1980-11-03

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
ing adequate representation from, or maintaining effective communication with, the people of Peterborough.
['No.']
Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



[Stage Direction]
* *
*

Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Whereas the government of the province of Alberta has offered to loan funds to pave the Mackenzie highway from the Alberta border to the port of Hay River in the Northwest Territories, and whereas the federal government has neither responded to this offer nor is prepared to undertake this badly needed project itself, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I move, seconded by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields):
That the Government of Canada put narrow partisan considerations aside and work co-operatively with the governments of Alberta and the Northwest Territories in order to expedite the early paving of the Mackenzie highway.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the port of Churchill is an economic benefit to many farmers who wish to ship their grain through Churchill and that under the existing disastrous mismanagement only 300,000 tonnes were shipped through Churchill this year, and since the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) has refused to set up a separate committee to study the improved use of Churchill for shipment of grains and other products, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Lewycky):
That this House instruct the Minister of Transport to establish immediately a committee that will make recommendations to improve grain transportation through Churchill for next year, and that this same committee will be asked to make recommendations for the expanded use of the port in the future.


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


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. It is my understanding that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) has an obligation to be more than a rubber stamp to FIRA recommendations to cabinet. In view of 300 jobs being lost at the Canadian General Electric plant in Peterborough as a result of the minister's approval of a FIRA decision, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer):
That the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce reaffirm his government's pledge in the Speech from the Throne that "amendments will be introduced to ensure that major acquisition proposals by foreign companies will be publicized prior to a government decision on their acceptability", and that this government be censured for approving this CGE transaction without allow-


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CALL FOR RESUMPTION OF NEGOTIATIONS WITH PRODUCING PROVINCES-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister's self-proclaimed expertise on western separatist sentiment has recently been put to lie by a poll published Saturday showing one in four Albertans wanting to separate from Canada, and in order to establish fairer treatment for Canada west, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn):

November 3, 1980
That the Prime Minister renew energy negotiations not only with Alberta but also with other energy exporting provinces, such as British Columbia, before western alienation increases to a similar pitch in the other three provinces of the west.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EQUAL RIGHTS-CALL FOR ACTION ON GOVERNMENT COMMITMENTS-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquit-lam (Miss Jewett), I move:
That this House takes note of repeated commitments to equal rights for women, and therefore calls on the government to act on these commitments in terms of job opportunities and equal pay for work of equal value, as well as in providing pension coverage on a universal basis, equivalent to the Canada Pension Plan, for women who work in their homes, and also by eliminating forthwith the discrimination against women between 60 and 65 who are without spouses, it being the view of this House that all women in that age bracket should be entitled to the equivalent of the spouse's allowance, regardless of marital status.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas many small businesses in northeast Alberta face not only economic hardship but bankruptcy as a result of delays in oil sands and heavy oil projects going ahead in the area, caused directly by the failure of the Liberal government to reach an energy pricing agreement with Alberta, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That this House direct the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to implement immediately a loans guarantee program to small business in that area as he has to larger businesses elsewhere in Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FOOD AND DRUGS ACT
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, because of the importance of this matter for the future of many young Canadians I have some grounds for hope that this House will give unanimous consent to my urgent and pressing motion under Standing Order 43.
Because of the damage to mental and physical health caused by the ingestion of the hallucinogenic so-called "magic mushrooms" now coming to maturity and being harvested in large quantities on Vancouver Island and in the Fraser Valley, and in view of the legal difficulties confronting the police and farm owners to control the situation because these hallucinogens are not considered prohibited items under the Food and Drugs Act, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman):
That the Minister of National Health and Welfare be required to indicate on motions when she plans to bring forward a measure to have these fungi included in the list of natural products whose possession is unlawful under the Food and Drugs Act.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the authority of Standing Order 43. Whereas section 101 of the Criminal Code of Canada allows a police officer to search a person's home without a warrant and to seize any firearm when no crime has been committed and no charge has been laid, whereas a judge has ruled that this section is ultra vires and that the implications of this section are "frightening", and whereas such searches and seizures are contrary to the Canadian Bill of Rights, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That the gun laws of Canada be referred for review and amendments to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs at the earliest possible time.
November 3, 1980


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


METRIC CONVERSION
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter which is both pressing and urgent. As reported in Hansard for May 22 at page 1305, the Metric Commission has already spent over $25 million promoting the metric methodology, and $27 million more have been earmarked for the next three fiscal years. However, given that there has been a decision made to follow the Tory lead and to delay imposing metric conversion on the retail food sector for at least another year, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm):
That this House urge the government to abolish the Metric Commission until a firm decision is taken on the viability of metric at the retail level, thereby saving the poor Canadian taxpayer further financial and emotional grief.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to underline the very serious rift which has been allowed to develop in the relationship between the federal government and Alberta. In energy matters the present minister has the same effect as a flame thrower in an ammunition dump. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer):
That the Prime Minister remove this person from the sensitive energy portfolio and replace him with one who is conciliatory and who has a proven track record in getting along with people in negotiations, such as any member of the gang of five: Mackasey, Reid, Cullen, Buchanan or Allmand.


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 THE CONSTITUTION


CHARTER OF RIGHTS-PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST DISABLED AND HANDICAPPED-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the special committee on the disabled and handicapped has recommended in its interim report that any charter of rights include provisions to prohibit discrimination against the disabled and the handicapped, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Kam-loops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis):
That the Minister of Justice be instructed to bring forward amendments to the proposed charter of rights to include the disabled and to prohibit discrimination against the disabled and the handicapped in all areas, not just in the area of employment.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the government House leader. He will know that last Friday, in response to a question posed by my colleague, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, the minister's parliamentary secretary indicated that a call had been received by the minister last week from the Lord Privy Seal of the government of Great Britain. I wonder if the minister can confirm that such a call was received and that it was from the Lord Privy Seal. Can he also tell us the date on which that call was received and the conversation occurred?


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I received a phone call last Monday between eleven o'clock and 12.30 or so from the government House leader in London. I looked at the answer given by my parliamentary secretary to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands last Friday afternoon and I found the answer to be accurate.


Charles Joseph Clark: Well, it was accurate, except that the parliamentary secretary and the minister were speaking of the wrong minister in Great Britain. As the government House leader now knows, it was not the Lord Privy Seal, who is Sir Ian Gilmour. However, I am sure they will get it straight as to which was the minister in Great Britain to whom he spoke.
Let me ask the government House leader if he can tell the House of Commons both the purpose of the call from his

November 3, 1980
Oral Questions
opposite number in Great Britain and the information that was conveyed by his opposite number in Great Britain to the government House leader.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the British House leader inquired about parliamentary procedure and the progress made by the constitutional question in this House. I gave him a factual report. Such was the nature of my conversation with my British counterpart.


Charles Joseph Clark: Did the representative of the British government, who obviously had some reason for initiating that call, indicate that there was any change in the attitude of the British government toward receiving recommendations of the Canadian House of Commons in Great Britain, and did he suggest that there might be some difficulty on the British side in receiving a recommendation which, while it was approved by a majority in Parliament, was nonetheless the subject of controversy in this country?
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, 1 can confirm to my colleague opposite that as a result of my conversation with the Right Hon. Norman St. John-Stevas, I was pleased to note that nothing justified a change in our policy, in our attitude or in our constitutional action here in Canada. Indeed, I have found no difference at all, except for a five or six hour time difference during our conversation.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and simply ask him if, at the time when he replied to my question last Thursday in this House, he was fully and in detail aware of the conversation between his House leader and the House leader of the British government?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I was so aware.


PATRIATION-INQUIRY RESPECTING QUICK PASSAGE BY UNITED KINGDOM PARLIAMENT
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the government House leader. The government and the House leader have asserted that quick passage of any Canadian request to the British parliament would take place. Does the government still hold that view in light of the statements now made by Norman St. John-Stevas, the government leader in the British House of Commons, when he was quoted as saying: "We want an address agreed in Canada." Does the government still hold to its original view?
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, if my counterpart said what the hon.
member claims he has said, I am unaware of it, and it is certainly not what he told me during our telephone conversation. The allegation made by my colleague opposite and my conversation with Sir St. John-Stevas are completely and clearly contradictory.


PATRIATION-POSITION OF UNITED KINGDOM GOVERNMENT
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. It is based on the statement made by the Minister of Transport when participating in the debate to set up a joint committee to study the constitutional proposals that the result of following convention has been that we have not been able to patriate the constitution over the last 53 years, as the Prime Minister is so fond of saying.
In view of the fact his minister said that it was time now to end convention in Canada and to patriate without general agreement, does the Prime Minister hold the view that the British, on the other hand, once receiving the joint address, should still follow convention?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I would not want to comment upon the excellent speech made by the minister. It seems to me the question can be answered without reference to the speech. I think the natural thing to do would be for the British government and parliament not to meddle in any way in Canadian internal affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FINANCE
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
Several months ago, the minister stated that the spectacular rise in interest rates was a temporary phenomenon. As this temporary phenomenon has turned into a permanent one, does the minister intend to intervene on behalf of less fortunate small business, farmers and home owners who are more hard pressed than others by interest rates which have now reached 16 per cent, 17 per cent and even 18 per cent?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member realizes-


Stanley Howard Knowles: En frangais!
November 3, 1980


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -this year interest rates have had three major swings. The first was a very rapid increase, then a rapid decrease and a further rapid increase. As was mentioned before the committee by the governor of the Bank of Canada, all these changes have to do with the expectations which exist in the market with respect to the onrush of inflation.


Mr. Fraser:: Can you explain that to Herb Gray?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As 1 said on Friday in reply to a question from the official opposition, at the present time there is no intention to bring in a new program for home owners, though I believe the extension of the small business development bond will have a favourable impact upon the requirements of small business over the period in which the bond is in effect.

[ Translation]


THE BUDGET
Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, 1 had hoped that by putting a question in French to the minister,
I would get a more direct reply, but I realize now that it was in vain.
However, 1 have a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the government has committed itself in its last budget to help the have-nots, that is, low and middle-income Canadians, and following the report which was published today by the Canadian Council on Social Development, could the minister indicate today whether he intends to grant income tax credits, so that Canadians may cope with rising interest rates and inflation, the inflation caused by the government itself in the field of energy?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Madam Speaker. As 1 have indicated already, it is not the intention of the government to bring in a special program of tax credits at this time. There are a number of reasons why that is not possible. It seems to me the chief reason is that the costs which will be borne by consumers of energy over the next several years will be considerable, but will be considerably less than those brought forward last December. To me that is of major assistance to all consumers of Canada.


Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, in a speech the minister made in September, one of the few which he has ever given and from which 1 am able to quote, he said that one of the reasons he became finance minister was to improve living standards and promote greater equity. I find it odd that the minister would respond to the report of the Canadian Council on Social Development, in the way which he has. They point out that the cost of the budget will be $500 to the average Canadian
Oral Questions
family, that it will have a dramatic effect on those who are least well off, and that it will cause problems in the housing field, the energy field and throughout the economy for lower-income Canadians.
In light of their estimate that over the next three years the government will be taking $14.3 billion out of the economy and only putting back $345 million as a form of recycling to senior citizens by an increase in the guaranteed income supplement, I would like to ask the minister how he can possibly justify these changes, which will have such a serious effect on lower and middle-income Canadians without the benefit of equitable tax policies, which he has spoken of in his speeches and again in his budget?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I am glad that the hon. member referred to the important step which we took earlier in the session to increase substantially the support for needy pensioners. That was quite an important step. I think that the hon. member's analysis confirms clearly that there is a very fundamental difference of opinion between himself and myself as to how the current situation ought to be approached. I believe that the most equitable solution for all Canadians, including those in lower-income groups, is to strengthen and improve the operation of the over-all economy. All the proposals which the hon. gentleman has suggested today would have an opposite effect and in the long run would damage the people for whom, in his own mind, he is becoming the spokesman.


OIL IMPORTS-INQUIRY RESPECTING MEXICAN HEAVY CRUDE
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. As a result of an agreement signed with Mexico earlier this year will the minister state the number of barrels of oil per day classed as heavy crude oil which are being purchased at world prices as part of that agreement?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I do not have the exact figure at my fingertips. 1 will inquire and give the hon. member an answer tomorrow.


Jack Wendele Shields: My supplementary question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Recognizing the very limited refining capacity which Canada has for this type of oil which is thick and difficult to refine, will the minister guarantee that this imported and very costly heavy crude oil will not displace the heavy oil produced in western Canada and normally sent to eastern refineries at $17 a barrel, as compared with Mexican heavy crude at over $35 a barrel?


Marc Lalonde: I can give that assurance to the hon. member without any problem.
4346

November 3, 1980
Ora/ Questions AGRICULTURE


INQUIRY RESPECTING JUICE APPLE SURPLUS IN ONTARIO
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. According to the minister's departmental officials the minister has refused to help the Apple Marketing Commission deal with the 5,000-ton juice apple surplus which exists in Ontario. Can the minister tell the House, firstly, why he refused; and, second, in light of the fact that for most of the smaller apple farmers this loss represents the loss of primary income, not secondary income as the department would have us believe, why would he not offer the same assistance to the apple farmers as he has to the cherry and grape growers?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, the answer is quite clear. There is no place to put the apples. There is nothing to be done with them. There is no method of processing we can find which can process them into juice or other alternatives, according to the information I have.
I understand some of these apples are being moved into other markets in Quebec and Nova Scotia where the apple crop is not as heavy.
The information I have is contrary to what the member gives the House and myself. These apples are secondary apples, apples which have fallen and are bruised. They normally go into cider and there are 5,000 tons that they want me to buy. If the member can find a place where they can be processed I will reconsider the decision I made, but I just cannot see buying apples and dumping them on the ground.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, would the minister tell the House why he is allowing so much concentrate to be dumped into Canada from countries such as Chile, Argentina and South Africa? Approximately 17.98 million pounds were dumped in 1979, and this has a serious effect on our domestic industry.


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member can find a healthier industry in the entire horticultural industry than the apple industry, I would like him to tell me. The apple industry has had a very good year economically. There is a very good apple marketing commission in Ontario. The tremendous crop this year will benefit the entire industry.
Also, the government has given the industry assistance up to one-third of the cost of storage, up to $500,000 for controlled atmospheric temperature storage. There is more storage now than ever before for all Canadian apples. For instance, this year British Columbia is exporting apples to approximately 40 different countries around the world, and this is because of the programs which we have initiated. Naturally, sometimes we take in produce from other parts of the world.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. It is with regard to the very serious discrimination which exists in the area of taxation on equipment used to haul wood-converting products, particularly logs. As the minister knows, there is an investment tax credit for such equipment as it applies to larger companies, but private trucking loggers-in other words, small independent operators-are not benefiting from the investment tax credit. The minister is aware of this fact because he has been dealing with the problem since he became the minister and it has been referred to the department before.
Why does this anomaly exist and what does the minister intend to do about it? When can we expect the necessary changes which will remove this discrimination against private operators?


Hon. William Rompkey (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, generally speaking the people who haul the logs are not connected with the forest products industry, and we make that distinction. However, the situation is under review at the present time. 1 am taking a look at the situation to determine if we can accommodate the small businessmen who haul the logs, but generally speaking it is the lack of integration with the forest products industry which creates the problem.


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, I am glad to hear that the minister will review the matter once again. However, the people and the association concerned are directly related to the logging industry because they do nothing else but haul logs. How closer can one be connected to the logging industry? Will the minister respond to these people by letter and invite them to make their presentation to him? This situation did not exist previously and the bureaucrats are not responding to the legitimate concerns of these people.


Bill Rompkey: Madam Speaker, I will be glad to receive representations from the industry affected.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce; I am happy to see him back in the House, as we all are. By the way, what a fine mess Bud Olson has put him in now. I would like the minister to respond to a problem which developed in his absence. He may well be aware that Canada's gross national product has registered a 1.7 per cent negative growth in the first half of 1980, that industrial production has declined in four of the last five quarters and that the second
November 3, 1980

Oral Questions COMMUNICATIONS
quarter of 1980 industrial production was down 3.2 per cent from the autumn of 1979. The minister has indicated that the strategy-


Mr. Paproski:: Question.


Ian Deans: -required demands strong government leadership. How does the minister propose to provide that strong government leadership for the industrial restructuring that is so obviously necessary with only $44 million per year for the next four years?


Mr. Lawrence:: Yes or no.


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend has totally overlooked the budget, which spoke of the western initiatives program, the national energy program as well as the 22 per cent increase in the economic development envelope. What is involved there are the potential and, in fact, the actual expenditures of hundreds of millions of dollars to build Canadian industry and to provide thousands of jobs for Canadians in every part of this country. When will my hon. friend recognize the positive aspects of this budget instead of circling around in an ideological miasma?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Privilege!


Bob Rae: He is the only man in Canada who believes Allan MacEachen.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, 1 am sure the minister is as aware as 1 am that out of the total number of dollars allocated for industrial redevelopment, only $44 million can be used outside western Canada. How does the minister propose to restructure the industry of Ontario and east to the maritimes with only $44 million per year in order that it will be competitive and active in world markets?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend is totally mistaken in his suggestion that only $44 million will be available for the restructuring of Ontario and eastern Canadian industry.


Bob Rae: Tell us how much you are getting?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The effect of the 22 per cent increase in the economic development envelope together with the effects of the western initiative programs and the national energy program, in fact means hundreds of millions of dollars for Ontario and eastern Canada development.


Bob Rae: How much?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In fact, I would go further and say that 1 estimate that the amount involved for industrial development in Ontario and eastern Canada would certainly be in excess of $1 billion at the very least because of the very important flow-through effects of these programs and their positive impact on all of Canada, particularly Ontario and the eastern part of our country.


EARTH STATIONS-INQUIRY WHETHER CHARGES LAID AGAINST UNLICENSED OPERATORS
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. Will the minister tell the House in how many instances the government has ordered that charges be laid against the owners and operators of unlicensed earth stations, and is he contemplating laying further charges?


Hon. Francis Fox (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, there are a number of instances in which we have been in touch with cable operators or people operating illegal stations and asked them to cease and desist their operations. Indeed, most of them have stopped their illegal operations. To my knowledge, there are two cases respecting which we are in the process of laying charges.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that it appears to be the government's policy to ask the police to disable unlicensed earth stations found on the tops of apartment buildings and which are hooked in by MATV systems, is the minister prepared instead to give licences to those unlicensed television receiver stations to receive signals from Canadian satellites, such as the broadcasts of the House of Commons proceedings?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, in the cases to which the hon. member has referred, these people have access already to the House of Commons signals. I indicated quite clearly in my speech last week in Toronto that we were interested in bringing to an end the reception of illegal signals in the urban centres of Canada. Our operations have been centred essentially on densely populated areas of Canada where there are already a high number of channels available.


FRENCH PROGRAM TRANSMISSION IN NORTHERN AREAS
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, by now the minister has had lime to look into the matter which I brought to his attention with respect to the order by CRTC to cease and desist French programming in Yukon. Will the minister now assure us that we will be able to continue this day-long French language programming in Yukon?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, 1 am delighted to see the hon. member's interest in extending French language programming across this country. I think it meets some of the desires which we have indicated in our constitutional position.


Erik Nielsen: Answer the question.


Francis Fox: 1 have made the hon. member's representations known to the CRTC, and I would hope that the CRTC will be able to regulate the situation in the immediate future.


Erik Nielsen: Rectify, you mean.

November 3, 1980
Oral Questions FINANCE


CANADA SAVINGS BONDS-INQUIRY WHETHER INTEREST RATE WILL BE INCREASED
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. The minister will know that he is presently paying 12.4 per cent interest on the 180-day treasury bills and over 13 per cent interest on the one-year to five-year bonds. The minister's budget indicated a rate of inflation of 10.2 per cent. Therefore, with respect to Canada Savings Bonds, the government is barely meeting, at 10.5 per cent interest, the rate of inflation, yet that is not the tenor of the advertising. Will the minister at this point increase the rate paid on Canada Savings Bonds to be more in step with the rate he pays the big banks and financial institutions for treasury bills and bonds so that the ordinary people will have at least a rate of return on their bonds equal to, or better than, the rate of inflation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, 1 will give careful consideration to the hon. member's suggestion that 1 should increase the rate of return on Canada Savings Bonds, despite the fact that at the present time it is a very attractive investment; it is high quality and can be cashed at any time. Quite apart from these positive features, however, 1 will consider what he has to suggest.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: A supplementary question, Madam Speaker. If the minister is going to do that, I think a rate of at least 11.5 per cent would be appropriate. On this side of the House we know the cost of selling bonds, we know the redeeming features of them and all the rest. The minister would not even be paying a rate equal to the 90-day treasury bill rate, which is essentially an instant cash instrument, if he increased the rate on those bonds to 11.5 per cent.
Would the minister give the House a commitment that, before the time limit for the sale of the bonds expires, he will be fair to the people who have bought them and will stand behind his advertising which indicates that they are a good deal, when in fact he knows they are not?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, when we set the rate for Canada Savings Bonds our objective was not only to make the bonds attractive for prospective purchasers but also to reduce to the lowest possible amount the burden on the public treasury. My hon. friend knows that even a 1 per cent increase in the rate of return involves a very substantial increased burden upon the treasury and upon future payments on the national debt. It was in order to reduce that impact as much as possible, and at the same time to provide for a sale, that we set the rate at 10.5 per cent. I am aware of the points the hon. member has made and I will be giving consideration to them at an early moment.


PENITENTIARIES
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General who has been receiving letters and questions for weeks about the conditions at Dorchester penitentiary in New Brunswick. 1 wonder if the minister is now in a position to give a statement to the House indicating what progress has been made in investigating and, we hope, coping with the very difficult circumstances. Specifically, is he able to give us a little more concrete information about the precise circumstances that led to the death of William Morrison, the guard who was killed during the hostage incident some weeks ago?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, as I indicated to the House earlier, three inquiries into this matter are under way. One is being conducted by the RCMP under the provincial contract. That has resulted in charges being laid and I understand that investigation may be continuing. There is another, the special inquiry being conducted by the inspector general's division within the correctional service of Canada, to which had been added, for the first time that I am aware of, an independent outsider to sit as one of the inquiring officers. 1 will receive that report in the next day or two and, of course, will look at it with great interest to make sure that the recommendations contained in it for improving the security for the institution are implemented. Third, the independent provincial coroner of New Brunswick has indicated that he will be conducting a public inquest in the latter half of November into the death and into the circumstances surrounding it.
In view of all of those inquiries, I do not think that for the time being any statement of facts or official version of facts coming from me would be helpful or that any further action by way of inquiry would be justified until the results of these three investigations or inquiries are available.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the minister's complete answer. I would ask, however, whether he will give an undertaking of two things. If, at the conclusion of these various investigations, it appears that there is any conflict of interest or lack of full and unequivocal disclosure, will he consider an independent judicial inquiry into a situation which is causing so much concern and has for so long in this institution.
Second, will he at the first opportunity, if he has not already done so, make a disclosure, on a private basis if he wishes, to the family of William Morrison whose grief has been compounded by the fact that they are convinced they have not received a full and accurate account of what actually happened to their son that coincides with the conclusions they have drawn as a result of their own private inquiries?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, on the first part of the question, I indicated to the justice committee of this House that a judicial inquiry had not been excluded as a possibility but that nothing I had seen so far justified it. I will certainly
November 3, 1980

keep that available as an option of something that could be done if the inquiries that I have already referred to do not lead to a full explanation of what had happened and a satisfactory plan to make sure that the possibility of that recurring is minimized.
Second, regarding the representations about the Morrison family, I was not aware that they were dissatisfied with the explanations they had received or had been able to obtain about what had happened at Dorchester. To the extent that 1 could satisfy them or that the correctional service could before the results of the public inquiry are known, I will be glad to look into it and attempt to do so.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Some years ago Bowater Mersey Paper Company of Liverpool, Nova Scotia, established a substantially growing market in the northeastern United States for newsprint and lumber via the Yarmouth, Nova Scotia to Portland, Maine ferry service-a service that was subsequently withdrawn, leaving the company with no competitive alternatives to service their customers in that area.
In view of the fact that Nova Scotia has a natural market in the northeastern United States which can be reached by truck-trailer over the vital Nova Scotia to Portland, Maine ferry service, will the minister take steps to provide a reliable cost-competitive year-round link to northeastern U.S. markets for Nova Scotia products?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, there must be confusion somewhere. It is my understanding that two ferries operate from Yarmouth to Portland, Maine. One is a tourist-oriented ferry which operates only in the summertime and actually comes to the end of its operation at this time of the year. The other is a freight-oriented ferry which operates year round. Hence my confusion, because this one is still in operation. It presents difficulty because it operates only at 30 per cent of capacity and costs the federal government $4 million to $5 million per year.
I have brought this problem to the attention of the provincial ministers concerned during my recent trip to the mari-times in the hope that we could look at all these matters in a multimodal fashion. I fail to see, however, where the immediate problem is for the pulp and paper company mentioned.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A supplementary question, Madam Speaker. As the minister has stated, one ferry service only operates for part of the year and provides accommodation only for passengers. The CN ferry service is the one to which I refer, and since it operates at less than a 30 per cent load factor due to the fact that present ferry rates are simply too high to attract business, would the minister encourage CN officials to reduce
Oral Questions
the rate presently charged in order to encourage more use of this ferry? CN could thereby increase revenues somewhat in the manner of Laker with the service provided from Britain.
Will the minister also encourage CN to show some interest and flexibility in the development of business, especially in western Nova Scotia, which could lead to the ferry being used to full capacity?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I will certainly do that as it seems to make sense. However, occasionally when I have done something like that I have been reminded that simply lowering rates does not necessarily increase the loading. This might be one of those instances. I will check, however, and do my utmost to help.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker,
I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Last week one sector of Canadian society that was very distressed and dejected at the budget was the very crucial small business community. That community has been especially hit by the high and increasing interest rates and, of course, the high and increasing inflation rate across the country. 1 think the small business community had the impression that the government had done something for it and that legislation would be forthcoming to offset these high interest rates.
Would the minister tell the House, when he brings in the small business development bond and extends the program for an additional three months into 1981, what percentage of the small business community will actually be eligible for relief under this program?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I will be glad to provide the hon. member with the information he has requested, maybe before we proceed with the debate on that particular measure and the extension of that measure. 1 have decided to extend the measure for an additional three months, not only for the reasons that the hon. member has given but also because of the uncertainty which prevailed for several months this year as to whether that bond would come into effect. It offers very substantial aid to the small business community. Indeed, if it were not for the rather large expenditures involved, I would be tempted to extend it for a longer period of time; but the three-month extension, in addition to the period in effect already, will cost the treasury about an additional $50 million.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I think the minister's response was somewhat off the track. My research indicates that of the 930,000 small businesses in Canada, about 95 per cent will not

November 3, 1980
Oral Questions
be eligible because of the restrictions, qualifications, exclusions and limitations that have now been placed on this legislation. The program does not include the funding of working capital. It does not recognize sole proprietorships. Does the minister really say to this House that the majority of Canada's small business people will be positively affected by this proposed legislation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, it is obvious that small business welcomes this measure and regards it as a very important and substantial way of assisting small business. I cannot tell the hon. member offhand the proportion of small business which is affected, but it is quite substantial. The program has been requested by the representatives on behalf of small businesses in Canada. Even though there have been some exclusions in order to reduce the cost, the cost is still very substantial. To finance that program for a single year will cost $200 million, and that is a very substantial assistance to small business in Canada.


