generate $23.8 billion in economic activity. Of that Alberta would get $10.5 billion, Ontario $6.2 billion, Quebec $2.9 billion, and the other provinces the rest. "This is just one project. By the end of the century there could be another six similar projects plus one major expansion." For eastern offshore projects other provinces would take the Alberta share.
That is what is being held up as a result of the footdragging and waffling that is going on.


Mr. McKnight:: More than we got from the F-18.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What is tragic, in my view, is that we have a Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who is not really the right kind of person to be negotiating an oil arrangement. I think he is too far abrasive and far too arrogant. Some have suggested that he has about as much negotiating skill as Idi Amin. He has fueled the flames of division and suspicion, and that does not augur well. We hear much about this minister suggesting that Alberta is not sharing, and that it is not prepared to share. That rings a rather sympathetic tune with consumers in central and eastern Canada, but the fact is
Borrowing Authority Act
that Alberta has shared, is sharing and will continue to share with the rest of Canada. What has happened is that these deliberate and antagonistic statements do not augur well for the future unity of the country, and certainly it is not in keeping with the euphoria after the recent victory in the province of Quebec. When the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources suggested that Albertans merely occupy a territory, 1 found it an insult to our forefathers who came west when there was nothing but prairie and bush, and through sheer hard work and determination built a region and a province.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Certainly we are fortunate to have oil under our soil, but when these resources were developed eastern financial interests turned their backs on western Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That can be well documented; it should not be overlooked.


An hon. Member:: What has come over you?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I feel strongly about this because the other side of the story must be told. The member's minister has been going about this country peddling a lot of bull, as we would say in Alberta, if we want to talk about sharing, since 1973 Alberta has forgone in excess of $17 billion in revenue as a result of the underpricing of its oil. That is worth $8,500 for every man, woman and child in the province of Alberta. That is sharing. Is it prepared to share? The answer is yes.
Under the arrangement worked out by our government, out of every $4 per barrel increase, $1.60 would have gone to the province, $1.24 to the federal government, and $1.16 to the industry, which would have represented a 50 per cent increase in federal government coffers. In addition it is important to note that Alberta agreed to phase in the increase in oil prices up to 85 per cent of the American price or world price over a period of time. It agreed to sell its natural gas to existing markets in central Canada at 85 per cent of the oil equivalent price and 65 per cent to any new markets for a period of five years. It further agreed to fund the extension of the gas pipeline from Montreal to Quebec City. Alberta agreed to accelerate oil sands development, pay for the infrastructure and invest $3 billion to $4 billion from the heritage trust fund in new oil sands plants to produce oil not for Albertans but for the rest of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: In addition, Alberta agreed to help finance five major energy projects in other provinces. Also it agreed to lend $2 billion over five years to a National Energy Bank. As well, it agreed to certain tax changes in oil companies which would channel an additional $400 million from Alberta to Ottawa.

July 10, 1980
Borrowing Authority Act
What about co-operation? I must read part of an article into the record because many members opposite do not even read the Ottawa newspapers. On May 22, 1980, an editorial entitled "Barrels of Co-operation" appeared in The Ottawa Journal. I should like to quote from it because I think it is significant. It reads:
With the emphasis so heavily on conflict between Alberta and the federal government on energy issues, one might get the idea that Alberta has missed no opportunity to make things uncomfortable for the rest of us. In fact, the opposite was the case in the past year. While conflict was talked, co-operation was practised.
Amidst grave uncertainties about the supply of international oil, Alberta quietly permitted a 15 per cent increase in production of its fast-declining reserves of conventional oil last year. This spared eastern Canada from almost certain shortages of oil during the fall and winter heating season.
It also saved the country from an additional half billion dollar payments deficit by substituting Alberta oil for almost twice as costly imported oil. But it helped run Alberta's reserves down to 4.7 billion barrels of readily accessible conventional oil and hastened the day-coming very soon-when the maximum daily production of 1.4 million barrels must begin to decline.
Here is an important footnote:
The Alberta government has an ironclad constitutional right to limit the production of the province s oil to ensure adequate future supplies for its own residents. It can be argued that conventional oil reserves have reached the level at which a lower rate of production would be in everyone's interest in that current output raises false hopes of domestic oil availability for the future.
Recently the Energy Resources Conservation Board issued a report which indicated that productive capacity will decline to a million barrels per day next year and to 966,000 barrels per day in 1982. The forecast indicates that conventional crude productive capacity will have declined to 688,000 barrels by 1985, and to 377,000 barrels per day by 1990. Indeed it is a fast depleting resource. When 1 heard the energy minister suggest that the tactics of Alberta can be compared to those of the separatist movement in Quebec, 1 found it insulting, offensive, and 1 do not think it is very Canadian on the part of that minister over there.
The government of Alberta has every right to insist on a fair deal-a realistic price for its energy resources. It has every right to receive its legitimate share of the revenues. Surely it is non unCanadian to defend that position. As a matter of fact, it is in its own interest in terms of the constitution, and in the Canadian interest. As I pointed out, it is a fast diminishing resource. If the shoe were on the other foot I am sure the federal government would be taking that same position.
We must not be blinded by the fact that we simply look at price alone. The key is the security of supply, the ability to shift to alternate forms of energy and the ability to develop new sources of supply so that we can become self-sufficient in fossil fuels. Alberta is prepared to do its part. It is prepared to share, it has shared, and it will continue to share. 1 must insist that the agreement reached by our government and the province of Alberta was and still is in the best interests of Canada, Alberta, the region and all Canadians, so that we can go on developing, building and achieving the goals outlined and enunciated in the Speech from the Throne, have security of supply, to bite the bullet and face the issue, not hide behind some cheap political trickery which embarrasses the government at the present time.


An hon. Member:: Swallow your pride.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Why does the government not swallow its pride and get on with the job? It should get the deal made so that we can carry on building, so that the projects can go ahead, so that there will be jobs in Alberta, British Columbia, Newfoundland, Ontario, Quebec, and the Atlantic provinces- all of Canada. That is my appeal to that group over there. I hope they are listening.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, at first I did not intend to rise and address Bill C-30, to provide supplementary borrowing authority for the fiscal year 1980-81. It would provide the federal government with the power to borrow $12 billion. However, 1 feel I must rise a second time. I spoke on this bill during second reading stage, and I should like to address it during third reading stage with some brief comments. 1 hope it will go through tonight.
It was my understanding this was pushed rapidly on us because in fact the federal government is broke. It does not have adequate funds to run this country of ours. Another thing which prompted me to rise and speak on third reading is that the Liberal government was so much in a hurry to get this bill through that it had a motion to close debate on it and therefore cut off second reading debate. They did this for a couple of reasons. The first was that it was an embarrassment to them, the fact they had to borrow $12 billion to run this country. The second was that the government is broke and it needs money. In fact we are a bankrupt country at this time.
We have things like housing overruns which CMHC cannot pay-the minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has reflected that in the province of Saskatchewan which has asked for funds to come into that province to cover the cost overruns in housing projects administered by the Saskatchewan Housing Corporation, under the responsibility and funding of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. In fact 1 submit to you that this federal government could not pay the province of Saskatchewan the money it has due coming to it, and therefore the Saskatchewan Housing Corporation is put in the uncomfortable position of not being able to pay off some of the housing contractors who were involved in housing projects in Saskatchewan. I hope with the passage of this borrowing authority, to borrow $12 billion for the federal government, the minister will in fact take note of that and listen to what we have been saying for years and years in the House, since he is here in the House tonight, and make sure that the Saskatchewan Housing Corporation is paid the funds that are due to it so it can in fact pay off those debts.
The other things I can think of, Mr. Speaker, that are directly concerned with the constituency I represent, include a school on the Thunder Child Reserve which was approved by Indian Affairs some five years ago, and the Treasury Board has kept bouncing it back, bouncing it back for reproposal from Indian Affairs, and coming back to the reserve. The
July 10, 1980

