1980-10-29

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.
*
* *



THE BUDGET


Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas in these inflationary times senior citizens, pensioners and others on fixed incomes find it very difficult to meet even basic expenditures such as food, shelter and clothing, and because this government's budget failed to cushion the effect of higher gasoline and home heating fuel prices which will be experienced by pensioners and those on fixed incomes, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer):
That this House condemn the government for presenting an inflationary and regressive budget which falls most heavily on those groups in society least able to afford it.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



IMPACT ON NORTHERN RESIDENTS-MOTION UNDER S O. 43

Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity, seconded by the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson):
That this House condemn the government for its total disregard of even the most basic principles of equity and fairness in the presentation of their budget last night, as it has once again placed the heaviest burden contained in budgetary measures on the shoulders of northern residents who are already suffering from excessively high costs of living for reasons of geographic isolation and uncongenial climatic conditions and who will, for the same reasons, find it most difficult, if not impossible, to cope with further increases in the cost of home heating fuel and gasoline.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: No.



IMPACT OF TAXATION POLICIES ON OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION-MOTION UNDER S O. 43

Mr. John Kushner (Calgary East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The oil and gas industry, primarily based in western Canada, has been singled out for a depressing and destructive taxation policy in the Liberal government budget. The government should be condemned for such a short-sighted policy. 1 therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko):
That the government immediately assess the impact of such energy taxation policies on oil and gas exploration, on the exodus of capital and tetchnical manpower and on energy self-sufficiency, and further report its findings to this House.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with a very important matter. Noting that Atlantic Canada, with its high energy costs, high food prices and low average income, has suffered an overwhelming number of lay-offs and plant shutdowns in the past few months, and noting that the projected rate of 8.7 per cent unemployment for all of Canada really means an unemployment rate of over 15 per cent for Atlantic Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent):
That this House condemn the Cape Breton minister of finance for the failure to provide any real economic stimulus for the region and for again stalling on the need to provide for drastically needed funds to modernize the Sydney Steel Corporation.

October 29, 1980


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the Liberals, with great fanfare at a news conference in Regina during the last election campaign, gave a solemn undertaking to the farmers in western Canada that steps would be taken to alleviate the impact of capital gains tax on the sale of farm lands by updating valuation day to 1974, in view of the fact that this promise was not included in last night's budget, and while the west will forgive the government if it breaks its promise to double-track the railway to the west coast, it will never do so for its breach of promise on capital gains, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton):
That the government bring in legislation to keep its promise and that the legislation be made retroactive to January 1, 1980.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



REQUEST FOR GENEROUS TREATMENT FOR QUEBEC-MOTION UNDER S O. 43

Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce an urgent and important motion for the people of Quebec.
Considering that the western and Atlantic provinces will receive substantial assistance from the federal government, more particularly a development fund for the west and grants for various energy projects in the Atlantic provinces, and considering that the budget read last evening by the Minister of Finance does not contain any specific measure for Quebec
in the energy sector, I move, seconded by the member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom):
That this House pass energy measures as generous for Quebec as for the other regions of Canada.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation under Standing Order 43 this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



HOUSING


Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the Liberal government has completely abandoned the Canadian home owner and the Canadian tenant in the budget, and whereas Canadians everywhere are still faced with the spectre of higher interest rates, higher heating costs and higher inflation, all of which were referred to in the Speech from the Throne, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson):
That this government immediately institute a mortgage interest and property tax credit plan so that middle and lower-income Canadians will not be left out in the cold.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The government's budget has proposed a $175 million fund to convert oil-fired electricity plants to coal. In view of the fact that coal is a major source of sulphur dioxide emissions that cause acid rain, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That this House calls upon the Minister of the Environment to make a statement on motions detailing how the government intends to ensure that its utility off-oil fund will not compound Canada's already critical acid rain problem.
October 29, 1980


Madam Speaker:: For its 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 directed to the Minister of Finance. It relates to the betrayal of the frime Minister's promise, in January of last year that his government would bring in a budget which put people first. He is putting people first on the chopping block, that is all. The minister knows that he has dumped enormous new energy costs upon all the people of Canada. He knows also that in our budget last year we extended to lower and middle-income Canadians an energy tax credit which would help them bear part of the burden of increased energy costs.
Why is there not such help for low and middle-income Canadians in this budget? Why did the minister not propose an energy tax credit or some other means that would help low and middle-income Canadians deal with the heavy burden of the increased energy costs that he is proposing?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, that question is easy to answer. The reason we did not provide an energy tax credit is that the burden, which is admitted, falling on the consumer as a result of increased energy prices will be considerably lower in this budget than in the budget of last December.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I remind the Leader of the Opposition that his minister of finance imposed an excise tax on gasoline which would have brought into the treasury $3 billion a year, of which $1 billion would be given to the tax credit. We did not bring in that excise tax on gasoline.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The minister knows that by means other than the excise tax, by devious means and by use of trickery, he has imposed upon the people of Canada an unequal burden in energy costs. He does not want to help at least low and middle-income Canadians.
Oral Questions
Let me come for a moment to the excise tax. Our excise tax explicitly excluded heating oil. The Minister of Finance should know, if he has not grown too far away from low-income people in Cape Breton, that a higher proportion of the incomes of lower income Canadians is spent on home heating oil than is the case with other Canadians. Will the minister tell us why there was not similar care shown in his budget for the plight of Canadians who have to pay these increased costs for home heating oil, as was shown in our budget? Why does he not recognize the special needs of low-income Canadians in relation to the cost of home heating oil?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, 1 will repeat the answer for the Leader of the Opposition. The reason is that the burden placed upon the Canadian consumer as a result of this budget is considerably lower than the burden imposed on them last December. That applies to the price of oil and to the price of gas. Taken together, the burden is much less.
Let me tell the Leader of the Opposition, in case he has forgotten, that we have already taken action in this Parliament to provide a substantial increase in the guaranteed income supplement to help Canadians most affected by such increases.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I remind the minister that an untruth does not become more true simply by repetition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: This budget looks out for the wealthy who want to get involved in MURBs but it ignores low-income Canadians on whom extra burdens have been imposed by this minister. It also ignores the obligation to try and create jobs for Canadians and to try and stimulate employment growth across this country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: We hear now from the NDP who support the rump of the Liberal party. We hear their second thoughts about electing these people to impose heavy burdens upon low-income Canadians. Can the minister tell the House why this government has proposed a job-creation program which is substantially less than the job-creation program that was proposed last December? Where is the government's concern for putting people first?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition ought to re-read the budget. We did not propose in the budget a job-creation program. We proposed a special fund to be established in the social affairs envelope and in the economic development envelope to provide special adjustment assistance in the field of restructuring the economy and in the field of manpower mobility and training. We think that is much more appropriate to the current Canadian situation in the way of increasing productivity and investment than a job-creation program in itself.

October 29, 1980
Oral Questions
May I add this. I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to present facts which show-and he has all the time in the next six days of debate to prove the fact-that we have laid a greater burden on the Canadian consumer. We lived up to our election promises to reduce that burden and that is why the Leader of the Opposition is so frustrated.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, we accept that challenge.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We would now like the minister to answer one of the questions which 1 have put to him-any one. Let us perhaps have him focus particularly on why he has removed the help to low-income and middle-income Canadians that we offered with an energy tax credit. He knows it is not the case that the burden imposed by his increases is much less than that imposed by the budget of my colleague from St. John's West. He knows there will be an unusual burden upon low-income Canadians. Why does he not help them? Why does he not have an energy tax credit, or some other measure, which will offer the same kind of help to those Canadians that he is prepared, with his MURB proposal, to extend to the rich of Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is walking into a trap which he is creating for himself. 1 want to tell him that the price schedules established for energy-oil and gas-will save consumers over $40 billion over the same period compared to the December 11 budget. That is $40 billion better off, which is 12 times better than the amount provided in the energy tax credit. I think the Canadian consumer would prefer that deal to the bad deal which they got last December.


Charles Joseph Clark: We will see.


ENERGY COSTS-ASSISTANCE TO OLD AGE PENSIONERS
Hon. Janies A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, what the minister now says will provide precious little consolation and, indeed very little heat to the low-income earners of this country, who will have to pay higher fuel oil prices this winter. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance, who is guilty of the greatest betrayal of the Canadian people, in my view, since that same government reneged on their promise and brought in wage and price controls in 1974.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: On June 17 in this House the Minister of Finance, in reply to the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre, said that whatever tax changes were introduced they would not attempt to solve the economic problems of the country or the fiscal requirements of the government on the backs of the low-income people of this country.
That is precisely what he sets out to do in his budget when he states that the new regime will be phased in, shifting the burden of subsidizing high-priced crude imports from taxpayers to consumers of oil products. I ask the minister what he intends to do for these people this winter, the low-income earners of this country who depend upon oil products to heat their homes, and the old age pensioners who cannot afford to buy them? Does he propose to let them freeze?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member is getting overheated on this subject and maybe he ought to go into the cooler for a while and reflect upon the fact that if he is so interested in the low-income people, as I think he is, and as we all are, globally the burden placed upon all consumers in Canada, including low-income people, is $40 billion less than the burden which he so strongly supported last December. Let him reflect on that fact.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, what a shameful deception from the minister, who represents in this House low-income earners. What he is saying to the low-income earners of this country is, "Let them drink sherry in the cold." That is the only consolation this minister has.


An hon. Member:: Fortified wine.


James Aloysius McGrath: Or fortified wine. They will need it to keep warm this winter.
Given the fact that those on old age security and the guaranteed income supplement spend a disproportionately high amount of their budgets on food and heating fuel, which will not be covered by indexing, the consumer price index notwithstanding, what measures does the minister intend to announce in the House, before this debate is over and before we vote on the budget, to provide some relief to the low-income earners in this country from rising food prices and rising fuel prices?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I am disappointed that the hon. member has taken a shot at the relief that we have provided for the grape growers and the wine industry in southern Ontario. The hon. member for St. Catharines has been most active in asking me to take this particular action, and 1 am surprised that the hon. member would differ with his colleague.
However, I repeat again for the benefit of the House and the country that what we have done for all consumers, including low-income consumers in Canada, is reduce the burden by $40 billion. The burden will be $40 billion less than the burden which the government he supported placed upon the shoulders of the people of Canada and which we removed by getting re-elected and forming a government in this House.
October 29, 1980


IMPACT OF INCREASED TAXES ON AVERAGE FAMILY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, 1 notice that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is not here today. I suppose he has finally resigned after promising to do so so many times.
My question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister took great pleasure last night in saying that there would be no increase in personal income taxes. Considering that the energy price increase will cost the average family some $340 this year and that the 33 per cent increase in unemployment insurance premiums will cost the average family an additional $100, will the Minister of Finance now give us the total dollar impact of these deceptive taxes on the average family? How much is he taking out of the pocket of the ordinary Canadian?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has stated that there is no general increase in income taxes. That is correct. It had been widely suggested that there ought to be.


John Edward Broadbent: By whom?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member is aware that indexing has been maintained in the taxing system, and that has conferred, as he knows, very considerable amounts of money on Canadian taxpayers.
With respect to the changes in unemployment insurance, they arise pursuant to legislation established by the House of Commons. There is nothing devious about it; it was openly stated in the House of Commons last night. What would the hon. member suggest? How should it be announced if not in the House of Commons?


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the minister took about two and a half minutes not to answer the question and not to make clear that he is increasing indirect taxes probably by about $500 minimum for the average Canadian. That is what he is doing but he is not admitting it.
I would like to ask the minister this question, and perhaps he will answer specifically. The typical family suffered an average net loss of real income last year of some $1,400 because of inflation. Since the minister predicts that inflation will go up in the coming year by some 10 per cent, will he confirm that when this whole series of indirect taxes he is levying is added to the 10 per cent rate of inflation, the average Canadian family in the coming year will probably suffer a net loss in real income of about $2,000? Is that Liberal justice?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member's statistics are quite fanciful and imaginary. I do not know where he gets the idea of indirect taxes. He has not specified them. Perhaps if he would specify them, we might be able to give him an answer. But I want to make it absolutely clear-


John Edward Broadbent: That would be a change.
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -that I have laid out in the budget the facts with respect to the Canadian economy and what is likely to happen over the next number of years. I have laid out in the budget an approach which, in my view, lays the foundation for our economy to participate in the recovery which is likely to take place next year.
I would remind the Leader of the NDP that it would have been easy to accept his view to give a quick fix by giving a rapid stimulus to the economy, to add to the deficit, balloon the deficit even more, and compound the difficulties facing the economy, preventing it from recovering next year.