RECOMMENDATIONS RESPECTING REGULATIONS AND REDUCTION IN PAPER BURDEN
Mr. Jim Schroder (Guelph):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Small Businesses. Since there are over 640,000 small businesses in Canada and small business is a very important part of our economy, can the minister tell us what has happened to the much-touted recommendations designed to reduce the red tape, paper burden and regulations with respect to small business?
[ Translation]


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State, Small Businesses):: Madam Speaker, since the inception of the Bureau for the reduction of paper burden, we have been able, with the co-operation of all departments involved, to reduce the paper burden for businesses by some $300 million a year. Recently, I had the honour to announce that 58 new measures were put forward in order to reduce this burden even more. All departments, particularly Statistics Canada, have willingly co-operated by abolishing a number of forms and integrating them to other forms in various departments, and even by using the telephone on a much more regular basis than before, in an attempt to really reduce that cost. With the announced measures, it is believed we can reduce by some 20 per cent the paper burden now required by federal regulations. Also, as you are aware, Madam Speaker, there is a House committee which is now working on the matter and trying to find the best means to deregulate as much as possible various areas of our industry.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In the first part of last week the minister made a speech in Vancouver to the Canada Grains Council, in which he said, and 1 quote:
-probably a decision will be made in early 1981 to raise the rates paid to the railways for transporting grain . . . Although some system must be devised to raise (grain) freight rates, the Crowsnest rate cannot be wiped out immediately ... But a subsidy on grain transportation is necessary in some form.
What form was the minister talking about? Was he talking about wiping out the Crowsnest Pass rate over some period of time or a gradual change that will be made to the freight rates?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has read the notes I used for a speech in Vancouver to the Canada Grains Council. I said that some form must be developed to compensate for the rates. I understand the hon. member had a suggestion and was reprimanded for it, intimating that it is a luxury we cannot afford. We have received many suggestions about what should be done concerning the Crowsnest Pass rates. We are all anxious to bring this to a conclusion and hope to be able to do that in early 1981, which is what I said.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE CROWSNEST PASS RATES WILL CONTINUE TO BENEFIT FARMERS
Jack Burnett Murta: Madam Speaker, it is obvious the Minister of Agriculture did not know what he was talking about when he made the statement, if that is the only answer he can give me on this very important issue. I will direct my supplementary question to the the Minister of Transport. With regard to any change that is being contemplated, can the minister enlighten the House as to when we may see a position paper put forward by the government? Also, will he assure the House that the Crow benefit being given to western grain farmers at the present time will remain, regardless of any change that takes place in the grain transportation area?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I read some press reports of what the distinguished Minister of Agriculture said in Vancouver. He was addressing the Canada Grains Council, which is the think tank of the grain industry. As usual, the minister was challenging, explosive and informative. The fact is that the policy with regard to the Crow rate is presently in the decision-making pipeline. I hope the government will be in a position to indicate its views in the coming months. With regard to the Crow benefit, I would think this would be one of the foundations of the policy to be announced.
November 3, 1980


INQUIRY RESPECTING MANDATE OF PROPOSED ENERTECH CORPORATION
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It relates to the formation of the new Crown corporation, Ener-tech. Can the minister advise the House what exactly its mandate will be and how it will relate to the many other areas of energy, research and development and conservation that are now being looked after by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, the National Research Council and so on?


Marc Lalonde: First, Madam Speaker, 1 am happy to repeat that Enertech Canada will have its headquarters in the nice city of Winnipeg.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: I hope that this corporation will be a significant and positive contributor to the economic development of Manitoba in general and of Winnipeg in particular.
As far as the mandate is concerned, the corporation is going to be responsible for development of new forms of energy and renewable energy. It is not going to embark upon the area of conservation per se. That is already part of government programs under the responsibility of my department. Rather, it will be engaged in research and development and in the marketing of new forms of energy, renewable energy in particular. It will work with existing corporations in the field. It will consider the possibility of joint ventures, and support of existing corporations as well as conduct its own activities. It will start as a subsidiary of Petro-Canada, but as soon as possible it will be set up as an independent Crown corporation.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Can the minister tell us when he expects this Crown corporation to begin to function? Specifically in an area where we have $20 million for funding and a $70,000 position for a manager, or president if you will, who does the minister expect to get to perform this function for that kind of money?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am happy to know that my friend is supportive of increasing the salary to more than $70,000. I would hope we could get outstanding candidates to apply for such a position. We have been looking for and interviewing people for the last few months. I must say, however, that it is disappointing to find there are a number of individuals who consider that $70,000 is not good enough.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Not if they were working for you.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: I see that some of my NDP friends are eager to jump at the job. We will see if they have the qualifications, which is another question, however.
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: It is you, Marc.


Marc Lalonde: At the present time we are interviewing possible candidates, and I hope to get this corporation into operation very soon indeed.


NORTHERN PIPELINES
Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Vercheres):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Further to the announcement made by the Minister of Finance to the effect that the federal government was going to support the construction of a gas pipeline to the maritime provinces, the Quebec government indicated that that decision on our part would jeopardize the Gros-Cacouna project and favour that of Canso. To throw light on those attacks, can the minister tell us where plans stand on the regasification project, and also exactly when a final decision will be reached in that regard?


Marc Lalonde: Yes, Madam Speaker. I must say, first of all, that the decision to extend the gas pipeline to the maritime provinces was taken independently from the regasification project. To our mind, it is imperative that the gas pipeline be extended to the Maritimes without any delay, as quickly as possible, to reduce the dependence of those provinces on oil imports. With regard to bringing gas down from the Arctic to eastern Canada, that project will be submitted by Petro-Canada to the National Energy Board which will be studying it next year; I expect we should have the decision of the Board by the end of 1981.
With regard to the possibility of building a plant either in Quebec or in the Strait of Canso, that decision will be made by Petro-Canada and the National Energy Board. The cabinet will examine the recommendation of the National Energy Board in due course; but I do want to stress that we are dealing here with a project that depends on the Government of Canada, on Petro-Canada and not the Quebec Government, naturally. In addition, as far as we are concerned, we will see to it that the decision reached will really be in the interest of all Canadians as well as economically sound.

November 3, 1980
Point of Order-Mr. Clark


POINT OF ORDER
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to government business concerning what I gather is going to be a change in the approach which the government is taking to the constitutional resolution. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) indicated during the question period that he does not want Britain meddling in Canada's affairs, which is the position we have been urging upon the government for some time. May I ask the government House leader whether that statement is a demonstration that the government intends to amend the draft resolution so that the British will not be deciding Canadian questions of rights and freedoms?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, in answer to his question, I should like to point out to the Leader of the Opposition that our constitutional endeavour entails a proposed resolution that will be studied by a committee of the House in coming days. It will be up to members of the House of Commons of Canada to approve or reject the text of the resolution. This document will be considered in a third stage by the House of Commons after the committee has submitted its report, and then again, members of Parliament from all areas of Canada will have the opportunity to debate the issue and to approve or reject the provisions contained in our constitutional package.
What parliamentarians in London will have to approve finally is simply the wish expressed by Canadian members of parliament after discussion and debate in Canada of each and every proposal included in our constitutional package.
So what the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said today does not clash in any way with the very nature of the action we are taking, which requires the participation and approval of all the members of the Parliament of Canada before London ratifies, as a matter of form, what will be decided here in Canada.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I do not intend to prolong this discussion, but I gather from what the government House leader said that it remains the intention of the Government of Canada to have the parliament of Great Britain decide questions relating to Canadian rights and freedoms.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, because of the present system we want change for reasons of dignity and self respect. Several times in the past when we wanted to amend our constitution we have had to go through this humiliating procedure of asking for Westminster's permission. We want to put an end to
that situation and get rid of the last traces of colonialism. Why then should the opposition leader get upset about such a noble course of action?



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 424 to 435 inclusively, 753 and 859.
1 ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

STATUS INDIANS-AGE AT DEATH Question Nos. 424-435 inch-Mr. Orlikow:


[Stage Direction]
1.	For the years (a) 1976-77 (b) 1977-78 (c) 1978-79, what was the average age at death for (i) male (ii) female status Indians in the province of Manitoba?
2.	For the same years, what was the average age at death of (a) males (b) females for the rest of the population in the province?
[Stage Direction]
1.	For the years (a) 1976-77 (b) 1977-78 (c) 1978-79, what was the average age at death for (i) male (ii) female status Indians in the province of British Columbia?
2.	For the same years, what was the average age at death of (a) males (b) females for the rest of the population in the province?
[Stage Direction]
1.	For the years (a) 1976-77 (b) 1977-78 (c) 1978-79, what was the average age at death for (i) male (ii) female status Indians in the province of Alberta?
2.	For the same years, what was the average age at death of (a) males (b) females for the rest of the population in the province?
[Stage Direction]
1.	For the years (a) 1976-77 (b) 1977-78 (c) 1978-79, what was the average age at death for (i) male (ii) female status Indians in the Northwest Territories?
2.	For the same years, what was the average age at death of (a) males (b) females for the rest of the population in the territories?
[Stage Direction]
1.	For the years (a) 1976-77 (b) 1977-78 (c) 1978-79, what was the average age at death for (i) male (ii) female status Indians in the Yukon Territory?
2.	For the same years, what was the average age at death of (a) males (b) females for the rest of the population in the territory?
[Stage Direction]
1. For the years (a) 1976-77 (b) 1977-78 (c) 1978-79, what was the average age at death for (i) male (ii) female status Indians in the province of Ontario?
November 3, 1980
[Stage Direction]
2. For the same years, what was the average age at death of (a) males (b) females for the rest of the population in the province?
[Stage Direction]
1.	For the years (a) 1976-77 (b) 1977-78 (c) 1978-79, what was the average age at death for (i) male (ii) female status Indians in the province of Quebec?
2.	For the same years, what was the average age at death of (a) males (b) females for the rest of the population in the province?
[Stage Direction]
1.	For the years (a) 1976-77 (b) 1977-78 (c) 1978-79, what was the average age at death for (i) male (ii) female status Indians in the province of Newfoundland?
2.	For the same years, what was the average age at death of (a) males (b) females for the rest of the population in the province?
[Stage Direction]
1.	For the years (a) 1976-77 (b) 1977-78 (c) 1978-79, what was the average age at death for (i) male (ii) female status Indians in the province of New Brunswick?
2.	For the same years, what was the average age at death of (a) males (b) females for the rest of the population in the province?
[Stage Direction]
1.	For the years (a) 1976-77 (b) 1977-78 (c) 1978-79, what was the average age at death for (i) male (ii) female status Indians in the province of Nova Scotia?
2.	For the same years, what was the average age at death of (a) males (b) females for the rest of the population in the province?
Order Paper Questions
[Stage Direction]
1.	For the years (a) 1976-77 (b) 1977-78 (c) 1978-79, what was the average age at death for (i) male (ii) female status Indians in the province of Saskatchewan?
2.	For the same years, what was the average age at death of (a) males (b) females for the rest of the population in the province?
[Stage Direction]
1.	For the years (a) 1976-77 (b) 1977-78 (c) 1978-79, what was the average age at death for (i) male (ii) female status Indians in the province of Prince Edward Island?
2.	For the same years, what was the average age at death of (a) males (b) females for the rest of the population in the province?
Mr. Doug Frith (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: See charts below.
Note: There is no information available on Indians' average age at death as the present information system does not record deaths by single years of age. A statistical breakdown of male and female deaths by age grouping compiled in 1978, including the total number of deaths with comparative rates for Indians and the Canadian population as a whole is below.
Please see the list below giving the required national and provincial breakdown of ages at death for male and female Canadians who are not status Indians.
Average Age at Death by Sex
		Can.	Nfld	PEI	NS	NB	Que Ont	Man	Sask	Alta	BC	Yuk	NWT
All Other*													
Population													
1976	M	64.3	62.7	66.3	65.6	63.6	62.2 65.1	65.5	67.5	63.2	65.8	52.5	40.7F	70.1	67.7	74.5	71.6	70.7	68.0 71.5	71.0	71.2	67.8	71.1	46.9	35.81977	M	64.2	62.6	64.7	66.5	63.7	62.3 65.1	65.4	66.8	63.2	65.0	54.2	41.0F	70.2	69.3	71.5	72.4	70.7	68.2 71.4	70.7	70.9	68.1	70.5	53.8	33.61978	M	64.5	63.3	66.7	65.7	64.2	62.6 65.2	66.7	67.0	63.1	65.6	49.9	44.7F	70.6	69.8	76.6	72.7	70.7	68.8 71.7	72.3	71.1	68.1	70.9	54.3	40.7Indian	Population	Not Available	*Source: Statistics Canada: 84-206	Deaths by Age Group and Sex*	Age Group	Sex	Number	Rate (Indian)**	Rate (Total Can.)	Indian	-1978	35-39 Years	M	64	7.6	1.6	Age Group	Sex	Number Rate (Indian)**	Rate (Total Can.)***	0-1 Years	M	99	26.6	13.5	40-44 Years	M	50	8.0	2.5	F	93	F	37	1-4 Years	M	48	3.2	0.7	45-49 Years	M	42	8.2	4.3	F	44	F	33	5-9 Years	M	21	0.9	0.4	50-54 Years	M	49	11.2	6.6	F	15	F	36	10-14 Years	M	24	0.9	0.3	55-59 Years	M	64	17.5	10.4	F	12	F	42	15-19 Years	M	86	3.7	1.0	60-64 Years	M	52	18.5	16.0	F	46	F	38	20-24 Years	M	102	5.1	1.1	65-69 Years	M	79	28.1	24.3	F	41	F	46	25-29 Years	M	61	4.3	1.0	70-74 Years	M	69	40.6	37.6	F	31	F	53	30-34 Years	M	61	5.0	1.1	75-79 Years	M	85	48.4	58.7	F	23	F	37	
4354
Order Paper Questions
Deaths by Age Group and Sex* Indian-1978
Age Group	Sex	Number80+ Years	M	130F	102Total	M	1,186F	767Total	M/F	1,953
Rate (Indian)*
92.5
Rate (Total Can.)***
126.7
Source: Medical Services Branch Annual Report 1978.
Rate is based on the 1977 Registered Indian Population by age group- DIAND.
Statistics Canada-1976


Mr. Shields: Since August 1, 1978, how many (a) administrative (b) policy consultants were under contract to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and/or any boards, commissions or corporations reporting to the minister and, in each case, what amount was paid to them?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: We do not have any records of consultants under that specific title; however, we do have contracts issued under management consultants as follows:
Number of contracts-117 Total costs	-$ 1,806,434.64
See reports below.
In so far as the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation is concerned: none.
In so far as the Canadian Saltfish Corporation is concerned: none.
In so far as the Fisheries Prices Support Board is concerned: none.
Management Consultants Contracts
August 1, 1978 to
April 30, 1980
DEBATES	November 3, 1980	
I.W.D. Resource Management Consulting	1	21,592.88S.A. Kelly Management Consulting	4	8,000.00E.J. Cooper	i	13,282.52M. Shepard & Associates Ltd.	1	25,735.60F.J. Doucet	1	5,665.30Econolynx International Ltd.	2	8,196.82Marketing Services Ltd.	1	2,072.70Helgar Project Management	4	27,928.00Baynes Communications	2	20,282.00Eric Miller Consulting Group	1	28,670.91Stevenson & Kellogg Ltd.	1	29.000.00Ms. J. Thompson	1	4,007.50Dr. C.L. Johnson	1	4,326.92Caird Wilson & Associates Ltd.	1	1.960.00Technomic Consultants	1	31,978.00Melvin G. Clark & Associates	1	350.00Market Facts of Canada Ltd.	2	25,499.00OMI Operational Management Inc.	1	13,816.42Dworkin Communications	1	1,599.45R. Fahlman	1	875.00Development Partners (Fisheries) Ltd.	1	14,734.70Woods Gordon & Co.	1	15.000.00Aura Services	2	25,000.00L. Bermbach	1	1,824.01B. Bowler	1	802.75B.C. Institute of Technology	3	63,074.29Campbell Consultants Ltd.	1	13,050.00Canadian Facts	3	15,445.00DSS Bureau of Management Consultants	1	3,850.00DPA Consultants Ltd.	4	90,455.44D.B. Lister & Associates Ltd.	5	112,123.56D.J. Davies	1	13,836.23M. Glover	2	8,303.57L.W. Hindle Consulting Ltd.	1	58,537.70P. McCart Biological Consultants	2	88,665.00W. McKay	3	10,850.97W. Mair	1	319.50Pro-Admin Enterprises	1	14,120.31H. Paish & Associates	1	3,962.00D.W. Ross & Associates Ltd.	2	53,312.56M. Shaffer	2	10,619.94Systems Engineering Associates	1	8,950.00S. Steele	1	2,880.00L. Straight Consulting Ltd.	2	58,171.47Simon Fraser University	3	35,358.36G.W. Sinclair & Associates Ltd.	5	249,505.65Swissco Services	2	13,084.20A.W. Sterritt Ltd.	2	37,714.08117	$1,806,434.64
Number of
Name	Contracts	Total CostDepartment of Supply and Services	1	$ 3,937.50S.H. Scott	1	2,000.00Harry Shorten	3	94,261.02Roche & Associes Ltee	2	19,800.00Gaston Drouin & Associes Ltee	1	15,400.00Hough, Stansbury & Michalski Ltd.	1	50,000.00I.B.I. Group	1	29,500.00Arthur Anderson & Co.	3	52,033.50Pacific Rim Consultants, B.C.	1	600.00P.S. Ross & Partners	1	14,433.85G.L. Grant	1	19,650.00Federal Systems of Canada	1	11,177.66PLB & Associes	1	12,800.45Bailey & Rose	2	30,512.50W.L.C. Myers	1	12,104.66Clarkson & Gordon	I	17,450.00R. Smith	1	3,875.00C. Levelton	1	3,271.20E.A.C. Amy & Sons	1	3,500.00K. Dormaar	1	10,662.25K. Knight Management Ltd.	3	62,133.82H. Urion	2	13,269.67D. McKinnon	2	25,671.25


Mr. Halliday: For each department with offices in the Ottawa-Hull area, how many (a) indoor (b) outdoor parking places with electrical outlets are there available?


David Michael Collenette: Agency/Department	Indoor (a)	Outdoor W/Outlets (b)
Agriculture Canada	43	
Communications	92	
Consumer and Corporate Affairs	184	
Employment and Immigration Canada	283	
Energy, Mines and Resources	51	
Environment Canada	213	4
External Affairs	639	
Finance and Treasury Board	219	
Fisheries and Oceans	52	
Health and Welfare Canada	218 1	3
Immigration Appeal Board		
November 3, 1980

Indian Affairs and Northern Development	161	-Industry, Trade and Commerce	298	-Insurance	12	-Justice	105	-Labour Canada	69	-National Defence	147	405Northern Pipeline Agency	3	-Post Office	9	100Privy Council	151	-Public Archives	-	1 18Public Works Canada	146	Regional Economic Expansion	53	-Revenue Canada	224	-Science and Technology	19	-Secretary of State	369	-Solicitor General (RCMP inch)	319	19Status of Women	3	-Supply and Services Canada	314	10Transport Canada	366	2Veterans Affairs	29	[Translation]


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, October 30, 1980, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government, the amendment thereto of Mr. Crosbie (p. 4231) and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Rae (p. 4235).
Mr. George Henderson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, when ten o'clock was called last Thursday evening I was in the process of saying that the 32-cent a gallon increase for gasoline, which would have affected Canadians by the end of this year under the Tory budget of 1979, is a far cry from the 13.3-cent a gallon increase which will affect consumers with our government's budget.


An hon. Member:: That is nonsense.


George Roland Henderson: To continue, hon. members opposite who predicted that this government would deindex personal income tax were also proved wrong. This government and this Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) realized that to do away with indexing of personal income taxes would adversely affect the low and middle-income wage earners in Canada.
It is not now, nor has it ever been the intent of the Liberal government to have the little guy bear the brunt of providing
The Budget-Mr. Henderson
the necessary revenues to ensure the economic viability of this country. The government did not intend to overburden poor Canadians from every province in this country. Make no mistake about it, there are many poor Canadians in the western provinces. Not everyone in the western provinces owns his own home or drives a big car or, indeed, has a summer cottage.
This government will look for the necessary revenue where the money is, in excess of oil and gas industry profits. It will collect additional taxes from the oil and gas industry. This does not seem unrealistic to me nor to a great many other Canadians. A number of members, including myself, when speaking of the constitution, have said that Canadians by their very nature are willing to share. This willingness to share is one of the traits in true Canadians which is to be admired. If this great country of ours, this Canada, is to continue to grow and prosper from sea to sea, I believe that willingness to share must be evident from sea to sea.
In the interests of the social and economic well-being of all Canadians, but more important of poor Canadians, and in the interests of the national unity of this great country, we must all be prepared to share. Every province in this country throughout our history at one point in time has required the understanding, compassion, and assistance of other provinces. This is a fact which no doubt will be a reality for the next 113 years of our history.
Many positive steps have been taken by my hon. colleague, the Minister of Finance, which will have a beneficial effect on the national scene, but I would like to comment, if I may, on some of the more positive steps taken to alleviate regional disparity or, perhaps to be a little more specific, disparity in Atlantic Canada and, in particular, my province of Prince Edward Island.
The extension of the natural gas pipeline system to Quebec City and the maritimes is very welcome news indeed. Portions of Quebec and the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia being afforded the opportunity to switch from oil to natural gas will lessen the dependency of the Atlantic region on offshore oil. This offshore oil that the Atlantic region must depend on is unreliable at this point in time, and continues to escalate in price.
The fund which will support the conversion of the Atlantic region's oil-fired electrical plants to coal will have a direct and very positive effect. A positive impact on my province of Prince Edward Island, because its requirement is totally electrical energy from oil-fired plants, will also be felt. A consequence of this requirement is that Prince Edward Island has the highest electrical rates of any province in Canada. I speak of provinces. I realize that the Northwest Territories and Yukon probably had, and have, higher oil prices.
This government, realizing that neither Newfoundland nor Prince Edward Island have access to western natural gas, has initiated a program which provides for a major housing retrofit program which includes energy audits, oil furnace retrofits,

November 3, 1980
The Budget-Mr. Henderson
and additional insulation. This grant will cover 50 per cent of the costs involved, up to a maximum of $800. That is the cost of the retrofits. This program will also be made available in the Yukon and Northwest Territories. I was pleased that the Prince Edward Island conservation and renewable energy agreement will be extended. The four-year cost of this conservation and renewable energy agreement will be $9 million.
The special emphasis on renewables development in Prince Edward Island, where alternate energies are concerned, reflect the support given to conservation and renewable energies by public action and public policy in my province. In fact, my province is considered to be leading the way in Canada in research of renewable energies.
I am also extremely pleased that the 9 per cent excise tax on the packaging of farm produce will be removed as of January 1, 1981. This was, of course, very welcome news for the potato producers of Prince Edward Island. I had considerable communication about this tax with the hon. Minister of Finance, and obviously the minister has listened and responded not only to the farmers of Prince Edward Island but also, indeed, to farmers right across the country.
Another very important announcement in the budget which affects my constituency perhaps to a greater extent than others was the full indexing of personal income taxes for 1981. In my constituency there is a large percentage of low and middle-income families, and they very definitely would have felt the full effect of any de-indexing program. The rationale used by the Minister of Finance was sound indeed.
Indexing of personal income tax ensures that increases in income which just keep pace with inflation will not force higher income tax burdens on low-income people. Certainly of major importance is that low and middle-income families will receive the refundable tax child credit. The indexing of that child tax credit ensures that its real value to families is maintained.
Opposition members have been quoted as saying that this budget does nothing for the unemployment situation facing Canada. The investment tax credits for new capital investments made in selective regions is being increased from its present 20 per cent maximum rate to 50 per cent in selected regions. These selected regions will be determined on the basis of criteria such as high unemployment and low income levels. Again I say that we should be trying to attract business in areas where there are low income levels. By attracting industries to these regions, quite obviously jobs will be created and fewer people will be unemployed.
I suggest also that the reintroduction of the MURB program will provide a stimulus to the construction industry which will provide employment for large numbers of qualified workers in the construction trades.
Further, the energy policy of this government, if analysed with some degree of intelligence, indicates vast potential for job creation. As a matter of fact this energy policy could, I believe, be accurately described as a job creation energy policy. Just one of the many projects outlined in our energy
policy is the extension of the natural gas pipeline to the maritimes.


Mr. Lambert:: Don't hold your breath.


George Roland Henderson: Does the hon. member over there believe that a project of this magnitude would require any less than thousands of workers not only in the manufacturing of the pipe but also the laying of the pipe and so forth? A project of this magnitude would produce obvious spin-off effects. This is fact.
This government has reserved $350 million for manpower retraining programs. As hon. members know, there is a large number of people who lack the necessary skills to enter a very competitive labour force. This $350 million will finance manpower retraining programs which will provide people all over the country with marketable skills. It would appear to me that members of the opposition, because their own budget sank with their Jolly Roger, Captain Crosbie, are now grasping at straws and trying desperately to create troubled waters for this government's budget. I can assure hon. members opposite that this budget will not sink. It will steam straight ahead, and Canadians from one coast to the other will enjoy the benefits from it.
In my opening remarks I made reference to the increase of 32 cents a gallon on gasoline in the Crosbie budget of December of last year. I compared that with the 13.3 cents in my colleague's budget. Perhaps we can carry that comparison just a little further. By the end of 1981 the cost of a gallon of gasoline at the pumps in Toronto, with this government's budget, will be $1.36. The Conservative budget of 1979 would have meant a price at the pump in Toronto of $ 1.56 a gallon, a difference of 20 cents a gallon.
By the end of 1982, again using Toronto as a mean average, the government's budget will mean $1.53 a gallon at the pumps, while the Conservative budget of 1979 would mean $1.75 a gallon, or a difference of 22 cents a gallon.
As we go on, the comparison becomes even more dramatic, Mr. Speaker. By the end of 1983 our budget will mean that the cost of a gallon of gasoline at the pump in Toronto will be $1.71 a gallon. The ill-fated Tory budget of 1979 would mean we would be paying $2.32 a gallon, or a difference of 61 cents a gallon.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, because I know hon. members opposite are becoming somewhat embarrassed-


Some hon. Members:: No.