reserve school at Thunder Child today has been condemned by the federal Department of National Health and Welfare, as well as the Saskatchewan department of health. They have an open cesspool at the school no more than 100 feet away from where the students have to attend. The conditions on that reserve as far as educational facilities are concerned are absolutely deplorable. This is another thing I hope Treasury Board will finally approve funding for which they have already agreed to in the capital expenditures of Indian Affairs, a department which does not have the money to pay for it.
I would like to quote something from a politician in this House who was referring to the financial position of the government. That politician says that this deficit is not here curiously enough because of excessive government spending. Government expenditures increased dramatically in the past since 1974, but it is under control; I think reasonably under control, and yet we are still running a deficit. "The reason is that our tax base is so eroded on the revenue side."
These are words, to my surprise, not of the Conservatives who sit to our extreme right, but words of the minister in charge of the Treasury Board, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston). He says this deficit is not here, curiously enough, because of excessive government spending, but government spending has been excessive over the past decade and it has reached the point now in the 1978-79 fiscal year that public accounts show we have been spending a deficit of over $16 billion. Mr. Macdonell in the Auditor General's report suggests that spending is totally out of control. I hope the minister in charge of the Treasury Board will recognize that. It is not under control, he says in the second part. He says that the reason the tax base has been eroded, and 1 can agree with that part as it certainly has, is some of the things that happen within this country. I think we have to look at things such as indexing, which is very controversial lately and which arose from this House. The New Democratic Party is in favour of indexing, but we are in favour of a just indexing. The indexing implemented by this government was an indexing that helped those who do not need the help. The indexing the government has been advocating was indexing for people who have the least amount of income and get the least amount from indexing. The people at the higher levels of income, $60,000 and $70,000 per year, would get the maximum benefits from indexing.
To the New Democratic Party that is not a just type of indexing. The type of indexing we agree with is the type of indexing where the people at $70,000 and $60,000 per year income do not need any indexing and certainly do not need the benefits of it. The people who need the benefits of indexing of taxation are those in the lower income scale; those earning $12,000, and those earning up to $20,000 a year should receive the maximum benefit from that.
I think something else which has eroded our tax base, and where there has to be more equity in our tax system, is the many corporate loopholes out there today, not in small business and not in family farms necessarily, but in the larger corporations, indeed in the larger international corporations
Borrowing Authority Act
which account for the $75 billion in foreign ownership in this country, and which stimulate billions of dollars in foreign profits that leave here every year. Those loopholes today we figure, to the best of our knowledge, account for some $16 billion in accumulated unpaid corporate tax. This country cannot afford that. We think that should this government choose to collect the corporate tax which is owing to the people of this country we would not have to approve supplementary borrowing power for $12 billion to help a bankrupt government such as we have here today.
I would like to ask the government to look at other things such as self-administered RRSPs. I think that is an important area where people who have some disposable income can invest in their own Registered Retirement Savings Plans. For example, those who are fortunate enough to own a home should be able to invest in that home each year at the anniversary date and write it off, as they would with an RRSP. I think that helps us in a few ways. One, it helps people reduce the amount of interest they are paying on their mortgages because they pay it off sooner at a much lower rate; they also own their homes within a shorter period of time and, therefore, have a larger disposable or discretionary income to use at their discretion, spending it on what they like.
Supposedly a house is one of the largest items the average Canadian family will ever purchase. If they did have this extra five or six or seven hundreds of dollars extra income ten years sooner than they normally would have it, they would be able to invest. Then we would have Canadians investing in our own economy. I think these are things the government has to look at so that our tax base is not being eroded, and so that we do in fact have money to run our country.
The supplementary borrowing power for $12 billion does not even cover the deficit 1 mentioned in 1978-79 as $16 billion, or in excess of $16 billion. That is a very large sum of money, enough to run the province of Saskatchewan for eight years.
1 think at the same time we have to look at some of the inequities which the government has in its tax regulations and the way it collects tax. 1 would like to quote again from the President of the Treasury Board when he was referring to our income tax. He said that apart from this tragic lack of compassion and its zealous adherence to the letter of the law rather than its spirit, the Department of National Revenue has also demonstrated that it is prepared to adopt any position likely to result in the collection of tax dollars regardless of whether that position may be inconsistent with the position adopted in another case.
I want to cite a case that was brought to my attention by a constituent just this last weekend of the unfair taxation this government uses when it justifies taxation by whatever means it has to in order to help it get the tax.
I had a lady phone me on the weekend. She is a handicapped person in the city of North Battleford. She had applied one year for her excise tax rebate which she should get as a handicapped person. When she applied for it she found she could not receive it because in fact she had not paid for it; her husband's or family income had paid for it. Then she got credit

July 10, 1980
Borrowing Authority Act
cards for the next taxation year and every time she travelled she would use the credit cards in her own name to keep track of what expenditure was made on her behalf in travelling. Because she was a handicapped person she should qualify for a rebate on the excise tax. She submitted the claim and the federal government approved it. They granted her $160, 1 believe the figure was.
In the last taxation year she applied again for the rebate and the answer came back saying she did not qualify for the rebate because, although she made the purchases in her name, it was her husband's income or her family income that paid for it; she had no income to pay for that petroleum, or to pay for that gasoline, so she could not claim the excise tax. They did not only refuse, but they wanted to collect the money which they had paid to her one year before that. That is unfair.
What they are saying is "Pay back money when you don't have an income". That is what they told her in one case, that she did not qualify because she did not have an income. Now they want her to pay back money on an income which she does not have. This government must decide whether it wants to use individual income or family income, but it should not use whichever alternative suits its needs. I think that is unfair.
Such action tends to encourage people to look for ways to cheat a system which is unjust and treats people unfairly. I do not mean to be critical, but we should have some remedy to overcome this erosion of the tax base, it is not fair that 10 per cent of the population has 60 per cent or more of the wealth in this country. Of the other 90 per cent, some of them have nothing. That is unfortunate for many Canadians, particularly those in the 90 per cent portion. The other 10 percent does not care too much. However, they must influence the fiscal policy or taxation policies of this government.
We must overcome this problem of each year having to approve supplementary borrowing power so that the government can pay its debts or honour the commitments it made. We must achieve full employment within this country, or at least stop the high rate of unemployment which we are so rapidly achieving through the regressive actions of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray). 1 am thinking particularly of the people in the automobile industry in places like Windsor and Oshawa where these people, for two or three generations, have been dependent upon the automotive industry. Now their jobs are being taken away from them. These people do not know where to turn, and the federal government is not being very responsive to their situation.
There are many small businesses and medium-size companies which have been affected by the high interest rates or the non-action pattern of this federal government in terms of interest rates. We must look at ways to achieve full employment through an industrial strategy. I would like the federal government to lay out at some point their industrial strategy so that we can make some long-term economic plans and develop an economic policy which will gain full employment for all Canadians. As I mentioned earlier, there must be some equity
in the taxation system. It is unfortunate that a handicapped person is cheated by this government. I have asked the minister for leniency in this case and other cases, such as the case I cited of the woman in North Battleford.
We must also gain effective control of our resources. We have talked in this House about energy self-sufficiency, but I do not know how we are going to attain that goal. The New Democratic Party has a policy which we have laid out before, but I will not go into that now. Certainly the policies of this government do not attain energy self-sufficiency for Canada.
It is unfortunate that there are other inequities within our taxation system. It is something which I have mentioned in this House before and which I will mention again, because it ties in so closely to overcoming the large deficit which we have in this country. I will say again, as I said before, that Saskatchewan has to pay an export tax every time it sends a barrel of heavy crude across its borders. The reason we export our heavy crude is because there is no petroleum upgrading station in Saskatchewan to upgrade this heavy crude to a state where it can be used.
However, this is a project on which the Saskatchewan government has been working in conjunction with Petro-Canada and Husky Oil, a wholly-owned Canadian company, but it has not reached the stage of operation yet. When that barrel of heavy crude oil crosses the Saskatchewan border, there is an export tax. Of every barrel of heavy crude which crosses Saskatchewan borders, $22 goes to the federal government, $6 goes to the provincial government and something over $6 goes to the oil company. That is unfair to the province of Saskatchewan, that such a disproportionate share should go to the federal government.
Actually what is being exported is not heavy crude, it is energy. There is no export tax on other forms of energy which are exported out of Canada. When Alberta and British Columbia export trillions of cubic feet of natural gas to the United States, they are not charged one cent in export tax. That is discrimination against Saskatchewan. When Ontario and Quebec, 1 imagine, export power, energy which is generated by nuclear stations or by hydro dams, they are not charged one cent in export tax. Certainly the money which is raised from that export tax goes to subsidize the cost of energy needs in eastern Canada.
An hon. Member; Oh, oh!