EFFECT OF INDIRECT TAXES ON WORKING CANADIANS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the real injustice of what the minister proposes will be an increase of more than 100,000 unemployed men and women. That is what his forecast is for next year.
1 should like to direct my next question to the Prime Minister, who said during the recent election campaign-one of the few utterances with which he came out when he came out of the skies-that "the basic principle of the Liberal party is to help first those who need it most". Is he now telling the people of Canada that hundreds of dollars in regressive indirect taxes which force ordinary workers to pay proportionately much more than the rich is the definition of Liberal justice? Is that what he is telling the people of Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Tell your buddy, Pierre.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, the increase in the contribution is not on the unemployed; it is on the employed, the workers who belong to an insurance scheme, on the one hand, and the companies which employ these workers, on the other hand, which are suffering an even greater increase.
What are we doing for the unemployed? I would remind the hon. member of the many things announced in the budget last night, all the way from the building of pipelines to hydro in the Lower Churchill, and, more particularly, the 50 per cent tax relief for those industries which would locate in the areas of the country where there is a high percentage of unemployment to create jobs there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FOOD AND ENERGY PRICES-INQUIRY RESPECTING ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the NDP should be indicted as a co-conspirator in this move.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

October 29, 1980
Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: Ele made it all possible. This raid on the pockets of Canadians was made possible by the Leader of the NDP.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: They cannot take it, Madam Speaker.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. The minister has predicted that food prices this year will go up 10.1 per cent and next year 12 per cent. He predicted also that energy prices will go up 15.6 per cent this year and 21.9 per cent next year. Is it correct that the minister is going to have an advertising campaign to persuade the public that food and energy prices have not gone up 12 per cent and 21 per cent and that the government will be taxing or taking revenue away from them $40 billion less than they think is being done? Will there be an advertising campaign, and will it feature the goose flying around while being plucked?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I do not contemplate an advertising campaign to sell the budget; I think it will sell itself over the long term. But 1 would remind the hon. member, who is concerned about inflation, that the projections which he showed in his budget for next year and the following year with respect to inflation were higher than the projections which I have shown. The lower projection which I have shown is in good measure a result of not imposing the excise tax on gasoline.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, the minister claims that his projection for inflation next year is lower than mine; 10.2 per cent is his projection. The facts will show whether or not the minister is correct in his projections. By the way, we know that his goose is being cooked while it is being plucked.
If the budget which was presented last December, against which the minister voted together with his friends from the NDP, had been passed, there would have been a $575 million tax relief for projected home owners in Canada this year and a $1,200 million tax relief for them next year, together with another $500 million in relief to everybody, particularly those who are investing $21,000, through an energy tax credit. Does the minister propose to carry out the Prime Minister's campaign commitment and that of his party to assist home owners and lower income people in Canada through these means at some point during the year? Is he keeping these announcements as a surprise financial statement later this year?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I am glad the hon. member has referred to projections because it is worth underlining the fact that these are projections. As he knows, some of his projections were proved to be false because of developing events, and some of mine may have the same fate. I do not think it has anything to do with the honesty of the projections;
rather, it has to do with the uncertainty of projecting into the future.
I am surprised that the hon. member raises the spectre of that ill-fated mortgage plan which was brought before the House and which the government failed to pass, although it could have had it passed before its defeat last December. We told the Canadian people that we were against that, and we made it clear that we have no intention of introducing an inequitable plan of that kind.


TAX ON EXPORTS OF NATURAL GAS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance whose debut on the Jack Webster show 1 watched with interest this morning. Since 30,000 British Columbians signed a petition opposing the imposition of a natural gas tax, and since they will be relieved to know that the minister so took their concerns to heart that he rewrote the budget, I should like to ask the minister the following question: When is the tax on the export of natural gas not a natural gas export tax when it is applied to the export of natural gas?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I noted the petitions which were laid on the table in the House, and I noted the questions which were directed against an export tax on natural gas, a tax exclusively on the exportation of that gas.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: At least blush, Allan.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is the attack that was made, and I notice that hon. members are now attempting, rather belatedly, to shift their ground. 1 want to assure you, Madam Speaker, that we have levied a tax on natural gas produced and consumed in Canada and produced and consumed in the United States. It is a tax on all natural gas. Are hon. members suggesting that we should levy a tax on Canadian consumers and not levy it on American consumers? Is that their policy?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, 1 direct my supplementary to the Minister of Finance. I am sure that the people in British Columbia who will be paying 50 per cent more for their natural gas heating next winter will be warmed by his response.
Since the minister states in his budget papers that he designed his national energy program to "be particularly helpful to B.C.", and since the minister's natural gas export tax will deprive British Columbia of revenues estimated at $30 million annually up to $130 million potentially, could the minister define what he means by "particularly helpful"?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Madam Speaker, I would be glad to define "particularly helpful". The first thing I would say is that in response to the concerns which were expressed in the
October 29, 1980

House of Commons by spokesmen from western Canada the government decided not to proceed with an export tax on natural gas-


An hon. Member:: If you repeat it often enough, it becomes the truth.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -which had become part of the national energy program and part of the budget plan. I want to be very frank and tell the House that that decision was changed; the budget statement was rewritten and the national energy program was rewritten to back away from that particular tax. We thought no one could take exception to a tax levied on all consumers which affects all consumers, whether in Canada or the United States. How could one take objection to that?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: May I add a further point. The hon. member asked what we have done to be helpful to British Columbia. If she looks at the price projections for natural gas proposed in the December 11 budget, she will notice that they are considerably higher than the price for natural gas we are proposing for next year.


Charles Joseph Clark: What colour is black?


INDUSTRY
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. One of the documents which has been circulating recently is one dated July 3, 1980. It went out under the sponsorship of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the resigning wonder. On page 69 of that document the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said that the option which he thinks would be most favourable for an industrial strategy for Canada-for central Canada, for Atlantic Canada, as well as for western Canada- would be an additional $1.75 billion in government investment over the next three years. It is very hard to perceive, through the smoke and mirrors which the minister threw up before us yesterday, exactly what is contained in the figures, but if I understood the minister correctly, it looks as if it is a figure of half $350 million, which is to say $175 million for industrial restructuring. How can he justify cutting down the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to only 10 per cent? Does he really want to leave the minister in that embarrassing position?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Madam Speaker. If the hon. member will look at the budget statement and the accompanying papers, he will notice that I have provided for a very substantial increase in expenditures for economic development, a 22 per cent increase. Within that very substantial increase
Oral Questions
there is room not only for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce but for the Minister of State for Science and Technology to fund proposals relating to research and development. I believe that is the point the hon. member is making.
In addition to that very substantial increase in the economic development envelope, which seems not to have been noticed, there is an additional $350 million allocated for restructuring and adjustment in the economy. I believe that also is a substantial assistance to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in developing his plans.


Bob Rae: We will only tell when the smoke and mirrors disappear, Madam Speaker, but I think the record will show that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce from now on should be known as "10 per cent Herb", because that is roughly what he will get.
My supplementary question is to the same minister. It concerns the so-called program of Canadianization in the energy field. The government has stated that in 1990 it wants to see Canadians owning 50 per cent of the oil and gas industry, as compared to current ownership of just under 30 per cent. How can the minister justify an over $12 billion or $13 billion dividend outflow between 1980 and 1990 alone and tens of billions subsequent to 1990? How can he claim that this measure goes any way toward solving the fundamental problem of our country, which he did not include in his budget because he did not care to deal with the problem, the fact that we remain industrial tenants in our own land and that we are still totally reliant for our place in the world on the export of our resources rather than on the development of our industrial base?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I think the budget and the accompanying national energy program underlines the priority we attach to increasing Canadian ownership in the oil and gas field. It is the most ambitious program of repatriation, in a sense, that has ever been presented to the Canadian Parliament. I am surprised the hon. member is not giving us some support for this very major step forward in the oil and gas field.


INQUIRY RESPECTING PROGRAMS TO BENEFIT QUEBEC
Mr. Jacques Olivier (Longueuil):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I should like to congratulate him for having applied the basic principles of federalism, for having applied the principle of sharing between the various parts of Canada. Madam Speaker, my question is related to the new national energy program announced last night. We understand there will be expenditures in the field of research, in the field of conservation and particularly in incentives to the energy indus-

October 29, 1980
Oral Questions
try. Can the minister tell the House what proportion of the program that will be announced will be earmarked for the province of Quebec?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to answer the question of the hon. member. In his budget speech last night, the Minister of Finance stressed what major expenditures the government plans for various parts of the country. He mentioned, in particular, the Atlantic region and western Canada, but the budget in no way overlooks central Canada, whether it be Quebec or Ontario.
To answer the question of the hon. member, I should like to point out that the new initiatives alone under the energy program of the Canadian government for the next three years will represent expenditures of some $1.8 billion in the sole province of Quebec. That, of course, does not include the possibility of building an oil upgrading plant in the refineries of east Montreal, which could represent outlays of over $1 billion, nor the construction of a regasifying plant at Gros Cacouna, if the Arctic project materializes and if the National Energy Board and Petro-Canada choose that site as being the best.


EFFECT OF BUDGET ON OIL INDUSTRY
Mr. John Thomson (Calgary South):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I am sure the minister is aware that substantial amounts of capital from the oil industry have been moving to the United States, as well as people and drilling equipment. Has the minister made an assessment of what further losses of this nature can be expected as a result of the budget proposals?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I have not had the latest report on the stock market, but by eleven o'clock this morning I was told Canadian stocks were holding very well and that some decrease had taken place in the value of the shares of multinationals, although those decreases appeared at that time to be rather small. I think it shows that the business community has indeed examined this budget and found that it was a fair and good budget.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: I have no doubt in my mind that the proposals contained in the budget will reinforce the role, participation and activities of Canadian firms in the oil and gas industry. This is fundamental to our objective, and I am quite confident that the budget tabled last night will achieve that objective, together with our national energy program.


John William Thomson: Madam Speaker, I did not think I had asked the minister about the stock market performance today. I asked him if he had made an assessment of what we can expect by way of the loss of capital, people and equipment as a result
of the budget proposals. If the minister is so convinced that this will be to the benefit of that element of the oil industry, will he undertake to have the Petroleum Monitoring Agency assess over the next coming months the loss of Canadian capital, Canadian expertise and Canadian oil well drilling companies, and what effect these losses will have in terms of attaining the government's stated goal of self-sufficiency?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, we on this side of the House will not subscribe to the gloom and doom predictions of the hon. member or his colleagues on that side. As far as we are concerned, the energy program which has been put forward is one that is good for the industry, good for the producing provinces, good for the consumer and fair to all regions. I am confident that the people of Canada will judge it so.


NORTHERN PIPELINES
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister who is about to leave the House. I hope he will remain. It concerns the extension of the natural gas pipeline to the maritimes. The Prime Minister said in January, 1980, in Halifax that immediate action would be taken to ensure the construction of a natural gas pipeline if he were elected. The government stated in the Speech from the Throne that it favours the earliest possible construction of a natural gas pipeline. The Deputy Prime Minister said in Halifax that the government was committed to extending the pipeline. And the budget speech last night said that the pipeline extension was a national priority.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources knows that extension of the gas pipeline is subject to the approval of the National Energy Board.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member please put his question right now.


Howard Edward Crosby: I will put my question, Madam Speaker. Is the Prime Minister and his government committed to commencing construction of the natural gas pipeline eastward, or is this matter subject to the approval of the National Energy Board? Who is running this country, the government or the National Energy Board?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance
announced last night that in the budget the sum of $500 million had been set aside for the extension of the pipeline through Quebec and the maritimes and, if necessary, to help in the construction of a pipeline to Vancouver Island. This money has been committed by the government and by the Minister of Finance in his budget for this particular purpose, and he declared that the construction of the pipeline to the maritimes was a national priority.
October 29, 1980

1 must advise the hon. member that I received information today from the National Energy Board to the effect that it had denied the application by the province of Nova Scotia for a review of the board's earlier decision. However, the National Energy Board has indicated that it is willing to deal expeditiously with a new application. In the view of the board, there would be fewer delays and fewer legal problems in dealing with a new application and less time would be wasted than if it were to hear an appeal.
As a government we are committed. We will see to it that the Energy Board follows the normal process in terms of making sure that the proper rules and regulations, for instance, with regard to the environment, are respected. But as a matter of national policy, that pipeline will be extended without delay, to be completed by 1983.


Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, the words of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources are very interesting, but the minister knows that the application to extend the gas pipeline was before the NEB for months, and it turned that application down. Now he says-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will not do this twice to me. The questions must be brief.


Mr. Nielsen:: And the answers.


Madam Speaker:: I had to call the hon. member back to order on the first question. Would he please go straight away to his question.


Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, 1 must respond in relation to the answer. 1 would ask the minister how he can assure this House that the National Energy Board will approve this gas pipeline extension? The minister has said it is a matter of national priority, but does the NEB agree with him?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, if necessary, a bill will be introduced in this House to achieve that purpose. However, we have no reason to believe that the National Energy Board will not respect and understand the national priorities set by this government with regard to this particular project, to which it attaches the highest importance.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: When are you going to appoint a chairman for that board ?


THE BUDGET
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The budget he introduced last night makes practically no effort to contain inflation, which is running rampant in this country and which is generally regarded as the number one problem currently faced by this country. The government has ignored the pleas of
Oral Questions
the governor of the Bank of Canada who called as a minimum for the maintenance of the level of the budget deficit, rather than a 40 per cent increase from the level which was predicted by my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's West.
What steps is the minister proposing to take to protect Canadians from the impact of high inflation which will clearly be caused by this budget? I ask my question with particular reference to the responses made by the minister relative to the low and middle-income earners and home owners, all of whom have been virtually neglected by this budget.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member will realize that the total framework of the budget, including the support for the monetary policy of the governor of the Bank of Canada, including the fiscal plan which foresees a reduction in the deficit over time and a sharp reduction in our financial requirements and including an emphasis on productivity supported by a number of financial programs-all of these are intended to make a contribution to the lowering of the inflation rate.
However, as I said in the statement last night, it is a battle that will not be easily won. It depends a good deal on responses in the Canadian economy by firms and individuals with respect to their expectations in the area of inflation. I believe that the emphasis on the budget has been very much directed to dealing with the problem of inflation.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I think what is needed is some leadership from the government, if the private sector is going to take action and control its own desires respecting increasing inflation in this country. If one looks at the figures, it is hard to believe that there is any degree of control in them. Last January the Liberal party, while in opposition, was saying that it would control spending. Spending for this year will be up over 15 per cent on a budgetary basis.
In view of the lack of control shown by the government in its spending estimates, and in view of the fact that the projections which were put forward in the budget are exactly the same as were seen by us when we came into office last year, with no regard to the actions taken by the hon. member for York-Peel and the hon. member for St. John's West, will the minister review the spending projections in his budget statement against the projections of the hon. member for St. John's West to determine whether or not there is a basis upon which we can reduce the very high level of government spending and have a better degree of control than there is right now?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, what I know is that the former government established a 10 per cent expenditure limit without ever telling us how it would achieve that limit.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: It is there in black and white.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would like hon. members to tell me how they would have maintained a 10 per cent spending level in fiscal year 1980-81.


Mr. Stevens:: You voted us out; you should have left us in.

October 29, 1980
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would be delighted to have that particular revelation, which was not included in the budget statement, some time during this debate. 1 can tell the hon. member that there is very strict expenditure control in the expenditure plan. During the campaign we made the commitment that we would maintain our expenditures within the trend line of the GNP.


John Carnell Crosbie: You did not. That is untrue.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is what over the medium term we precisely intend to do.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is not what you said, Allan.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Given that expenditure line, we have succeeded in restraining expenditures generally to the point where we have been able to achieve very significant, major new initiatives.


Charles Joseph Clark: This is a new line and a false line, Allan.


INQUIRY RESPECTING ROLE OF CANADIAN COMPANIES IN TAR SANDS DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The budget has left incentives like depletion allowance and others for multinational oil companies in the tar sands and the Canadian north, which as the minister knows is really the heart of Canada's energy future. Because of the magnitude of the tar sands, it is estimated that as a result over-all foreign ownership will actually increase from about 82 per cent to 87 per cent shortly. Would the minister tell the House why the budget did not give Petro-Canada and Canadians a more active role in developing the tar sands and the north?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, if my hon. colleague wishes to read carefully "The National Energy Program, 1980", he will find tables in that program in which there are specific figures, which I cannot cover during question period, clearly indicating that on all accounts Canadian companies will be having a very substantial advantage compared to foreign companies, whether they are going to invest in the tar sands or in frontier areas, whether in the north or offshore. Our proposals are to the effect that Canadian companies will benefit extremely well compared to other companies. They will be in a very advantageous situation. I expect that we can cover the specific figures during the debate on the budget.


Charles Joseph Clark: You have a lot to be sorry for.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, a few minutes ago the Minister of Finance said that we should congratulate the government on this ambitious program of Canadianization. It
is the most ambitious since the Liberal throne speech in 1974, and look what we got there-nothing. If we on this side of the House think it is a little phony, I hope the minister will forgive us.
Given the fact that Petro-Canada has tried to buy foreign multinational companies in the recent past and that no one wants to sell to them, is the minister in a position to tell this House whether he is prepared to force the sale of companies and, if so, how is he going to do it?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, first of all I should like to pick up the statement made by the hon. member at the beginning of his second question. Again, I should like to point out to him that there is a whole array of measures to encourage Canadianization of the industry, from direct grants to Canadian industry, which are going to be larger as the proportion of Canadian ownership increases, to a 25 per cent requirement of Canadian ownership that will go to the Government of Canada in terms of the development on Canadian lands in the north and on the offshore. We will require that any development in the north or offshore be at least 50 per cent Canadian-owned. These are only a few of the measures contained in the budget.


John Edward Broadbent: Now deal with the question.


Marc Lalonde: As far as the second aspect of the question raised by the hon. member is concerned-now that I have been interrupted by the Leader of the New Democratic Party I have lost the point of his second question.


An hon. Member:: Petro-Canada.


Marc Lalonde: As far as Petro-Canada is concerned, it has been successful in making two major acquisitions since 1976, as hon. members know. It is true that in the last year it has been more difficult-


John Edward Broadbent: Impossible.


Marc Lalonde: -to acquire foreign-owned companies because they tend to believe that the future in Canada is so good that they would not consider selling at any price. I think the clear indication-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I think that answer was a little long.


INQUIRY RESPECTING FUTURE PRICE OF GASOLINE
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Madam Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. For the information of consumers, can he say in light of last night's budget what will be the price of a gallon of gas for the years 1981, 1982, 1983 and 1984 as compared with the price which would have resulted from the Progressive Conservative budget of last December?
October 29, 1980


Marc Lalonde: First of all, Madam Speaker, 1 would like to emphasize that in no case will there be an additional 18 cents tax as proposed in last year's Progressive Conservative budget. In other words, Canadian consumers now pay and will pay throughout 1980, 18 cents less a gallon than they would have paid under a Progressive Conservative administration, and that is a minimum.
As regards the coming years, we recall that the Progressive Conservatives intended to raise petroleum prices in 1983-84 to 75 per cent and 85 per cent of world prices. Once again petroleum prices for gas consumers in Canada will be very much lower than what was proposed in the Progressive Conservative budget of December 11 last.


PRIVILEGE
Madam Speaker:: On Friday, October 17, 1980, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) raised a question of privilege. As he said in his presentation, it is a little more specific than the one raised October 9 last by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath).
The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition directs the Chair's attention to two extracts from the government publication entitled "The Canadian Constitution 1980" and submits that they are false within the meaning of that expression as used in my ruling of October 19 last.
Members will appreciate that the expression "false" is subject to but one interpretation in the House of Commons Debates, that is, pejorative, and it is considered unparliamentary when referring to another hon. member. While the word has less sinister meanings, in the context of contempt, it seems to me that to amount to contempt, representations or statements about our proceedings or of the participation of members should not only be erroneous or incorrect, but, rather, should be purposely untrue and improper and import a ring of deceit. To be false in the context of contempt, an interpretation of our proceedings must be an obviously, purposely distorted one. 1 am supported in this respect by the fact that the House interprets the expression "false" only in the pejorative sense where used in debate.
My role, therefore, is to interpret the extracts of the document in question not in terms of their substance, but to find whether, on their face, they represent such a distorted interpretation of the events or remarks in our proceedings that they obviously attract the characterization of false.
I cannot find that they attract that characterization and accordingly must find that there is no question of privilege.
Privilege-Mr. Beatty


MR. BEATTY-ENERGY ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN-RULING BY MADAM SPEAKER
Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Wellington-Duffer-in-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) raised a question of privilege on Tuesday, October 21, 1980, in which he alleges that a document entitled "National Energy Policy-Communications", written by a public servant, sets out a major energy advertising policy by the government in order to, in the words of the hon. member, "seize control of the energy debate", and he further alleges "that the energy advertising campaign currently being run by the government was, in fact, designed to interfere with our deliberations through spending public money".
The hon. member appreciates that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) has, however, pointed out that the thrust of that document was rejected by the government and therefore its contents, at least, do not reflect government policy. Be that as it may, if the campaign or the document referred to by the hon. member nevertheless included a design to interfere with our deliberations so as to constitute a violation of our privilege, that could constitute a prima facie case of privilege. The hon. member is reminded that on Friday, October 17 last, in my remarks recorded at page 3781, of Hansard, I also added that the interference in question "must be such that the member of the House is truly hindered or intimidated".
The principle governing whether a parliamentary privilege is violated is set out in the words of a committee of privileges of the House of Commons in the United Kingdom as follows:
The nature and extent of any particular privilege claimed by Parliament has to be considered in relation to the circumstances of the time, the underlying test in all cases being, whether the right claimed as a privilege is one which is absolutely necessary for the due execution of the powers of Parliament-
Therefore, all interferences with members' privileges of freedom of speech, such as editorials and other public comment, are not breaches of privilege even though they influence the conduct of members in their parliamentary work. In the words of another committee of privileges of that House-and I quote:
Not every action by an outside body which may influence the conduct of a member of Parliament as such could now be regarded as a breach of privilege, even if it were calculated and intended to bring pressure on the member to take or to refrain from taking a particular course.
And as another committee of privileges of that House observed in its report:
-the House has always asserted that any attempt by improper means to influence a member in his parliamentary conduct is a breach of privilege-
What constitutes an improper means of interfering with members' parliamentary work is always a question depending on the facts of each case.
Hon. members will appreciate that there must, first of all, be some connection between the material alleged to contain the interference and the parliamentary proceeding. In this regard, there is little, if any, evidence before me relating either the documents or the advertising campaign to a parliamentary proceeding.

October 29, 1980
The Constitution-Joint Committee
Finally, 1 am also conscious of the additional plea made last Friday by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) somewhat along the lines of the remarks he made during the course of the question of privilege he raised October 9 last. He expressed concern in these words:
-that we have a new dimension in this country which has a direct bearing and influence upon our proceedings in this House. That new dimension is the mass media and the access of the Government of Canada to that mass media-
He then went on to note:
-the access we have as Parliament to the mass media through the use of television cameras now in the House.
Of course, the House agreed to televise its proceedings. With respect to the use or misuse of the mass media because of access to it by government or, for that matter, by any person or group, when there is evidence of improper means of influence being brought to bear in respect of our proceedings, I can assure all hon. members that the dimension of contempt of Parliament is such that the House will not be constrained in finding a breach of privileges of members, or of the House.
This is precisely for the reason that, while our privileges are defined, contempt of the House has no limits. When new ways are found to interfere with our proceedings, so too will the House, in appropriate cases, be able to find that a contempt of the House has occurred.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Epp:: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. As you are aware, the committee to study the constitutional proposals of the government was struck yesterday. Today I, as a member of that committee, and other members of that committee received a letter from the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis) in which he requests the right to appear as a member of Parliament before that committee as a witness.
1 think this is rather an inappropriate manner in which to proceed before the committee even sits. Many members on this side of the House have raised this question. They, too, wanted the right to appear before that committee in view of the fact that closure had prevented them from speaking in this House.
The point of order that I am raising is quite clear: suspicion has now been raised and we would like to know whether or not members of the government have received an assurance from the House leader that they can appear before that committee, while such an assurance has not been given to other members of this House. It is obviously a double standard and a matter which should be clarified very quickly by the government House leader.