George Roland Henderson: -by the end of 1984, under my honourable colleague's budget, a gallon of gasoline at the pump in Toronto will cost $1.95. Under the previous budget introduced by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), a gallon of gasoline would cost $2.63, or a difference of 68 cents a gallon.
While comparing the relative costs of gasoline as a result of the budget presented by the hon. member for St. John's West who, by the way, made quite a speech here the other day-
November 3, 1980


An hon. Member:: A great speech.


George Roland Henderson: Yes, a great speech. Every now and then he would blow, he would take a drink of water. It was the first time that I saw a windmill run by water.


An hon. Member:: What are you run by?


George Roland Henderson: While I am comparing the relative costs of gasoline under the budget presented by the hon. member for St. John's West and that of my colleague, the Minister of Finance, I believe it would be appropriate to respond to statements made to the effect that this budget has nothing in it for the farmers and fishermen in this country. This is one of the statements which has been made. It seems ironic that the hon. member for St. John's West should make such a statement, because it was the farmers and fishermen in my riding who could have least afforded the very dramatic forecasted rapid increases in the cost of gasoline suggested by the hon. gentleman opposite.
We have heard statements from the other side of the House about the flight of the wild geese, the plucking of the goose with its wings flapping, and so on. Well, Mr. Speaker, the ill-fated budget of December 11, 1979, the Christmas budget which was brought down just 14 days, not 12 days, before Christmas, was 1 submit, a turkey budget, a budget which would have had my farmers and fishermen in Prince Edward Island flocking from the sea and the land like a flock of turkeys. I believe that almost every one can live with and benefit from this government's budget. The farmers and the fishermen will feel the effects of this budget because it is designed to ensure the economic stability of this country.
We have also heard from hon. members on the other side of the House statements to the effect that members on this side of the House do not understand the west. I think there is a need for a better understanding of all parts of Canada by all of us in the House, and indeed not only but us in this House but by all Canadians. When I was last out west I heard statements to the effect that we were probably not aware of what was going on out there. But when I got a little deeper into the conversation I found that when they were talking about the east they meant mainly Montreal and Toronto.
When I explained to them-these were mainly working people-that there are four provinces east of Montreal, they began to think and to understand a little bit better what the east really is. When I told them that we in the maritimes rely on industries such as agriculture, fisheries, tourism, small business, and so on, all of them high energy consuming industries, they understood immediately why we could not take rapid increases in oil prices. I believe that is very, very important, because a country can be compared to a chain-it is only as strong as its weakest link. Therefore, if we are to have a strong country, we have to grow and develop together and we have to look after one and other, as provinces have over the last number of years.
When confederation was formed, Atlantic Canada was composed of the "have" provinces, but then the emphasis shifted to
The Budget-Mr. Wilson
central Canada. Of course now, undoubtedly, the emphasis is shifting to western Canada. We must keep this country united and we must ensure that, by allowing a rapid increase in the wealth of one area, we will not allow another area to deteriorate. I submit that we must not allow this to happen.
Before my time runs out, Mr. Speaker, I should like to comment briefly on the government's objectives to achieve at least 50 per cent Canadian ownership of the oil and gas industries by 1990. I have had a number of comments from my constituents in this regard and I have found that, without exception, the general feeling is that natural resources in Canada should be owned and controlled by Canadians. I submit that this general feeling is felt right across this country in all constituencies.
I know that my time is up, Mr. Speaker, so in conclusion I should like to congratulate once again my colleague, the Minister of Finance, for presenting a budget which 1 think is as fair and equitable to Canadians as we could expect in such difficult times experienced not only in this country but, indeed, in the world.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the debate today on the budget and the energy statement of last Tuesday is one of the most important we have seen and will see in the irhirty-second Parliament. It is very significant that it should have followed so soon after the historic debate on the constitutional resolution. The energy policy sets out in very real terms that we have been debating in somewhat abstract terms in the constitutional debate. It shows vividly how, in its greedy and self-centred view of Canada, the federal government is attempting to capture significantly greater power and ever-increasing tax dollars in a unilateral way without regard for the history and the constitutional position of the regions of this country.
The constitutional proposals of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) would allow the federal government to bypass the legislatures of Canada. The energy proposals show clearly how it would do so. The objectives of the energy proposals show clearly how it would do so. The objectives of the energy proposals are very noble in intent, but the means to achieve these objectives as laid out in the national program are incompatible with the over-all objectives.
As we have said on many occasions, self-sufficiency should be our primary objective, our overriding objective in the energy policy. The precarious position of the Middle East with the current Iran-lraq war should tell us that. We should be attempting to protect ourselves from shortages in the Middle East and gain from having the increased energy dollars spent here in Canada promoting new investment, new jobs, and new technology, from which ail Canadians can benefit.
The government sets out self-sufficiency as the first objective of the energy policy, but the other two objectives, namely, revenue sharing and increasing Canadianization, totally undermine this policy objective. It was generally recognized that the Clark government energy policy could achieve energy self-sufficiency by 1990.

November 3, 1980
The Budget-Mr. Wilson


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: It is doubtful whether this dog's breakfast masquerading as an energy policy with all its inconsistencies will ever achieve that important goal. It takes direct aim at the two chief partners of energy policy, the producing provinces and the industry. Canadian consumers, many in central Canada and Atlantic Canada, are being asked to pay the equivalent of $1 more for a gallon of gasoline by 1984. Huge amounts of money are being provided by consumers, but for what purpose? The consumer wants to be absolutely sure that the result will justify the cost. Will Canada achieve energy self-sufficiency by 1990? I am afraid not, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: No way under this budget.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Clark government proposals were costly, I will not deny that, but they had a purpose, a clear goal, namely, energy self-sufficiency. The new Liberal policy has one clear objective, not nearly so clearly stated, namely, more revenues for the federal government. It is a mammoth tax grab to pay for their profligate spending of the past 12 years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: These words may sound somewhat familiar to Mr. Speaker. On December 11, 1979, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray), when he was the finance critic, said that "this Conservative energy package was really a disguised tax increase, a mammoth tax grab from the Canadian people." But let us compare the two proposals, because they are very, very different.
The Conservative budget called for an 18-cent excise tax, a 50 per cent federal share in price increases over $2 per barrel, offset by an energy tax to help those hit hardest by rising energy prices. Net revenues to the federal government for the three years ending March 31, 1984, were projected at $12.8 billion, a large figure. The Liberal budget proposes an 8 per cent production tax, an increasing natural gas excise tax, an increasing petroleum compensation charge, and a Canadian ownership charge. That will produce a monstrous $37.5 billion tax grab for the federal government, about three times "the mammoth tax grab" to which the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce objected. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen) goes hunting with an elephant gun.
Let us put that into perspective because there has been some discussion about the shares taken by different levels of government. With all the increased taxes layered on each other, the cost of a barrel of oil in 1983 will be $32.80, out of which the federal government will take $17.38, or 53 per cent. The House should not let the minister fool it about the petroleum compensation charge.
In 1975 when the Hon. John Turner imposed the 10-cent excise tax on gasoline, which subsequently was reduced to 7 cents as part of an election bribe, he said that it was to offset the growing cost of imported oil. That tax followed an export tax on oil and oil products. Together these two taxes produce
today about $1.4 billion in revenue with the clear purpose of paying the oil import subsidy. But we do not hear that any more these days; it has been forgotten. It has been blended into government revenues so that now we have the compensation charge which is the only apparent tax used to offset import costs. As indicated on page 32 of the budget papers, this charge is producing even more revenue than is necessary to meet import costs-a total of $885 million in the years 1982 and 1983 more than is required to offset the cost of imports. Clearly the government is using the energy situation to increase its slice of the economic pie at the expense of the consumer. In that three-year period we will have about a $4 billion increased tax. Initially set out as being to offset the cost of imports, it will go straight into government revenues, and it is not mentioned at all by the Minister of Finance.
Also let me respond to the challenge of the Minister of Finance to my leader to show that the government has placed a greater burden on the Canadian consumer in its budget than would have been the case in the budget of the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). In spite of claims to the contrary. Liberals have broken their campaign promise not to increase the cost of oil over $4 per barrel. The increase up until this budget was $3, there was the 75-cent Syncrude levy and now there is a further 80-cent tax as a result of the budget, for a total of $4.55, against the increase of $4 of the hon. member for St. John's West.
The increased cost of driving a car under both budgets would be about the same, but because the petroleum compensation charge and the Canadian ownership charge are very regressive and pervasive, the costs of oil heating are up by a total of $128 a year over the cost provided in the "Crosbie" budget. For low and middle-income earners the difference is almost three times that because of the energy tax credit, $337 billion a year. So much for the toothless challenge of the Minister of Finance. The burden on the consumer is clearly greater and the beneficiary is the tax department here in Ottawa, the piranha which attacks the savings of Canadian individuals.
What has happened to the industry? Why is it that oil and gas shares have dropped close to 9 per cent in the immediate aftermath of the budget? Share values are directly related to profitability, but what is profitability? Profitability is the measure of the cash flow, the money which oil companies use to pay for their exploration, development, and production activity. To most Canadians the decline in the stock market signalled a reduction in the ability of oil companies, the Canadian ones too, to find and produce oil and natural gas to free us from dependence on Middle East and other foreign producers.
The budget set out a most burdensome program to reduce cash flows. Natural gas revenues are frozen for a year; consumers will pay more but the increased amount will go to the federal treasury. Oil prices will be lower than those proposed this summer by the Prime Minister. A major portion of the industry, the 70 per cent controlled by foreign companies, will lose all conventional oil and natural gas exploration and
November 3, 1980

development incentives. These will be phased out by the end of 1983. In addition to that there will be the 8 per cent production tax.
Against this background the United States embarked upon an ambitious incentive program to reduce its dependence on imported oil. Prior to the budget of last Tuesday, that was a major incentive for drilling rigs and crews to move south of the border. That incentive has now increased markedly. Prior to the budget the U.S. netback was about $25-that is the netback to the producer-and in Canada it was about $9.70. That would have been partially offset by a windfall profits tax in the United States of about 15 per cent. But the incentive has now increased markedly to move south of the border, thus removing an important element in our battle to achieve selfsufficiency. The multinationals will not be moving south. Their territory is in Canada. The companies which will be moving capital, equipment and men into the United States will be Canadian companies, the companies the government wants to strengthen, the companies the government wants to play a bigger role in our industry.
Canadianization of the oil and gas industry is a very laudable goal. It is a goal we support and were moving toward last December. But our approach was to do it with the carrot, not the stick. Whatever we think of multinationals, we must recognize one fact: they play an important role in the oil and gas industry. They have brought the expertise, technology and capital resources which have been important elements in our success in Canada. To embark upon such an abrupt change in the rules, as proposed in the budget, will undoubtedly set back our ability to achieve the number one objective-energy selfsufficiency. The reason is that all drilling incentives for conventional oil will be phased out for companies 50 per cent or more foreign-owned by 1983. That represents 70 per cent of our industry.
There is a hidden casualty in this program-the many smaller Canadian oil and gas companies that have encountered increasing costs because of their inability to sell one of their products, natural gas. With no increase in the wellhead price for natural gas until January 1, 1982, a number of these companies will now face the prospect of selling out, perhaps but not necessarily to Petro-Canada.
We want to see more Canadian ownership in this industry, but first and foremost we want our security of supply maintained and improved. The means of achieving that Canadianization goal seem to be designed to undercut the ability of the industry to achieve security of supply. The goal seems to be to force more companies into state ownership, a nationalization of the industry.
What would be the role of Petro-Canada in this plan and what would its mandate be? Plow much of the industry will it be told to acquire? Plow much will it spend on the program? To Canadians this was previously a somewhat academic question. But now to buy out Gulf, Shell or Imperial it will cost Canadians 15 cents a gallon for a minimum of a year, and
The Budget-Mr. Wilson
most likely longer. Canadians have a right to know how much it is going to cost them, since they will be paying for it right at the pump.
The differences between the Clark government's approach to Petro-Canada and this government's approach are quite startling. The Conservative plan gave Canadians the option of participating and of directly sharing in the profits. Last year the Clark government proposed to offer Canadians shares in Petro-Canada, partially through a gift of shares and partially through the cash purchase of shares. The cash received would be used to strengthen Petro-Canada and to allow it to acquire one or more multinational oil companies, to quote our press release. The Liberal plan forces Canadians to participate and it gives them no opportunity for sharing in the profits. The Minister of Finance wants to save all that for himself.
The other major partners in achieving self-sufficiency are the producing provinces. In a unilateral, sometimes confronta-tionist, sometimes devious way, the federal government has moved to exert greater control and to extract considerably more revenues from an asset which, after all, is owned by the provinces. The response has been swift and not unexpected. The provinces of Saskatchewan and British Columbia have proposed court action to oppose the tax on natural gas and the 8 per cent production tax. Alberta has indicated its intention to extend the life of its oil reserves by cutting production by 15 per cent. Let us not forget that the established reserves of Alberta are on a clear declining trend, having declined each year for the past ten years. Alberta has also put a hold on new oil sands projects.
Who is the winner in this conflict? There is no winner-not the Alberta government, not the federal government, not the industry, which is clearly caught in the middle of a squeeze play between two levels of government. I remind you, Mr. Speaker, the last time this happened was 1973-74 when we lost a lot of ground in developing our resources in this country. And certainly the Canadian consumer is not the winner.
The province of Alberta has been a tough bargainer, which we found out last year and which the federal government has found out over the past few months. But an agreement is surely possible, as it was for us last December and should be for the federal government now. I do not see how the federal government can possibly expect Alberta to accept this policy, which is less attractive than the one offered by the Prime Minister this summer.
Since the Lougheed statement on Thursday night the government's first response was conciliatory, it was positive, and encouraging to us on this side of the House. We strongly urged the government not to escalate this conflict further and to negotiate in good faith. How then can they justify the remarks of the Minister of Finance and of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) that price is non-negotiable? It appears that the government is trying to undermine these negotiations before they get started. So the big loser is Canada-our country. There is tremendous vitality and energy in the west which can be directed to the benefit of all Canada. The Clark government had moved to harness that energy and

November 3, 1980
The Budget-Mr. Wilson
strength. This government, whether out of greed, jealousy or envy, has chosen to try to conquer that strength and to force it to submit to the will of Ottawa. That is no way to deal with a partner in confederation who can make such a powerful contribution to our future.
One of the initial responses to this policy is an almost doubling of the support for separatism in western Canada. So I ask you, Mr. Speaker, who benefits from this attack which could lead to a further division within this country?
I move to the area of economic development because there is a close link between energy policy and our economic developT ment. While the budget does promise some welcome, though small, addition to economic development funding, the energy policy may well nullify that.
Non-conventional sources of oil-mainly the major oil sands projects-are projected in the new policy to provide more oil production in 1990 than through conventional sources. These non-conventional sources will provide roughly 50 per cent of our source of supply, which is up from less than 10 per cent last year. These projects therefore are critical to our success in achieving self-sufficiency in oil. They are huge projects and require about seven years to complete. So we must move quickly to bring them onstream.
There are other reasons for moving quickly. These projects will provide tremendous economic development opportunities throughout Canada, not just in Alberta but right here in central Canada, it is estimated that about 42 per cent of the over-all economic benefit will be felt in Alberta. About 38 per cent of the activity will come to Ontario and Quebec through the purchase of steel, metal products, machinery, transportation equipment, and other manufactured goods and various services. We have all seen pictures of the huge scoops used in the Syncrude project. These scoops can now be made in Dundas, Ontario. This translates into many jobs. With an 8.7 per cent projected unemployment rate and over one million people out of work this winter, we must move quickly to bring these projects forward. For every ten people directly involved in the Alsands project it is estimated that ten more will be employed in Alberta and six more in other parts of Canada.
Consumers in other parts of Canada must understand the tremendous benefits to the whole country of these projects. If we are to be asked to pay one dollar more for a gallon of gasoline we want to receive some benefits, both in security of supply and increased economic activity. We want to bring these projects forward. But because so much of that dollar goes to the federal government-and because of its confronta-tionist tactics-the dollar is not buying us energy security or economic development.
For some years we have been concerned with the importance of developing our talents in areas where we have natural strengths. One of these areas is clearly oil sands development.
It will be a tragedy for Canada if these projects are delayed because of the tremendous opportunities there are internationally. The United States and other countries are embarked upon huge programs to upgrade refineries and bring in new energy-producing processes. The availability of process engineers, the engineers who understand how to bring these new processes into production, is critical to do this job. These people are in demand throughout the world because their skills are essential in keeping the huge costs of these megaprojects under control. A grave shortage of these skills is now a real possibility.
If these oil sands projects are delayed further, consumers in all parts of Canada will suffer in two key ways. First, the efforts to reduce our dependence on offshore oil will be delayed. Second, because of these delays we may be forced to rely on less than the best talents. The best talents will have been hired away. We stand a good chance of seeing the costs for these projects climb out of control. That happened before in 1974 and it could easily happen again. It would hit us all directly in the pocketbook.
A side effect of the delay is that other countries will develop their technology in this area faster than we do. Today we are world leaders. The Venezuelans want to involve us in the development of their giant Orinoco sands. Delays will cause them to shift to others who will have developed their skills faster than we have.
There are some nice words in the budget statement on economic development. The envelope will be increased by 22 per cent next year. But in cutting through it all, the impact is either minimal or misplaced. First, we have the western development fund, which is an attempt to buy western votes with the money the federal government has taken away in the energy tax grab. Significantly, only 50 per cent of the fund will be spent before the next election. One wonders if western Canadian voters at the next election will have a gun put to their heads-vote Liberal or risk losing the balance of the fund. Lloyd, I think you should get it in writing.
Without this fund the increases in spending for economic development in the next three years are 15 per cent, 8 per cent, and 8 per cent respectively, less than the projected inflation rate in the final two years. The result is that there is very little left for the three important areas, research and development, export promotion, and industrial expansion. One hiccup from either Chrysler or Massey-Ferguson and it is all gone. I urge the minister to get in there and fight for these worthy projects. More funding is required.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has spoken recently of his desire to increase the funding for the defence industry productivity program, DIPP, and of the need for a similar program for non-defence industries. If the money available in the economic development budget is not sufficient to provide for this, the minister will have been badly let down by his cabinet colleagues.
We on this side are also worried about the minister's ability to meet the needs of all parts of this country on such a tight budget. Canadians have many worthy social objectives, many of which have been translated into programs in recent years. We must devote much attention and funding toward our manufacturing industry which is facing major challenges in
November 3, 1980

expanding its marketplace to be able to afford those social programs. Last year Canada had a $17 billion trade deficit on manufactured products. The $175 million increase in the minister's budget is small comfort to the manufacturing community.
The real weakness of the budget, however, is that it does nothing to improve the environment for industry in Canada. Inflation will continue at a high rate. The federal budget deficit is projected at $14.2 billion, $3.6 billion higher than under our administration. Interest rates are likely to rise and the Canadian dollar will be under further downward pressure. The consensus from economists is that the budget will have a slightly negative impact on an already declining economy.
The results are obvious. Next year unemployment will soar. The rate is 8.7 per cent. Consumers will be hard hit by the increased cost of living and we will be no further ahead in developing this country's resource and labour potential. The province of Ontario has found it necessary to introduce a mini-budget to provide some stimulus to their economy, and if the energy megaprojects do not soon proceed, this sad picture will deteriorate even further. It is interesting to note that the Ontario government has the room to introduce a mini-budget because it has in recent years taken much tighter control of its own spending programs, thus it has this flexibility and the room in which to move at a time like this when such programs are really needed.
To sum up, we have a budget which adopts a stand-pat, do-nothing position. It extends the sorry state of the economy for at least another year. In those areas where there is some sign of positive initiatives, the budget proposals are, at the same time, too vague to judge, and too small to have any impact.
The main thrust of the budget statement is in the area of energy. The stated directions of the energy proposals are good, self-sufficiency, more Canadian ownership and fairness, but the means chosen to achieve these goals are contradictory, punitive and, in fact, will lead away from greater security of supply for Canadians. The proposals will result only in increased taxes to the federal government, less economic development, and to a seriously weakened partnership between Canadians across this great country.
Canadian people are being asked to provide enormous amounts of money, and they are expecting to see security of supply and economic development opportunities. But 1 am afraid to say that, when they look back in 1985 or in 1990, they will feel a great sense of frustration and anger at the result of this huge tax grab in the name of self-sufficiency which never occurred.


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity of participating in the debate on the budget to bring to the attention of hon. members the viewpoint as it were of the Treasury Board and the President of the Treasury Board, and to focus on some aspects of the budget which are particularly important from
The Budget-Mr. Johnston
the Treasury Board perspective and from the over-all management aspect of the finances of the federal government.
Hon. members will recall that in 1976 the Liberal government of the day established the Royal Commission on Financial Management and Accountability, headed by Allan Lambert who, at the time, was chairman of the Toronto Dominion Bank. The Lambert commission, as it is commonly known, had very broad terms of reference, and its objective was to improve the over-all management and accountability of the federal government. It was asked to examine and recommend a mutually compatible management system appropriate to government in the interrelated areas of financial management, control and accountability, including accountability of deputy ministers and heads of Crown agencies.

The commission's mandate was also to examine interdepartmental structures, the organization of central agencies serving departments and Crown corporations and related procedures, as well as the financial management policy, rules, guidelines and procedures applied by central agencies to determine whether accountability, both within government and to Parliament, is ensured.

As we all know, the Lambert commission produced its final report, containing some 165 recommendations, in March,
1979.	The report was well received by all parties in this House. It is a credit to the commissioners and their staff that this was the case.
In April, 1980, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) asked me to co-ordinate the government's response to the Lambert report. I am pleased to report to hon. members that we have made considerable progress in this regard and are currently working on a target date of the end of the year in terms of a comprehensive response to the Lambert recommendations. I would like to point out that 1 have been very ably assisted in this work by Mr. W. A. B. Anderson, who was formerly a senior deputy minister of the province of Ontario, and for that I would like to give credit to the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) who, while minister of state for the Treasury Board, had the foresight to appoint Mr. Anderson to this most important post.
I said that we have made considerable progress in reviewing and implementing the recommendations of the Lambert report and, indeed, we have. Very tangible evidence of this was contained in the budget presented by my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), last Tuesday, October 28,
1980.	The expenditure plan contained in the budget is very much consistent with the recommendations of the Lambert commission. For the first time we have been able to set out the agreed planning levels for each major category of expenditure or envelope with a multi-year horizon.
Under the new policy and expenditure management system the policy committees of cabinet will plan their activities over an extended period of years and, within the framework of that plan, will make policy and related financial decisions together.

November 3, 1980
The Budget-Mr. Johnston
Policy committees will have to fund new, high priority initiatives from their envelopes, so they will be demanding and will be critical in their evaluation of existing programs within the federal government. In turn, I believe, this will create an increased onus on managers to develop full information and cost implications of their policy proposals and to manage efficiently and effectively within their established limits.
Unlike my predecessor, the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens), who kept trying to assume the responsibilities, in my judgment, of the Minister of Finance, I readily acknowledge the lead role of the Minister of Finance in developing the fiscal plan. I recognize, too, the primary and critical role that the Treasury Board of Canada has in supporting the policy and expenditure management system which has come of age with this budget. Let me highlight briefly for you a number of recent initiatives taken by the government which are complementary and, indeed, essential to the success of this new top-down, multi-year system.
The first area is what I would call the process of departmental improvement. In 1978 the government appointed a Comptroller General of Canada. The first Comptroller General, Mr. Harry Rogers, very quickly took some significant steps to define problems and plan improvements in the management processes of the many departments of the federal government. In particular, I refer to the IMPAC surveys with which many hon. members are familiar, and the departmental action plans which have emerged from it. The IMPAC action plan has become the prime executive tool for strengthening management practices in many departments.

Most of us are aware of the fact that the IMPAC study was initially concerned with the management pratices of 29 major federal departments. This initial phase lead to a memorandum of agreement between deputy ministers and the Comptroller General on the improvements to be made. The study has now reached the phase at which action plans are being developed and the focus of attention is on the identification of means necessary to bring about the required changes.
The action plans the departments have developed within the study cover several factors such as the establishment of a strict planning process, the development and integration of operational and financial information systems, the monitoring of activities according to plans, the establishment of program evaluation functions and the broadening of internal auditing activities. All these sectors to be improved upon are compatible with the requests made to the departments in the context of the reforms I have just mentioned.

The second element would be regarded as improved reporting to Parliament, which is particularly significant for the members of this chamber.
The government has recognized the importance of providing Parliament and the public with high quality information to
assess the major decisions which will emerge from the new policy and expenditure management program. The proposed legislation on access to information, and the project to revise the estimates and the public accounts, are evidence of the effort this government is making to improve the information available to Parliament and to the public.
[ Translation]
It is not easy, Mr. Speaker, to decide the way in which information is to be submitted. A quick glance at the blue book will show the complexity of the government's programs and activities. At the moment, the office of the Comptroller General is examining a general model for submitting estimates, which is being tried by five departments. The first results of this experiment should be known in the near future. [English]
Another aspect of this approach is program evaluation. As I mentioned earlier, and as the Minister of Finance emphasized in his budget speech, the new policy and expenditure management system creates an incentive to find ways of saving money in existing programs in order to finance new high priority activities. Basically, in program evaluation, the government must answer fundamental questions about a program:
[ Translation]
Has the program met its objectives? Did it have unforeseen, positive or negative, effects? Could those objectives be reached with the same resources but with different means? Should the program be pursued in its present form?