Douglas Keith Anguish: I would appreciate it very much if the members to the right, if they do not know what they are talking about, would please keep quiet until I am finished. They will have a chance to speak once I am finished. We must also take a look at processing our raw resources at home.
Getting back to the Conservatives, I would like to say that the Liberals are not only to blame. The Conservatives are much more to blame with their terrible policies with which they tried to destroy this country. The people to my extreme right in this House have no room to talk, no room whatsoever. They wanted to charge Canadian people for their oil at the
July 10, 1980

world price, something they talked about prior to the election campaign, but the people of Canada said, "You're wrong".


An hon. Member:: Moan and groan.


Douglas Keith Anguish: The federal government should take a look at the policy of processing our raw resources at home and not ship them out of the country, which would provide employment.
Some of the Conservatives to my right have mentioned the socialist government of Saskatchewan. I would like to correct them and inform them that it is a democratic socialist government, and I will dwell on that province for a few moments. We are looking at a province, as I mentioned when I spoke on this bill at second reading, which has a democratic socialist government and which was bankrupt in 1944 because of a Liberal government which followed a Conservative government.


An hon. Member:: They're both the same.


Douglas Keith Anguish: They are both the same, so it does not matter anyway. Now Saskatchewan has a surplus budget, not the deficit budget-


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: What year was it surplus?


Douglas Keith Anguish: -which the Liberals bring in and the Conservatives advocate.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: What year was it surplus?


Douglas Keith Anguish: I think, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Kindersiey-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) wishes to drink and come into this House and make accusations-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Keith Anguish: -then he should stay in the outer area.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Keith Anguish: I would like to say in closing, Mr. Speaker-


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, if I heard the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) correctly, and I would like to check the blues-i hope 1 did not hear him correctly in the statement which he made-I will be magnanimous and offer him the opportunity-if he did make that statement because of passion or because he was upset and not able to control himself-to consider his words again. If he does not withdraw them, I will have to take further action.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member for Kindersiey-Lloydminster heard is correct. That is what I said. I would like to offer my apology to him. 1 would like to withdraw my remarks. It was in the heat of the debate and, also, by the way the hon. member addressed me as he came into the chamber, 1 made assumptions and accusations for which 1 apologize.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Borrowing Authority Act


Douglas Keith Anguish: In conclusion, before I get myself into any more trouble, the reason that we would like to see this legislation for supplementary borrowing authority go through tonight is the fact that it would place our government in a very embarrassing position if we could not pay our bills. I am a proud Canadian as, I am sure, are the other members of this House, and I would like to see this bill pass this evening.


Mr. Bill Wright (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, as this is my first opportunity to address this House formally I would like to add my congratulations to those of many hon. members who have congratulated you and Madam Speaker on your appointments. At this time I would also like to wish the Minister of Linance (Mr. MacEachen) well. I understand that he is in hospital. 1 sincerely hope that he is out and back in this House before too long.
I would like to draw the attention of the House to the previous member who represented Calgary North, Hon. Doug Harkness, who served in that capacity from 1953 until 1968. I am told by many members in this House that he was one of the best ministers of defence that Canada has ever had. I would like to also draw the attention of the House to my predecessor, Hon. Eldon Woolliams, who served here from 1968 until Lebruary, 1980. I know the gentleman personally. I am sure hon. members will agree that he served honourably. His expertise in many areas such as justice will be remembered for a long time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick William Wright: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to talk about Calgary and my riding of Calgary North for a moment. Much mention has been made in this House of Alberta generally and of some of its cities, but hon. members should know that most of the people who live in the city of Calgary come from other parts of Canada. Indeed, many people who live in Calgary North do not come from there originally. It may be a surprise to some to learn that 30 per cent of the residents of the new area, Calgary North, come from Ontario and Quebec. We know this because we had to check the figures recently due to some problems we were having with the postal service.
There are many exciting things about Calgary, foremost of which is the Calgary Stampede. Last weekend a member of cabinet attended the stampede. He had occasion to ride a horse, and I am told that he laboured at it for four hours. In case hon. members probably do not know to whom I refer, I must add that he was a good sport about it.
I should like to turn now to Bill C-30, Mr. Speaker, which was introduced by the Minister of Linance on May 22. In his brief remarks on that occasion the minister told the House that he would like to borrow $12 billion, but he gave no reason. We have asked, both in the House and in committee, what he intends to do with the money, but we still have not had an answer. He came like a beggar in the night asking for money, but we cannot find out what he wants to do with it.

July 10, 1980
Borrowing Authority Act
This borrowing bill seeks authority to borrow $12 billion for the fiscal year 1980-81. It also seeks authority to borrow in foreign currencies. We have asked about that also and have received a number of answers.
On May 27 when the minister spoke on the second reading of this bill, in a reference to clause 2 he said, as reported at page 1478 of Hansard:
This clause, the one to which I referred, will serve to confirm the authority of the government to borrow and repay loans in currencies other than Canadian dollars.
That indicates to me that this government wishes to borrow in foreign currency. When we put the question in committee, however, we were told that it did not, that it was only for the exchange fund.
I should like now to make reference to the mini budget brought in by the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. This is not where this borrowing is coming from. When he brought in his mini budget on April 21 the minister told us that revenues this year will be approximately $45 billion, up from $40 billion, for an increase of 12.5 per cent. He told us that total expenditures will be $60.4 billion, up from $53.1 billion, an increase in excess of 13 per cent.
Why is the government spending more money than it is taking in, Mr. Speaker? Why must it borrow? Is it due to the heavy service cost of debt? At the present time 20 cents of every tax dollar goes to service the debt. I do not know why we cannot pay as we go along. Is it because of the increased oil consumption or oil import compensation which now stands at $3.5 or $4 billion, an increase from $1.5 billion a year ago? And we do not yet know what the cost will be because we do not have an oil agreement.
The deficit which the minister discussed and which is related to this borrowing bill has increased from $11.4 billion last year to $14.2 billion this year. The minister said recently in this House that the deficit could even be higher, so he is not sure about it any longer.
Does the government really have to borrow $12 billion? Let us look at the facts, Mr. Speaker. As of April 1, 1980, approximately $2.9 billion was available in unused borrowings. According to the staff of the Department of Finance there was approximately $90 million left by July I. This means that in the three months from April to July the government spent approximately $1 billion per month, or $33 million per day. That is more than they took in.
Why will the government not produce a budget, Mr. Speaker? They are spending 25 per cent more than they are taking in. Surely the public is entitled to see a budget, and surely this House should be able to examine that budget. We are now being told there may be a budget in the fall. But when is the fall? In Resolute Bay it is in August; are we going to get a budget in August? In Victoria, they do not have fall; they only have spring and summer. Ask anybody from Victoria about that.
We do not know when this budget will be brought in, Mr. Speaker. We have asked about it repeatedly but all we are told
is that there may be a budget in the fall. We asked for a commitment on a date, but we did not get one.