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, as Liberals we respect the freedom of our members and I must say to the hon. member that the committee is master of its own procedure, that it is not
parliamentary tradition for the House of Commons to get involved in organizing the work of the committee, and that in this House we cannot decide any procedural question concerning the committee, unless we get a report from committees. The issue raised by the hon. member therefore is not a point of order and it cannot be entertained in the House.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the government House leader has declined to deal with the point raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) namely, whether or not there has been an instruction given or a signal sent by the government to members on one side of the House only. He neglected to deal with that question which was the substance of the point of order raised by my colleague. We would all like to know whether one story is being told on the government side of the House that is not being told to the public or to other members of the House of Commons.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, 1 can assure the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) that no instruction was given to that effect. I am a little surprised that he even dared express doubts on that subject. I can assure him that we are not in the habit of granting more privileges to members of one party rather than to those of another. I for one have always advocated equality among all members in the House and perhaps that explains why we did not prevent our members from taking part in the first phase of the debate.


Madam Speaker:: On that point of order 1 must remind the hon. member that, in my opinion, we all agree that committees are masters of their own procedure and that they have full leeway to call the witnesses they are interested to hear. Therefore 1 believe that if the hon. member sits on that committee he will be able to ask that question again and get the answer he hopes for from the committee members.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Douglas Fisher (Mississauga North) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-618, to change the name of the electoral district of Mississauga North.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
October 29, 1980

Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Madam Speaker, the only bright spot today, as we did not have too many answers during question period, is to acknowledge the presence in the gallery of one of Canada's greatest actors, par excellence, Mr. Leslie Nielsen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 484 to 495 inclusive; 910 and 1,337.
1 ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
[ Text]
STATUS INDIANS-ALCOHOLISM AND DRUG ABUSE Questions Nos. 484 to 495 inch-Mr. Orlikow:
1.	For the years (a) 1976-77 (b) 1977-78 (c) 1978-79, what was the incidence of alcoholism and drug abuse in the province of Manitoba for status Indians?
2.	For the same years, what was the incidence of alcoholism and drug abuse for the rest of the population in the province?
1.	For the years (a) 1976-77 (b) 1977-78 (c) 1978-79, what was the incidence of alcoholism and drug abuse in the province of British Columbia for status Indians?
2.	For the same years, what was the incidence of alcoholism and drug abuse for the rest of the population in the province?
1.	For the years (a) 1976-77 (b) 1977-78 (c) 1978-79, what was the incidence of alcoholism and drug abuse in the province of Alberta for status Indians?
2.	For the same years, what was the incidence of alcoholism and drug abuse for the rest of the population in the province?
1.	For the years (a) 1976-77 (b) 1977-78 (c) 1978-79, what was the incidence of alcoholism and drug abuse in the Northwest Territories for status Indians?
2.	For the same years, what was the incidence of alcoholism and drug abuse for the rest of the population in the territories?
1.	For the years (a) 1976-77 (b) 1977-78 (c) 1978-79, what was the incidence of alcoholism and drug abuse in the Yukon Territory for status Indians?
2.	For the same years, what was the incidence of alcoholism and drug abuse for the rest of the population in the territory?
1.	For the years (a) 1976-77 (b) 1977-78 (c) 1978-79, what was the incidence of alcoholism and drug abuse in the province of Ontario for status Indians?
2.	For the same years, what was the incidence of alcoholism and drug abuse for the rest of the population in the province?
1.	For the years (a) 1976-77 (b) 1977-78 (c) 1978-79, what was the incidence of alcoholism and drug abuse in the province of Quebec for status Indians?
2.	For the same years, what was the incidence of alcoholism and drug abuse for the rest of the population in the province?
1. For the years (a) 1976-77 (b) 1977-78 (c) 1978-79, what was the incidence of alcoholism and drug abuse in the province of Newfoundland for status Indians?
Order Paper Questions
2. For the same years, what was the incidence of alcoholism and drug abuse for the rest of the population in the province?
1.	For the years (a) 1976-77 (b) 1977-78 (c) 1978-79, what was the incidence of alcoholism and drug abuse in the province of New Brunswick for status Indians?
2.	For the same years, what was the incidence of alcoholism and drug abuse for the rest of the population in the province?
1.	For the years (a) 1976-77 (b) 1977-78 (c) 1978-79, what was the incidence of alcoholism and drug abuse in the province of Nova Scotia for status Indians?
2.	For the same years, what was the incidence of alcoholism and drug abuse for the rest of the population in the province?
1.	For the years (a) 1976-77 (b) 1977-78 (c) 1978-79, what was the incidence of alcoholism and drug abuse in the province of Saskatchewan for status Indians?
2.	For the same years, what was the incidence of alcoholism and drug abuse for the rest of the population in the province?
1.	For the years (a) 1976-77 (b) 1977-78 (c) 1978-79, what was the incidence of alcoholism and drug abuse in the province of Prince Edward Island for status Indians?
2.	For the same years, what was the incidence of alcoholism and drug abuse for the rest of the population in the province?


Mr. Doug Frith (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Alcoholism (sic) and drug abuse are not notifiable diseases. No firm data exist from which to calculate a rate of incidence for whole populations, provinces or territories. A number of social indicators exist such as hospital admissions and hospital days for alcohol related illness, alcohol related deaths from accidents and violence, convictions for criminal offenses that are alcohol related, numbers of children taken into care for conditions that may be related to alcohol abuse etc. Many authorities talk of an incidence of alcohol addiction of 5 per cent in the general community and such estimates are often qualified and are regarded as conservative. Anecdotal accounts, observations by health personnel and other derivative opinion evidence suggests that the incidence of alcohol abuse is higher among Indian people than among non-Indians. One has to distinguish between alcohol addiction, which implies acquired tolerance and dependency, from simple alcohol abuse which implies inebriation and intoxication as availability and opportunity permit, but without true addiction.


Mr. McKnight: 1.	What are the names and addresses of the members of the Advisory Council of the Canadian Wheat Board and what is the term of his/her appointment?
2.	What are the names of the places where they met to convene a meeting of the council and, in the case of each member, what was the (a) cost and itemization of his/her travel expenses (b) cost of his/her honorarium?
3.	How many meetings have been held since the inception of the council?
4.	Did any member travel outside or inside Canada on council or Canadian Wheat Board business and, if so, what is his/her name and what was the (a) purpose (b) cost of each trip?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. The names and addresses of the members of the Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee are provided below. All eleven members were elected in the fall of 1978 to take office in January of 1979 for a four-year term.

October 29, 1980
Order Paper Questions
Mr. R. R. Atkinson	Mr. Lome E. Parker
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan Ste. Agathe, Manitoba
Mr. Henry A. Dechant Fairview, Alberta
Mr. Kenneth D. Galloway Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta
Mr. Michael G. W. Halyk Melville, Saskatchewan
Mr. Clarence A. Hookenson Kisbey, Saskatchewan
Mr. Donn Mitchell Douglas, Manitoba
Mr. Orville M. Reber Burdett, Alberta
Mr. Avery K. Sahl Mossbank, Saskatchewan
Mr. Ted Strain
North Battleford, Saskatchewan
Mr. E. K. Turner Regina, Saskatchewan
2.	Fifteen of the 17 meetings held by the current advisory committee since January, 1979, to May 27, 1980, were held in the Wheat Board offices in Winnipeg. One meeting of the advisory committee was held in Prince Rupert and a joint meeting of the advisory committees of the Wheat Board and the Canadian Livestock Feed Board was held in Montreal, at which four members of the Wheat Board's Advisory Committee were present.
(a)	and (b) For each member, up to and including the May 27th meeting, costs have been incurred as follows:
	Expenses	Per diem allowance (committee meetings)
R. R. Atkinson	$4,701.54	$1,600H. A. Dechant	6,497.48	1,400K. D. Galloway	5,137.95	1,700M. G. W. Halyk	5,830.76	1,600C. A. Hookenson	4,350.11	1,600Donn Mitchell	1,902.10	1,500L. E. Parker	828.87	1,500O. M. Reber	7,270.75	1,600A. K. Sahl	3,902.30	1,400Ted Strain	5,007.52	1,600E. K. Turner	2,481.35	1,200$47,910.73	$16,700
In addition to the above, within guidelines established by the advisory committee in November, 1976, and in accordance with Order-in-Council P.C. 1977-101 of January 20, 1977, members of the advisory committee are provided with an allowance of up to $1,800 per crop year to cover expenses in
their districts attributable to their position on the advisory committee. These expenses include, but are not limited to, expenses incurred in attending meetings within a member's district on behalf of the advisory committee. During the 17-month period from January, 1979, to May 30, 1980, the expenses claimed under this provision by all members of the advisory committee amounted to a total of $11,893.86.
3.	Sixteen formal meetings of the current advisory committee, and one joint meeting of the advisory committee (represented by four of its members) with the Canadian Livestock Feed Board Advisory Committee were held during the period January 1, 1979, to May 27, 1980.
4.	(a) and (b) No member of the advisory committee has travelled outside Canada on committee or Wheat Board business. In addition to the travel to and from Winnipeg to attend the regular committee meetings, four members of the committee represented it at the April, 1979, joint meeting at Montreal as indicated in part (2) above. These four members, with their individual expenses, are listed below:
R. R. Atkinson $346.50	D. Mitchell	$254.00K.D. Galloway $418.88	T. Strain	$438.00
These expenses and the costs of the advisory committee's meeting in Prince Rupert in June, 1979, are included in totals listed in part (2) above.


Mr. Cossitt: Is the Department of National Health and Welfare aware of the opinions held by certain American authorities on vitamins, including Dr. Fred Kummerow, professor of food chemistry at the University of Illinois, to the effect that vitamin D in more than average doses is more dangerous in vascular diseases then cholesterol and, if so (a) has the department investigated this opinion and, if so, what was the result (b) is the department aware of any investigations in Canada or elsewhere that would substantiate such an opinion and, if so, what are all the details?


Royce Herbert Frith: The department is aware that Dr. Fred Kummerow and others have speculated that longterm high intakes of vitamin D may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease. It has been known for many years that very large doses of vitamin D can be harmful and can produce arteriosclerosis in experimental animals when fed over a long period of time. In recent experiments, Doctor Kummerow confirmed that huge doses of vitamin D can cause degeneration of artery tissue in young pigs. These observations plus the high levels of vitamin D in animal tissues and the widespread fortification of foods with vitamin D in the United States have led him to suggest that the levels of vitamin D in the American food supply may be a risk factor in cardiovascular disease.
(a)	and (b) The department is carrying out analyses of the vitamin D content of Canadian foods, but as far as is known no studies have been carried out in Canada to investigate specifi-
October 29, 1980

cally a possible relationship between dietary vitamin D and vascular disease. Worldwide, data are few. In a small population sample in Norway, it was observed that men and women with heart disease had consumed somewhat larger amounts of vitamin D than those who did not have the disease. However, there were other differences between the two groups. Infants and children require vitamin D for normal bone growth and past experience indicates that there is insufficient naturally occurring vitamin D in the Canadian food supply to protect Canadian children against the vitamin D deficiency disease, rickets. An appropriate quantity of vitamin D is, therefore, added to all milks, infant formulas and margarine in Canada, but essentially to no other foods. Vitamin D levels of fortified foods are continually checked by the department to ensure they are neither too high nor too low. It should be noted that this department has one of the best vitamin D-monitoring programs in the world. In view of the need for vitamin D in the diet, the current levels in the Canadian food supply are not considered harmful to health.
The Budget-Mr. Crosbie
Certainly one would not think a Liberal had said that, but it was said by the Minister of Justice when he was in the opposition. He asked only one thing of the government-that we be honest with the public. We were honest with the public and now they are over there and we are over here.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Nevertheless, I recommend that advice to the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). That is one of the things which is most deplorable about his budget document. He is not, and has not been, honest with the public. It is a tricky document and a deceiving document. It is a deceptive document and that is deplorable. I recommend that he get together with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) and have that minister give him the little homily again about being honest with the public, and that he pay some attention to him. In starting, I would like to refer to another quotation. I am reminded of it every time I think of the election results last February. The actress Lily Tomlin said this:
The trouble with the rat race is that even if you win, you are still a rat.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