I am pleased to report that under the guidance of the office of the Comptroller General, departments are well on the way to setting up organizations for the conduct of program evaluation.
Another aspect which must not be forgotten is personnel management for the eighties. I am sure that hon. members will agree that the new policy and expenditure management system, or any system for that matter, will only be as good as the people who run it. At the very foundation of the system is good personnel management-the hiring, training, and development of good people. In this regard I have said publicly on several occasions, and believe strongly, that we are building on strengths within our public service. I have been much impressed by the high degree of competence, willingness, and dedication that I have found in the public service. With this as a strong starting base, I have recently taken several steps in Treasury Board toward better personnel management in the federal government.

The federal government is now creating a separate category for senior managers in the federal public service. This innovation has as its main component an integrated evaluation system which provides for rewards or penalties according to the accountability for effective realization of government program objectives.
November 3, 1980



At the same time we are implementing a staff training and development policy which strengthens the assessment of training needs, improves the content and conduct of training courses within the public service, and ensures post-training evaluation and feedback.
Just last week, I announced a landmark new part-time employment policy designed to foster the use of employees on a part-time basis and draw into the public service much of this unused talent, particularly working mothers. This program will, 1 believe, be of particular benefit to those who wish to combine a meaningful professional career with important family responsibilities.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Tell that to the translators.


Donald James Johnston: In his budget address the Minister of Finance reaffirmed, as I do, the commitment of this government to keep the general operating expenses of the federal government and person years under close control. This will require the achievement of further increases in productivity. Hon. members will know that it was for this reason that we have resisted demands in some cases for a shorter work week in the public service. Increased productivity is essential for a strong economic recovery and the federal government must take the lead in this regard.
As I just said, this government will, as a priority, continue to keep its general operating expenses under close control. But I would not want to leave the impression with hon. members or with the public that the direct operating expenses of the government, per se, will offer a dramatic source of savings in the coming years. I emphasize the term "dramatic". Over the past five years, as the House is aware, the federal government has done commendably well in controlling its operating expenses, to the extent that there is relatively very little room left for improvement in this component of federal expenditures. Consider the following breakdown of our expenditures: [Translation]
More than half of the expenditures in the main estimates, or about $30 million for the 1980-81 fiscal year, is made up of transfers to other government levels or individuals or of grants. [English]
The two major components of federal transfers, as you well know, Mr. Speaker, consist of transfers to other governments, being equalization payments under federal-provincial fiscal arrangements, and established programs financing. The latter, often known as EPF, covers hospital insurance, medical care, and post-secondary education. These three major programs are administered by the provinces but are financed in part by the federal government.
The largest single element of federal subsidies is payments under the oil import compensation program, first introduced in 1973-74, to provide compensation to importers of crude oil in order to ensure a uniform domestic price of oil that is below the international price. Any unexpected jump in international prices or an unforeseen fall in the exchange rate, entails an
The Budget-Mr. Johnston
increase in the level of expenditures under the OICP program. Roughly, a $1 per barrel rise in international prices, or a three-cent decline in the Canadian dollar, if sustained under that existing regime, would raise outlays by some $200 million. Understandably, my colleague, the Minister of Finance, found it necessary to meet this issue head on in his budget. The major component of federal transfers to persons is payment of benefits to the aged under the old age security, guaranteed income supplement, and spouse's allowances programs. Family allowance payments are another major element of federal transfers to individuals.
Second, Mr. Speaker, the interests on the public debt are expected to reach $10.3 billion in 1980-81, which represent 17.7 per cent of total budgetary expenditures.
Third, the payments to public corporations will reach $2.4 billion in 1980-81, or 4.1 per cent of total budgetary expenditures.
Fourth, the government operating and capital expenditures will amount to $15.5 billion in 1980-81, which represents 26.8 per cent of the public expenditures. This is a reduction of 1.4 per cent compared with the percentage for goods and services last year.
All in all, more than 83 per cent of the increase in budgetary expenditures for the present fiscal year will be used for transfer payments to other governments, individuals and Canadian companies, or for public debt charges. Government operating costs, with the exception of national defence, represent only 7 per cent of the total increase in budgetary expenditures for the fiscal year 1980-81.

It seems clear from what I have said that if further significant reductions in federal expenditures are required, they will not be in the area of direct government operations. That does not mean we will not continue to seek out more efficient means of delivering services to the public, but major dramatic savings will not be effected in those areas.
In conclusion, as President of the Treasury Board and member of Parliament for St. Henri-Westmount, I would like to commend the Minister of Finance for the very fine budget delivered last week. All Canadians will welcome the frank and open way in which he has presented his expenditure plan and his medium term economic assumptions.
Also, I am sure that all Canadians will welcome the continuing commitment of this government to expenditure restraint and to further increases in productivity.
While much of the attention during this debate will focus on the issue of energy and other areas of the budget, I hope this milestone will not escape the attention of members, the publication of a multiyear fiscal plan envelope by envelope, which

November 3, 1980
The Budget-Mr. Benjamin
indeed is a landmark in the history of financial management in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. 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 Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie)- Pensions Review Board-Inquiry respecting increase in staff; the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby)-Air Transport-Decision on Toronto-Halifax route; the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson)-Privacy-Opening of mail by RCMP.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government, the amendment thereto of Mr. Crosbie (p. 4231) and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Rae (p. 4235).
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I found it somewhat amusing in these few days of budget debate to hear members from the government side and the official opposition criticizing one another for bringing in the same kind of budget. Neither one has learned anything from experience or history when it comes to the financial management of this country.
The Tory budget of last year predicted higher inflation and higher unemployment. It predicted it would be giving another $33 billion to multinational oil companies. It could not afford to bring pensioners up to at least the poverty line. It even eliminated the gasoline excise tax rebate to handicapped people.
The Liberals said that was terrible, that the then minister of finance, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), was prepared to fight inflation on the backs of the pensioners, the handicapped and farmers. In my opinion the single most important item in the last campaign was the Conservative budget. The hon. member for St. John's West can huff and
puff and try to blow this House down, but his proposed budget was rejected by the people of Canada.
What have they got since? They got more of the same, a budget which predicts higher inflation, higher unemployment, housing for wealthy Canadians, more gifts for the CPR, nothing more for pensioners, and funding for social programs that will not keep up anywhere close to the higher inflation rate which the present Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) predicts. There is a sleeper in this budget which bothers my colleagues and me, and, I am sure, the provinces.
The Minister of Finance said the government intends to achieve net savings in social affairs and help finance initiatives in other envelopes. He said that savings are expected to include reductions in federal transfers to provinces relating to areas coming under provincial jurisdiction. The provinces should be warned that, as and when shared cost programs and social affairs come up for renewal, the federal government will expect them to pay more, and it less.
There is another sleeper in this budget. While I am no legal expert, I believe it violates section 125 of the British North America Act. I refer to the taxing of Crown corporations. I presume the Minister of Finance will have another look at that in light of comments he will receive from many of the provinces.
This is mainly an energy budget. There was great talk in the budget papers. I quote from "The National Energy Program":
Rapid substitution from oil to more plentiful energy sources ... To reduce the use of oil in each of the residential, commercial and industrial sectors in every province to no more than 10 per cent of total energy used in those sectors.
I want to dwell on how the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources have missed the boat. They forgot transportation. I am sorry the Minister of Finance has left. Perhaps the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) will point this out to him. I would like to remind the minister that in government you have to differentiate between what is the cost to government and the taxpayer and what is an investment. Public investment in productive national assets is self-financing. We should be investing now to create jobs today that will save energy tomorrow, to renew and redirect the industrial structure of our country. That kind of investment is not a cost or deficit to government.
1 remind hon. members that in 1944 in the bankrupt province of Saskatchewan a newly elected CCF government established the books of the province on the basis of what was deadweight debt and what was self-liquidating debt. The self-liquidating debt in the 20-year period from 1944 to 1964 amounted to borrowings in excess of $1 million for power, telephones, and several other projects. Those were the kinds of investments that were made through borrowings, much of it foreign capital, but it was loan capital not ownership capital.
In that 20 years we put something over $700 million into power and telephones alone, all of which has since been repaid. We own our power and telephone systems. They were self-liquidating debts. Moreover, we provide one of the best and
November 3, 1980

lowest cost power and telephone services anywhere in Canada. That is what we mean by an investment program that should be included in this budget.
We should be investing in increased research and development. We should be electrifying transportation. We should be retooling for small cars as well. We should have a massive increase in investment in housing, particularly low cost housing for lower-income families. That is an investment. It is not a cost. It is not a deficit to the taxpayers. Instead of relying on foreign shipping we should be investing in a Canadian merchant marine and in Canadian coastal services, which are either non-existent or totally inadequate. We can build and own our own ships which can fly the Canadian flag.
We import 91 per cent of our farm machinery when we should be building most of it here. Our trade deficit of $16 billion in finished goods is not a sign of a healthy economy or of a Minister of Finance who has learned a damned thing from the history of budgets in this country.
Can we afford to do this? But the real question is can we afford not to? In the 1930s, up to the beginning of the war, we showed modest deficits, although in proportion to today's moneys they would be horrendous. During the dirty thirties $100 million, $200 million or $300 million a year deficits were shown by all governments. During the seven years of wartime budgets there was then what was called a total of something in excess of $8 billion in government deficits. However, most of this $8 billion went into investments to rebuild and expand an economy which had just come through the great depression. We mobilized this country into industrial production with a capacity unimaginable prior to that. The result of that investment was more than repaid because, in the years following the war, with the rebuilt productive capacity, surpluses of governments-federal and provincial in Canada-amounted to the same $8 billion. Taxpayers were more than repaid for money expended during wartime to make guns and bullets. We submit the same kind of thing can take place now-not a declaration of war, but a declaration of peace.
1 want to outline an area where I have said the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) have missed the boat. The transportation share of Canadian oil consumption under this budget will grow from 47.6 per cent to 58.6 by 1990. Transportation under this budget would remain almost 100 per cent dependent on liquid fuel. Residential and business net oil consumption is to be reduced. But the biggest user of oil, transportation, is projected to roll merrily along, gobbling up 870,000 barrels a day, which is the status quo-do nothing, in other words. This is a serious threat to our mobility and to our trade. The budget does not even pay lip service to electrification and upgrading railway lines. It does not even mention-that I can find- urban transit systems.
Buses and trains are twice as energy efficient as sub-compact cars, and they are six times as energy efficient as a fully loaded 767 jet, the brand new economy jet which is coming on-stream. Buses, subways and streetcars are twice as efficient as a fully loaded subcompact car in a city. I suggest that
The Budget-Mr. Benjamin
massive investment is needed to electrify urban transit, for railway systems, in addition to transit diesel buses. Our public transportation systems carry 3.5 per cent of our passenger traffic compared to 6 per cent 12 years ago. Unless we start to reverse that trend, transportation will still continue to gobble up those depleting or more expensive liquid fuel requirements.
We suggest that over the next 15 years, and we should start with this budget, we must electrify 250 miles of rapid transit lines and 160 miles of trolley bus lines. We also suggest that
10.000	miles of railway track in Canada, which is less than 20 per cent of our miles of railway lines, be electrified. This
10.000	miles of main line trackage carries 75 per cent of rail traffic. The cost would be $2.5 billion in 1979-80 dollars. By doing those things; we would save more oil than the Alsands plant will produce for a $6.7 billion investment.
I am not suggesting the Alsands plant not proceed. But in terms of shifting our energy requirements from diesel fuel to an alternative source of energy, surely this is a much wiser investment and will cost a heck of a lot less money. If we were to electrify that amount of rail line, which handles 75 per cent of our traffic, we would save 11 million barrels of oil a year. That is enough diesel fuel to seed and harvest two crops in the three prairie provinces.
If, during the course of that 15 years, only 20 per cent of the increasing volume of traffic, freight, express and passenger, were transferred to rail and bus from highways and airlines- just 20 per cent-to diesel buses and electrified railway lines, there would be a saving amounting to a total of 58 million barrels of oil each year thereafter. Think what that would do, Mr. Speaker. It would produce all of Canada's food for 2.4 years; or it would plant and harvest ten prairie crops; or it would provide for a nine-month demand for all home heating requirements in Canada; or it would run all of the diesel buses in Canada for 25 years; or it would be the equivalent of four Mexican oil deals.
What a fuss about deficits when there is no distinction made as to what portions of these deficits are self-liquidating debts and which are not. We submit that the budget should make a fundamental change in the practice of old line party governments which we have had over the past 113 years. Those kinds of investments would require a national investment policy, both public and private. Private investors would have to be encouraged and asked to agree that for certain periods of time we do not need any more luxury hotels, A & W's or McDonald's. They would have to be persuaded that the return on their investment would be reasonable-it would be a good return-and that it should go into projects other than some of the fluff on which billions of dollars are invested in Canada today when all these other things in our economy are so badly needed.
If we are to have an industrial strategy of any kind, Liberal, Tory or New Democratic, and if we do not have a transportation system which is functioning efficiently, the industrial strategy will not get off the ground very well, if at all. Surely it

November 3, 1980
The Budget-Mr. Benjamin
is time to take a leaf out of the books of many other nations in the world. This is not socialist dogma I am providing to the House. Countries of all political stripes in the industrial world, both free and communist, have been investing in transportation systems at a startling rate since the end of the Second World War. For example, the Soviet Union has electrified over
100,000	kilometres of railway lines. Every country in western Europe and Japan has been doing the same thing. For that $2.5 billion we put into a 50,000-volt overhead catenary system, the beauty of that kind of system is that it can be run either by electric or diesel locomotive over the same track.
For openers this budget should call for the beginnings of a 400-mile section or 500-mile section of line from, let us say, Winnipeg to Calgary, Thunder Bay to Winnipeg, or Edmonton to Kamloops. It could be done not as a way of experimenting, because the technology is already there. Canada has the technology and the expertise. We sell electric and diesel locomotives to other countries. The Canadian Institute for Ground Transportation suggests a 30-year period, and I submit that it is at least twice too long. I think the objective should be a maximum of 15 years. We might be able to do it in ten. Perhaps by the time we get to the end of the 15 years, inflation taken into consideration, that $2.5 billion might end up to be a total of $3.5 billion, but I repeat that the amount of liquid fossil fuel which would divert to other needed purposes from transportation for half the investment of one Alsands project surely makes the investment worthwhile.
I know both our publicly-owned and privately-owned railroads resist this kind of fundamental change in their operations, but it seems to me that they have to be given one of two choices: it is either compulsory, or they have to. Similarly, if this budget began this year with $100 million in it for urban transit and $100 million for each of the succeeding four years to our urban municipalities to get into electrification of rail lines, trolley buses, trolley streetcars, electric streetcars and diesel buses, that would be a substantial investment, the return on which could be seen in the savings of oil and the diverting of oil to other uses like food production.
I notice that the budget says: "to extend eventually the natural gas pipeline to the Atlantic provinces". We agree with that. I do not think there is any disagreement or ever has been. It has been talked about for years. What I find degrading is that, as a nation, we continue to allow increases in exports of natural gas outside Canada to the United States when we have not seen to it that we have properly supplied our own fellow citizens first. The mythology which is continually peddled by this government, the previous government, and by private petroleum corporations, is that we have a surplus of natural gas. That is a myth. Whether we are talking about 25 years or 125 years, we need all of that natural gas. We will need it all ourselves.
The new additional exports approved by a Liberal government and a Tory government of 3.4 trillion cubic feet over and above what we were exporting before, would heat one million homes in Atlantic Canada and eastern Quebec for 25 years. Surely that is something to be ashamed of if you are a Liberal
or a Conservative. Surely that is neglect of our fellow citizens in eastern Canada. Surely it is not a proper priority to go out for extra quick, fast bucks from exported natural gas. Our grandchildren in 25 years, or our great-grandchildren 50 years down the road, will pay the price. Surely the priority should be to begin the investment now. The cost of the pipeline would be a self-liquidating debt. There should be a massive and urgent project carried out in a minimum period of time.
All these suggestions we have made for investment would not be costs to the taxpayer. The return to the people of Canada and the national and provincial treasuries would more than cover them. The return would be excellent. Let us think about the jobs this proposal would create.
Electrifying and expanding urban transit over five years with a $500 million investment would mean 70,000 jobs. Those
10.000	miles of railway lines over a period of 15 years would mean 300,000 jobs. If we were to implement the balance of the Hall commission report, we would be looking at another
70.000	jobs.
Let us consider a Canadian shipbuilding industry, a Canadian merchant marine, a coastal service, ferry services on our coasts which are worthy of the name, and heavy oil upgrading plants. I am glad to see there is one mentioned in the budget. That is a priority and a commitment of the national government. We will need three or four more of those, not just one. Let us think about massive housing construction and home insulation and what they mean in jobs. If we had all that, we would not have a budget from either one of the old-line parties which continues to forecast higher inflation and higher unemployment. Surely this fundamental change in the way we finance and direct our financial affairs has to come about if we are going to get away from this continual cycle of minor booms and major busts which have been going on since confederation.
We believe the things we are suggesting and proposing would be a challenge to the Canadian people and would excite them to produce more. Revenues from taxes and royalties to governments and revenues to the private sector would more than compensate for those investments. Through the initiative of national and provincial governments and our Crown corporations we would achieve immense benefits not only for ordinary citizens but also for the private sector, which has to do the manufacturing, contracting, construction and distribution, and provide the transportation. Surely this is the kind of priority which should be in a budget today. We should not have a 1930-31 budget of R. B. Bennett. We should not have the budget of Charlie Dunning, who said that money does not grow on gooseberry bushes. We need a budget for the eighties.
We should not have a budget based on the conventional wisdom of the traditional old-line parties. It should be a budget for the modern times. It should be a budget that takes into account what is required in our industry, in transportation and in housing, what is really required by low income families, pensioners and veterans. These are typical old line parties, eighteenth century Tories and nineteenth century Liberals who continue to use the same ideas, the same philosophy and the
November 3, 1980

same ideology in planning-if you want to call it that-further destruction and further busts. This is all I can say for it. It has not been democratic socialism that has brought to this country the difficulties it is facing now, and it has not been a balanced economy that has done it. It has been the laissez-faire free enterprise, so called-as Tommy Douglas said, neither free nor enterprising.
They are the first ones to have cried "too much government interference", "leave us alone", "let us make a profit", "we will do the job for you", "we will put people to work", etc., but the minute they are in the slightest bit of trouble, who are in the front end of the line with their hand out? It is the same old free enterprisers. They are working hard to prove that Karl Marx was right, that capitalism will destroy itself. I suppose that in some respects that would put democratic socialism in the position of trying to save at least the better parts of free enterprise. But the way the old parties have operated in this country over the last 100 years or so in carrying out these outmoded, obsolete theories of private enterprise, is what has caused us all this trouble.
Who has caused the high unemployment? It was not the socialists. Who is seeing to it that our veterans and old age pensioners have an income lower or just at the poverty line? It is not the socialists, it is the free enterprisers.
Canada is a country of forests and of hydroelectric power, of vast resources. It is only the organizational genius of the Liberals and Tories that could have ensured that none of them is properly distributed to the people of this country. They have the imagination of a doorknob, and they are afraid. They sit in their little towers worrying about little things; they are men of little minds working with little ideas. Surely they could change if they took a look at the experience and at the results of what they have been doing, if they took a look at what this country could do when there was a declaration of war.
Prior to the war they said, "There is no money so there are no jobs", but as soon as war was declared and it was time to kill people, money was found, and so were jobs. I was paid a dollar a day, but they gave me a uniform and a gun. Why not then do the same thing in terms of a declaration of peace with the same kind of energy and marshalling of our people, our resources and our financial capacity to turn this economy around and make it into a much better nation, to bring about real co-operative federalism, to bring about unity in this country, and cease this mindless, incoherent babble coming from 20 directions in the Tory ranks, and the mindless confrontation of Liberals who think they are the only ones fit to govern and to sit down with the premiers and talk with the Canadian people? Why not come up with projects that will turn this nation around and make it the kind of country it can be?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State, Finance):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am very happy to have this opportunity to take part
The Budget-Mr. Bussieres
in the budget debate, more especially since, as everyone knows,
I work in close co-operation with my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). I would say I am in complete agreement with the Quebec finance minister, Mr. Parizeau, who noted the remarkable cleverness shown by the finance minister in his budget.
To me this is more than a clever budget. It is in fact a responsible budget, a realistic budget. The tax measures it contains are the answers to the present economic situation, to this period of economic recession as well as to the challenge we face in this new decade. The Minister of Finance avoided the traps of short-term vision of cyclical economic events, into which the opposition parties fall. He is avoiding the pitfalls that await the right-wing and left-wing experts for whom the consequences on low-income wage earners have little importance.
The Minister of Finance did not indulge in any sleight of hand to make the people believe that the unemployment and inflation rates could be reduced overnight. This is a responsible and realistic budget, because in avoiding those pitfalls the Minister of Finance paves the way for medium and long-term economic development while minimizing the impact of a shortterm recession. In acting in this way, he not only gives our country an industrial strategy, but he enables us to free ourselves from our dependency on foreign oil supplies and gives us, Canadians, control over the important sector of oil and gas exploration and development. It would have been quite irresponsible to adopt extreme attitudes in the field of taxation. It would also have been irresponsible to try to play the magician and, as I said earlier, the minister chose the path of responsibility and realism.
The economic difficulties that have arisen during the last decade clearly show that we must adapt a long term rather than a short term economic strategy if we want to meet successfully the challenge of the eighties. The problems linked to the objective of energy self-sufficiency, those linked to the reduction of the rates of unemployment and inflation, the need to regain a more satisfactory rate of growth in production and productivity as well as the increased competition on international markets for products of current technology are as many challenges which compel us to a search for durable, efficient, medium-term and long-term solutions. The possible solutions to these problems will not be recognized as such so easily. The desirable solutions require a judicious combination of structural, industrial, regional and also well-oriented fiscal and monetary policies. This medium term economic development is based on the critical energy sector which will occupy a more important part of our industrial base and will help us achieve our goal of energy self-sufficiency.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal briefly with the components of the energy strategy which will contribute to the

November 3, 1980
The Budget-Mr. Bussieres
economic development in the 1980s. I do not wish to run again over each and every measure in the national energy program. The budget speech itself and the most interesting remarks made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) have fully explained this national program. This energy policy to which the government and all Canadians involved in this area of our economy are committed will contribute fully to industrial development as well as research and development, increase demand for skilled labour, and provide extremely important capital over the next decade.
The government makes known clearly and in no uncertain terms its intention not to forgo this opportunity to develop our resources. Therefore, the government is contemplating the possibility of getting involved more and more in the development of oil and gas through Petro-Canada, a corporation which belongs to all of us as Canadians. The government will also make sure that the private sector and more, particularly, Canadian private corporations are encouraged to work more in this sensitive area of our economy. The fiscal incentives which will be made available to them through subsidies amounting to up to 80 per cent of their development costs are proof of the government's wish to secure the the private sector's successful participation.
It is the government's intention to change the energy consumption habits of Canadians and to this end it will improve the distribution system for alternate forms of energy and encourage the consumption of natural gas by a wise pricing policy. The extension of the gas pipeline from Montreal to the maritimes will make western natural gas available to those regions along the pipeline, from Montreal to the Maritimes, and will allow them, for instance, to change from heating oil to natural gas. I want to indicate that according to the pricing policy there will be one price only for gas for consumers in Montreal, Quebec City or Halifax, and that that price will be 65 per cent of the blended price for oil. That price will therefore make gas particularly attractive to the consumer who will want to convert his oil heating system to that form of energy.
The energy pricing policy is the crucial aspect of this energy strategy. The energy revenue-sharing aspect does not have unanimous support. However, this revenue sharing, as proposed by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, is quite fair. Previously, the federal government found itself in an unbearable situation. It had to assume its national responsibilities and carry the better part of the financial burden tied with the increase in energy prices while, on the other hand, receiving but a small share of the oil income.
The new formula will increase the share of the federal government from 10 per cent now to 24 per cent. The provinces, on the other hand, will receive roughly the same amount they did before. In fact, the losers are the industries that explore and develop oil and gas resources, since their share is reduced from 45 to 33 per cent; it is in that difference that the
central government will find the funds needed to guarantee the national good which manifests itself, first of all, in the objective of achieving self-sufficiency by 1990, and then, in that of greater Canadianization of the industry that operates in the fields of oil and gas exploration and development.
This brings me to the last, but not least, of the aspects of the energy policy I want to deal with. It concerns the security of supplies and long term prices of oil and gas. Contrary to the Progressive Conservative approach, ours is specific about what oil and gas price increases are planned until 1983 and the rest of the decade. Moreover, the diversity and abundance of our energy resources will enable us to achieve self-sufficiency by 1990. Those elements of certainty are of considerable advantage in planning, and Canada is one of the very few industrialized countries that can offer firm energy guarantees to both its citizens and businesses. Obviously, that advantage will give an edge to our competitiveness and will encourage diversification of our industrial structure.
This budget has been criticized for failing to meet the challenge of reducing unemployment. The creation of better paid jobs and the maintenance of existing jobs have always been a major concern of this government, and this budget shows that this concern is still present. This budget contains many job-creation proposals. I shall only mention the fact that the Minister of Finance has accepted a much higher deficit than he would have wished for and that he has given priority to the growth of economic development programs. The government thus reasserts its will to reduce the deficit in an orderly manner. The economy is now showing signs of recovery. However, it is too early to assess the importance of this recovery. It is therefore necessary to maintain the deficit at its present level and to avoid as much as possible an increase in unemployment. Spending cutbacks or tax increases would only weaken the total demand for goods and services and increase unemployment proportionately. We are not the ones who should be criticized for being inactive in the fight against unemployment, but rather the Progressive Conservatives.
The budget of the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) forecast higher unemployment than what we have had, because he gave way to the temptation of reducing the deficit by cutting back arbitrarily public spending without any regard for the capacity of our economy and without considering the needs of the population. As I have just said, the economic development envelope will increase by 22 per cent in 1981-82. This rate of increase is by far the highest compared with the other budgetary envelopes. This is a clear indication of the will of the Minister of Finance to create an environment which should promote economic recovery.
Among the new expenditures, I would like to emphasize the investment tax credit of 50 per cent which was developed in
November 3, 1980