Mr. Kaplan:: When did you give the opposition a
commitment?


Frederick William Wright: No minister will give a commitment. All they will say is "maybe" or that they will try. Is it because they want to spend all the money first?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: How did you handle it?


Frederick William Wright: At the finance committee meeting the departmental staff went over some aspects of the borrowing by this government, and 1 should like to review them briefly. We were told that the public is prepared to accept up to $1.5 billion borrowing by the government at any one time. We were also told that they feel justified in coming to the market approximately eight times per year. That does not give them any leeway, Mr. Speaker. It adds up to $12 billion, a nice round figure.
Why is the Minister of Finance holding back? Is he afraid to bring in a budget at this time because revenues will drop? He told us that we will have zero growth this year, but some economists are predicting a 4 per cent decline in growth and we know what that will do to revenues. He has already said expenditures may be higher than he forecast. That is why he does not want to produce a budget and is saying "maybe" we will have one in the fall. Well, maybe we will not. Maybe the government will just spend the money and again ask for more borrowing power.
What is the government going to do with the money, Mr. Speaker? We cannot find out from them. The government has been accused of pork-barrelling. Is that where the money is going? Is it going on such things as shifting a uranium plant? Is it possible that it is going to pay the costs of moving offices to Charlottetown for Liberal supporters? It is possible it is going to pay the expenses for members of the government who are twinned with Alberta, to travel back and forth on government business? 1 do not know. The minister will not answer these questions. Maybe that is what it is for. We would be more than happy to see hon. members out there, but not on government business. They do not represent that area.
Is the Minister of Finance holding up the budget because there is no oil agreement with Alberta? He has alluded to that, but that is no reason. The problem lies not with the Minister of Finance in this case, but with the minister of energy. The minister of energy will not conclude an agreement. The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) talked about this problem, and he mentioned how Alberta has paid out or forgone large amounts of funds over the years.
I would like now to refer hon. members to another part of Canada in the early 1900s. I am speaking of the maritimes. At that time maritimers were well off. It is not just Alberta now. Back in the 1900s the maritimes had large amounts of hay which were exported. The maritimes also had coal and ships,

*July 10, 1980
I but they do not have those things any more. They did not allow I for the day when they would not have those assets. At the I present time the maritimes have a growing and important pulp I industry which will keep growing. But if we could take that I pulp industry and compress it into ten or fifteen years, 1 ask I what would those people want for their pulp? 1 can tell you I they would want a much higher price, and they would want to I put aside the funds so that they would have the funds when the I pulp was gone.
I Some of the hon. members across on the other side may I laugh, but there are many people in the maritimes who are not I laughing. When 1 lived in Inverness 20 years ago it had an unemployment rate of 25 per cent, and it still has 25 per cent unemployment. That is not speculation, that is a fact.
; When the minister of energy brought forth this force ma-jeure clause, he cut off all negotiations. Quite honestly, one does not negotiate like that. 1 suggest to the hon. members on the other side that they should speak to the minister of energy and tell him that this is no way to negotiate in good faith. People do not go around making rash statements or belittling people, whether they are individuals or governments. It is no way to deal as one Canadian to another, as one province to another, or as one government to another. Unfortunately this is what the minister has done. I do not mean to stand here and belittle him because I now live in Alberta. It is a fact of life that the only thing that was discussed during the last weekend I was in Alberta when the Calgary Stampede was on and we went to a number of receptions, was the oil and what type of a minister is negotiating on behalf of the people.
People do not want someone to come to them and say, "This is the way it is." I was in the room when Mr. Leitch, the Alberta minister of energy, received a phone call. 1 was sitting ten feet from him. He walked to the phone and came back within three minutes. Mr. Leitch is a man who does not anger, and he was red in the face. Everyone knows, and I believe even the minister of energy will tell you, that Mr. Leitch is a reasonable man. That is no way to negotiate the future of our country, Mr. Speaker.
1 would now iike to return to the subject of the total debt in Canada. It is unbelievable that we have something over $80 billion in total debt in this country. This represents $3,000 for every man, woman and child. 1 have asked the Minister of Finance what is a good or a reasonable amount of debt, and I have yet to receive an answer. I know the gentleman has more expertise in economics than I do. Therefore he should be able to say. 1 can guess. Every other member here can guess, but why will the Minister of Finance not at least say what is a reasonable amount? I know what our economists are saying. I know what the World Bank is saying and 1 know what the International Monetary Fund is saying, but what is the Minister of Finance saying? When he goes to Europe and talks to these people, they tell him what they think, but he does not come back and tell us anything. He has yet to reply to any of the questions in this regard.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) promised spending restraints in 1968. At least six times afterwards he has prom-
Borrowing Authority Act
ised the same spending restraints, and yet the total debt in Canada has risen from $500 million to over $80 billion. 1 ask where is the spending restraint? 1 am sure that there are many members on all sides of the House who recognize this danger. We are all concerned about it. We must start now to do something about it. We cannot put it off for our children to deal with it. We cannot put if off until other members come forth who are not afraid to act. We must act, because it is costing us too much. We cannot stand this burden. The governor of the Bank of Canada stated on May 29, 1980, at page 3:7 of the Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, the following:
Our greatest problem lies in recent economic history. When one looks back over the past 25 years it is clear that the basic trend has been toward higher inflation. This tendency predates current popular explanations of inflation like oil price shocks or beef cycles. There is little doubt that the key reason for this slide toward ever more inflation was an effort by public policy-
What he says next is the most important part. His sentence continues:
-in most countries to achieve and maintain more output and employment from their economies than was consistent with price stability.
Even the governor of the Bank of Canada is telling us that we have to have more restraint.
In the Bank of Canada's annual report Mr. Bouey says that if there is not a curb on public expenditures, capital investment on equipment and machinery sectors will be adversely affected. In other words, the large amount of borrowing which this government has done over a period of 12 years, and continues to do, could be affecting the economy and the expansion of industry.
We are reasonable on this side of the House. We believe the government needs some funds. But how much does it need? The Department of Finance has already stated that about $1 billion is being spent per month. The Minister of Finance has said that he may bring in a budget in the fall. Let us assume that that would be October, which is four months away. This House should approve $4 billion which is enough to get the government through October when a budget is presented and then we, as members, can all examine this budget. We will be even more reasonable than the hon. member, the minister of industry. We will up it by 50 per cent. We will not only suggest $4 billion, which is all that is needed-and the finance department admits that-but we will make it $6 billion, and in that way there will be a surplus. If we do not get the budget by October, you will have an extra couple of months. That is being reasonable. We Canadians cannot go on forever and have our children pay for today's expenditures. We must show restraint. 1 appeal to members on all sides of the House to show restraint so that our children will not say that our governments did not know how to run the country, that they just knew how to spend money.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-30 because, together with other members on this side, 1 am totally opposed to this blank cheque type of borrowing. We must realize what Bill C-30