MOTIONS FOR PAPERS Madam Speaker: Shall all notices of motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, October 28, 1980, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, in starting the main part of my remarks today-and I may have to go on for a day or two to cover the inadequacies of this budget-I want to remind the House of a statement that was made by the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) last year. On October 12, 1979, the Minister of Justice who at that time was the Minister of Finance said:
There is only one thing that matters: to be honest with the public. That is all I ask the government.
I would ask hon. gentlemen and ladies opposite to remember that. They may have won the rat race, but try to think about what they may or may not still be.
In beginning this afternoon, 1 want to lay a canard flat dead on the floor, a dead duck, a dead canard, a dead goose, a plucked goose, a cooked goose, and it is this: what was the Prime Minister's commitment in connection with government expenditure growth? I have a transcript of his actual words which came from that very royal Figure on January 12, 1980, when he spoke in Toronto to his "campaign college". There could not be a more lofty place for a Liberal to speak than to his own "campaign college". I have the transcript and this is what he said. He made a fivefold pledge. He said there was a five-plank Liberal theme in the election: "Liberals will do what we say we will do and if we cannot do it, we will not say it." That is what he said, he said. He said, he did it. Here is what he said at page 4. This was one of his themes. I quote exactly:
Our commitment is this. We will hold the line on government expenditure growth to under the rate of GNP.
Not to under the theme-line of GNP, not to under the stockings of GNP, not to under anything but this, to under the rate of GNP. And the minister said the GNP this year is declining one per cent. That means, if the Prime Minister's statement was to be carried out, his solemn commitment was that there would not be an increase in government expenditure growth this year beyond-I do not know what the Figure would be. It would be less than the inflation rate. The inflation rate at the moment is running around 9.8 or 10 per cent averaged over the year. In actual fact there is in the minister's own papers on budgetary expenditure a 15.2 per cent increase.
The Prime Minister has broken his solemn commitment, the five themes. The Minister of Finance stated in this House two weeks ago he was going to fulfil all promises and pledges the
4218

October 29, 1980
The Budget-Mr. Crosbie
Prime Minister made during the election campaign. I quote now from the Ottawa Citizen, that bible of Liberalism here in Ottawa:
Finance Minister Allan MacEachen said Friday his budget this month will fulfil all the Liberal campaign promises.
This is one he has not fulfilled. For the minister to get up in question period today and try to draw subterfuge and deception over the breaking of that solemn commitment is below him. It is not the trend line. It is not any kind of line at all. It is under the rate of GNP, and the Liberal line, and the advertising line won't work. It is here in black and white.
The Toronto Sun on the day after that solemn occasion had an editorial about the great Liberal economic platform. They printed it in their editorial. The Toronto Sun headed its editorial "A Pile of Poop". 1 will quote from the Toronto Sun, an eminent Canadian newspaper. The Toronto Sun has been borne out because these positive commitments are not being made.
I mentioned some of the rest last night. I am not going to mention them again. I do not want to be repetitious. However, this is one point I have had to be repetitous about because the Minister of Finance is trying to trick and deceive the people of Canada into thinking there was not that solemn commitment. His Prime Minister made that commitment and he and the President of the Treasury Board, Open Sesame Johnston, are making an open raid on Treasury Board.
In the question period, he talked about how could we have kept to our expenditure limit of 10 per cent. How would we have kept to it? Because we had in the Treasury Board a man who was dedicated to keeping to no more than a 10 per cent increase in expenditures. In fact, he felt that was way too high. He thought it was crazy. He thought it was profligate. He thought the finance department was all wet that we could not hold it down to 5 per cent. I can assure you that Horatio Slasher, my seat companion, would have kept it to 10 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Let us hear no more of this attempt by the Minister of Finance. We know he is astute. The press tells us he is astute. The press tells us he is crafty and strategic, in tactical terms and in strategic terms. What else do they tell us? He is cagey. He is the master of strategy. He put us out of power and he put himself into power, and the ends justify the means. He is a tremendous exponent of that.
The minister will do anything to keep Liberals in power, but at least keep them in power by being a bit truthful, for a change. That is a commitment the Prime Minister made and which has been broken in this budget.
What else is wrong with this budget? It would be easier and shorter to ask what is right with it. I had to refer to our budget of last December because the government is going to refer to it. We heard them refer to it in the question period today. The little tame tabby was brought up from the Liberal ranks to ask a little tame question of the big tiger, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, about what would have happened with
oil and gas prices had that horrible Crosbie budget come in as compared to what it is going to be with our present wondrous budget? We heard the foolish answer from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). That minister is not even including in his computation the new tax, the "help PetroCan buy out any foreign company in the nation" tax. He did not even include that in his calculation. It could be $4 a barrel a year. What is that going to do to oil and gas prices in Canada if it is implemented? Never mind these little tame tabbies asking the big pussycat their questions. Let them lick their chops with these false answers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Here is what the then finance critic of the government said last December, that gentleman who is certainly resigned to his lot. He is not resigning from it, he is resigned to it. Here is what he said about the budget of last year and I quote from December 12 Hansard at page 2299:
What we should have had... last night was a budget that would reduce inflation, strengthen the economy and create more jobs for Canadians, now, next year, and in the years to come. Instead, this budget brings Canadians a higher cost of living, including higher food prices, more unemployment and no economic growth-
If I had not told hon. members the author of that statement, they would have thought I was speaking about the present budget, I am sure. There is not a redeeming feature in it, because it does not even offer the people of Canada any assistance with the higher costs they face as a result of the budget, costs which have been forecast by the minister. The Canadian people are faced with a budget that does not reduce inflation. It does not strengthen the economy. It does not create more jobs. It brings them a higher cost of living, higher food prices, more unemployment and no economic growth. That is what it brings them. It does not bring them one redeeming feature, nothing to help them meet these additional burdens.
What else is wrong with it? It is an extremely regressive budget. The minister said that my budget was socially regressive. His is socially desperate. In our budget we had certain aims we wanted to accomplish for the good of Canada and all Canadians. What were they? It was summarized in the budget. We said the Canadian economy had great potential. Second, that its economic performance could be improved if we improved economic incentives for private individuals and firms.
Where is that kind of treatment in the budget before us? The private sector is ignored in this budget. The private sector will be the subject of intervention. This is an interventionist budget on a massive scale. The government is drawing to itself here in Ottawa tremendous power from the rest of this country. Now they are going to take power from the private sector. The oil and gas sector is no longer to be called private. If it is private, its privacy has been vastly interfered with. Intervention!
October 29, 1980

We are told about the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) and FIRA and all the muscle he is going to put into FIRA so that any foreign investor in this country will find Mr. Herbie Gray looking down his neck at what he is doing and telling him whether he is doing things right or wrong. Foreign investors are told not just whether they should come into the country, but, after they are here, how they should run their business. This is the same group who have placed Canada in the position where the minister himself says we are going to have a deficit on the current account of the balance of payments of this year in excess of $6 billion. We are supplicants to the rest of the world as a result of the policy, and the lack of policy, of the government opposite over the years since 1968-year after year of deficits on the current account of the balance of payments ending up this year with a deficit in excess of $6 billion. How do we get the deficit back? We ask foreigners to lend us money and to invest money in Canada. That is how we get that deficit back. And if the foreigners will not lend us money and will not invest in Canada we are down the tube because we cannot get the $6 billion. Yet here they are pounding their chests and pretending they are the exponents of Canadian nationalism. They are the exponents of Canadian humiliation, not nationalism.
Then they get on with their ersatz of Canadian nationalism, beating their chests with what they are going to do to the oil and gas industry, how they are going to Canadianize what they permitted to be unCanadianized over these last 20 or 30 years. They are putting on this show for the Canadian people-it will be more show than it will be anything else, but I will come to that later.
Our third point was that we wanted to face realistically the problems of energy costs, shortages and the huge and swelling deficits. We attempted to do that. The minister here does not do that. He says he is going to be bringing the deficit down over the next three or four years, and some people in the press actually swallow it. But before he starts to bring his deficit down he allows it to burgeon up this year, $3,600 million more than was contemplated by us, or would have been permitted by us. And then he starts to bring it down, but every year for the next four years his deficit is $3 billion to $4 billion higher than the deficit would have been had we remained in office. So all this talk that he is controlling the deficit is just that. It is not fact. Then he fictionalizes his estimates to take out items, and I will come to that later. I am sure there is a lot more. He removes $1.2 billion this year for the petroleum import costs, which should be in the estimates, and $500 million for the post office and so on, as I mentioned last night. That is not facing realistically the problems. That is being old Mandrake the magician, trying to hypnotize the public so they do not know what the problems are.
Our fourth point was we must focus on medium and longer-term potential and opportunities rather than short-run tuning and political subterfuges. Well, a lot of people think that we are dumb dodos because we did not go in for the political subterfuges, because in Canada all that seems to be admired is
The Budget-Mr. Crosbie
success. If you can worm your way into power no matter how scurvy the tricks you use, that is the thing. Very admirable! But what your aims and objectives are, whether what you are trying to do is good or bad for this country does not seem to matter a darn. It is the means, the means are everything and the ends do not count. Well, that is not our approach. Perhaps we are dumdums and dodos but I would sooner be a dumdum and a dodo than a sleazy trickster.
Some hon. Miembers: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Let us look, then, at the minister's budget. What does the minister say he is attempting to do in his budget? Let us examine some of his protestations of policy, I believe they are on page 3 under the heading "The Economic Strategy of the Government". This is what it says:
Its elements in brief are as follow:
The maintenance of government expenditures within the rate of growth in the
economy to ensure that the federal government does not take up an ever-growing proportion of the flow of income;
That is not done. That is not done, the rate of growth in the economy. The minister gets up, he is asked a question, and he talks about the trend line and the rate of growth and all that malarkey. Who is he fooling? Okay, that is one principle discarded before we even start. What next? Here is what it says:
over the period to fiscal 1983-84, a steady reduction in the government deficit and financial requirements;
Poppycock! Poppycock! It is up $3,600 million before the hon. minister even starts. I will venture anything, that there will be no reduction in the government deficit when you add in what should be there as expenditures to keep it in line with past years, there will be no reduction in expenditures or financial requirements. I read again from the budget:
the avoidance, in so far as possible, of personal and corporate tax increases;
Well, the Canadian public can thank us for that. We saved them $1.6 billion because the minister did not go forward. No wonder it was said today he changed his budget papers. He sure did. He whipped out that indexing measure after the storm we aroused to stop him trying to gouge the Canadian public.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: But look at his threat. 1 want all Canadian taxpayers to notice this threat on page 6 where he said this:
-I may be faced with no alternative but to impose some limit on the indexing factor.
Why does he say that? Because he wants to achieve lower rates of inflation. He pretends it is the Canadian people's fault that there are these rates of inflation and he does not want them to think they are going to get away with indexing forever if they continue in their inflationary ways, these bad Canadian people, these bad Canadian taxpayers. If they are naughty, their government is not going to index them any longer, it is going to de-index them. That is his threat to the Canadian people. Well, we will see about that.