co-operation with the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. De Bane). This program covers new manufacturing investments in the designated areas of the country characterized by high unemployment and an underdeveloped manufacturing sector. In Quebec, for instance, the entire region north of the 50th parallel will be able to benefit from this 50 per cent tax credit.
And a while ago, I heard the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Cyr) emphasize the importance of this 50 per cent tax credit which will apply to the whole of the Gaspe peninsula and the lower St. Lawrence area, which will be east of Notre-Dame-du-Portage, if my memory serves me well, Mr. Speaker.
Now, if you look at those regions where tax credits will be granted on investments, they are areas with a high rate of unemployment, and with a tax credit of such magnitude and unprecedented generosity, new manufacturing jobs will be created, so that the people from the Magdalen Islands, the Gaspe peninsula, the Matapedia valley, the lower St. Lawrence or the north shore instead of flocking to Montreal or Quebec City in search of employment, thereby increasing the unemployment rate in those communities which have already been highly urbanized, will be able to stay home, find a local job, reinforce the local economy and boost the economy of those villages which unfortunately have been dwindling over the last thirty or forty years.
And I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the judgment passed by the hon. member for Gaspe on this measure, namely, that it would bring significant benefits to his area, is very realistic.
The new funds allocated to economic development will encourage new investments from the small business sector. These new funds will promote housing starts and in particular with regard to the so-called MURBs. It is to be hoped that in the regional centres of the country where the needs are being felt the most the promoters will use this approach in order to provide housing for those who need it. There is also the special allocation of $350 million over four years to promote industrial restructuring, manpower retraining as well as the qualification of our manpower, especially the young workers coming on the labour market, so that they may rise to the challenge of the energy development.
With regard to inflation, a flare up would be disastrous in terms of the sacrifices which would become necessary some day to reach an acceptable level of inflation. The government is deeply concerned with this aspect of inflation because its high cost at this time is somewhat slowing down the economic recovery and its satisfactory level of real growth which is what we all want. Obviously, the present rate of inflation is unacceptable and that is why the government, through the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) does not intend to put forward tax measures which might cause inflation to flare up again.
The basic cause of inflation, Mr. Speaker, still remains a rate of growth of the money supply higher than the rate of
The Budget-Mr. Bussieres
growth of production over a continuing period. In this respect, the Minister of Finance has already announced that he supports the Bank of Canada in its effort to restrict the growth of the money supply. So far this policy has proven to be the most effective in fighting against the basic causes of inflation.
However, there remain several other factors which in some way contribute to inflation. Examples are numerous: the increase in the world oil prices, the faster increase in the cost of some food products and periods where the total demand for goods and services produced is growing faster than the normal production capacity of these same goods and services.
There are also other factors which are not inflationary per se, but result in slowing down the decline of prices and production costs, and this decline is necessary to reduce the rate of inflation. In this regard, growing salary demands play a major part. Inflation is now deeply rooted in the behaviour of all economic agents, and people quite normally try to protect themselves against inflation, which results in growing salary demands to maintain the purchasing power and escalating prices of goods and services by the whole business community. All these attitudes combined have the effect of maintaining high inflation rates and of delaying the return to an acceptable rate of inflation. Given these circumstances, as was indicated by the minister of Finance, the government alone cannot reduce the rate of inflation without help from the private sector, without a sense of discipline and of responsibility on the part of every economic agent.
It will be through consultations among governments, unions and the business world that inflation will definitely be controlled. The example of the Federal Republic of Germany should guide us in this endeavour. Having fewer natural resources than us, yet undergoing the same external pressures, that country has been able to achieve through the discipline and co-operation of all its citizens a rate of inflation that is quite inferior to those of its European neighbours and even ours.
Moreover, in its budget, the government reaffirms its intention to limit the growth of over-all public spending below the tendency growth rate of the gross national product. This is a firm commitment on the part of the Minister of Finance and the government. This commitment indicates to the people that the government is assuming its responsibilities in the area of governmental fiscal management and by reducing the growth of its spending rate in a responsible and realistic manner. There is no intention of reducing the rate of spending by a few hundred million dollars just to please a few specialists. Too drastic spending cuts would have baneful effects on employment, and in that respect, the government does not intend to sacrifice employment to satisfy the experts. On the other hand, massive spending cuts would not solve the problem of inflation this year. Inflation control requires sustained policies and a concerted effort of all economic agents, as I explained earlier.

November 3, 1980
The Budget-Mr. Darling
The orderly reduction of government spending should therefore be extended over a longer period than the coming year.
The policy on energy pricing plays a key role in that fight against inflation. One has only to point out the inflation rates anticipated by the Progressive Conservatives last December. Our policy on energy pricing reduces the anticipated inflation rate in 1980 and 1981 by at least 1.2 per cent yearly compared to the Progressive Conservative inflation rate.
The government is not in favour of a further inflationary tendency, and if it occurred as a result of excessive demands in the private sector under the form of wage demands, abusive price increases of goods, the government would then consider enforcing stricter policies. I will now deal with the challenges to increase real development and productivity. 1 sincerely believe that the energy program and the fact that the government firmly intends to prevent further inflation are the guarantees of a more satisfactory economic prosperity.
1 believe, Mr. Speaker, that the ineffective criticisms of the official opposition about the solutions suggested in the budget to cope with the economic problem are wasted efforts. The Progressive Conservatives failed last year in their attempt to bring down a realistic and responsible budget. At all levels, the energy policy, the fight against inflation and the creation of jobs, the challenge for the future and for an economic recovery through an industrial strategy based on the backbone of the economy, the development of our oil and gas resources, make of this budget introduced by the Minister of Finance a far better budget than the one brought down last year by the hon. member for St. John's West.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a privilege for me to say a few words on this budget, whether or not it is, in the eyes of many, a budget. I read with interest an article in The Globe and Mail of November 1, by Hugh Anderson. The heading on the article is "Clever Budget is an Exercise in the Politics of Wilful Deceit". It goes on to say:
Federal Finance Minister Allan MacEachen received much praise from some quarters on budget night for what was seen as political cleverness. If politics is merely the art of fraudulently misleading one's listeners, which is a doctrine dangerously in vogue, the praise is justified.
But, if some fleeting glimpse of honesty is to be preached in the financial management of Canada, it is necessary to demonstrate just how far such political practitioners as Mr. MacEachen have gone-with their use of smoke and mirrors to confuse rather than illuminate.
I am sure that many hon. members are aware of the Biblical quotation, "Let us now praise famous men". Certainly, I cannot dispute the fact that the Minister of Finance is, at times, a famous man and, at other times, probably infamous.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Most of the time.


Stan Darling: The article goes on to say:
But the figures from 1982 onward all give the balance of the doubt to the government. In some areas they verge on fantasy. Notably, a merchandise trade surplus of more than $12 billion is forecast for 1985.
1 wonder what seers or magical sorcerers helped the government. With a figure like that, it was probably the northern magus.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Not magus, maggot.


Stan Darling: I have heard that expression and I have also heard the expression "The northern magpie". The article goes on:

Mr. MacEachen's promise to support the Bank of Canada's monetary policy. Perhaps this is not too surprising, though, seeing that the government has not responded to the central bank's appeals for greater restraint in spending policies.
Such cynically misleading exercises hardly seem likely to restore credibility to the federal government's handling of its financial affairs.
This government has been in office for eight months. I cannot help but wonder when the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) will bring down a real budget. His so-called budget of October 28 was more on energy policy than a budget. This has been pointed out not only by people on our side of the House but by knowledgeable people in the fields of finance, energy, and so on. I do not wish to imply that everything in the budget was bad. There were a few worthwhile recommendations.
We on this side of the House were particularly pleased that the government chose not to deindex personal income tax. This is a topic upon which we on this side have been hounding the government for a number of months, and we are pleased that the government made no changes with regard to the Registered Retirement Savings Plan and the Registered Home Owners Savings Plan. However, there was very little else in the budget for the average Canadian consumer. Certainly there was nothing in the budget to force those in the higher income brackets to pay more taxes. The tax loopholes are still there.
Clearly, the budget discriminates against people in the lower income brackets. It is a known fact that people in the lower tax brackets spend twice as much of their income on heat as they do on transportation. Many of the people in this bracket do not even drive an automobile. The 18-cent gasoline tax proposed by our minister of finance, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), in his budget last December, would have only collected money from the users of automobiles, trucks and so on, but the present Minister of Finance will collect a great deal more from a great many more people.
In the Crosbie budget the energy tax credit for those people earning under $21,000 a year was $80 per adult and $30 per child. It would have meant a saving of $220 for a family of four. Certainly there is nothing, as I mentioned earlier, in the minister's budget to assist those people, excluding the fact that he did nothing to the deindexing program. One choice item in the budget is the reactivation of the Multiple Unit Residential Buildings program. It means the return of tax incentives for MURBs, a program which had been phased out last year, and
^*
November 3, 1980

it becomes effective for all construction which started after the budget date, October 28, up to 1982; so it will have a two-year run. The objective is to reduce the shortage of rental units and introduces a scheme that will offer tax write-offs against other income for investments in rental units. Whether it will be any great boost by providing additional housing remains to be seen.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: It will really help the rich guys, though.


Stan Darling: That is right; them that has gets, and them that do not have, loses what they already have.
The small business development bond program has been extended for three months until March 31, 1981. Money was also available for the CHIP program and I commend the government for this-but with reservations. The increase in the budget was from $80 million to $265 million to assist the program to reach its objective of upgrading 70 per cent of Canadian homes by the year 1987. Let me point out, however, that this grant is not free, because it is added to the taxpayer's income. The only places where it is an outright grant are in Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia where it is tax-free. In my view the government should give serious consideration to extending this generosity to the rest of Canada. There are many old homes in other parts of Canada where the climate is colder that could benefit from such a grant, and 1 feel that the CHIP program is under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde).
The other item that 1 should like to comment on is the Multiple Unit Residential Buildings program, MURBs. I spoke of this previously.
Another item is the mandatory mileage standards for new cars. I understand this will provide standards for mileage efficiency in cars. These have been voluntary until the present time. Measures will be enforced which are expected to reduce fuel consumption of passenger vehicles by 20 per cent between now and 1984. In contrast, the United States has had mandatory controls since 1975.
One of many major criticisms of the budget is that it has done nothing about the real economic problems that currently face the country. What is the purpose of a budget if it is not to address the economic problems currently plaguing the nation? This budget has ignored the unemployment problem in the country. Despite the figures issued by the Department of Employment and Immigration, I am sure, counting the people who are no longer in receipt of benefits and a great many who want to work but cannot find jobs, that we will face this winter with at least one million people unemployed. That is an absolute disgrace.
The budget has done nothing to bring down government expenditures, which was one of the things that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) promised before the February 18 election. We know now what a misstatement that was.
The budget has done nothing about the horrendous inflation problem. Again, we should remember the words of the Prime
The Budget-Mr. Darling
Minister-I am not sure whether it was in 1974, but several years ago he said, "We will wrestle inflation to the ground." He is not much of a wrestler because he has had little success with that! Yet the Canadian people accepted that and many other promises made in February, 1980.


An hon. Member:: He also said that separatism was dead in Quebec.


Stan Darling: That is another of his wise statements. A great many people say that the Prime Minister speaks ex cathedra- absolutely infallible. Some years ago he stated that separatism was dead in Quebec. Well, Mr. Speaker, if it died, it certainly had a resurrection.


An hon. Member:: He also says it is now dead in the west.


Stan Darling: It is far from dead in the west, thanks to the Prime Minister and the budget presented by the Minister of Finance.
The Minister of Finance has admitted that federal spending will rise this year by 13.2 per cent to nearly $60 billion. He stated that unemployment will continue to get worse before it gets better. That is a great and profound statement. Another thing he said is that inflation will continue in the 10 per cent range next year and that the massive $14.2 billion deficit will be reduced only slightly in 1981. This is not acceptable, Mr. Speaker. It is abundantly clear that the record of this government is a record of failure.
What is even worse, Mr. Speaker, is that the government refuses to come to grips with these problems. This is a majority government, so there will not be an election for at least another four years. The way the Prime Minister operates, however, he will probably hang in until the last minute, so it could be five years before there is an election. Why would the government not be courageous and tackle these problems head on? The longer the problems are shoved under the carpet, the worse they will get. There is no excuse for the government not endeavouring to do something to diminish the severity of these problems.
It is interesting to note what the Prime Minister had to say during the last election campaign. He promised energy prices below those proposed in the Progressive Conservative government's budget. It is estimated that over four years the difference will be five cents per gallon. Of course the Prime Minister would have Canadians believe this government's increase is considerably less than that which would have occurred under the Progressive Conservative budget last December.
Since this government took office eight months ago, there have been no less than five increases in the price of gasoline. This is the government that promised to keep energy prices down. Remember, Mr. Speaker, that in the few short months the Liberals have been in office they have presided over price increases at the gasoline pump totalling, in central and western Canada, 14.8 cents per gallon, and in eastern Canada 15.5 cents per gallon. I think that is ironic, because I recall very well that a year ago gasoline cost $1 or slightly under. Just

November 3, 1980
The Budget-Mr. Darling
yesterday I bought unleaded gasoline in my riding and paid $1.42 for it. Gasoline has gone up in price by 50 cents per gallon. I should like to hear the government refute that. It is well and good to come up with fancy figures, but when taxpayers see today's prices at the gasoline pumps they realize they were sucked in to vote us out of office on February 18.


An hon. Member:: Power at any cost.


Stan Darling: On January 12 at the Liberal campaign college in Toronto the Prime Minister promised to hold the line on government spending. He stated emphatically that under a Liberal administration growth in government expenditure would not exceed the rate of the gross national product. We know what a lot of baloney that was, and that is being charitable.
Over the next four years the Liberals will have total cash requirements of $12.7 billion more than was projected in the Conservative budget. To meet these requirements the government will have to either borrow more, thus driving up interest rates, or print more money, thus driving up the rate of inflation. By 1983-84, government spending will be $6.2 billion per year higher under the Liberals than it would have been under a Conservative government.


Mr. Jarvis:: Ten billion.


Stan Darling: My colleague, who is a financial expert and an outstanding lawyer, the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis), says $10 billion. I see the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) paying attention but I do not know whether he is agreeing or not.


William Herbert Jarvis: He agrees.


Stan Darling: The Prime Minister promised that the government deficit would be reduced in a phased and orderly fashion. The deficit in 1983-84 will be $500 million larger than last year's deficit, and $2.7 billion larger than the deficit projected in the Conservative budget.
The Prime Minister promised to enhance the security of the individual by helping those who need assistance. By the end of 1984, Canadians will have been hit with increases in the price of oil and gas equivalent to over $1 per gallon. Is this enhancing the security of the poor? Is this assisting those who need assistance? What is the government doing to bring down the rate of inflation so that home owners will not be forced out of their homes because they cannot meet the mortgage payments? What is the government doing to assist small business in this country? Just last week the Minister of Finance told this House there was nothing the government could do about high inflation. The government did not have the resources to initiate any more new programs. Despite the shortage of cash, they are now talking about buying oil companies. One of the suggested companies is Imperial Oil. A recent article in one of the foremost daily papers indicates what it would cost to buy Imperial Oil. I quote:
Analysts put the shares, based on asset value, at $64 each. If we bid for all of them (and our security law says we must) and got them, it would cost $10.5
billion. Accountants Touche Ross and Co. figure that we would have to pay $4 a barrel for all oil reserves to gain control of any company. That would add $4 a barrel to the cost to consumers of oil, it would add not a single barrel to our oil reserves-
This money, if we have such money hidden under the carpet, should be spent to find new supplies of oil and gas.
Permit me to say something about the new grant program for the conversion from oil to gas or electricity. I commend this idea. It is a good idea. It is the hope of the government that this new program will contribute towards a meaningful reduction in oil consumption in this country over the next few years. The amount of the grant is to equal one-half of the cost of conversion up to $800, and the program went into effect on October 28, 1980. Regrettably, many of the details of the program have not yet been worked out. Listen to this, for example. The office of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources informed me that application forms for this new program are not presently available for distribution and will not be available until March or April of 1981. Isn't that wonderful?
Home owners who expect to take advantage of this program are asked to retain all the receipts of costs directly related to the cost of conversion. When the application forms are available, they can then apply for the grant. Some will probably have to borrow money from the bank in order to proceed. One would have expected the government to have ensured that application forms were available within a reasonable time.
With regard to retroactivity, there seems to be a great deal of confusion about the program being retroactive. Evidently this is one of the details the government has not worked out yet. I was informed by the minister's office that the program is not retroactive, that anyone who started the conversion process prior to midnight, October 28, is not eligible to apply for the grant. I have been informed by the office of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that the program is retroactive. Who is right and who is wrong? The persons who began to convert from oil to gas or electricity prior to the announcement of the introduction of the program by the Minister of Finance in his budget will be eligible to apply for the grant, provided the final safety inspection did not take place prior to midnight, October 28, 1980. Who does one believe-the office of the Minister of Finance or the office of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources?
The government has had eight months in which to work out these details. This is just another illustration of the ineptitude of ministers opposite. There is absolutely no question that unless the government makes a concerted effort to have the application forms available within the next few weeks there is no way anyone will receive payment before the end of next summer. It is conceivable that the grant could end up costing people money, particularly if they have to borrow to pay for the conversion.
There is another aspect of the program that is disturbing. It appears the government is so eager to encourage home owners to switch from oil to gas or electricity that it has offered to pay
November 3, 1980

one half the cost of the conversion bill, up to $800. However, the government goes on to say, and this is the kicker, that, the grant, whatever the amount is, will have to be declared on income tax for income tax purposes. Again they will get their greedy claws on a good bit of that grant money.
What is the government doing? It is giving with one hand and taking away with the other. As the Bible says, the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. In this case, it is MacEachen who giveth and MacEachen who taketh away and continues to take away.
Also, the government is going to impose an excise tax on natural gas which will be equivalent to 12'/2 cents a gallon by the year 1984. Talk about deceptiveness and trickery. This government certainly gains full marks for that. On the subject of trickery, I am reminded of one of our cabinet ministers who attended a gala event. An outstanding comedian was present. The cabinet minister said to him, "If you are a comedian, make me laugh." The comedian looked at him and said, "You are a politician, tell me a lie."
I also want to bring to the attention of the House the 50 per cent tax credit for new manufacturing. This investment tax credit program sounds wonderful. It will help certain industries by allowing a 50 per cent write-off of the tax credit against liability. As I understand the program, the object is to promote industrial development in those parts of the country most adversely affected by economic disparity. The 50 per cent investment tax credit applies to eligible capital costs on assets acquired for manufacturing. Certain of them are eligible such as fish, sawmilling and metal fabrication. A great many more are not eligible. There is no limit to the project size.
The eligible period is a five-year period commencing October 28, 1980. A building started before the eligible period may qualify for those costs incurred after October 28. Eligible assets are those devised under the Regional Development Incentives Act. The point I want to stress is that it is no help to the constituency of Parry Sound-Muskoka.
i see a former minister from the last Liberal government here. I do not think it will be a hell of a lot of good to him, either, because it applies only to north of the 50th parallel. I ask the President of the Treasury Board to pay special attention-he represents the province of Quebec. Ontario has a population of 8,576,000. This will only benefit .29 per cent or 24,271 people in the province of Ontario. Where does the 50th parallel go? It is north of Timmins, Cochrane and Moose Factory. The only town shown on the map is Fort Hope-not Port Hope, my illustrious friend. Isn't that a great benefit to the people of Ontario? In a lot of the western provinces it covers quite a bit.


Mr. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to tell the hon. member that in the constituency of Kenora-Rainy River, which I represent, there are a number of communities which will be able to take advantage of this provision, in addition to a number of Indian reserves; towns like Sioux Lookout, Hudson, Pickle Lake, Deer Falls, Red Lake, Balm-erstown, Madsen-
The Budget-Mr. Darling


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please.


Stan Darling: Therefore, you are part of the 24,000 people. I did not say specifically who they were. I am delighted to know that at least one riding will benefit. I presume there will be many factories in that northern area to help my friend from Kenora-Rainy River.
There is no question that there has been a great deal of uproar over the energy items in the budget. The government has slapped a tax on the export sales of natural and domestic gas, in fact, on all gas. The government imposed a new oil and gas pricing regime on the producing provinces. As we are well aware, the price of gasoline has gone up under this government and it will continue to go up in the future. The cost of this Liberal energy plan will be a major drain on every family and individual income in this country. Canadians should be under no illusions about that.
I might mention that a prominent member of the Ontario legislature represents the riding of Muskoka in my area. He is certainly well known, because he is the treasurer for the Ontario government, the Hon. Frank Miller. As I recall, during the election in February and prior to that time, Mr. Miller made some comments about our budget. Many of his comments were quoted at length by my Liberal opponent. However, the minister has looked at last week's budget and found considerable fault this time with the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). In retrospect, 1 think he is wishing that he had been listening instead of talking last December.
An article in the Citizen for Friday, October 31, 1980 reads in part:
Provincial Treasurer Frank Miller accused Finance Minister Allan MacEachen of ignoring Ontario's ailing economy, while pumping billions of dollars into the West.
The article continues:
Miller said he was "deeply concerned" the budget will only worsen Ontario's growing recession by treating unemployment as a low priority.
Increasing unemployment insurance premiums by 33 per cent will cost the provincial economy $300 million next year.
These are additional premiums.
I was listening to the remarks of my distinguished colleague from Mississauga who said the additional cost in unemployment insurance premiums will cost Canadians over $1.1 billion next year. However, speaking outside of the Ontario Legislature, according to the Citizen article:
-Miller estimated an average Ontario household will pay up to $2,500 more in energy costs over the next five years.
Imagine what that amount will be over the tenure of this government. The Lord have mercy upon us is all I can say about that.
It was also pointed out that all these costs will cost Ontario an extra $10 billion a year. There are about 2.5 million households in Ontario, so that is a reasonable figure. This statement of $2,500 a year or more gives a lot of us a great deal of worry.

November 3, 1980
The Budget-Mr. Darling
Mr. Miller delivered a paper at a finance meeting on September 19 and it was known then that MacEachen had oil problems to face but he had to worry about two things-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but 1 must advise him that his allotted time has expired. Nevertheless, he may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stan Darling: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 1 want to thank my colleagues also. In closing, let me point out to the good people of Ontario, and in particular to the people in the riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka, that the electors of Ontario who voted for the northern magus-or the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)-got a government which flies in the face of massive public opinion. For example, it rammed through the metric system when a great percentage of the population was against such a system. Second, was its measure concerning gun control; we know what the great majority of Canadians feel about that. Third is the unpopular bilingual program. This has cost literally hundreds of millions of dollars and a great many people are still unhappy about it. Fourth, the unilaterally shoving through of the constitution over objections by seven of the ten provinces with certain of the Prime Minister's "pet" amendments to be added before it comes to Canada.
Little or no help for small business is forthcoming from the present government. 1 heard the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) commenting on what has been done for small business. I can tell you that small business is being throttled by red tape, and government bureaucracy until small business people are almost ready to shoot I do not know how many of the civil servants. There is not too much in the budget to help small business.
With one-third of the total population, the people of Ontario should take special note of the amount of money which comes into the province of Ontario as compared to what the province of Ontario pays. This way people could see what grants are paid to Ontario. Assistance has been requested for the tourist industry through several departments, particularly the small harbours branch. DREE payments to Ontario amount to $20 million a year compared to over $100 million a year to the province of Quebec.
1 have mentioned the great increase in gas prices. The Prime Minister said in 1974 that there would be no wage controls. He said he was absolutely against that. He told us he was resigning, but he was resurrected from the political grave thanks to the wily Cape Bretoner. The CN tracks were going to be twinned from Winnipeg to the coast. Have we seen or heard anything about that? Next we might hear the ridiculous statement that the post office is self-sustaining.
So I come to the Post Office, which does hot have a nickel for its deficit shown in the budget. It is just as if it were on its own and self-sustaining. That is the stupidest thing I have ever come across. The Post Office deficit last year was $400
million. Will we now be faced with a charge of a dollar for a stamp? This is just another example that comes to mind.
I can see a great scenario unfolding. Certainly the wily, prince Machiavelli from Cape Breton has done a masterful job. I say to every Liberal member that he or she should get down on his or her knees every night and thank God that he is on that side of the House. But the Cape Bretoner will have to be repaid in some way. I forecast that he will be the next prime minister when the northern magus retires. Mind you, it will be for a short period of time. He will probably look across to the NDP who are going to lose their seats next time. Probably righteous Robbie might be put in the Senate and made minister of finance for a period of time. Then I foresee a leadership convention and the hon. member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien) will become the next prime minister. But I can tell you that this side of the House will be moving over there. A Conservative government will be the next government, and I am looking forward to that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gary F. McCauley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in this debate and to follow such a distinguished speaker as the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling). He is an entertaining speaker but I do not put much faith in his crystal ball gazing.


An hon. Member:: You are against MacEachen, are you?