July 10, 1980
Borrowing Authority Act
says. In paragraph (2) the minister is authorized to borrow money by the issue and sale or pledge of securities of Canada. That means the government is asking us to sign a blank cheque without knowing the type of securities they are going to give. Are they going to mortgage my home? Are they going to mortgage your home? Are they going to put our national parks up for sale? Are they going to sell our national resources? 1 would like to know that. They go on with "in such form, for such separate sums, as at such rates of interest" as they deem fit. I want to know what rate of interest they are going to pay. Are they going to pay 25 per cent, 50 per cent? Are they prepared to borrow at that rate? As an ordinary member of Parliament responsible for the purse strings, 1 should know that.
Elere's a kicker. They can enter into any other terms and conditions as the governor in council, that is the cabinet, may approve. I simply cannot give anyone, with my responsibility to my constituents, a blank cheque like that.
I subscribe totally to the views expressed by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). Members opposite should listen very carefully to that member because he did more for Canada as a country than their government has so far in total.
Members opposite might wonder why three Albertans rise this evening. It has to do with our unique history. Albertans learned through the depression what it means to have no money and no access to money from central Canada. We had to bleed. We cut and we bled. We know of what we are speaking.
I am convinced that the huge annual deficit of $14 billion, and the grotesque accumulated deficit of over $74 billion, are distorting all aspects of our Canadian life. Many people wonder how large a billion dollars is. To me, it is a thousand millionaires. When you look at the spending of our government at the national level, you find that we strip a thousand millionaires to their shorts every week with our budget. We strip a thousand millionaires to their shorts every month just for the deficit.
The annual deficit for 1980 will take the equivalent of every cent from 14,000 millionaires in this country. That is just the deficit. It does not pay for the ongoing budget of $60 billion. Members opposite, certainly the cabinet, would be wise to speak to Senator Manning of the other place if they want to find out how deeply we feel about balanced budgets in Alberta. They can speak to their own Senator Olson. He knows the western tradition. He will tell them what we learned about paying for things as you go. It means that future generations can have stability and a freedom to make decisions they might want to make in their time.
One might wonder why this deficit causes such distortion in our Canadian way of life. The first distortion is that the government has an unfair advantage over ordinary citizens and small businesses in particular when it comes to the marketplace. The reason is the government brings in bills like the one I just referred to whereby it can negotiate a loan at any rate, term or condition, and put up security that 1 as a businessman
cannot and therefore have no chance of meeting that type of competition.
The other distortion that is absolutely major in this country is the distortion over energy. What we need in this country and should have by 1990 is about ten tar sands projects on stream. The cost of that would be something like $80 billion to $100 billion. We do not have that money. 1 want to explain why.
With regard to the oil situation, we have three sources. We have the light conventional crude that is left in Alberta, which is relatively easy and cheap to produce. We are producing about 1.2 million barrels per day and have about ten years' supply left. We have synthetic which again comes largely from Alberta. There is an unlimited amount of that in terms of reserves. However, production costs places this at the going world price at this point. Then we have the third supply, imported oil. We import about 450,000 barrels a day at the world price. Of one thing we can be absolutely certain. Within ten years Canadians will be paying the world price. When the light conventional crude from Alberta is gone, we pay the world price. We might be importing every barrel from another nation or we might be producing it from the tar sands, but we will be paying the world price.
This is where the tragedy occurs. We need to have the money from that 10 billion barrels of light conventional crude in order to fund the synthetic oils. With our accumulated deficit, we do not have $100 billion to put in the tar sands plants, so we need that money. To this point Alberta has already forgone about $17 billion. Where has that money gone? Has it gone into tar sands plants? Absolutely not.
Has the money gone into making central Canadian manufacturing plants more competitive? Do we meet world competition with that subsidy? The fact is we do not. Even if we did, we could say it was justified because central Canada could compete in the world, but it does not. We still need to have tariff protection for central Canada. That tariff protection impacts directly on us in the west because it means we have to pay more for all the products we get. That is the tragedy.
We in the west also have a belief that we own those resources. That belief might seem strange to members opposite, but they just need to read the constitution of the nation. I will read parts of section 109:
All lands, mines, minerals, and royalties belonging to the several provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick at the Union, . . . shall belong to the several provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick in which the same are situate or arise-
In 1930, by an amendment to the British North America Act, 21 George V, chapter 26 Statutes of the United Kingdom, the same rights were extended to Alberta and Saskatchewan. We feel we own those resources just as Ontario and Quebec own theirs.
Another distortion that we face is the interest that we in this country pay on the national debt. As a result of the $74 billion we face the prospect this year of paying 25 cents or 25 per cent of every dollar in taxes in order to cover the interest on the debt. It will not reduce the principal by one cent. If we want to reduce the principal, we should probably be applying 50 cents
July 10, 1980

of every tax dollar. The government's hands are tied as a result of that so that they cannot respond to the real hardship. Now that we have real hardship in the automotive industry, now that our Saskatchewan and Manitoba farmers are hurt by the drought-


John Horton McDermid: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if you would call the government side to order and ask them to hold their committee meetings out in the lobby rather than in the House. We would like to hear the hon. member who has the floor.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was pointing out how much money we spend on simply servicing the debt without reducing the principal. What that has done is to tie the government's hands at a time when there is a legitimate need for government to be involved. There is no doubt that the auto workers are hurting badly and that we should be in there helping them. There is no doubt that the farmers in Manitoba and Saskatchewan are hurting because of a catastrophe which could well be as bad as the depression of the 1930s. They need help. Agrobusiness is something I am more familiar with, and I know they need help.
The Trudeau years, the late sixties and seventies, were good time for Canada vis-a-vis other countries in the world. It was a time when we should have been balancing our budgets so that now, as the result of the OPEC distortion and all of that work through in the world economy, when we need to borrow money to help people, we would have balanced budgets so that we could go into debt legitimately and work our way through it. That is the way the system should work, and I believe that if there were a degree of honesty on the other side, even of common sense, that would be an irrefutable truth that they would agree to. I am convinced that as citizens each and every one of us, irrespective of the party to which we belonged, that we in the upcoming constitutional negotiations ought to protect ourselves from government. We have to protect ourselves as they did in the French revolution, as they did in the American revolution or at the time of Magna Carta, and what we should be insisting in our constitution is that a federal government, or any government, cannot have a deficit except in very restricted circumstances.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Blaine Allen Thacker: One could agree in time of war. One could agree in times of real depression. And we would agree that in times of natural disaster the government should be able to go into debt, and perhaps even for capital projects which would be used by future generations. But for us to have gotten this far into debt, $74 billion-25 per cent of our tax dollars going to service the debt without reducing the principal-an annual deficit of $14 billion piling up-


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: Repetition!
Borrowing Authority Act


An hon. Member:: You have to say it many times to get it over.


Mr. Harquail:: You said you wanted order. Why don't you keep quiet? Get back to your seat so that we can listen to this man.