October 29, 1980
The Budget-Mr. Crosbie
Now he says he has resolved to support the Bank of Canada in its pursuit of monetary policies that will not accommodate inflation. What a joke! The Governor of the Bank of Canada has stated time and time again, in as harsh a manner as he can when he is speaking in public-and he cannot be too harsh or too critical of the government-what he feels needs to be done. He sent out a piteous plea. He said that monetary policy, interest rate policy and controlling the rate of growth of money supply are not enough. He said, "The government must help us with its fiscal policies if we are to overcome inflation." That is what he has said. 1 quoted the governor last night. I will give another quotation now from what he said before the Senate National Finance Committee on May 29, 1980. He said:
Good monetary policy, although absolutely necessary, needs to be accompanied by many other adjustments if we are to achieve our economic objectives-
That is what he said, and 1 could go on. I gave the House some quotations last night about the deficit. He said:
-let's keep it from increasing, if we can, as a minimum.
What we need is lower government deficits and a reduction in the total size of the government of this country would be helpful. Is that what governor Bouey is getting in this budget? He is not getting that. Since he made that statement he is getting a budget that has increased by $3,600 million in its deficit and financial requirements. He is not getting one iota of help from this government in his battle against inflation. That is why inflation rates next year are going to be far worse than the minister outlines in his economic assumptions, which are worded in very, very general terms. So they are doing nothing. The minister has forgotten that principle. Here is the economic strategy we are talking about. All of these principles have been broken already. Then in the budget he says:
within the commitment to expenditure restraint, the need nonetheless to provide for major new expenditures in energy, economic development, industrial adjustment and manpower retraining;
Those are all just words. We know there are new expenditures in energy. We will have to wait and see where the rest is coming from and whence it comes if the government is going to keep reducing its deficit. The minister says that in his strategy one of the principles is:
the need, also, to expand our assistance to the developing world;
His next principle is this:
a resolve to sustain social and economic assistance to those people and those communities most in need;
That is completely violated in this budget. Mr. Speaker, this is supposed to be a Liberal government. This is supposed to be a government of the heart. But all they think of is the ordinary person, if we listen to them when they are out on the campaign trail.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: They are giving us this garbage that oil and gas prices are not going up as much in the next three or four years as they would have gone up under us. I do not care if that is the case. Suppose this year they have only gone up $3.80 instead of $4 a barrel. Do you think that the poor people
of this country need assistance less because of the 20-cent difference in the price of a barrel of oil? Supposing over the next four years the government's permitted increases were slightly less than ours, or 20 per cent less, or 30 per cent less. Do you think that the lower-income people of this country do not need assistance in any event to meet these and other costs? Of course they do. This minister has forecast that energy costs next year are going up 27 per cent. The flinty-hearted Celtic demagogue has forgotten to do anything to help his people in Cape Breton in connection with that 27 per cent increase.
Food prices are going up 12 per cent next year, according to his economic assumption document. Let us forget energy. Do the ordinary people of this country not need some assistance? Last year the government voted against the assistance we offered. If our budget was now in place, they would be getting assistance this year and next. Lower income Canadians would be getting $500 million in assistance next year and $1 billion after that to assist them. Under our property tax and mortgage interest credit policy they would be receiving this very year $575 million in assistance to meet their housing costs and next year $1.2 billion. And with all of that we kept the deficit down $3.6 billion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Here is another example of honesty and straightforwardness by this government. We heard the minister of snake oil and energy just half an hour ago answer a question, and instead of answering the question he went on about oil stocks. "Oh," he said, "the oil stocks are holding up very well". I do not have his exact words, but all is well. The chickens in the chicken house do not mind that foxy Lalonde is in there baring his teeth at them. "The prices held up very well in the market today", he said. But here is a note I am handed from the Toronto exchange: "Oil stock index is down 300 points and going down further. The ticker tape is unable to keep up".


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


John Carnell Crosbie: How long, oh Lord, how long? There is no social and economic assistance to the people who are going to need it under this program, none. So much for that.
Then we see this, the last principle, "a resolve to see the competitive forces in our economy strengthened and the weight of government regulation reduced". They actually have members on the opposite side, the hon. member for Toronto Wil-lowdale or daily willows or something. What is it?


An hon. Member:: Pussy willows.


An hon. Member:: Willowdale.


John Carnell Crosbie: Willowdale. He is chairing a committee on government regulations. Well, it is this very government which brought in the thousands of pages of regulations, and it is this very government, through its energy policy, that is imposing
October 29, 1980

hundreds of pages of more regulations. And it is this very government that is going to see that the competitive forces in the economy are not strengthened but taken over by the government. So much for competition. The private sector is of no interest or concern to the hon. gentleman opposite. There is not a policy in this document to help the private sector, there is nothing to encourage the Canadian people to invest in equity in their own country, there is nothing to encourage them to buy shares of Canadian companies. There is a suggestion that there is a painless way for us to take over the oil and gas industry and to "Canadianize" it. They are wonderful Canadi-anizers, the little coterie in Toronto and Windsor or wherever that coterie is. They think it is so easy. There is a painless way to Canadianize the oil and gas industry, they suggest. The minister says it does not even need to appear in his budget. He is going to impose this new tax-I have forgotten what the name of it is. I will have to look it up in one of my many notes.
I have so many notes that I have notes coming out of my notes. Canadian ownership. It is not even called a tax. This is a beauty, this one. It is called a Canadian ownership fund.


An hon. Member:: Account.


John Carnell Crosbie: Canadian ownership account. There is a mysterious Canadian ownership account, and out of thin air it will conjure up billions for Petro-Canada, Sir Galahad PetroCan, to run to the rescue of Canada and take over this huge multinational and take over that huge multinational, and the money will come out of a Canadian-what is called?


An hon. Member:: Ownership account.


John Carnell Crosbie: Ownership account, a mysterious account up there in the sky.


Mr. Beatty:: A Swiss bank account.


John Carnell Crosbie: Perhaps it is a Swiss Bank account. That is where the money is coming from, until we look closer and see that this little account is going to be a tax on the Canadian consumers of oil and gas. If Petro-Canada spends $5 billion buying a multinational oil company, then there will be a tax on those who use heating fuels.
The little old lady who calls the fuel company to come and supply some oil for her stove or furnace down in Newfoundland will pay so that Petro-Canada can take over Petrofina or take over this or take over that. That is what is going to happen. And the government hopes the people of Canada will not notice what is causing this increase. Do you know what they are going to say? They are going to say, "The bad old oil and gas companies are gouging you again. They have just put their prices up again, and we are fighting against them, and we are against their putting up their prices". That is what they are going to tell the public, when all the time the prices will be going up because Petro-Canada has gone on a big buying spree to buy up these wicked up old multinationals. That is what the government will attempt to do. The increase per gallon is going to be tremendous.


Mr. Jarvis:: Fifteen cents a gallon.
The Budget-Mr. Crosbie


John Carnell Crosbie: Every one of those principles of the minister's in his budget has been violated. There they are, the virgin principles violated before we have even had a chance to read them. Rapine ran amuck in the cabinet room before we even got to see those principles, and every one of them is being violated.
1 have a suggested note here. There was a statement last year when our budget was brought down: "Short-term pain for long-term gain". Well, there was not much pain in it really, but in an election campaign you do not get a chance to explain a complicated budget. So the short-term pain for the long-term gain did not work out too well, but we have another budget here now and these words have been suggested to me: The Liberal's gain is Canada's pain; short-term gain and long-term pain. That is what this budget is. It might be short-term gain in the short-term for the government politically. It might be what some of the observers have called it, very shrewd and very subtle. The minister has done it again. The Canadian people do not know they have been given the dart. The dart has gone in painlessly. The minister is an expert at the shell game. Which shell is that pea under? The public does not know, but the public will know. The public might not know in the short-term, but in the next two, three or four years the public will know whose dart it was and how painful that dart will become. So the long-term pain will become obvious to the Canadian people before they are finished.
1 was going to offer the minister my mukluks to bring down his budget. I thought perhaps he would have the same luck as I did if he wore them. But he should have come into this House without any shoes on at all and wear a sack cloth and ashes even to put this before the House as a budget because it is a budget without any guts. It is a budget without any gumption. It is not a budget at all. It is an energy policy with some other stuff attached to it that does nothing to help the Canadian economy or to help Canadians at all.
I am just going to mention the budget I brought down last December once more because I am interested in this budget and the future.


An hon. Member:: Stick around, Allan.


John Carnell Crosbie: The minister has been very patient. It is hard to listen to all your faults and errors. I do not blame him for leaving.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will be back.


John Carnell Crosbie: I just wanted to make this reference. I want all hon. gentlemen to read the next copy of Canadian Taxation, a journal of tax policy which will be coming out within the next two weeks. It is a publication of the National Council of Welfare and of Osgoode Hall Law School. The National Council of Welfare is not known to be a firm friend of the PC Party, although as they see us and what we are truly trying to do, they are going to become much friendlier. Osgoode Hall Law School: of course, we all know that. There is an article in the coming issue, a study done by an eminent economist, Volume II, No. 2 of Canadian Taxation. I want members of

October 29, 1980
The Budget-Mr. Crosbie
the NDP to study that article because what does the article conclude after examining my budget and all the budgets of the 1970s? It says this:
The defeated Conservative budget was more progressive than any budget introduced by Liberal governments over the past ten years.
That is for openers.
Ironically, Crosbie's budget was, as will become evident, by far the most progressive of three budgets under consideration-
Those include the budgets of the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien). It says:
The Crosbie budget was highly redistributive. Whereas the benefit rate for the lowest income group was plus 3.3 per cent, the benefit rate declined steadily to minus 5.0 per cent in the middle income group where it reached a plateau.
In other words, the Crosbie budget was far better for lower income Canadians than it was for middle and higher income Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Listen to this from an earlier study by Mr. Gillespie:
-the empirical evidence demonstrates that the federal government has not improved the net economic position of the poor relative to the highest income families during the 1970s.
A few sentences later it reads:
The evidence suggests, however, that the PC budget brought down in December of 1979 would have been strongly progressive.
In other words, the Liberal budgets in the 1970s were regressive and did nothing to improve the net economic position of the poor, relative to higher income families. Our budget, which was defeated by the NDP and by the gentlemen opposite, was progressive and, in effect, started to redress the bias of the Liberal party in favour of middle and higher income Canadians. The NDP needs to start some instant analysis and to learn what is good and what is bad.


An hon. Member:: We do not need a lecture from you.


John Carnell Crosbie: You need a lecture, my friend, because you put us out and now you have this budget to contend with.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: By the way, Mr. Speaker, I am not interested in lecturing the NDP. What is the point of wasting words on the NDP? They will not learn. They will neither see nor learn nor listen. They just go on in the same foolish way, and now they are part of the Liberal caucus. They are the little red rump of the Liberal caucus.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: This is probably too complicated for the NDP to understand. I do not know whether they would even read the article.
Let me go on with the article. It reads:
The December 1979 budget brought down by John Crosbie was a complete contrast.
To those Liberal budgets.
It was a highly deflationary budget increasing average family taxes by $418. Although the impact would have been greatest on upper income earners, the effects reached back through the middle classes and would have meant a substantial reduction in the disposable incomes of the upwardly mobile urban middle class constituency in southern Ontario.... Surprisingly, even without the benefit of the refundable energy tax credit, the poorest class would have gained in absolute terms from the Crosbie budget.
Inspection of Panel B reveals that the Crosbie budget was highly redistributive.
I could go on and on. Further on it reads:
Second, the empirical results suggest that Crosbie's 1979 budget would have had a surprisingly progressive impact on incomes ... it would have produced an important shift of the tax burden from poor and lower middle-income earners to the middle and highest income earners.
This is the budget that the NDP defeated, they who parade in the House as supporters of the poor and lower middle-income earners. Here was a budget that was going to produce an important shift in the tax burden from the poor and lower income earners to the middle and highest income earners, which they stood up to defeat. Every one of them voted with the Liberal opposition to defeat that budget. That shows how smart and astute they are. So much for the NDP.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Let us come to the points on energy in this budget. I will not deal with them in detail because our energy critic and other experts will deal with them later. But let us just look at this issue as it stands today. We did nothing to tax heating oil in Canada. Our tax was an excise tax on gasoline. We tried to induce conservation, particularly with reference to transportation. There was no excise tax on heating oil or natural gas, which is used very heavily in western Canada, British Columbia and western Ontario. There was no attempt to tax heating oil, and the effect on heating oil from the increase in the price of oil which we were allowing would certainly have been met by the energy tax credit.
But in this budget there is tax increase after tax increase on heating oil. There is the petroleum compensation charge, which amounts to 80 cents this year and will be $2.50 a barrel next year. That will be a tax on every product that comes out of a barrel of oil. It includes transportation fuels, diesel oil for the farmers, heating oil, and all petrochemical products, such as fertilizer and so on. That is what that petroleum compensation charge will be. It will be 80 cents a barrel until the end of December this year, or for two months, but in January it will go up to $2.50. It will mean more inflation, but it hits heating oil in particular. It is far more regressive than the excise tax we proposed.
Then we have a new natural gas tax amounting to 30 cents a 1,000 cubic feet, and it will go up in 15 cent increments. It will cost $1,300 million in 1981-82. I do not have the figures at the moment to show how much of that might be from export sales, but by far the largest proportion of that $1,300 million will
October 29, 1980

come from consumers from Ontario to British Columbia. It is they who will pay that amount, no matter what they use that oil for, heating purposes or whatever. So that is another tax on heating fuels.
We do not know what this Canadian ownership charge will be, but it will be imposed on all oil and gas consumption in Canada, and that includes heating oil and everything else. There is no attempt in the budget to help lower and middle-income people meet these increased costs. 1 have given you the figures for what the relief would have been under our budget. I mentioned the figure of $500 million from the energy tax credit in 1981-82 and another $1.2 billion for home owners. I referred to relief amounting to $1,745 million which the ordinary people of this country would have had next year were we still in power, not to mention that the Minister of Finance has copied me-and 1 am glad that he did-in such progressive moves as permitting Canadians to deduct the salaries of their spouses who are in their own incorporated businesses. This year it will cost $75 million, and next year it will cost $160 million. That was a great advance for the PC party and it has nothing to do with the Liberal party. It is just that they followed blindly in April, when they came to office, with the small business development bond.
There is nothing in this budget for small business. The small business development bond was hung up for six months by this government because it could not get the regulations out-it was too busy trying to restrict the bond. The bond was unrestricted in our budget. If a small business borrowed money, it could have interest relief from the small business development bond under our budget. But when it was brought down again in April by the minister, he had it restricted, so now it is only allowed on new capital expenditures and it is hard to get it approved. Even that truncated small business development bond will now be extended for three months only. That is some assistance for small business! It comes from the party which used to pretend it was for small business. They are not for business, small, medium or large, unless they stick their own grubby hands in that business, and then they are for the business.