Gary Francis McCauley: This is an historic moment in our country's life. Canada runs the risk of becoming the most highly educated third world country in the world. Our energy bills are strangling us. Our work force lacks technical skills. Our economy is largely controlled by foreign interests.
This budget is making the right moves to alter those trends and to put us back on the track. By concentrating on our energy problems, the budget will help solve other problems. If we develop our national energy potential, we will no longer be in debt to, or at the mercy of, OPEC. We will create thousands of jobs and train workers in valuable skills at the same time. In addition, we will develop new energy technology and expertise that can be exported. Thanks to Petro-Canada, more of the money that goes for energy will be kept right here in Canada.
Despite what we hear from opposition benches, this is a good budget. It is fair to people, to industry and to the provinces. Obviously there are some who disagree with that assertion. I am afraid they are inclined to use political rhetoric to encourage divisive forces in various regions of the country.
The hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) and his colleagues in this debate so far have been spending a lot of time taking us all on a verbal stroll through the graveyard of Tory budget proposals laid to rest by Canadians last February. The hon. member and his colleagues are arguing over tombstones. In his doomed December budget the ex-finance minis-
November 3, 1980

ter tried to bludgeon the people of Canada into conserving energy with an 18-cent excise tax on gasoline. Even now the hon. member does not seem to think that tax on transportation fuel would have hurt low-income Canadians very much. That is nonsense. Low-income Canadians still have to get to work somehow. They have to be able to get around, to shop and to pick up the kids. They would have been hurt-and hurt badly-by that tax. To add insult to injury, that tax would have shown up in the cost of goods transported to the regions of the country. That would have meant a further chunk out of the pay cheques of Canadians.
With their holier-than-thou act the Conservatives are now glorifying their December proposal to give low-income earners an energy tax credit. It was a scheme to help cover the cost of heating oil, but how would Canadians have paid for this scheme of tax credits? Well, very simply, with the money paid into the Tory treasury through the excise tax. What a sham, giving the poor people of Canada their own money back to heat their homes, taking money with the left hand and giving the same money back with the right hand. Yet this government is accused of playing a shell game.
The hon. member for St. John's West has been giving nicknames to various other members of this House ever since he arrived here. We on this side of the House have been having a little contest so that we can return the compliment. So far the best suggestion is the "Nervy Newfie" because of the gall he has in this debate to complain about heating oil costs. He did not mention what the family breadwinner would have paid for heating oil under his budget in 1984, $1.96 a gallon. Under our government's proposal by 1984 it will cost a maximum of $1.51 a gallon. That is difference of 45 cents. There are similar differences between our prices and Tory prices for natural gas and for gasoline.
Instead of sly manoeuvring between excise taxes and energy tax credits, this government has taken a long range look at ways in which we can become independent of the OPEC robber-barons. We want to be off imported oil, and we will be off imported oil by 1990. But no government can do that alone. We have to signal to consumers that they too have to work toward this end.
It is no secret that Canadians were receiving conflicting signals during the past decade. We were told about wastefulness. We heard dire predictions about rationing and about how short supplies were getting. But oil was so cheap. Rare things are expensive, so oil could not have been getting as rare as governments were trying to tell us. Well, it is rare, and it is getting harder, to find, particularly in terms of conventional sources. Therefore, it will be, and must be, more expensive in the future. So no more conflicting signals.
Oil costs money, so we will have to pay for it, and in paying more we will think about conservation more. We will turn down the thermostat, take the bus and wear a sweater.
We must also take the initiative to insulate our homes and convert to wood or natural gas or other alternatives. The government has provided programs of assistance in these areas which will have lasting effects in terms of conservation. There
The Budget-Mr. McCauley
are $800 grants to cover up to 50 per cent of the cost of moving from oil use to gas or wood or other alternatives, and the budget for the home insulation program has grown by 300 per cent, to $230 million.
We recognize that even with all these programs some segments of the population will be hard pressed to pay for heating oil, so the Department of National Health and Welfare of this government has increased by $35 the Guaranteed Income Supplement and spouses' allowance for seniors. The same people who will receive an additional $420 under these increases would only have received about $160 under the Tory tax credit scheme. That is a big difference and one well worth pointing out. We have provided for these low-income Canadians much better with the $35 per month increase than the Conservatives would have given through their heating oil tax credit.
We could have offered subsidies for heating oil, but in doing so we would have defeated our purpose of trying to get people to kick the energy habit, and we would have had to pay such subsidies each winter. This way, consumers only have to insulate once. They only have to convert their furnaces once. And let us not forget that in 1985 gas will cost the equivalent of oil costs this year.
This honest, effective and long-term approach realizes that we are going to have to tough it out until we are independent of imported oil, but the way we are toughing it out means we will develop our own national resources, invest in our country, create jobs here and develop technology here which can be exported.
So this is not just an energy strategy. This is an industrial strategy. Energy caused our economic woes. Let it provide the solutions as well.
The Atlantic region of this country in particular will benefit from the national energy program, contrary to remarks made by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie) in this debate. He accused the government of using regional expansion programs to increase regional disparities. Not only is that a ridiculous contradiction but it is also irresponsible.
In this budget we have a $500 million commitment to building a natural gas pipeline for the maritimes and Quebec, which means we in Atlantic Canada will have an alternative to imported oil.
Should we find enough gas off our shores to justify tapping it and passing it on to the rest of the country, we will have the transmission lines in place to do so. The beauty of this project, and of the whole national energy program, is that it will create jobs, rev up our industry and use a vast source of fuel. Extending the pipeline was the object of one motion made at the Liberal convention in Winnipeg last summer which received the full support of the New Brunswick delegation. Our action proves that this government listens to the grassroots of the party.
Although the pipeline proposal has not yet been finalized, we can get an indication of how it will benefit the maritimes from an earlier proposal by Q & M Pipe Lines. The total net

November 3, 1980
The Budget-Mr. McCauley
income which would have been generated for New Brunwick, Nova Scotia and Quebec under that proposal would have been $1.7 billion in 1979 terms. Average annual employment for the three provinces would have been over 4,000 jobs. Most benefits would have gone to New Brunswick. The total increase in income to the province from the transmission line alone would have been $601 million. Another $220 million would have come from the pipeline distribution system. That is a total of $821 million in income increases to New Brunswick, not to mention the 2,000 jobs which would have been created in that province.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At 6 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. When the debate was interrupted at 6 p.m., the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Postmaster General (Mr. McCauley) had the floor.


Gary Francis McCauley: Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned, 1 was discussing the benefits to the provinces of New Brunswick and Atlantic Canada of the building of the natural gas pipeline to that part of the country. I want to pick up on that and to talk about the problems which Newfoundland or P.E.I. will have, because they will not have access to western natural gas but they will benefit from yet another conservation program which will allow for energy audits, oil furnace retrofitting and additional insulation.
This program will operate in much the same way as the $800 off oil conversion grants and will apply to the Yukon and the Northwest Territories as well. Other federal energy initiatives, such as research, conservation and industry incentives, will total over $290 million in New Brunswick over the next four years. That is almost $400 per person in that province alone. Yet the opposition critic for the Atlantic development program says there is nothing in the budget to strengthen the economies of the region.
We on this side of the House put greater stock in the opinions of such august bodies as the Atlantic chamber of commerce which reacted favourably to the budget. They are particularly pleased with the 50 per cent tax credit for certain new capital investments in disadvantaged areas. Business people will also benefit from programs like the small business development bonds. As we all know, they have been extended for three months into 1981.
But, speaking of energy, ultimately we have to get away from non-renewable sources. Even coal and natural gas will run out one day. Realizing this, the government has set up a
new Crown corporation called Enertech Canada. As a member of the special parliamentary task force on alternate energy and oil substitution, I am especially pleased by this move.
Enertech Canada will be a subsidiary of Petro-Canada and will focus on supporting commercial production of renewable energy and conservation technology. Also, since 1978, there have been a number of programs operating in this area. The use of wood and other biomass fuels has been encouraged, as has research and development in wind and solar technology, all part of a $380 million package which was started in 1978 and will run for another five years.
All these alternatives hold real promise for Atlantic Canada which, at least for now, has no domestic source of oil and gas. But the program which can benefit us the most is the conservation program. Again, as a member of the alternate energy committee, I have heard it said innumerable times that the most valuable barrel of oil is the one we save.
To help industry improve energy efficiency, there is a $30 million fund which has been set up exclusively for the Atlantic provinces. It will cover up to half the cost of conservation measures. If we succeed in this program, we will be less vulnerable to energy price increases and we will be more competitive in national and international markets.
People who use electric heat in the maritimes will be relieved to hear that utilities are being encouraged to change from burning oil to burning coal for generating power. One hundred and seventy-five million dollars has been set aside for this task. Coleson Cove, New Brunswick and Tufts Cove, Nova Scotia, should be two of the first utilities to benefit from this fund.
Conversion projects involving coal must be environmentally acceptable to be eligible for the grants. We do not want to worsen the acid rain problem. Technology for using coal efficiently and in a way that is environmentally benign will be encouraged with a $50 million three-year program. Another $100 million may be added to the fund in 1984-85.
This is yet another example of how the government will use solutions to our energy problems to solve our economic problems as well. There will be jobs in Cape Breton coal mines once again. We will be tapping a vast source of energy there and we will be developing new coal utilization technology. Other nations are also turning to coal. Our new-found expertise will be exportable and our energy dollars will stay in Canada. Despite opposition criticisms I think most Canadians see that this budget will benefit all regions of Canada. I think people in Atlantic Canada will use the opportunities given them through the budget to become more self-sufficient, not only in energy but also economically. I believe deep in my heart that the people of western Canada are really willing to contribute to the total country's welfare, contrary to what certain politicians are saying. If we stop listening to politicians and start listening to people, we may get a few surprises in terms of western Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
November 3, 1980


Gary Francis McCauley: For example, The Calgary Herald polled Albertans and found that most expected a gas price hike and did not think it was excessive. The president of the Alberta Chamber of Commerce said that converting from oil to gas should be beneficial to Alberta and all of Canada. The Edmonton Journal carried an editorial which said the budget would not reduce Alberta's income in the immediate future. It predicted faster growth after 1984. The Journal also predicted the heritage fund would continue to grow at a healthy rate, oil sands plants could go ahead, conventional oil and gas would flourish, and the over-all economy would grow. Also deep in my heart I believe Albertans appreciate that being part of Canada is something like being subject to progressive income tax-"The more you make, the more you contribute". They feel more allegiance to confederation, the Canadian experience and national welfare than certain members of the Conservative opposition give them credit for. The dark mutterings of the Tories about western separation are in many instances attempts to play off one region against the other.
The hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) said in a recent speech:
The nation can stand considerable stress and strain. It is constantly proving this. It is a durable nation and will survive the constricted wisdom and political demagoguery of those who will rave and subtly give credence and substance to national cleavage and dismemberment.
The hon. member was participating in the debate on the constitution when he made those remarks, but I am sure he would agree his words apply equally to this debate. Certainly there is western alienation, not only political and economic, but even geographical and physical. By the time British Columbians get up in the morning, the stock markets in Toronto and New York have been open for hours. Decisions affecting them have already been made half a continent away. Even during an election, the results have usually been decided long before the polls close on the west coast. No wonder westerners feel everything is decided for them in some mythical place called central Canada. But they are not the only ones who feel that way. The people of Atlantic Canada have the original patent on alienation. For years they have felt they are just drifting along behind the rest of the country. Whether we live in Atlantic Canada, Ontario, Quebec or the west, we know from time to time that all of us have contributed to the growth of this great country. John Diefenbaker from the west gave us a bill of rights; Tommy Douglas from the west introduced the first provincial medicare plan. The west has a fine tradition of grass-roots politics which has made their governments very sensitive to how the little guy on the street feels, until now. Now certain politicians for their own political purposes are trying to appeal to the worst in westerners, saying the east and central Canada are robbing them of their resources.
The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney) estimated that British Columbia will lose $30 million annually on exports of natural gas because of a tax on that fuel. She did not mention the $4 billion that will be heading west from the federal government to help that region diversify its economy. If western Canadian companies cannot sell their gas south of
The Budget-Mr. McCauley
the border, the federal government will buy it. These measures, plus the provincial share of the export tax on oil, should more than compensate the region for any ill effects that may be felt in the export market. Westerners are reasonable people; the federal government is taking heed of the region's aspirations and is sharing the nation's wealth with it and all other parts of Canada. That is the task of a truly national government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gary Francis McCauley: It hurts me to hear irresponsible statements like those of opposition members who say this government has declared war on the west. As I said, irresponsible statements just encourage the worst in people.
The New Democratic Party has shown it can put its constituents' interests in the west before its political interest. The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) said our actions on this side of the House on the natural gas tax show we sincerely hope to gain support in the west. Certainly westerners have gripes. Don't we all? But westerners have not been ignored by the federal government to the extent that some of their representatives would have them believe.
Take resource benefits, for example. The Canadian provinces get a higher share of resource revenue than any other state in the world: more than double the share Texas gets from its federal government; more than triple the share which goes to the state of Victoria in Australia. What about all the money the federal government has passed up in favour of tax incentives for oil and gas exploration in the west? The provincial governments have earned a considerable sum in royalties from projects which might never have begun without federal tax incentives. As for the weeping and wailing of the oil industry, let us remember that federal price and tax policies have provided the industry with the cash flow necessary to finance its expenditures. This means the oil consumer and the Canadian taxpayer have financed virtually all the substantial expansion of this industry. Surely Canadians have the right to be more involved in the energy industry, which has realized such fabulous growth in the past few years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gary Francis McCauley: After-tax profits in the industry reached $4.7 billion last year, up 53.8 per cent from 1978. We have a good thing going in the energy sector, and it is time Canadians as a whole began to profit from it. The multinationals are not likely to throw in the towel tomorrow and quit investing in Canada because of the national energy program. Where else can they go? To Britain, where the government has first claim on over half the offshore oil production? Compare that to Petro-Canada's new claim to only 25 per cent of energy finds in the Arctic and offshore. The multinationals will not be too interested in going south to Mexico because the state gets 100 per cent of the finds there, and Norway claims 50 per cent to 70 per cent of the share in its jurisdiction. It is not as though we are buying assets from them which Canadians do not deserve or have not contributed to; not at all.
4378

November 3, 1980
The Budget-Mr. Friesen
As for the NDP notion that we are pushing Canadianization of the oil industry for the benefit of those who are already rich, let me repeat what the energy minister said. His department has had talks with credit unions, caisses populaires and wheat pools that want to diversify their investments.
The NDP had a similar argument against extending the MURB program. It is the Multiple Unit Residential Buildings incentive plan that will get the construction industry out of the doldrums. The New Democrats have branded it as merely a tax haven for the rich, and some members of the official opposition have used the same language. This program, like any other, is for those who want to take advantage of it. It will create about 10,000 jobs. It will alleviate the housing shortage in cities like Vancouver where zero vacancy rates have been recorded.
Creating jobs, training workers and developing our economy-we will do it all and at the same time find some answers to our energy problems. This is not the big, bad budget everyone was expecting. We did not de-index personal income tax. We did not raise those taxes or corporate taxes. Registered Home Ownership Savings Plans are still available. There is a whole raft of things we were expected to do but they would have been contrary to our Liberal philosophy. We are encouraging business but we are not going to let multinational oil companies continue to take us to the cleaners. This is a many-faceted budget which looks far into the future. It makes that future look very bright for all Canadians, no matter where they live-east, west, north or south. This is a budget of which we can all be proud.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, it is customary for members to begin a speech of this nature by saying it is a pleasure to rise and speak on the subject before them. I must say that when I look at this budget I can hardly say it is a pleasure to speak on it. I listened with some attention to the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. McCauley) who has been sharing his views with regard to the budget and the reaction to it. He kept referring to what he called the irresponsible criticism of the opposition.
Anticipating that kind of reaction on the part of the government I thought I would go to the newspapers of the land and look at the headlines the day after the budget had been laid before us in the House. These newspapers are really not promoters of the Tory party so 1 think that may serve to make their comments a little more objective. One newspaper says the budget is the "Biggest move since Second World War" and "Energy policy is massive nationalist intervention". One columnist says: "Mackenzie King lurks in MacEachen budget". I do not think that headline would be thought to be too complimentary. Another one in the Gazette says of the budget: "Taxing the energy firms a curve ball to the taxpayer". Geoff Stevens talks about "The cunning of MacEachen". Another columnist talks about "New natural gas levy slap in the face for the west". Another one said, "Budget worse than appears". "Slick and sly MacEachen left 'em gasping", says one newspaper, while another says it was "Imprudent, insulting". Finally, one columnist said, "Tone of reason is deceptive".
The two adjectives which I found sadly missing in the descriptions of the budget in the national press were "good" and "honest". Nowhere does the press say it was an honest budget designed to meet the needs of Canadians. As a result, we have a budget which evokes those epithets thrown at the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and we see a reaction which cultivates cynicism in the land and distrust of the government by the public. And we do not need any more of that.
I noted with interest that the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier) rose in his place last Wednesday during the question period and put a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) in which he was throwing back to the minister the line the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) uses all the time about the need to be sharing in Canada.


An hon. Member:: Redistributing the wealth.


Benno Friesen: Redistributing the wealth, the hon. member says. 1 would like to ask the hon. member for Longueuil to examine the concept of federalism in the way the government defines "sharing". In his question he was asking about investment in Quebec. But the Prime Minister has always talked about sharing the energy resources of the west with the rest of the country.
And since we are talking about those kinds of investments I would like to ask the hon. member if he has asked about the way Quebec Hydro shares the wealth it gets from the investment that Newfoundland has made in the development of hydro electric energy Quebec sells it to the United States. I understand that the contract the province of Quebec has with the province of Newfoundland is somewhere in the range of a 65-year contract. It was made by the former premier of Newfoundland, Mr. Smallwood, because he could not get a better deal with Quebec. He had to sell that energy at fire sale prices to the province of Quebec which in turn, having no investment in the project at all and being nothing but a broker, re-sells that energy to New York State at world prices. And that is a 65-year contract. I ask you: is that sharing?
1 am wondering about sharing in terms of Ontario's gold mines. I know that the energy resources in Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia are attractive because the value is now inflated because of petro-dollars, but so is the price of gold. Just a few years ago gold was valued at $35 an ounce and now it is valued at between $600 and $700 an ounce. I would say the price of gold has been inflated. What about the price of gold and its value to the province of Ontario? Since Ontario and the federal government want Alberta to sell their oil to the rest of the country at one-half the world price I wonder if the province of Ontario would sell its gold or its uranium at half the world price.
1 am wondering about the protective tariffs and the quota system which is in effect. It has been here for the past hundred years and people across Canada have accepted it. It was put in
November 3, 1980

place to protect the industry of central Canada in order that it might thrive because the economies of scale are just nonexistent in Canada. Nevertheless, those same tariffs have increased the price to the consumer by an average of 30 per cent.
Hon. members will remember that several years ago this government put a quota system on the shoe and textile industries so that those retailers in Canada would have to buy Canadian products first. But those same industries could not supply goods to western Canada. It meant that shoe stores in British Columbia went out of business because of a policy designed to support industry in central Canada. We do not quarrel with this but it drove businesses into bankruptcy in western Canada. I ask members opposite; where is the concept of sharing when it comes to the quota and the tariff system in Canada? 1 say flat out to members opposite that sharing is not sharing if it is compulsory.
When the Prime Minister talks about sharing and then imposes a budget which forces the provinces to sell their product at below world prices, that is not sharing. That is the work of a stick-up artist of the highest calibre. When Alberta lends to other provinces at favourable interest rates or when it agrees to build port facilities in Prince Rupert, that is sharing. When Alberta sells energy at half the world market price when it could just as easily transport that petroleum to the port of Vancouver and ship it overseas to be sold at the world price, that is sharing.
On the other hand, the energy which Quebec Hydro purchases from the province of Alberta is used to generate electricity in the province of Quebec, which then sells that electricity at the world price to the United States. Is that sharing? The budget introduced by the Minister of Finance has put further strains on confederation. The hon. member for Moncton just said that westerners are reasonable people, and I agree. We have been reasonable for 100 years in the face of some very unreasonable demands. The time has come to ask ourselves how long we ought to be reasonable, how long we should pay 30 per cent more for the products and the privilege of buying Canadian while at the same time we receive 50 per cent less for our raw resources for the privilege of being Canadian.
How long should we pay higher freight rates to send raw materials east so that the products can be manufactured there and so that we can buy them back again? Yes, westerners are reasonable. If it were turned around and easterners moved west for one year, they would see how long they could be reasonable living out west. The hon. member for Moncton over the dinner hour graciously sent everybody a copy of his "Householder." I found on pages six and seven a short constitutional dictionary. It is somewhat more convoluted than Webster's. In fact, the definitions are a series of questions. There is a whole paragraph written to define the amending formula, but it never defines the amending forumla. I wonder what his constituents will say six months from now when they find out that New Brunswick has been snookered out of an
The Budget-Mr. Friesen
equal share in confederation and been made a second-class province by the amending formula imposed by the Prime Minister.
The people of the west know that the Prime Minister believes that the western provinces are second-class provinces. We found that out. We have also found out how much the New Democratic Party sold out in the famous deal. I notice that members from the House of Commons have been appointed to the joint committee and that there are two members of the New Democratic Party on that committee. The people of British Columbia sent more members of the New Democratic Party to Ottawa than any other province, 12 members, yet there is not one New Democratic member on that committee from British Columbia.
The great New Democratic Party has dealt the people of British Columbia out. 1 can understand why they did not send the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson); it is because they cannot trust him to vote the way the leader wants him to vote. I can understand why the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) insisted that he be a member of that committee. Of course, the hon. member for Yorkton-Mel-ville (Mr. Nystrom) is a member of the committee because he is the party critic on federal-provincial relations. I suppose the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will sit next to the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville to instruct him to say the right things and to vote the right way when it comes to the constitutional proposal, particularly section 42.
Why is it there are no members of the NDP party from British Columbia on that committee? Does British Columbia not count? The master for western Canada, the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), arranged with the Prime Minister to make sure that resources were permanently entrenched in the charter of rights in the constitution, but he could not arrange for a member of his party from British Columbia to be on that committee. That really shows his interest in western Canada.
I have followed the debate on the constitution very carefully. In fact, until closure was invoked, in my estimation, it achieved probably the highest level of debate I have ever heard in this House. Two weeks ago we struck a new low. I can recall very clearly sitting here listening to the speech of the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax Eist (Mr. Forrestall) who was giving a very emotional and impassioned description of the problems we face in western Canada and Newfoundland with regard to separation. And what did he receive that night? He received one of the loudest guffaws from members opposite I have ever heard in this House. I remember the hon. members for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Gimaiel), Champlain (Mr. Veillette), and another hon. member, among others, laughing.
I said to myself that night that the problem of confederation is not a problem of sharing. I recalled the concern which members opposite felt for the referendum debate in the province of Quebec. We all shared that concern. Party leaders were pairing wherever possible so that members of government could campaign for the No forces. We passed a unanimous resolution in this House urging Quebec to stay in confedera-

November 3, 1980
The Budget-Mr. Friesen
tion. The combined forces of all parties won the day. But just six months later when concern is expressed with regard to the same kind of feeling in western Canada and Newfoundland, members opposite laugh. That is the problem of confederation.
Hon. members opposite wonder why there is this feeling of separation in western Canada.


Mr. Laniel:: In Quebec it is not a question of wealth.


An hon. Member:: Get serious, Benno!


Benno Friesen: I welcome the hon. member's participation, but whether it is a matter of wealth or not, we do not deserve to be laughed at.


Gérald Laniel: I did not laugh at you.


Benno Friesen: If the hon. member wishes to hear who was laughing, he can listen to the tapes. He will hear the laughter all over the House, and I make no bones about the matter. When the west is taxed, supposedly, equally with the rest of the country, we can accept that situation. Let me read an article from one of our western papers, the Winnipeg Free Press, a paper which is not one of the staunchest supporters of the Tory party-It has been moving toward the Liberal party lately. The article was in the October 31 issue in the form of an editorial entitled, "Billions Down the Drain", and it reads in part:
Lloyd Axworthy, western Canada's minister of everything else, paused in his most recent round of announcing parks and defending constitutional initiatives, to set things straight about energy policy.
It goes on to say, in the closing paragraph:
The real objection to the federal government's oil policy is not that it proposes to take wealth from the west and spend it in the east. Resources revenues, like those from any other source, ought to be used to benefit all of Canada. It is that the government proposes to take money from the west and pour it down the drain where it will help no one and, in the long run, will make all areas of Canada economically weaker and more vulnerable to the uncertainties of the world oil market.
That is what the Liberal newspaper in Winnipeg has to say. It is not that people object to paying tax; that is part of the family arrangement and taxation ought to be equal and it ought to be fair. But when there is overtaxation there is trouble. That means trouble for the consumer.
I might add, parenthetically, Mr. Speaker, that I happened to pick up a copy of today's Globe and Mail. In the business section there is an article which quotes a gentleman named Denis Ouellet, who is an analyst with Levesque, Beaubien Inc. of Montreal. The article quotes him, comparing the budget before us with last year's budget, as follows:
'I see one irony in the budget,' he said. 'Consumers may have voted against the Clark budget, but they will find that collectively they will have about $2.5 billion less to spend in 1981 under the Trudeau budget last week.'
I did not say that, Mr. Speaker; the Tory party did not say that; our research office did not say that. A consultant firm in Montreal said that; consumers will have over $2 billion less to spend this year as a result of this budget. The government will
soon know all about that. Overtaxation of the consumer means he cannot save money for retirement. It means that when he reaches retirement he will be totally dependent on the government. That robs him of a sense of dignity to which he is entitled in his senior years and of the ability to look after himself rather than depending on the government for support.
A couple of months ago a widow came to my office. She had moved to British Columbia from Montreal. Her husband had invested in an annuity which she found was not paying very good dividends so she cashed it in. According to the Income Tax Act the proceeds became part of her income for that year and she was liable for income tax on the lump sum. She had to pay something like $700 in extra tax-except that she did not have $700. What was she to do?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Go to jail.