Blaine Allen Thacker: We are obviously getting close to adjournment. But I was going on to say that for capital projects I would have no hesitation at all in going back to my constituents and saying, "Folks, I want to borrow this money because it is going to be used for capital projects; it can be paid for by future generations.'' But today, we are saddling our children and our grandchildren with a dept which will give them no benefit. To that extent we should all be able to agree.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) spoke in Winnipeg of economic rights which should be enshrined in our constitution.
There is another distortion, Mr. Speaker. I believe these deficits are distorting the very fabric of our nation and the relationship between those who live in the west and those who live in the middle and those in the east. It is being distorted for no valid reason. The other cause for concern is high interest rates. People phone and write to me almost daily asking why they are so high and have to be so high. The reason is simply that Canada as a nation has a huge international debt. The debt has fallen due and we cannot pay off the note. We have to go hat in hand to the international money market and say; "Gentlemen, we cannot pay the principal; will you renegotiate it, will you relend it?" They say, "Gladly, gentlemen, because in Canada you have resources coming out of your ears; but the rate will be high." One of the members opposite was arguing that all countries have high deficits. But that does not make it right for this nation, Sir. We could have been the unprecedented leader had we stuck with balanced budgets over the last ten years. We could have been out of trouble because the hard truism is that if you do not owe the money you do not have to pay the interest. That is the lesson we know in the west.
Another distortion we continue to come back to arises because 1 am sure members opposite do not realize the great depth of feeling in the west over this energy situation. It goes back to our perceived feelings of ownership as set out in section 109. Ontario established that in the Supreme Court of Canada. Asbestos from Quebec, nickel from Ontario, hydroelectric from both the major provinces-all those things were sacrosanct even during the thirties when we were hurting badly. They were sacrosanct and we continued to pay world prices for those products. Now, suddenly, for the constitution to be ignored-seemingly we are to be under a different scheme-just does not sit well in the west. This is a very serious matter to which I urge members opposite to pay very close attention.
We in the west vote monolithically. We do not have that tradition of long-time Conservative, long-time Liberal adherence. It was the west that threw up the UFA in 1921, en bloc. We threw up the Progressives. We threw up the Social Credit in 1935, en bloc. We put in Peter Lougheed and his Conservatives in 1971 en masse. And, just like that, the west on this

July 10, 1980
Borrowing Authority Act
energy question could crystallize around this Western Separatist Party. I do not mean to be an alarmist. 1 just mean to say to you, Mr. Speaker, as a member who has come down here to try to do my best for my constituents, that they feel very strongly about that.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Blaine Allen Thacker: Sir, can you imagine what might have been during the last ten years if we had had a government that faced reality? Governments should throw up proposals that they believe the people need and, coincident with those proposals, there should be a taxing plan so that the people can assess the programs, assess the tax, and decide whether they want the programs. If they do not want the programs they do not get faced with the taxes. If that had happened I think the people would still have chosen medicare, they would still have chosen to have a Canada Assistance Plan. But they would have been prepared to pay for it as it grew, and we could have had reasonable tax increasses over the last few years which would not have hurt us much as individuals and we would not be saddled today with this huge deficit. Governments learn by unscrupulous ways to raise money from the prairie people to whom they are proposing the programs, but not a corresponding tax. So these people are really paying for the program, but they do not realize it. What is unfair is that only certain people are paying for the program.
The Government of Canada owes approximately $16 billion of its deficit to the Canadian people and institutions by way of Canada Saving Bonds. We owe approximately $18 billion as a deficit by way of treasury bills, and I think we owe about $47 billion to the general public. That is money that is owing to the Canadian people. If it cannot be paid, what is the alternative of the government? I presume its alternative is to have to cancel the debt so that the people of Canada or some of the people of Canada are going to pay, and it is going to have to be by expropriation.
When OPEC increased its prices, had the government levelled with the people of Canada and increased those prices on a reasonable basis as did Japan and Germany-and they still have the strongest economies in the world-we could be right up there as a world leader. We would not be 23 million people sitting on the assets of half a continent and yet going to the international community with our hat in our hand for 450,000 barrels of oil a day. It is absolutely immoral that we as Canadian people are into the international oil market when countries without a drop of oil such as Japan and Germany surely have a prior claim. The developing countries of the world have a prior claim. We should not be where we are in terms of having to import oil. We should be a leader in that respect.
I could speak for a great deal of time, but I want to give other hon. members a chance, and I want to make a plea, mostly to hon. members opposite, that they think very carefully before they make any precipitous moves in the energy field
because the depth of feeling in the west is tremendously deep and solid on that issue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William James Kempling: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.

Lloyd Axworthy: that Bill C-3, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Lloyd Axworthy: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow).


Eymard G. Corbin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria.


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, when you put the question, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) was not in the House and the government members passed the motion. I do not see how the hon. member for Winnipeg North can be recognized since he was not even in this House when the question was put.
July 10, 1980


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: When the question was put, I hesitated to see if there was consent when I asked if it was the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion and it was indicated to me that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre wanted the floor. So I recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Winnipeg North.
[English |


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, members of my party want to reiterate the views we expressed at second reading stage. We oppose this bill because it continues the policy adopted some years ago by Liberal governments and continued by succeeding Liberal governments and by the short-lived-thank goodness-Conservative government of last year and by the present Liberal government, of trying to fool the public that the costs of unemployment insurance are smaller than they are and that the costs of unemployment are much smaller than they are. They have done that and propose to continue to do that with this bill by shifting the responsibility for paying for unemployment insurance benefits to those who are unemployed through the premiums paid for by both employers and employees, rather than paying for the cost of unemployment by the government as has been the case for many years.
When this country first adopted a system of unemployment insurance premiums to be used to pay benefits to those who were unemployed, it was never believed that we would have the rate of unemployment we have at the present time. In the 1940s when the act was first brought into being, we were in a war and we had virtually no unemployment. We had very little unemployment and certainly very little long-term unemployment in most areas of the country through the 1950s and 1960s.
In the 1940s and 1950s Liberal governments said that they believed in full employment and that unemployment would be a very small factor in this country, but they gave up that belief in practice because they refused to face up to the necessity of governments playing an active role, planning, and insisting that our economy work to provide jobs for every Canadian who wants to work.
Not so many years ago the Economic Council calculated that we would have full employment in this country when the percentage of the working force which was unemployed was not more than 3 per cent. That was in the 1960s. It is now substantially more than double that figure. By 1979 the Economic Council in its publication "Two cheers for the Eighties" set the equilibrium unemployment rate at 6 per cent. In economic terms this is the rate of unemployment which can be maintained without creating inflationary pressure in the labour market. In 1977 the Ontario Conservative government called the full employment norm a rate of 5.2 per cent unemployment. From the point of view of policy-making these
Unemployment Insurance Act
rates are enormously important inasmuch as government uses them as targets. These rates in effect determine the degree of government commitment to policies which encourage the growth of employment.
It is obvious now that since the Liberals are eliminating the vested interest they had in maintaining low levels of unemployment, this government has simply thrown up its hands. Back in 1971 when the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) was minister of employment, he brought in major amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act in which the target for unemployment was set at 4 per cent. In the legislation we passed in 1971 the hon. member was proud-although he does not talk about it now-of the fact that the premiums paid by employers and employees would pay for the benefits of all the unemployed as long as unemployment was not more than 4 per cent. If the rate went over 4 per cent, the then minister said that the country would pay for unemployment insurance benefits out of general revenue. The minister said at the time that he was proud of it, that it was the reason governments would try very hard to implement policies to maintain the rate of unemployment at less than 4 per cent.
We have since had a whole series of amendments to that legislation, each of which has had a very simple purpose. It was to move the cost of unemployment insurance benefits from the Government of Canada, from the general revenues of Canada, to the premium payers.
In 1971 when the act had its major revision, the unemployment rate was forecast at 4 per cent throughout the decade. Benefit costs up to 4 per cent were to be paid from premiums. As I said, the government would pay for premiums above that level in recognition of its responsibility to ensure adequate employment. In 1975 we had another bill which set out the rate at which government contributions helped to pay initial benefits from 4 per cent up. It was changed to an eight-year moving average rate of unemployment. As the rate has gone up more than twice the 4 per cent, under that provision the premiums go up and the contribution which the government makes out of general revenues is reduced.
In 1977 there was another bill which eliminated two extended benefit phases for which the government, not the premium payers, was previously responsible. In 1978 when Bill C-14 was passed, the Liberals claimed that the measure would save $580 million. In fact the savings were a fraction of that, $180 million. The other $400 million was merely a transfer of cost from the federal account to the premium account. From the early seventies onward when the government's contribution to unemployment insurance benefit pay-outs was 53 per cent, the government share declined to 38 per cent after the 1977 amendments and to something well below that after the 1978 amendments. The intent of this legislation is to reduce it to less than 20 per cent. The department projects that the total unemployment insurance program costs for 1981-82 will be $5.2 billion. The government contributions are projected at $951 million.
2784