Some hon. Members:: Hear; hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: For any energy policy to be a success in Canada, it has to do two things. First, it has to enhance our national security by getting us to a state of oil self-sufficiency as quickly as possible-a day gained is tremendous for Canada, a month gained is terrific; a year gained is even more terrific. But we have lost a year since last December in getting to oil self-sufficiency. Will it enhance our national security, or are Quebec and the Atlantic provinces to be left at the mercy of the Middle East and the trouble that may erupt there at any time? That is one way by which it can be judged. Second, does it preserve the unity of this country? That is an important principle. 1 could concoct an energy policy of absolute magnificence if this were a unitary state, and I could impose it on Canadians. But when you are concocting an energy policy which has to suit a diverse nation such as Canada, with the
The Budget-Mr. Crosbie
various regional interests contained within it, it is not so easy. If you concoct a policy and impose it on the provinces, whether they like it or not, if you take some province and strike at its heart and its life blood, get it up against a wall and put a knife right at its stomach, then you are doing nothing for national unity in this country but endangering it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Where is agriculture in this budget? Where is the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan)? We saw him flapping his jowls several nights ago. He told us how, when he travelled outside Canada, he came across people in China and around the world who were very worried because Canada did not have its constitution at home. They were afraid that Canada's constitution was endangered over in Westminster, that they were not looking after it properly. He led us to believe that people around the world were gnawing their fingernails to the bone because of this constitutional situation. Where was he when the Minister of Finance concocted this budget?


An hon. Member:: In China.


John Carnell Crosbie: 1 want to be corrected by our agricultural experts if I make a mistake. I am not afraid to admit mistakes,
I was once a Liberal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: I do not know of any assistance to the agricultural industry. Last year when our budget came down, hon. gentlemen opposite made more noise than a whole barnyard of roosters with only one hen there, because we were not doing enough for agriculture. Well, we gave agriculture a break, with reference to our excise tax. They were to pay a much lower price in agriculture than in other spheres of activity.


An hon. Member:: Capital gains.


John Carnell Crosbie: Capital gains for farmers. We gave farmers relief in connection with capital gains. Where is it now? We were attacked by members opposite who said we were not doing enough for farmers in connection with capital gains. What is in the budget about capital gains? The Minister of Finance tells us he has had a study done about capital gains and, lo and behold, everything is well with capital gains; nothing should be done to interfere with the capital gains tax, it is a wonderful tax, we are getting wonderful revenues, shaft the farmers as far as capital gains tax or anything else is concerned; we are in power for four years and when four years is over, we will send the Minister of Agriculture around to flapdoodle at the farmers and try to talk them into supporting us again. In this budget he has done nothing to help farmers meet their energy costs, or their other increasing costs.
We saw the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, Robespierre, the hon. Robespierre, get up. It is too bad he did not have his head under his arm; it was still on top of his

October 29, 1980
The Budget-Mr. Crosbie
shoulders. Do you know, that minister has adopted our 85 per cent ceiling. We were only going to allow oil price increases, if they ever got that high, to go within 85 per cent of the world or the U.S. level, whichever was the lower. Lo and behold, in these energy documents the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will be Horatio at the bridge. He will only allow them to go to 85 per cent of the U.S. or world level. 1 am sure 85 per cent in my terms is the same as 85 per cent in the terms used by the other side. Or am 1 wrong? Will there be an advertising campaign to show us that 85 per cent is not 85 per cent, that $40 billion is not $40 billion or that an export tax is not an export tax? The plucked goose is flying along.
It is a funny thing, but during the negotiations with Alberta, the government of Alberta offered an arrangement under which they said that they would be prepared to go to increases which would be only 75 per cent of the world level or the U.S. level, whichever was the lower. That was 10 per cent lower than the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. What happened to the 75 per cent? When we are giving Alberta the boots, why did we not give Alberta the 75 per cent to boot? Is it because hon. gentlemen opposite just wanted to paint Alberta as being a villian, a tyrant, a selfish, grasping province that is trying to wreck the rest of the country? Is that the picture they were trying to paint? Why do they not paint a clear picture? Why did they not adopt the 75 per cent suggestion of the province of Alberta? We do not hear 75 per cent even mentioned.
Page 10 of the budget contains some energy policies. I want to say a good thing about the budget. It has some good energy policies. For example, the budget indicates-I have to read this because the people of Newfoundland will not believe me. My people down there will not believe me unless I read it. They are watching it there now on cable television. The budget indicates:
The Atlantic provinces are more heavily dependent on oil than any other region of the country. For this reason, a fund will be established to support the conversion of oil-fired electrical plants to coal.
Have you heard that before? Yes. When? In the December budget. It was part of the PC energy program. Here it crops up again. It continues:
Financial assistance will continue to be given for interprovincial electrical connections and federal equity will be provided in support of hydro development on the lower Churchill River in Labrador.
That is another plank from the PC energy policy of December, but it is a plank that will never be crossed if the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will not act to use his powers under section 92(10) of the BN A Act so that Newfoundland can transport hydroelectric power across the province of Quebec to customers in Ontario, the maritimes and New York. All he has to do is use section 92(10) (a) or (c) to declare that it will work for the general advantage of Canada. Ever since 1965 Newfoundland has asked him to do that, including his friend, the former Premier Smallwood who is down in Newfoundland today boosting his constitutional proposals and opposing Premier Peckford. He is squawking again after being so many years out of politics. Mr. Smallwood tried from 1965 to his demise politically in 1971 to get the government to use its
power to give Newfoundland a break so that one of our great natural resources could be utilized and not all of the economic rent would be taken by the province of Quebec. Ever since 1971 the Moore and Peckford PC administrations-for nine long years-have been asking the government to make that decision, and we still see this kind of wording in the budget, that they will give equity. Well, they can give all the equity they like, but the project is going nowhere if they will not use the constitutional powers, as they should, to treat Newfoundland in a similar manner as the other provinces have been treated with regard to transmission facilities for oil and gas.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Then it goes on to say:
New funds will also be available to Find ways in which the large reserves of Cape Breton coal can be used to enhance energy security in the maritimes.
That is another PC policy. There will be an industrial conservation program and a housing retrofit program taken directly from our energy proposals. What is needed in this country is a retrofit job done on the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. That is what we need, a new retrofit program.
There are some good things in the budget, but they are taken from the budget of December, 1979. There is nothing new in it.
I have mentioned farmers, and it would be unfair not to mention fishermen. What is in this budget for the fishermen of Canada? There is nothing but increased prices of oil and increased prices of heating fuel. That is all that is in this budget for the fishermen. They will not get any energy tax credit to help them. To the fishermen in my district who supported me in this last election despite the talk of the 18 cents, the fishermen who supported me in ever-increasing numbers because they thought we were trying to do a job for Canada, I say, "You are being let down, gentlemen, not by us, but by the government which promised you that you were not going to face any increases in oil and gas prices."
That is the position, and they will not have anything to help them. In Newfoundland 80 per cent of the population live in their own homes. There will be no help for them. There will be no property tax credit or mortgage interest credit. There will be no energy tax credit for them, but there will be ever-increasing costs of energy for them and ever-increasing costs of food. When I speak to my electorate next, I will ask them to send back seven solid PC citizens to this House in the next election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: What about Canadian ownership? It is just as simple as this: the government of this country controls the oil and gas industry-this government plus provincial governments. In effect this government, this Parliament, has the overriding powers. We do not need to buy the oil and gas industry to control it. If we are to spend dozens of billions of dollars buying out multinational companies because it sounds
October 29, 1980

42 25
better to say we are buying out foreign-owned companies, then that means billions and billions of dollars that we will not have available to spend in frontier exploration, that we will not have available to spend in the Beaufort Sea, that we will not have available to spend on offshore Labrador projects.
It is as simple as that. The energy needs of this country are gigantic. I forget the exact figure, but it is in the trillions of dollars which must be spent in the next ten years. Can we afford to try to do that and then borrow tens of billions of dollars to buy companies we do not need? I say, encourage them to open up their share of ownership to Canadians. 1 am not against giving incentives so that Canadians may have a chance to buy into these companies. We should give Canadians encouragement in this area. We tried to encourage Canadians to invest in the equity of Canadian companies. But this business of allowing Petro-Canada to go on a buying rampage because of some supposed national policy will not bring us one iota closer to oil self-sufficiency in this country. Indeed, it will do the opposite and create strife and disruption; it will slow down exploration development. It is the wrong thing to do and it is being done in the wrong way.
Before leaving the subject of energy, which will be dealt with in a statesmanlike fashion by others, I would like to read some quotations. I cannot resist, because they show the cynicism of the government. I have here a quotation by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce from a statement he made on December 12, 1979, as the finance critic for his party;
increases in the wellhead price of oil are the equivalent of a new tax.
He was referring to our price increases of $4 per barrel per year and $4.50 per barrel on oil. What do we see in this budget? We see an increase next year of $4.50 including the $2.50 government tax and the figure rising until we get to $7.50 for oil at the wellhead. That is the equivalent of a new tax. The hon. member was so shocked that his remark was punctuated with an exclamation mark. He exclaimed: "Yes, a new tax!" He was so shocked at the realization. He went on to say:
It takes money out of their pockets just as much as would have been the case had a new tax been announced in this budget last night.
That is the same as what the Minister of Finance is doing, but the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is not here to talk about new taxes today. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources had this to say on October 24, 1979, as reported at page 551 of Hansard; this is what the hon. Pinocchio had to say-that a $4 increase could cause:
the price of home heating oil to reach unconscionable levels.
"Unconscionable levels" is what he said. What is the minister's increase for oil next year? Is it $4.50 a barrel? What is his increase for this year? It is $3.80 a barrel. Is $3.80 any worse in permitting the price to reach unconscionable levels and, if it is, what about $4.50? If $4 per barrel causes the price of home heating oil to reach unconscionable levels, then what does $4.50 do? Where is the minister's assistance to the poor
The Budget

Mr. Crosbie
and lower-income people of this country to meet this unconscionable level in the price of home heating oil? The minister of energy made that remark on October 24, just one year ago. Now let him live up to it. Let him live up to the statements he made at that time. The minister said, as recorded at page 439 of Hansard on October 22:
A $4 a barrel increase in the price of oil would mean the average Canadian consumer would be taxed an additional $180 for gas and homeheating oil next year.
The minister complained about $180, so he knows exactly what he is doing with the $4 increase and the $4.50 increase. What he then went on to say tops it all. You will believe, Mr. Speaker, that I am a teller of tall tales, but I am not. That is my problem, I am not sly or crafty.