Benno Friesen: That is about it, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me there is a conscious understanding on the part of people that a government is entitled to a legitimate share of their earnings in order to undertake legitimate government services. But when the government moves into areas that are either unnecessary or extravagant, the people will find a way to rebel. When a government taxes beyond the level that citizens feel is fair and right, they will find ways of rebelling. By overtaxation, the government invites dodging and people find ways to get around paying the taxes. It irritates me and infuriates me that the government spends so much time revising the Criminal Code but seems to forget about white collar crime which is not covered in the code. The Bank Act will soon come before us but there is precious little in it to protect the consumer against fraud. The government is very busy with the Criminal Code, however.
When there is overtaxation, Mr. Speaker, there is a reduction in labour. I recall going to one of the sawmills in my community where the manager told me that he found it very difficult to keep a full crew on Friday evenings. The men knew that one day's earnings per week was simply turned over to the government and felt it did not pay them to work on Friday as it would increase their tax. As a result, productivity was reduced.
Overtaxation also has an adverse effect on business by inhibiting expansion. A few nights ago in this House one of my colleagues told us about an oil company in Alberta which found at the end of the year it had $19 million to invest in exploration and expansion. When it ran the budget through the computer and applied it to the financial picture of the company, it found that rather than having $19 million to invest it was left with $2 million. If hon. members found that their disposable earnings available for reinvestment were reduced to that degree, I wonder if they would consider working worthwhile?
A grocery in my constituency complained to me about tariffs. He is charged 15 per cent or 16 per cent tariff on some items he imports. His mark-up on resale is only 14 per cent and he did not see why the government should make more than he does. That seems to me a fairly reasonable rule of thumb,
November 3, 1980

because the government is at no risk. It has not invested anything except man hours so why should it make more money than the entrepreneur? What we have is a disincentive because of overtaxation.
There is a final aspect of this situation that bothers me, Mr. Speaker. The government ought to know by now that the taxpayer's willingness to pay is directly related to the way the money is spent. If he is called upon to be prudent in handling his resources then he feels he can call upon the government to be prudent as well. When he sees a budget of $60 billion this year, a deficit of something like $16 billion and interest on the deficit amounting to about $1 billion, he feels justified in asking whether the government is prudent in the way it is using that money. The taxpayer cannot look kindly on a government that is guilty of such extravagance; he wants a return on investment.
This budget does not solve the country's problems, Mr. Speaker. It is a budget which attacks the consumer, a budget which calls on the consumer to pay. It is an attack on the reinvestment possibilities for companies, which in turn means a reduction in job opportunities. It will be seen as an attack on the rights of citizens to save for themselves, to invest for themselves and to plan for their own future rather than having the government do it for them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour for me to take part in such an important debate.
As I was listening to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen) deliver the budget speech on Tuesday, I was reminded of how fortunate Canadians were to live in a country endowed with so many human and natural resources. Throughout our history, Canada has managed to respond and adapt to worldwide economic and political developments like no other industrialized nation in the world.
Developments such as the world oil crisis which have severely handicapped some of our closest allies, have only inflicted a minor wound on our economic performance. Canadians today are fortunate to have before them a budget which does not in any way severely affect their lifestyles, such as would have been the case with the ill-fated Tory budget of 1979. Over the next few years Canadians will have to make only modest sacrifices in the way of higher domestic oil prices. When one considers the price of oil in the United States, and especially in the western European countries, these sacrifices will appear insignificant.
What we have before us tonight is a very sound and realistic budget which will provide us with the right ammunition to deal with our economic problems in the short term and, at the same time, provide us with some of the key policy objectives for the complete implementation of our national energy program in the longer term. The budget in itself is non-discriminatory and very selective. What we are attempting to do is to concentrate
The Budget-Mr. Bockstael
on those sectors and industries which, on the one hand, can best support tax increases and which, on the other, can be the most equitably taxed to benefit all Canadians. These are the industries and resources which for the moment, and in the foreseeable future, figure more prominently both internationally and domestically, and also assume socioeconomic proportions of national significance.
We are not, as some members opposite have accused us of doing, picking on certain provinces or on certain industries and resources. If today we are taking steps to collect more revenues from oil and natural gas production, it is not because we want to fill up our coffers at the expense of certain provincial governments. It is because we, as a national government, must participate more actively in developing and protecting these valuable instruments of national growth and progress.
The opposition has argued many times that, regardless of their value in the world markets, oil and gas resources should be treated no differently than any other resource; that they are provincial property and should be treated as such, in much the same way, for instance, as is potash, iron ore, or hydroelectric power. Our government respects the provinces' rights to levy direct taxes and collect royalties on natural resources found within their borders. In fact, we offered the provinces the right to levy indirect taxes on resource production, as well as the right to engage in interprovincial trade. However, we must, as a federal government, resort to the use of our own powers by way of indirect taxation to carry out our national responsibilities.
By imposing a tax on natural gas, applicable to Canadian consumers and foreign customers alike, we are not in any way intruding into provincial jurisdiction. Our taking action in this field is completely within the established constitutional powers of the federal government.
Provincial politicians have, it appears, historically taken a position against our using this, one of our rights, to tax their natural resources. Premier Lougheed has accused us of singling out oil and gas resources unjustly for taxation. However, he must not forget that there was an export tax on hydroelectric energy in the years from 1926 to 1968 when the federal government considered such a tax to be in the national interest. The truth of the matter is that the federal government has exercised this right to indirect taxation on natural resources on previous occasions in our country.
From 1947 when a major oil find was made in Leduc until the mid-1970s, imported oil was cheaper than domestic oil from Alberta. It was the national government which, through its policies and its construction of a TransCanada Pipeline, helped and encouraged the growth of this vital western Canadian industry.

Mr. Speaker, when natural resources or any other sector of the economy takes on a national significance, and when the well-being of all Canadians depends on a single natural resource, it is then important for the federal government to intervene in a positive manner in the economy. The federal

November 3, 1980
The Budget-Mr. Bockstael
government must ensure that the cost and benefits related to the development of that resource be shared by all Canadians. The national government of any country must get an adequate share of the revenues generated by the most prosperous sectors of the economy. It must play a more direct role in the economy so that its citizens are not threatened by forces they cannot tolerate.

Canadians must realize that we could not wait any longer before going ahead with our national energy program. We have attempted over the years to arrive at a just and fair agreement with the producing provinces over the price of oil and gas. These talks have always ended in failure, because at the negotiating table, the provincial premiers could not understand that we, as a national government were representing the interests of all Canadians, not simply the interests of the non-producing provinces. If the roles were reversed and oil and gas reserves had been found in Ontario and Quebec, for instance, rather than in Alberta, westerners would expect us to move in exactly the same way to provide for and guarantee their energy security.
Because of geographical and geological factors, major hydrocarbon reserves are located within the territorial boundaries of the three westernmost provinces, and because of external developments, beyond the control of Canadians, petroleum, in international markets, has assumed such political and economic significance that we today must develop these resources with the national interest in mind.
The question is: should Canadians have to pay the world price for oil, or bear the burden of energy insecurity, when we as a nation are fortunate enough to have massive conventional and non-conventional oil and gas reserves. We can achieve energy self-sufficiency without at the same time having to make an enormous sacrifice in order to meet this end. So, therefore, what is our government proposing in the budget before the House?
We are, on the one hand, attempting to ensure that Canadians across the country benefit from our wealth in both conventional and non-conventional oil and gas resources. On the other, we are putting forward a scheme to "Canadianize" our petroleum industry, so that we can all reap more of the benefits from the development of these resources.
Obviously, we cannot expect to fulfil these national objectives under the present revenue sharing arrangements between the federal government, the producing provinces, and the petroleum industry. The federal government must obtain a larger share of petroleum revenues in order to implement its national energy program. We are therefore proposing to increase our stake in total production revenues from a modest
10	per cent to a more equitable 24 per cent, drawing from the
011	companies, not the provinces.
To increase its revenues from energy our government will levy taxes on production. Alternately, we could have passed the cost of this energy program on to the Canadian citizen by imposing a massive tax on the consumption of petroleum, as
would have been the case with the budget drawn up by the Conservatives last December. Such a move would have been both socially regressive and economically unwise. We took a decision against such a move when it was introduced in the House last December, and we are abiding by it in this budget.
The government of Alberta insists that oil prices in Canada must rise rapidly to near world prices and that they, together with the multinationals, should continue to collect the lion's share of the revenues from petroleum resources.
Our government realizes that conventional oil is indeed a rapidly depleting resource and that measures should be taken to divert Canadians away from oil consumption to other forms of energy. Alberta is suggesting that rapidly increasing prices is the only route to take. We feel that such a move would not be in the best interests of Canadians. It would result in sudden price increases which would severely handicap both the Canadian consumer and the economy as a whole.
We have proposed phased-in price increases which would allow Canadians enough time to convert to other forms of energy consumption. Given a larger share of petroleum revenues, our government could introduce programs aimed at developing new sources of energy to offset these phased-in price increases and help Canadians convert to more abundant sources of energy, such as natural gas.
What we are actually doing now is approaching this problem from two sides. Canadians can continue to consume oil at realistically set prices and we can work to develop other sources of energy without having to impose harsh taxes on the consumer. It is understood, of course, that we can only hope to achieve this if we manage to garner a larger share of the revenues from the production of oil and gas.
Let us not fool ourselves for one instant by thinking that energy self-sufficiency and a just pricing policy for all Canadians can be achieved simultaneously without the federal government taking a more active role in the energy sector.
When the federal government indicated it would increase its share of revenue collecting to 24 per cent, some provinces took offence at the proposal. The Premier of Alberta retaliated by announcing that his province would cut back oil and gas production to fellow Canadians forcing them to turn more and more to foreign suppliers. It is indeed a shame when one stops to consider the implications of such a move, Mr. Speaker. Here we have a provincial premier who is attempting to disrupt the federal government's national energy program. This premier has taken it upon himself to dictate the terms of a new energy package which will adversely affect all Canadians.
I do not think the government of Alberta has the right to dictate the terms of the federal government's national policy under any circumstances. The Premier of Alberta appears to have taken upon himself the task of speaking for western Canadian interests. I cannot honestly find anything in Mr. Lougheed's statements of last Thursday night to convince me that Alberta's proposed actions to curtail production will
November 3, 1980

benefit Manitobans, who have very limited gas and oil resources of their own and must depend on the federal government for their energy security.
In fact, Manitoba's natural resource income was only $23 per capita in 1978 compared to Alberta s $1,874 per capita. Last week, the Manitoba finance minister openly condemned the federal budget as being an "energy grab" by the federal government at the expense of the western provinces. All I can suggest is that the Manitoba minister consult his economic advisers because there are no energy resources being grabbed-or to grab-in Manitoba. On the contrary, the federal budget will benefit Manitoba which, because of its lack of fossil fuel resources, is lagging behind the other western Canadian provinces.
I will now go over some of the benefits which will accrue to Manitobans through the federal budget. Under the national energy program, grants will be provided for conversion or replacement of oil-fired heating systems to enable homes and businesses to convert to other forms of energy. Some 60,000 homes in Manitoba are currently oil heated. The program target is the conversion of around 23,900 homes by 1990, all of which are eligible for 50 per cent of the costs incurred, up to a maximum of $800.
Under a federal-provincial agreement, Manitoba will also be eligible for a share of the funds which the federal government will make available over the next four years to assist in the financing of expanded distribution systems for propane, natural gas, electricity and perhaps other forms of energy.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) announced last week the establishment in Winnipeg of a new Crown energy corporation called Enertech, which will promote and participate in business ventures; producing, distributing and marketing renewable energy, and developing new energy sources. This new corporation will be a definite asset to Manitobans, and to all Canadians. It will greatly assist Canadian businesses in shifting to new forms of energy sources.
In addition, there is the $4 billion western development fund which will be used to fund a series of economic development initiatives in the four western provinces. Such a fund will particularly benefit Manitoba which does not have enormous revenues flowing into its treasury from petroleum, as is the case in the other three western provinces. Manitoba will be able to use its share of this development fund for infrastructure improvements, to promote and encourage industrial development and diversification; to upgrade rail lines in the west and to introduce new agriculture and water programs.
The proposals contained in the federal budget certainly attest to our government's concern for western Canadian development. The revenues collected as a result of our levying taxes will be poured back into the energy sector, a large part of which will be used to diversify western Canada's energy base. In short, the budget will add a new dimension to western Canadian development.
The Budget-Mr. Corbett
In September of this year members of the Standing Committee on Transport travelled from coast to coast to familiarize themselves with the needs of all of the provinces. In each province we visited we were told that over and above all the functions of the various ministries of government, over and above unemployment insurance, national pension programs, medicare, social services, national defence, etc., it was up to the federal government to provide national transportation linking our country from coast to coast by land, water and air. We met representatives from governments, municipal offices and so forth. We were told that better railways, better passenger and freight trains were needed; that new rails or heavier rail lines should be constructed; rail lines must be retained and relocated and rail lines that are to be maintained in the system were to be rehabilitated. New intermodal stations were needed and better rolling stock, engines, hopper cars and so forth were to be provided. When it came to marine centres, we were told that container terminals, wharves, search and rescue facilities, coast guards, ports and port development were all needed. We were told we had to look after the port of Churchill and the St. Lawrence Seaway. When it came to cities which required airports, we were told better runways, more runways, cargo facilities, terminal buildings, traffic control centres, radar equipment and instrument landing service were all needed. They wanted assistance for their urban transportation program. They wanted assistance for the transportation of the disabled. I could go on and on. The Ministry of Transport has an expenditure budget per year of $1.2 billion, but the demands by the various provinces for all these facilities, which would be administered by the federal government, would run into the billions of dollars. When we look at the other side of the coin, at our ability to provide our nation with these facilities, it becomes evident that income is required. But when we turn around and say to the provinces that it is their turn to give something so that we can attempt to meet the needs of the nation, they say, "Yes, but you cannot have it from us; we are keeping ours; what is ours is ours". We cannot build a nation on those grounds.
In the budget before us the federal government is proposing to enter into a partnership with the provinces which will, it is hoped, help us improve the political and economic balance of Canada. The budget will indeed give us the opportunity as Canadians to pull together in times of insecurity and demonstrate our ability to shape our destiny as a nation.


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, when I awoke on the morning of October 29 I, along with several million other Canadians, was suffering from what I refer to as the yo-yo syndrome. I felt tremendously relieved that the horrible things which had been forecast to happen to us actually never came to pass. I refer to such things as the phasing out of the indexing of personal income tax, the elimination of the $1,000 income tax deduction for interest income, the ending of the Registered Home Ownership Savings Plan, the reduction of tax deduction limits for contribu-

November 3, 1980
The Budget-Mr. Corbett
tions to registered retirement plans, the reduction in the dividend tax credit scheme, the reduction of capital gains, the increase in the 33.3 per cent small business rate to the standard corporate rate of 50 per cent and many other things which had been leaked, "reliably", from the Department of Finance to the pundits in this country, who reported them. It was a little like the wife who came home with a piece of the cheque her husband had given to her saying, "Look at all the money I saved you, dear; I did not buy that new hat or that new bird cage", and so forth. That was the relief part of it.
However, on the other hand, after I had an opportunity to analyse what actually had taken place, I was filled with a kind of disgust at the blatant contradiction we had witnessed. I was disgusted at the contradiction of the terror tactics the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) had imposed secretively on this country during the previous few weeks in anticipation of things which were supposed to be very bad. I felt sickened by all of this. It was a slick, sadistic scenario.
Along with many people in this nation, I feel this budget has done more to polarize the nation and more to harm honest efforts toward constitutional change than any other documentation we have seen put before this House, with the exception of the constitutional matter. Debate on the constitutional matter on the floor of this House was denied to the majority of us here. There is an unhealthy correlation between the budget of the Minister of Finance and the attempts of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to redefine and reshape this country in his own image.
If indeed we are ever to have constitutional reform in this country, it will be much more difficult because of the budget of the Minister of Finance. There are those who believe, with justification, that there has been a deliberate attempt through the introduction of this budget on the part of the Minister of Finance and his cohort the Prime Minister to alienate the east from the west. After all, if the issue can be clouded, what difference do the votes in the west mean to the party which sits opposite? The answer is only too obvious.
It has become apparent that there has been a dramatic increase in talk of separation in the western parts of the country, and with good reason. A few short months ago it was said that only a handful of people in the west were talking about separation. A poll in the last few days showed that because of the alienation the west now feels that number has increased to about 25 per cent-and this is in the early stages. It does not bode well for constitutional talks.
The west is not the only region where there is talk of separation or fear of separation. I heard talk of separation in the east as recently as this morning at the airport where people were seriously talking about where we as eastern Canadians are going to turn for our political affiliations. The British North America Act of 1867 assured co-operation between the partners of this affiliation or confederation. Co-operation was the byword and the foundation upon which the British North America Act was based. The Prime Minister, the first minister of this land, should not act unilaterally to bring that constitution back from Britain without agreement on an amending
formula and without agreement generally between the provinces, the partners of this confederation which, after all, have a substantial stake in the nation.
I speak as a Canadian and as an Atlantic Canadian. I speak as a New Brunswickcr when I say that the Prime Minister is wrong in his approach to patriation of the constitution. It is wrong that one man can dictate to this country to satisfy his ego and an obsession caused by his own fanaticism. He is determined to change the course of the history of this nation whether it be for better or worse, as long as it is changed in his image, as he envisions it and without consultation.
The Minister of Finance has brought in a budget which, in the opinion of many of us, will again act to alienate the regions of this country more than to bring them together. Will he, too, act unilaterally? Will he force an end to this debate? Of course, the procedure of the House demands that the debate end, but on an issue as vital to the nation as this and in view of the fact that a good number of people in this House have been denied the opportunity to speak on the constitutional matter, I believe the period of debate on this budget should be extended so that all of those who wish an opportunity to speak on a matter which is so vital to the future of the nation may have that opportunity.
History will show that neither the Minister of Finance nor the Prime Minister, contrary to what they may think at this time, will go down in the pages of Canadian history books as great men. This House of Commons has been betrayed, its members have been betrayed, the future of the country has been betrayed and, most of all, those Canadians who voted last February for this government have been betrayed. They are, for the most part, good, honest Canadians who believed that the constitutional issue was fundamental to the future of this nation. They were people who believed that those they had elected should have the opportunity to rise in their places in the House and speak on this issue. The people who elected me expected that I would have the opportunity to rise in the House and to speak on this fundamental issue. But I was denied the opportunity, along with a good many other members. I believe history will show that to have been wrong.
Let us look at the budget. Let us consider the terrible things that did not happen to us. Deindexing was the big issue which we had talked about for so long. Thanks to the Minister of Finance, Canadians were spared deindexing. But the minister left the door open. He stated in part that if continued indexing is interpreted as a readiness to accommodate unlimited inflation rates, he might be "faced with no alternative but to impose some limit on the indexing factor." He said to the people in Canada that if they cannot hold down their inflationary ways, then they should watch out because next year they might be subjected to the sort of thing with which he had been threatening them this year. However, apparently it is not going to be this year, and I am sure the people of Canada are grateful.
November 3, 1980

There are no new taxes in this budget, according to the Minister of Finance, but we see, on examination, an increase in employer-employee premiums for unemployment insurance. That will raise $1.1 billion for the federal coffers, which is more than twice the amount contained in the Crosbie budget for an increase in UIC payments. Yet the minister says there are no new taxes. Who is going to pay for this increase in the payroll of this country? It sure as heck is not going to come from the government. Or is it? We shall have to wait and see.
What about the immediate and future increases in the taxes on liquor and tobacco products? There are no new taxes, according to the Minister of Finance, but somehow or other he slipped up because there are to be some future taxes on liquor and tobacco products. There is a sales tax on advertising and an extension of the manufacturers' sales tax on certain marginal manufacturing operations. If there are no new taxes, who is going to pay for this? We know where the money will come from. It is going to be raised on the backs of the little guys, the same as the bulk of the UIC payments, the $1.1 billion. It is going to be raised by the working people of this country.
And where are the offsets, where are the benefits, where are the easing measures in this budget to help the little fellow cope with these additional taxes? We should be asking this of our friends to the left, the NDP. Where are the offsets? It is the party to the left which made it possible for all these wonderful things to happen to Canadians that we have recently witnessed in the Minister of Finance's budget. We do not hear too much from them these days. They are all huddled together rereading "The thoughts of the Chairman" and muttering to themselves "but this is not the way it was supposed to have happened."
Let us examine briefly the energy package, Mr. Speaker. You will recall what brought these people to power after the NDP made it possible for them to run the election. They came to power on an energy package by condemning the 18-cent tax which was included in the Crosbie budget, and they said, "No, we will not raise our price of energy as much as the Tories intend to do because we do not believe you can afford to pay 18 cents for your power and fuel." What do we find in the package of goodies of the Minister of Finance? According to the Crosbie budget, a barrel of oil was going to increase by $4 by the end of 1980. According to the budget of the Minister of Finance, it is going to increase by $3.80, a difference of 20 cents. That translates into about half a cent difference per gallon. My soul, how fortunate we are as Canadians to have such a compassionate group over yonder looking after the welfare of the Canadian car owner and driver!
Take a look at what is going to happen to us all. Under the Tory program, by the end of 1983 we would be paying $23.80 more for a barrel of crude oil. Under the Liberal program, we would be paying $22.05. What does that $2 a barrel translate into so far as a gallon of gasoline is concerned? This also includes the terrible 18-cent excise tax. It translates into approximately two cents a gallon, or a little less, but I will give them the benefit of the doubt. The taxpayers of this nation spent $60 million on a two-cent election! It is not the 18-cent election any more.
The Budget-Mr. Corbett
What about the energy tax package? What about the other things we were talking about prior to the defeat of the last government? What about that program which was called-


Mr. Cullen:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was listening to the hon. member very carefully. He mentioned the figure of $79 a barrel in 1977. Was he misreading his notes or was that the figure he meant?


Robert Alfred Corbett: No, Mr. Speaker, I was not misreading my notes at all. It is very clear here. One thing I do quite well is print.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I was not wondering how you read.


Robert Alfred Corbett: The refundable energy tax credit was a very important part of the Crosbie budget. What that would have meant to Canadians earning under $21,380 is that an average family with two children would have had a tax rebate cash credit of $220. The two cents a gallon more in the cost of gasoline under the past government's program would have worked out to about 600 gallons a year at 12,000 miles per year, assuming your automobile gets 20 miles to the gallon, which works out to about $12 a year, give or take a few miles. The fact of the matter is that an average family of four would have been the recipients of about $220 in a cash credit under the old program. This means that under the Crosbie budget, the average Canadian family, at the end of 1983, would have been $208 better off per year than under the present minister's budget.
What else do we have in that package? We also have those nefarious little goodies which were referred to as the Canadian ownership charge. We have not been told much about the Canadian ownership charge, except that it is one to which we will all contribute so that we all end up owning some grandiose multinational oil company, getting into the oil business in a big way and becoming real social democrats. There are one or two other programs which are not defined as well. It is hard to say just exactly what it will mean. Before it is all over, I suspect that the 18-cent excise tax which defeated the Conservative government last February 18 will look like a Sunday school picnic in comparison to what we will have to pay under the present government.
Does anyone in the House of Commons recall the present government telling the people during the last campaign that it would increase the taxes on heating oil? I did not hear them, and no one I talked to on the street heard them either. But it is a fact of life. The fact is there has been an annual tax on heating oil which by the end of 1983 will amount to 36 cents per gallon more than would have been imposed under the Crosbie budget. It will mean an additional increase of approximately $286 per annum for the average family. Do hon. members opposite realize that? I bet it did not appear anywhere in their campaign material. Certainly it did not appear in any newspaper advertisement which I read. No, they did not
4386

November 3, 1980
The Budget-Mr. Corbett
mention that type of thing, but we are used to that approach by the government.
What has happened to the program for the conversion of oil to gas? This is probably one of the more positive points of the budget, one I would like to take a few minutes to address. It is outlined in the book entitled: "The National Energy Program". Page 56 reads in part as follows:
For conversions from oil to gas, electricity, renewable, and other energy sources, a grant of 50 per cent of the conversion cost, up to a maximum of $800.
It goes on to say:
However, the program will take account of special situations in individual provinces. For example, the dependence of the Atlantic provinces on oil for electrical generation, although declining, precludes financial assistance for conversion to electricity at this time.
The last sentence of the third paragraph on page 57 tell us:
No one should delay action to convert away from oil.
I can only presume from this that even maritimers in this particular instance are not being regarded by the government as second-class citizens. I am very thankful for that. The sentence before that one reads as follows:
When the program is operational, compensation will be paid.
I think that is a positive step. I look forward to many maritimers, many New Brunswickers, taking advantage of the program.
Under the section dealing with the Atlantic provinces, we read on page 86:
Assistance will be provided to consumers, as in other provinces, to switch from oil to other fuels. Assistance for conversions to electric heating will not be immediately available in the Atlantic region, however.
In the province of New Brunswick more than half of its generated power comes from sources other than oil. Yet, according to this, for some reason or another New Brunswickers will be denied this program to convert to electricity from oil, despite the fact that less than half the electricity produced in the province of New Brunswick comes from oil. I should like the minister to take notice of this.
I understand that over the weekend there was a Liberal rally in my constituency of Fundy-Royal, at which time the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove) attended as the guest speaker. A resolution was passed at that particular rally asking that the Minister of Public Works contact the Minister of Finance and implore him to allow the Atlantic region access to the same program as the rest of Canada. Obviously the implications were that they had not taken the time or bothered to read the national energy program to determine that Atlantic Canadians are indeed entitled to compensation for switching to other forms of energy with the exception of electricity. Perhaps the good minister would like to take their suggestion under advisement. I hope he will allow Atlantic Canadians the same opportunities in this nation as other Canadians. But I doubt that this will actually be a fact of life.
The minister represents a part of the country which is very rich in coal. Apparently he has lots of money to deal out and has become very generous with the part of the country he represents, Cape Breton. I think that is laudable, it is very
noble of the minister. It has been a hard pressed area in the past, and I am thankful and pleased for the people of Cape Breton that the minister has taken cognizance of the fact their coal reserves should be developed. But there are other regions in the maritime provinces which have coal as well.
In my constituency the regions of Minto and Chipman have coal reserves. Last May 2 I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) if it was his intention or the government's intention to aid in the extraction, production and/or marketing of coal from the Minto and Chipman areas. The answer was no, that the department had no plans to aid in the extraction, production and/or marketing of coal from those areas of New Brunswick at that time. I can assure the minister that the miners and their families in the Minto and Chipman areas of New Brunswick like to eat just as well as the miners of Cape Breton. I think they should be given the same opportunities and favouritism as the minister has shown to the people residing in his constituency.
There are energy resources in New Brunswick besides coal. In Albert county there is oil shale which has been producing oil since 1922. Also there are gas reserves in that county which have produced natural gas for use in the Hillsborough area for a good number of years. Where is this mentioned in the budget or in the national energy program developed by the Minister of Finance for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources? It is conveniently forgotten, like the commitment to DREE. The government was committed to eliminating regional disparities, but it did not take into consideration doing anything additional for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. He talked about the manufacturers' investment tax credit. This was done in consultation with his good friend and old crony, the minister. This was for specifically designated areas. Indeed, it will be interesting to see where those specifically designated areas are.
There was no mention of the national parks in this country. We have a beautiful park in Fundy-Royal, which is suffering from a lack of attendance and has been over the last few years.
1 would have liked to have seen some attention brought to the plight of parks such as Fundy in order to increase attendance. But, no, not a word about it. Today it is appropriate to bring up the subject of national parks because we have park superintendents from all across this land visiting us here in the nation's capital. I would have liked to have seen some thought addressed to the plight of parks such as Fundy, but there was nothing.
What about the farmers of this country? There was hardly a mention made of farmers. The farmers are one of the most maligned groups of individuals in the nation. Yet there was hardly a word. The same thing can be said of fishermen.
And what about all of the poor people of this country? We do have them, in case the minister is not aware. There are poor people in this country who find it difficult to make ends meet and to get a meal. Where are the breaks for the little guys? Again, I should be asking the NDP who made all the rest of this possible for the people of Canada.
November 3, 1980

Where are the programs such as the mortgage interest and property tax credit plan which was included in the Crosbie budget? Where is the energy tax credit plan that would have helped the little guy absorb his new taxes? No, they are not there, Mr. Speaker. What about the heating fuel increases? These are the types of things we should be considering. We have only the assurance of higher inflation, higher taxes and more government spending. It is a one-man medicine show and a poor one at that. It is a spoof on professional quackery and this government, this minister, should not be allowed to get away with it.