July 10, 1980
Unemployment Insurance Act
When the minister introduced this bill, he said that it would mean the Government of Canada will save $378 million in direct government expenditures. Also he indicated that it was a saving which members of the House would recognize as very important at a time of very severe restraints on government funds available for other programs. The minister was trying to fool the public. Proof for that can be found in a very interesting editorial which appeared a few days ago in the Financial Times. Certainly it is not a very radical publication which can be as accused of being overly sympathetic to ordinary working people. This journal is read by people in the business community. An editorial entitled "Shifting the Jobless Burden Is Wrong" appeared in the July 7, 1980, edition of the Financial Times, which reads in part as follows:
The House of Commons has been debating a bill which will charge almost the entire cost of the unemployment insurance system to the payroll tax on employers and employees.
The bill will be passed, supported as it is by the Tories as well as the Liberals.
But it is bad legislation, wrong in principle and practice. It is based on illusion and will result in fiscal trickery.
I hope the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) is listening.


Mr. Evans:: 1 am.


David Orlikow: It continued:
It violates the principle that the cost of government should be borne according to ability to pay. And it imposes new barriers to the hiring of the unemployed at a time when unemployment is growing.
It went on to indicate that in fact the premiums were a different form of taxation. It continued:
Taxes are justified, of course, to pay for welfare schemes as well as other government expenditures. Most of the recipients of unemployment insurance payments are in genuine need. But Parliament should take a closer took at this particular tax before making it the main source of funds for a $5 billion welfare scheme.
It is regressive. Working Canadians earning less pay a higher proportion of their income than those earning more. It has no exemption or deduction, no allowance for wage earners trying to support families. It is a flat rate charge on wages up to $290 a week in 1980. The employer pays 1.89 per cent of this amount, the employee, 1.35 per cent.
It continued:
There are two main principles of taxation-ability to pay and benefit received. The unemployment insurance tax corresponds to neither, so every increase in the rate increases the inequity of the tax system. And it works against economic growth just as much as-or more than any other tax hike.
It is also a piece of fiscal trickery.
It goes on to point out that the argument of the minister that this bill will save government money is nonsense. The government is simply shifting the cost from the general taxpayer to the payroll taxpayer.
Our main reason for objecting to this bill is that we believe the rate of unemployment we have, and the large amounts of money we are spending for unemployment insurance benefits, are completely inexcusable. It is incomprehensible to us that we will be paying hundreds of thousands of people who are willing and able to work, to use our raw materials, and our machinery to produce goods and services which we need-it is
incomprehensible that we should pay them well to sit at home doing nothing.
Rather than spending $5 billion for unemployment insurance benefits, we believe we should have from the government plans and programs to put people back to work. Instead of job-creating programs, instead of spending more money and effort on programs to create jobs to put people back to work, the government has cut back on the job-creation programs. This year we are spending less money on job-creation programs than we spent last year. This is at a time when almost every day from every part of Canada there are announcements of plants being shut down, of lay-offs and more people being unemployed.
In 1980 we are not any longer talking about unemployment in the slow growth areas of Canada. We are not talking about unemployment in Newfoundland and the Atlantic provinces which traditionally have had high rates of unemployment. We are not talking about unemployment in the Interlake area of Manitoba which has always had a large number of unemployed. We are talking about unemployment in industrial cities of Ontario among people who have worked for ten, 15 and 20 years and today are being laid off by the hundreds of thousands every week.
These are the reasons we oppose this bill and we want the government to bring forward programs to put people back to work, rather than bringing forth legislation and programs to pay people to sit at home doing nothing. We believe that can be done. Our party has adopted as a fundamental principle the idea that we can have full employment in Canada.
May 1 call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, on May 2 I
put a question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) concerning direct job-training programs and employment programs of the federal government. You will recall that a little over a year ago when the minister was a Conservative minister for employment in Canada, all direct employment programs were cut back in the Ontario region. Consequently, throughout northern Ontario, these programs which have been very important for seasonally unemployed, to native employment, particularly in periods when the forest products industry was in a slow growth period and so on, there
July 10, 1980

were literally thousands of people on unemployment insurance and welfare.
In my own constituency of Algoma during the last four or five years we have experienced something like 400 to 500 people employed in programs of Canada Works and the Local Initiatives Program. I am concerned that similar large numbers will be seeking employment this coming winter with the slowdown in the economy in the United States and resulting lay-offs in the forest products industry and veneer mills, sawmills, and even in some of the steel mills where there are lay-offs or threats of lay-offs, as well as the general unemployment we experience through seasonal factors with low construction activity during winter months in areas like the north shore of Lake Huron, Manitoulin Island, the north of the Sault area and so on.
I am pleased the minister responded positively indicating there would be an announcement of a program. Since then a program was announced, but that was all-just the announcement of a new program called the Canada Community Development program. 1 am pleased the minister is reinstating the program. However, I think it is important to know exactly when that program and details will be announced, along with the criteria and the types of projects that will be funded. We should know when the application forms will be available and when the projects will get under way.
I think it is very undesirable to start these projects in November and December often in communities which are building facilities, and I felt the Canada Works program up until last year had solved most of these problems. In fact they were dealing with applications in the spring months, having them adjudicated or reviewed by departmental officials and ministerial advisory boards during the month of July, with the projects getting under way on the first of September, right after Labour Day, when we usually see unemployment starting to cut in seasonally. As a result, projects which were of a construction nature were able to be started, putting footings in and frames up, before the arrival of winter weather, and often completed before the winter months.
It is terribly important that the department move ahead with this on a rapid basis, allowing communities and non-profit organizational groups to know what are the criteria, when the applications and forms will be available, in order to see these projects under way in the early fall months rather than November and December when seasonal difficulties, with the cold and the weather, are already upon us. Certainly in my own constituency there has been a tremendous number of worth-while projects, including community wharves and marinas that have been constructed in places like Gore Bay, Little Current, Blind River, Thessalon and Bruce Mines.
There are a number of communities waiting to complete or go on with projects of this nature. Other communities have built firehalls and medical centres. Perhaps one of the most important and most critical such projects is native housing. We have been waiting now for several months for the Minister of
Adjournment Debate
Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) to announce the new native housing programs which are grossly underfunded with something like a capital allowance of $12,000 per unit. That is completely unsatisfactory.
If we could have a clear outline of how this Canada Community Development Program will work from the parliamentary secretary, it would let these community groups get on with the planning and allow this program to move forward. Really, it is getting very late for projects to be approved, adjudicated, and funded for the early fall months.