Mr. Garnet M. Bloomfield (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to participate in this debate, which is on the first budget of the 1980s. This budget is the first of its kind in that it combines two priorities which are of increasing importance to this country. They are finances and energy. The link between has become such that it is impossible nowadays to separate them. Energy and finances will dominate the 1980s and our ability to effectively deal with them will have a direct bearing on whether or not we survive this century as a united federation.
This budget is the logical conclusion of our election campaign of last winter. Unlike some of the opposition members, who believe in instant cures to complex problems, we did not go charging off around the country making empty promises to the people of Canada which we could not keep. Rather, we anticipated the future. We realized that the people of Canada sought and demanded a government that could put the country of Canada back on its feet. We are a government which realized that election promises were just like any other promises made in good faith-they are made to be kept.
Just what did we promise the people of Canada? We promised them three things. First, we promised energy security at a fair price to all Canadians. Second, we promised to keep government expenditures within the rate of growth of the economy. Finally, we promised an orderly reduction of the deficit. Well, Mr. Speaker, we delivered on each and every one of those promises. This budget is a Liberal budget in every sense of the word. It is fair to all Canadians. It sets forth an energy program that will help Canadians reach energy selfsufficiency at a fair, made-in-Canada price. It holds the line on government expenditures while providing aid in those areas that need it most. In short, it lends direction to Canada at a time when it is crucial that this country should realize where it is going and the best way to get there. This budget calls to mind something which was said over a hundred years ago by Thomas D'Arcy McGee. He said:
The government must lead as well as save; it must march as well as fortify; it must originate plans for the future, as well as correct the errors of the past.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that that quotation describes as well as any what this budget does for Canada.
It is important to realize that it is virtually impossible to separate energy policies from fiscal policies when constructing a budget. Perhaps this is the case in Canada more than in any other western country. Economics and energy are the meat and potatoes issues of the 1980s. By dealing with both at the
The Budget-Mr. Bloomfield
same time the government is prescribing a complete comprehensive remedy for the country's current malaise. During the previous election we campaigned on these fiscal reforms and we were elected to this House as a majority. To fail to present this type of budget would be to shirk our responsibilities to ourselves and, most important, to the people of Canada.
As I said earlier, the government's expenditures program will be aimed at helping those who need help most. They are the senior citizens of Canada. To this end we have already raised the guaranteed income supplement by some $35 per household. That is what we promised in the last campaign. That is what we delivered in the first session of this Parliament.
Another group which desperately needs help is the small businessman. In the past we have been dedicated to helping the small businessman in various ways, one example of this being the ceiling raised on the small loans legislation from $75,000 to $100,000. In this budget the small business development bonds program has been extended. This will help reduce the costs of small business corporations. In all sectors of the industry I cannot think of any that is more important, more fundamental or more vital to Canada than the small business sector. It is the backbone of our economy, the birthplace of innovation and the focal point of industrial ingenuity. We, as Liberals, are aware of the important function the small business entrepreneur plays in Canadian society. We are committed to providing a healthy environment in which small business can grow and flourish.
In the field of economic development we have allocated some $350 million, a 22 per cent increase, to aid research and development and to supplement industrial restructuring. Also, a program designed to increase Canada's pool of domestic skilled tradesmen will be implemented. I might add that these training programs could have been avoided had the provinces recognized Canada's needs for a skilled labour force instead of encouraging all of their young people to attend university.
With respect to research and development I am happy we are allocating some funds to deal specifically with that issue. It is very interesting to note that Canada leads her economic summit partners in terms of government sponsored R and D expenditures as a percentage of gross national product. However, she lags behind in industry-sponsored research and development. In my view, this should be changed. Canada needs more research and development, whether it be government or privately sponsored. This helps Canada maintain her international competitive edge in terms of manufacturing. However, we must not allow ourselves to become complacent about our commitment to research and development. Germany and Japan have become considerably more successful in their conquest of world markets. Our high technology, communications and nuclear industries must continue to strive for excellence if we are to maintain our already prestigious international reputation. I look forward to the increased co-operation between government and industry to achieve this goal in the future.

November 3, 1980
The Budget-Mr. Bloomfield
We, in Canada, cannot forget the fact that we are, in many ways, one of the most fortunate peoples on the globe. We are not starving, as they are in southeast Asia. We are not living in the shadow of communism, as are the peoples of Afghanistan and Sweden. Nor are we subjected to the tyranny of a dictatorial regime, as are people in other parts of the world. It is important that we do not forget our international duties in terms of aid to countries which are less fortunate than we. Accordingly, this government is committed to increase our foreign aid to .5 per cent of our GNP by the end of fiscal 1984.
In the field of national defence, we will be increasing our expenditures by 3 per cent in real terms and this will apply directly to our NATO commitments. I heartily embrace this policy. I, for one, do not believe in starting a war with anyone. Neither am I of the opinion that we in the free world should let our defences crumble and decay at a time when Soviet aggression has never been so flagrant. Our western defence capabilities must not become suspect.
Through these programs, Mr. Speaker, we have shown Canada a path to economic recovery; a path that balances fiscal restraint with industrial incentives which will, if combined with our energy program, guarantee a stronger Canada in the future.
The new energy policy will, when fully implemented, ensure that, indeed, Canada will no longer have to depend on a foreign cartel for our oil. Allow me to quote from the national energy program highlights:
Three basic objectives guide our decisions:
(1)	Security of supply and ultimate energy independence;
(2)	Opportunity for Canadians to participate in energy industries, especially
oil and gas;
(3)	Fairness in pricing and the sharing of revenues among governments and
industry.
This is just what we told the Canadian people we would do. Through such existing government agencies as PetroCan, and other new ones, we will be able to provide Canada and Canadians with both economic stimulus and petroleum products that have a made-in-Canada price. This is a bold, courageous new program and one that most suits Canadian requirements. It is the type of program that promises to leave Canada in a good position to become self-sufficient in oil in the foreseeable future.
This debate is designed to present, in a logical manner, the goals of our national energy program. In doing so, it is hoped we will alleviate the reluctance of the western provinces to go along with our proposals. Basically, we believe that Canadians should be treated fairly and equally across the land and that it is the federal government's responsibility to make sure that this happens. Until 1973 there was no problem in maintaining this equality and fairness. When there was a world surplus of oil between 1957 and 1970, the federal government pursued policies that required industry to increase their use of domestic, higher cost crude oil even though cheaper imported oil was readily available. For this and other reasons, the pipeline from the west to Ontario was built.
In 1973 when the price of imported oil skyrocketed, the federal government concluded a new oil pricing agreement witht he producing provinces and undertook to compensate non-producing provinces for more expensive imported oil. During this time, the producing provinces amassed huge revenues as the Canadian government went deeper and deeper into debt through equalization payments. At the same time the foreign multinationals also increased their revenues. The old formula of revenue sharing, which saw the provinces and oil companies each take 45 per cent of the revenues, left the federal government with a meager 10 per cent to support the non-producing provinces.
At present the system is nearing complete breakdown. Without wanting to intrude on provincial revenues, the federal government must find new sources of revenues if the equalization system is to continue. This brings us to the present. The multinationals control a disproportionate amount of the revenues. Through the sale of Canadian petroleum products and through various tax shelters, they are shipping $4 of every $5 out of the country at Canada's expense. The profits that they are reaping are truly incredible. For example, the six largest oil companies in Canada, all foreign controlled, represent 71.7 per cent of the Canadian petroleum industry. Internal cash flow for these companies rose 43.6 per cent in 1979. After tax profits were up 53.8 per cent from the previous year.
Mr. Speaker, I do not mind a pig, but I hate a hog. We must stop this flow of capital out of the country and start back on the road to recovery. Through PetroCan and other government agencies we can commence an orderly Canadianization program for the petroleum industry. Such a program is not unknown in the world today. In Norway, Statoil controls from 50 per cent to 70 per cent of that country's petroleum industry and in Australia at least 25 per cent of the industry is domestically owned. The list continues.
It is important to keep in mind the fact that by Canadianiz-ing the industry, the provinces have little to lose. We propose a new split of 43 per cent to the producing provinces, 33 per cent to industry, and 24 per cent to the federal government. On top of this the producing provinces will receive many economic benefits to help diversify their economies and prepare for the future when oil and natural gas reserves are depleted.
The western development fund is a program aimed at achieving this goal. Four billion dollars, of which $2 billion will be allocated between now and 1983, will be set aside to fund projects selected jointly by the federal government and the governments of the producing provinces. Another commitment made by the federal government is the creation of a natural gas bank. This will provide smaller, Canadian-owned companies, with an early market for their natural gas. As well, it will help generate their cash flow in order that they may continue exploration and development. Coupled with this is the promotion of a conversion program to help Canada move off oil to natural gas.
In order to provide the producing provinces with new markets for their natural gas while stimulating Canada's economy at the same time, a network of pipeline construction will be
November 3, 1980

initiated by the federal government. Most notable of these is the Q & M pipeline which will ultimately bring western natural gas to the maritime provinces. 1 would suggest that if eastern reserves are proven, as they are, this pipeline be designed to bring eastern oil westward.
In putting together this comprehensive energy package, it becomes glaringly evident that the producing provinces, indeed all of Canada, will benefit considerably. The producing provinces stand to gain $38 billion, with Alberta receiving $31 billion. The petroleum industry will collect $30 billion and the federal government will collect $24 billion. Canadians will no longer be subjected to OPEC price shocks and we will be able to plot a course towards oil independence.
Through the expansion of PetroCan we will progress from a country dominated by foreign multinationals to a nation that is both self-reliant in energy and self-assured in the future. The Canadian energy industry will be more responsive to Canadian realities and requirements. The decision to implement this bold, new energy fiscal policy is the culmination of many months of careful planning and analysis. If successful, it will provide Canadians with substantially less-than-world energy prices and lend a tremendous edge to our other industries. Once implemented, it will then be up to Canadians to grasp the ball and run with it; without the co-operation from every citizen in the land, Canada runs the risk of squandering this unique opportunity to fashion her own destiny. This would be most unfortunate.
We are entering a new era, a time when opportunities such as this rarely present themselves. I urge all Canadians whether they be from the west, the east or the centre of Canada, to put down their regional barriers and come together under this plan for the future. Together we are stronger; united we cannot be subjugated by external economic forces. Let us embrace each other as brothers in this blessed country called Canada and become that for which our forefathers toiled so hard; one nation, rich in our diversity, but ever cognizant of the mutual goals that bind us.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Mr. Speaker, on October 17 of this year I requested that the acting Minister of Veterans Affairs bring the Pensions Review Board up to strength. I am happy to say that the minister took immediate action after I raised the matter in the House. I hope he will
Adjournment Debate
take such swift action in regard to the Bureau of Pensions Advocates which is also understaffed.
In a letter to the chief executive officer of The War Amputations of Canada regarding the Pensions Review Board the minister stated, in part, as follows:
the board is now at full strength. With extensive training for the next two months, Mr. Jutras expects to have all members fully operative. By late fall the board should be in a position to do better than meet the current demand.
I should like to quote from the Veterans Affairs Annual Report 1978-79. Under the heading "Years Activities" there appears the following:
During the fiscal year the board received 1,374 appeal applications (including 24 applications to vary previous decisions), compared with 1,286 the previous year.
It heard a total of 1,076 cases, including two interpretation hearings. The total for the previous year was 874. It rendered 1,071 decisions (in 1978, 878). Approximately 86 per cent of its decisions confirmed the decisions of the commission, about the same percentage as in the previous year. The decisions dealt with a total of 2,115 disabilities-
This means, Mr. Speaker, that the board is approximately 27 per cent behind in its work of reviewing applications. That being the case, the two additional board members will certainly help the situation. As it takes about two years to train a board member, I should like to suggest to the minister that the Pension Act be amended to permit the appointment of two additional temporary board members for a period of years until the time taken to process appeals is back to normal. These two members would be in addition to the seven provided for in the act.
The Canadian Legion, army, navy and air force veterans, and The War Amputations of Canada are deeply concerned about the delays in processing claims. In a recent letter to the late minister of veterans affairs, The War Amputations of Canada pointed out that a large number of war amputees died before their pension appeals could be reviewed. Over the past eight years 370 applicants died before their applications could be processed.
There were also delays in Ontario in the processing of claims for increased pension benefits. District DVA offices throughout Ontario are encountering problems in securing departmental files from the regional office in Toronto. The Royal Canadian Legion has discussed this matter with the deputy minister. For months, assurances have been given that everyone is trying to correct the staffing problem which is seemingly the root of the situation at the regional office in Toronto. I hope the minister will take steps to see that appropriate action is taken. I am presently working on a case where the veteran has been waiting seven months for a review of his claim.
I hope the minister has good news for us tonight regarding these very lengthy delays in the processing of veterans claims, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank the member from Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) for the opportunity to clarify the staff situation at the Pensions Review Board.

November 3, 1980
Adjournment Debate
As hon. members may know, the board was established under the 1971 amendments to the Pension Act. It is exclusively an independent appeal tribunal reporting directly to Parliament through the Minister of Veterans Affairs. The Pensions Review Board has authority to determine any question of law or fact as to whether a person is entitled to an award under the act, and the amount of any such award, and the decision of the board is final and binding for all purposes of the act.
In a letter dated October 17, 1980, I informed the chief executive officer of The War Amputations of Canada that the Pensions Review Board is now at full strength. With extensive training for the next few months, the chairman of the Pensions Review Board expects to have all members fully operative. By late fall the board should be in a position to meet the current demand of cases. Hon. members may recall that in 1977 the Pension Act was amended to provide an additional two members to the board. The board presently hears five to seven cases per day and this number is expected to rise slightly when all members are fully trained and operative. I can assure all members that the board will work as quickly as possible, keeping in mind the necessity to ensure each veteran appealing a claim the best service possible.
The Bureau of Pensions Advocates provides a free legal aid service to persons seeking to establish claims under the Pension Act and the Civilian War Pension and Allowances Acts. Presently the bureau is operating at full strength with the possibility of one vacancy occurring in one of the bureau's field offices early next year. With the known and anticipated claims for pensions from veterans and widows, the chief pensions advocate is confident that the work load will be handled with the same degree of care as the bureau has consistently demonstrated over the years. If delays are still experienced in spite of what 1 just mentioned, we will take steps to correct the situation as soon as we can.


AIR TRANSPORT-DECISION ON TORONTO-HALIFAX ROUTE
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, on June 27, 1980, I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) to conduct an inquiry into regional air policy. My reason for requesting a review by the minister was that the cabinet had just that day announced a decision whereby it had overruled a decision of the Canadian Transport Commission in respect of the right of CP Air to fly between Halifax and Toronto. The result of the cabinet decision permitted Eastern Provincial Airways to fly direct on the Halifax-Toronto route.
While I agree with the substance of that decision, I was concerned, as were others, that the whole difficulty arose from confusion about regional air policy. It is very important that such an inquiry be made and that the minister review all aspects of the regional air policy.
The minister indicated in the House on June 27, 1980, that he did not propose to make a specific and formal investigation.
He subsequently indicated he was asking government departments involved, the air carriers and others involved in the air industry, to express their views on regional air policy. I would like to take a few moments to outline some of the concerns that must be related to a new regional air transport policy.
The importance of the regional air transport industry to Nova Scotia and Atlantic Canada should not be underestimated. Let us start with the Halifax international airport which today has 75 daily commercial flights. It handles on an annual basis about 1.5 million passengers. It is equal in that respect to Mirabel, but I hope it is not the same in other respects. There are 1,700 employees who work at the Halifax international airport and the work force is building on a daily basis as new inquiries come in.
A recent report by the task force on airport management recommended more local autonomy for airports. This is a big factor in the future expansion of our airport business across Canada, that there be more local autonomy-not that the federal Department of Transport be allowed to escape its responsibilities in the air transport field. In Halifax we have a great port which is promoted by locals. It involves trade sojourns across the world to attract business. We could use this kind of activity in relation to our airport.
I want to take a moment to commend Eastern Provincial Airways on the work they are doing and the contribution they are making to the local economy, employing over 900 employees in Atlantic Canada and spending $10 million in the Halifax area alone. One of their ambitions is to be involved in the takeover of Nordair which is now controlled by Air Canada and which has a $30 million price tag on it. Others in the bidding include Quebec and Ontario interests.
The Minister of Transport said there must be a balance of interest. I hope he will see his way clear in the future to give complete consideration to the bid made by Eastern Provincial Airways because this could be a big contribution to the air transport business in Atlantic Canada and put it on a firm base.
CP Air has now decided to take up the decision of the Canadian Transport Commission and exercise its right to land in Halifax. We welcome CP Air to the east coast. We hope it will make a real contribution. They should be reminded that what we require is employment and local-based activity, not just simply flights from Toronto and Montreal with landings in Halifax. 1 know they will take this into consideration. I hope they will be able to expand into the international markets. In that connection also we welcome British Airways to Halifax and Halifax International Airport. It was announced in September, 1980, that British Airways had been granted landing rights in Halifax and we hope that this will expand international trade.
Of great importance to our air transport economy in Atlantic Canada is Air Canada. We are proud of the contribution made by Air Canada and its local employees in Halifax West. We are proud that the dedicated staff at the airport provide
November 3, 1980

such good service. We welcome the recent addition to the airport facility and staff of over 180 flight attendants. We hope that within the near future Air Canada will see fit to locate pilots and other flight crew members in the Halifax area.
However, something is happening nationally to Air Canada which is of great concern to all of us. International, Air Canada is slipping in rank. It is ranked fourteenth by North American passengers. Many complain that Air Canada s service is deteriorating. Evidence before the Dubin inquiry indicated that air safety is sometimes compromised and many of us are concerned as to how Air Canada is being operated. There are those who even suggest that language qualifications take precedence over skills in some areas. I fear that Air Canada's request for greater revenue and a reduction of expenses is at the root of these complaints. I warn Air Canada that if it compromises passenger safety by cost-cutting measures, Canadians will rise up and complain as a group, and action will have to be taken.
We want Air Canada to play a role in the regional air transport service. We want Air Canada to be successful as a national and an international carrier. However, it will have to clean up its act, give better service and contribute more in the future.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question in the House on June 27 appeared to indicate that he was not dissatisfied with the minister's announcement that EPA would be granted the Halifax-Toronto route. He confirmed that this evening.
In announcing the decision, the minister stressed the need to improve EPA's economic potential by allowing it to broaden its route structure. He also noted that CP Air would have access to Halifax from any point on its transcontinental licence, except Toronto. Those features would benefit Atlantic Canada by providing better access and promoting tourist traffic in the region.
As the hon. member knows the decision was well received in the east. Furthermore, as he indicated this evening, after an initial hesitation, CP Air has decided to take advantage of the opportunity and recently announced a Montreal-Halifax service to begin in March 1981.
In his question, the hon. member mentioned the current review of regional air carrier policy. The review was undertaken as a result of fundamental changes in the structure of the domestic air carrier industry, for instance, the merger of PWA and Transair, the extension of Nordair services to Winnipeg and the potential effects of the resale of Nordair to the private sector, just to mention a few. Such a review can be a lengthy process. The decision on the Halifax-Toronto route obviously could not be put off indefinitely. It is the minister's hope that the review can be completed in the coming months so that uncertainties of this kind can be minimized in the future.
I will relay to the minister the concerns which the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) has expressed this
Adjournment Debate
evening. I can assure him that it is the policy of the Ministry of Transport and of Air Canada never to reduce concern for the safety of passengers for economic reasons.


PRIVACY-OPENING OF MAIL BY RCMP
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to follow up a question I asked in this House on April 28 last of the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) with respect to the question of mail opening by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. In doing so I referred to yet an earlier question, at which time the Solicitor General indicated that there would be a report forthcoming with respect to certain evidence as to the advisability of permitting the RCMP to engage in the opening of the mail of Canadians.
I might say that, unfortunately, I believe, we witnessed undue haste on the part of the Solicitor General in stating that in his view the RCMP did need this particular power. It was within a few days of being sworn in as Solicitor General that the present Solicitor General stated he was convinced that the mail of Canadians should be subject to opening by the RCMP, a practice which, as we have seen through evidence at the McDonald commission, has been taking place on an illegal scale for some considerable length of time. The Solicitor General said he believed that on the basis of his conversations, limited as they were, with the commissioner of the RCMP and others this power was warranted.
At that time, I and others asked what evidence there was to warrant the granting of permission for this invasion of the fundamental privacy of Canadians? We were told at that point that a report would be forthcoming. We were told that the RCMP had been requested to provide a full and comprehensive report to the Solicitor General outlining the grounds for their request that the RCMP have the right to open the first-class private mail of Canadians. I should also point out that when the representatives of the RCMP were asked before the McDonald commission why they felt it was necessary to break the law of the land and intercept the first-class mail of Canadians, and when they were asked to produce evidence as to why they broke the law in that respect, members of the security service came up with nothing.
They came up with an excuse which, as it later turned out, was totally spurious. They were able to give but a single example of the use of mail opening to detect and prevent a possible crime. That example was the detection of possible terrorist activity on the part of a certain "Japanese Red Army" member in Canada. It was with great pride that this example was flourished before the McDonald commission by an RCMP member. There was rather subdued silence, though, when it was learned that mail opening had had nothing whatsoever to do with the apprehending of that particular potential criminal and that it was because of wire tap evidence that that possible crime was uncovered. So before the McDonald Commission not a scintilla of evidence was produced to justify the request of the RCMP for legal mail opening powers

November 3, 1980
Adjournment Debate
or to justify actions they have been pursuing for some considerable time in this country on a illegal basis.
We suggested to the Solicitor General that since no evidence was presented before the McDonald commission, he must surely have some grounds to warrant his enthusiasm for this sweeping power to be granted to the RCMP. The Solicitor General said he expected a report to reach him soon. We finally asked him where that report was. Lo and behold, a report had been submitted to the Solicitor General, but he did not like what he saw. In fact, what he saw was so inconsequential and so weak that he had to send it back to the RCMP saying, "This is not good enough; I cannot in all conscience bring this to the Parliament of Canada as a justification for asking for mail opening powers". He sent it back to the RCMP and assured Parliament that there would be another report forthcoming in the very near future. That was in April of this year. Since that time what have we heard to justify the zealous request for mail opening powers by the RCMP? Silence. Where is this much-heralded report of the RCMP which would justify the powers for which the Solicitor General has asked? It is nowhere.
We were told that this fundamental invasion of the privacy of Canadians would have to await a report. We were also told-and this is very important-that no legislative action would be taken on mail opening until such time as the McDonald commission has reported on this and certain other investigative techniques.
One would have hoped that the government would have stuck to that commitment. But no. In fact, before any report from the RCMP or from the McDonald commission, we see an attempt to legitimize through the back door mail opening in certain circumstances. I refer to an amendment to the Post Office Act which would change the absolute prohibition, which exists at present on mail opening in this country, of first-class mail in the first case. At present it is quite clear that first-class mail cannot be opened under any circumstances in this country and it is an indictable offence if it is done. In the bill put forward by the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet), we see that that fundamental principle has been altered and there is now a section there which would permit mail to be opened when there is a lawful excuse, whatever that means. Even if that section is violated, no longer is it an indictable offence but only a summary conviction offence.
The commitment we were given by the Solicitor General not to take any action on this until, first, there was a report from the RCMP and, second, there was a report from the McDonald commission, has indeed been violated, and 1 call upon the Solicitor General to urge his colleague, the Postmaster General, to withdraw that section, at least until such time as the evidence upon which it is based is forthcoming.
I should like to conclude by urging that before action is taken to justify this violation of the rights of privacy of
Canadians-one of the most fundamental and precious rights in terms of first-class mail-much more evidence be provided.
I would note, of course, that the Conservative party has been quick to sanction this violation of privacy. The Conservative party supported the concept of mail opening by the RCMP in 1979 by voting in favour of Bill C-26. Finally, 1 would note that the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) appears to have had a welcome conversion from his earlier support of that bill.
I thank the House for listening and I hope that before any action is taken on this matter far more evidence will be proposed and put before Parliament than has been the case so far.


Mr. Ron Irwin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: As my
good friend knows, Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in answer to the hon. member's questioning, set out the criteria. He said:
I am sure the hon. member would not want the government to take action and prosecute somebody on partial evidence. We have always said that we would not comment on the evidence as it came out in a piecemeal fashion; that we were waiting for the whole report. That remains our position.
The hon. member had asked if prosecutions were laid. He asked:
What action does the government intend to take to prosecute those persons who have been shown clearly to have violated the Post Office Act.
We spent over $11 million on the McDonald report. I know it is quite fashionable these days to pick out excerpts from the report and bring them before the House, but I do not consider that responsible. I respectfully submit that we should wait, especially in view of the fact that our police force wants to protect us, until all evidence is in to ascertain what should be done. From month to month we hear excerpts from the McDonald commission and from month to month we provide the same answer: Let us wait until we have the report. The Solicitor General has stated that he hopes the report will be in by early 1981, but we have been told that this might not be possible. At present, the Post Office legislation prohibits the opening of mail by anyone except in the presence of the addressee or for limited purposes. Evidence was produced at the McDonald commission hearings that this was being done illegally by members of the RCMP in spite of that legislation, and that was one of the major considerations for the establishment of the McDonald commission,
The Solicitor General has indicated to the commission, and they have agreed, that even if they are opposed to legislation which provides for mail opening, they should still make recommendations suggesting safeguards if Parliament should provide the necessary legislation. When we have received those recommendations, it is Parliament which will decide within which framework opening of mail will be or will not be permitted, and, if it is permitted, under what conditions.
It is a fine balance. If crimes are being committed through the mail, I suggest to the hon. member that it is incumbent
November 3, 1980

upon the RCMP to look at what is being done. For instance, heroin with a street value of $80,000 can be sent in an ordinary letter. I am not suggesting $80,000 worth of heroin is being sent, but I am suggesting that history has shown the mails are being used fraudulently and we can reasonably assume that the mails will be used fraudulently again. It is not only expected, it is incumbent upon the RCMP to find the balance between the privacy of an individual and the safeguard of the country. When the McDonald commission brings
Adjournment Debate
in its report, Parliament will decide. We can take apart the evidence as it comes in from the McDonald commission month by month, or I suggest we can do the responsible thing and wait until we get the report of the commission and then decide.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 10.27 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).

Tuesday, November 4, 1980