Mr. Robert Daudlin (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sincerely happy that the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) chose to be here this evening to bring up his question, unlike other members who were supposed to be here and for whom answers were prepared but who do not seem to be present.
In any event, with respect to the interesting question raised by the hon. member for Algoma, the minister announced in the House on June 2, 1980, that direct job-creation programs will indeed be reinstated, particularly for high unemployment areas. In addition, the minister announced other initiatives which will create job and training opportunities for over 81,000 Canadians. This includes those Canadians who will be employed under the Employment Tax Credit program, which is presently under consideration in the other place.
The intent to respond to the unemployment situation, as outlined in the throne speech, has been acted upon quickly. The announcement of June 2 has introduced a series of measures, totalling $137 million for this fiscal year, to respond to the critical and immediate employment problems faced by Canadians.
More than $100 million will be used this winter and next year for Canada Community Development Projects across the country, with particular emphasis on areas of high unemployment. Local organizations will be eligible to sponsor projects that are supportive of established priorities, such as fisheries enhancement, energy conservation and tourism development. There will be a basic allocation to each federal constituency for this program, as well as an additional allocation based on the labour surplus rate in the constituency.
I wish to assure the members of this House that the Canada Community Development Projects will be available in all provinces and territories. They will not be restricted to particular regions. Program information and application forms will be made available to the public on July 28, 1980. The application deadline will be September 29, 1980, and projects may start after November 15, 1980, but no later than February 2, 1981.
The Canada Community Development Projects Program is expected to result in about 15,500 jobs for an estimated 19,400 participants. In addition to the Canada Community Development Projects, other new programs include the Canada Community Services Projects, which will provide voluntary organizations with funding scaled over a two-year period to meet pressing social needs. There is also the New Technology Employment program which will stimulate the development

July 10, 198(
Adjournment Debate
and application of new technology by providing wage subsidies to firms and research institutes which hire recent post-secondary graduates who are unemployed or underemployed. Then there is the Local Economic Development Assistance program, LEDA, designed to assist selected communities experiencing high levels of unemployment to stimulate private sector employment through economic development.
These job-creation initiatives are in addition to a number of training program increments and reflect the commitment of
this government to expanded and productive direct job creation across the country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until! tomorrow at 11 a.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.10 p.m.

uly 10, 1980


APPENDIX
[Stage Direction]
(See p. 2747)
July 10, 1980

[Stage Direction]
Communications			Mr. J. Roberts Mr. J.-J. Blais
[Stage Direction]
Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. S. Fleming
[Stage Direction]
Mr. F. Fox
[Stage Direction]
Vice-Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J.-J. Blais
[Stage Direction]
Mr. P. De Bane Mr. E. Lumley
[Stage Direction]
Members
[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. J. MacEachen
[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. Johnston
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. Chretien Sen. H. A. Olson Mr. A. Ouellet Sen. R. J. Perrault
[Stage Direction]
Government Operations
[Stage Direction]
Mr. L. Axworthy
[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. LeBlanc
[Stage Direction]
Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Y. Pinard
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Y. Pinard Miss J. Erola
[Stage Direction]
Vice-Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Mr. F. Fox
[Stage Direction]
Members
[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. J. MacEachen
[Stage Direction]
Economic Development
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J.-L. Pepin Mr. A. Ouellet
[Stage Direction]
Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Sen. H. A. Olson
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J.-J. Blais
[Stage Direction]
Vice-Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M. Lalonde
[Stage Direction]
Sen. H. R. Argue Mr. W. Rompkey
[Stage Direction]
Members
[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. J. MacEachen
[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. Johnston
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J.-L. Pepin Mr. J. C. Munro
[Stage Direction]
Mr. P. Cosgrove
[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. E. Gray Mr. E. F. Whelan
[Stage Direction]
Labour Relations
[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. Ouellet
[Stage Direction]
Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. Regan
[Stage Direction]
Sen. R. J. Perrault Mr. R. LeBlanc
[Stage Direction]
Vice-Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. Ouellet
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. Roberts
[Stage Direction]
Members
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J.-L. Pepin
[Stage Direction]
Mr. P. De Bane
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. Chretien
[Stage Direction]
Sen. H. R. Argue
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. C. Munro
[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. Regan
[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. E. Gray
[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. Rompkey
[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. LeBlanc
[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. Lapointe
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J.-J. Blais
[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. Johnston
[Stage Direction]
Sen. H. R. Argue
[Stage Direction]
Mr. L. Axworthy
[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. Lapointe Mr. D. Johnston
[Stage Direction]
Foreign and Defence Policy
[Stage Direction]
Mr. P. Cosgrove
[Stage Direction]
Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M. MacGuigan
[Stage Direction]
Legislation and House Planning
[Stage Direction]
Vice-Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. Lamontagne
[Stage Direction]
Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Y. Pinard
[Stage Direction]
Members
[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. J. MacEachen Mr. J.-L. Pepin
[Stage Direction]
Vice-Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. Chretien
[Stage Direction]
Mr. E. F. Whelan
[Stage Direction]
Members
[Stage Direction]
Sen. H. A. Olson
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M. Lalonde
[Stage Direction]
Mr. E. F. Whelan
[Stage Direction]
Sen. R. J. Perrault
[Stage Direction]
Miss M. Begin
[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. LeBlanc
[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. Lamontagne
[Stage Direction]
July 10, 198C
Legislation and House Planning-(Concluded)			Mr. F. Fox
	Mr. R. P. Kaplan		Mr. G. Regan Mr. R. P. Kaplan
	Mr. P. Bussieres		Mr. D. Johnston
	Miss J. Erola		Mr. L. Axworthy
Priorities and Planning			Mr. P. Cosgrove
[Stage Direction]
Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Mr. P. E. Trudeau
[Stage Direction]
Special Committee of Council
[Stage Direction]
Vice-Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. J. MacEachen
[Stage Direction]
Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Y. Pinard
[Stage Direction]
Members
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. Chretien Sen. H. A. Olson
[Stage Direction]
Vice-Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Sen. R. J. Perrault
[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. E. Gray
[Stage Direction]
Members
[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. J. MacDonald
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M. Lalonde
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. Roberts
[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. LeBlanc
[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. P. Kaplan
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M. MacGuigan
[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. Rompkey
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. S. Fleming
[Stage Direction]
Mr. P. Bussieres
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Y. Pinard
[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. Lapointe
[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. Johnston
[Stage Direction]
Mr. P. Cosgrove
[Stage Direction]
Mr. L. Axworthy
[Stage Direction]
Miss J. Erola
[Stage Direction]
Public Service
[Stage Direction]
Treasury Board
[Stage Direction]
Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Mr. P. E. Trudeau
[Stage Direction]
Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. Johnston
[Stage Direction]
Vice-Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. J. MacEachen
[Stage Direction]
Vice-Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. J. MacEachen
[Stage Direction]
Members
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J.-L. Pepin
[Stage Direction]
Members
[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. Ouellet
[Stage Direction]
Mr. F. Fox
[Stage Direction]
Sen. FI. R. Argue
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Y. Pinard
[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. Rompkey
[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. Johnston
[Stage Direction]
Alternates
[Stage Direction]
Mr. E. Lumley Mr. J.-J. Blais (1st Alternate)
[Stage Direction]
Security and Intelligence
[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. Regan
[Stage Direction]
Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Mr. P. E. Trudeau
[Stage Direction]
Mr. P. Cosgrove Mr. D. J. MacDonald
[Stage Direction]
Vice-Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. Chretien
[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. Lapointe
[Stage Direction]
Members
[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. J. MacEachen Sen. R. J. Perrault Mr. G. Lamontagne
[Stage Direction]
Western Affairs
[Stage Direction]
Mr. P. De Bane
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M. MacGuigan Mr. R. P. Kaplan
[Stage Direction]
Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Mr. L. Axworthy
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Y. Pinard
[Stage Direction]
Members
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J.-L. Pepin Mr. J. C. Munro
[Stage Direction]
Social Development
[Stage Direction]
Sen. H. A. Olson
[Stage Direction]
Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. Chretien
[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. E. Gray Mr. E. F. Whelan
[Stage Direction]
Vice-Chairmen
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. C. Munro Mr. J. S. Fleming
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M. Lalonde Sen. R. J. Perrault Mr. R. LeBlanc
[Stage Direction]
Members
[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. J. MacEachen
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. Roberts
[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. J. MacDonald
[Stage Direction]
Mr. P. De Bane
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. Roberts
[Stage Direction]
Sen. H. R. Argue
[Stage Direction]
Miss M. Begin
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. S. Fleming
[Stage Direction]
Friday, July 11, 1980