Mr. Siddon:: You're honest.


John Carnell Crosbie: They say I am too honest. I do not agree with that. The minister then called a $4 a barrel increase, "unbelievable". What was "unbelievable" last year in opposition, this year becomes extremely believable. He does not even want to help the people of Canada meet these additional costs, these unbelievable additional costs. The price of $4.50 is now believable to the minister and the price of $7 and something is believable when it comes in four years, five years or six years' time. It is arrant, rank hypocrisy, and we will continue to remind the people of Canada about it.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said last December 12, as reported at page 2295 of Hansard:
The government says it is imposing these higher wellhead prices to encourage energy conservation. However, for millions of Canadians this is something they will react to with nothing more than bitter laughter. The Canadian climate means they will have to use a certain amount of fuel oil to heat their homes adequately no matter what.
Has the Canadian climate changed in the last 12 months? Will the Canadian people not have to use fuel oil to heat their homes adequately or otherwise? What has happened to this hero who struck out so bravely for the Canadian people in this House last year on December 12? Where has he gone? Where was he when this matter was discussed in cabinet? What is he doing about the heating oil costs? What is he doing about the Canadian climate?


Mr. McDermid:: Try to do something useful for a change.


John Carnell Crosbie: He said:
However, for millions of Canadians, this is something they will react to with nothing more than bitter laughter.
There are millions of Pagliaccis out there today who will be laughing bitterly as the months and years go by and they see what this government has done to them, despite the statements they made last year and how they bluffed the Canadian people. It is no wonder that their finance critic is not the Minister of Finance. At page 2296 of Hansard the hon. member said:
The only result of these ... higher prices of gasoline or fuel oil will lower the standard of living of Canadians. They will have to cut back on what they are now spending for food, clothing and shelter for themselves and their families in order to heat their homes adequately.
4226

October 29, 1980
The Budget-Mr. Crosbie
Where is the energy tax credit to prevent that from occurring, if it was to happen? If it was to happen last year it will happen this year. The standard of living of Canadians has been lowered and the government is doing nothing to help. We did something to help. But here is the final lugubrious statement of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce when he was finance critic as reported in Hansard at page 2292:
Essentially this budget hits the little guy in this country.
The hon. member was discussing my budget and let us not get mixed up. He went on to say:
If the little guy decides to have a smoke or a drink to find some solace from the impact of this Conservative budget, he will still be reminded of its unfair impact.
And what did the Minister of Finance do on April 21? He increased the taxes on cigarettes and liquor despite what the finance critic had to say, and people cannot find any solace today from the impact of his budget because of those increases. Today the Minister of Finance relents a little in favour of the fortified wines, but I can tell him that I beat him to it. I promised the people of the Niagara Peninsula, months ago, that I would look after their fortified wines. I am glad the minister has carried out my promise.
I do not want to take too long, but what can we do? I will leave the rest of this material for other hon. members. The $40 billion bump will not work. In four years' time Canadians will look back and they will see what actually happened and what would have happened under the Clark-Crosbie program for the future. They will erect statues throughout Canada to Clark and Crosbie.


Charles Joseph Clark: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: I hope at least one statue anyway.


Charles Joseph Clark: Cheek to cheek.


John Carnell Crosbie: The people will find out that the increases under the minister's regime are considerably higher than our proposed increases. I do not want to touch on this subject too much, but the budget deficit is a matter of no account to the NDP because they do not care about deficits. They have never had anything but deficits in their lives and they do not care if the country is deficit-ridden. The deficit matters because the ever-increasing deficit makes it pretty well impossible to overcome inflation.
If hon. members do not believe me, then I suggest they ask governor Bouey. My authority is governor Bouey and hundreds of other economists. The Minister of Finance is now heart-to-heart, step-to-step and toe-to-toe-and I will not say anything else that he is-with the governor of the Bank of Canada. If he listens to the governor, he will understand why his burgeoning deficit is inflationary. The deficit has gone up to over $14 billion. It is up $3.6 billion from what it would have been under our government. Perhaps our deficit might have gone up-I will concede that-by a few hundred million dollars because the economic turndown is more extensive than we had prophesied. So our deficit might have been up a little bit. It
could have been that my confrere at the desk here could not have held down expenditures because we would have lost some revenues. It might have been up, but it would not have been up by $3.6 billion.
What difference does it make? The money has to be borrowed. The government gets some of it from government civil servants who pay into pensions. The government uses that money-borrows it. If I were a government civil servant I would be concerned about the money I am paying into these pension funds because the value of money is steadily declining. Anyway, the government gets its hands on this. In addition to the couple of billion dollars it will be able to use this year from those sources, the government has to go to our financial markets to borrow money-in excess of $12 billion this year, and a huge figure next year and the year after. This means they are going out to compete with the private sector and everyone else who wants to borrow.
Unless the governor of the Bank of Canada increases the money supply, interest rates will go up, because the demand is going to be greater than the supply. Interest rates will have a tendency to go up unless the governor of the Bank of Canada prints more money. The governor of the Bank of Canada says it is wrong to print more money. He says we have to keep the increase in the money supply down to correspond better with the increase in what we produced. But we are not producing more, Mr. Speaker; instead, we have a one per cent decline in GNP this year.
In any event, the governor of the Bank of Canada is going to have to say, "No, I cannot increase the money supply just because you will not listen to me. Just because you will not help me with your fiscal policies to fight inflation, I am not going to increase the money supply. There is no real value in my increasing the money supply." He is going to say, "We did that years earlier, in the first half of the 1970s, and we have changed our policy. We are not going to do it again." That is what he will say and I hope he will stick to it.
This means that interest rates will have to go up, Mr. Speaker, because the government is out there borrowing and taking the room of the private sector. That is why the deficit is inflationary. Why is it inflationary? It is inflationary because it discourages the private sector from investing and building and expanding. Why should they do these things when they have a government that is intervening in all their actions, a government that does not care about whether they make any kind of profit or not, a government that is going to sic FIRA on them and extend this great bureaucracy of FIRA so that it can come into their business if they are foreign-owned or have any element of that at all and peer over their shoulders and tell them what to do. That is why we have to be concerned about the deficit.
Why else do we have to be concerned about the deficit, Mr. Speaker? Because this year $10,250 million is to be spent on interest payments. I am now addressing the taxpayers of Canada, from St. John's, Newfoundland, to Victoria, British
October 29, 1980

Columbia. The trouble with Canada is that part in between! 1 am addressing these taxpayers, Mr. Speaker, and telling them that one out of every four of their tax dollars is earmarked to pay interest on the government's debt this year. That is a stupendous figure. Next year, interest costs will amount to $12,265 million; in excess of 16 per cent of all government expenditures this year and next year are going to pay interest on the debt. That is the present estimate. It is a huge amount of money.
Do taxpayers wonder why they cannot have new services from the government? Do they wonder why they cannot have better transportation in Newfoundland? Do the fishermen wonder about small crafts and harbours and why they cannot get their harbours and wharves looked after? It is because the Minister of Finance has this huge bill for interest on past debts and it is going to get larger next year. The estimates show that it will go up by a couple of billion dollars every year.
The only way to get that under control, Mr. Speaker, is to reduce the amount being borrowed. It should be remembered, too, that over the last eight years, from 1972 to 1980, this government reduced taxation on every occasion before an election. The amount of those tax reductions this year totals altogether $9 billion-there is another $7.5 billion due to indexing, but this has nothing to do with indexing. I am dealing with tax cuts. There is $9 billion in tax cuts. For example, in November, 1978, the Minister of Justice then the minister of finance, brought in his budget and reduced the sales tax from 12 per cent to 9 per cent which will cost $1,100 million this year.
If the government says it needs more revenue-and the government is not finished yet, because the minister is going to have to get more revenue before he is through-taxpayers should remember that the government fooled them in the last eight years by pretending that they did not need revenue. Going into elections, they pretended that they did not need the $9 billion from the taxpayers of Canada. Now they are safely back in office and ensconced on their voyage for another four years, they are going to start getting that revenue back. We can be sure of that. There will be a bigger revenue grab than has been announced in this budget before the next four years are over. This is why, Mr. Speaker. The deficits for the last eight years total $49,679 million and if we add to that this year's deficit of $14,150 million, there is a total for the eight years, including this one, of $63,829 million in deficits.
I know the government does not worry about deficits because they are not expecting to be here when the final bills come in for payment. I can tell you, however, Mr. Speaker, that this is a grim record. If we look at what the situation was before we got into this mess, when the Prime Minister first wended his weary way off the diving boards into office, we will see what happened. I think I have some of the figures here. At that time, in 1968-69 I believe, the bill for interest was about $1 billion. Now it is the figure that I have already given.
The Budget-Mr. Crosbie
I have so many notes, Mr. Speaker, that I do not know whether I can find a particular note right away or not. But I have great faith that I will, if you will just put up with me. Here is another little note that I found while looking for the first note. Canada is $75 billion in debt to the rest of the world. This is the government that is telling off the rest of the world-telling them "get off the globe". What is that song about the world-"Stop the world, we want to get off!" This government is saying to foreign investors, "You come to Canada, gentlemen, and we are going to have our hands not only in your pockets but somewhere else even worse." That is what they are saying to foreign investors. They are very independent. They have this ersatz Canadian nationalism policy that they want to pretend will not cost anybody anything. But they owe the rest of the world $75 billion. That is what Canada owes the rest of the world and this year the amount is going up. The current account deficit for this year is estimated by the Minister of Finance at $6.2 billion, for last year it was $5.8 billion and the forecast for 1981 is $5.5 billion. So much for the services of these gentlemen! When the people who are owed that money decide to take a stand-look out. They will not be long in changing the minds of this government.
I knew I would find my note, Mr. Speaker. Here it is. There have been two budgets that showed a surplus since the Hon. Douglas Abbott was minister of finance in the early 1950s. There have been two budgets with a surplus out of the last 31 budgets. Mr. Douglas Abbott was minister of finance at the time of the last surplus. From Sir John A. Macdonald to Lester B. Pearson, from confederation to centennial year, the combined budgetary deficits of the federal government totalled $17 billion. With the present budget, the net debt of the government will be over $81 billion by next March. All of that increase is a gift to us from the Prime Minister. He is bequeathing us the difference between $17 billion and $81 billion. The gross debt of the federal government in 1967 was $30 billion; by next March it will be about $122 billion. This is the great legacy of the Trudeau years. In addition to the strain he is putting on the whole confederation now in attempting to mould it in his own fanatical way, this is another part of what he is bequeathing to Canada.
When he ascended his throne in 1968 interest charges on the national debt were $1.2 billion; we know what they are this year and next year the figure will be in excess of $12 billion.
I could give other startling and alarming figures, Mr. Speaker, but I do not want to startle and alarm the hon. gentlemen opposite too much. They might wake from their lethargy.
On page 35 of the budget document a lot of other deficits and borrowings are shown that are not included in the government's deficit. Under the heading "Loans, Investments and Advances" there appears the following statement:
In 1980-81 direct market borrowings by agent Crown corporations are expected to increase by a further $1.6 billion, resulting from borrowings by Export Development Corporation- $802 million; Eldorado Nuclear- $80 million, and the Federal Business Development Bank- $755 million, partially offset by repayments of $40 million by Petro-Canada.

October 29, 1980
The Budget-Mr. Crosbie
That is a fine gesture. Petro-Canada's part is to repay $40 million while oil and gas consumers are asked to pay billions. There it is, Mr. Speaker-another $1.6 billion that the agent Crown corporations are borrowing in 1980-81. This can be added to the government debt because every dollar of the debt of those agent Crown corporations is a debt of the Government of Canada, if any one of them goes belly up.
I just heard a grunt over there in the NDP ranks. They do not agree. They do not agree with anything in the NDP. It is $1.6 billion. They do not like to hear any talk of debts. The hon. member from Winnipeg Birds Nest is getting all stirred up. So there is another $ 1.6 billion.
Let us pass on from the deficit because it annoys members of the NDP, the little red rump of the Liberal party. I am almost missing points, and they are important points.
I refer now to page 13. Here is what the Minister of Finance speaking for the government promised to do about expenditures. Just listen to this. Hear ye, hear ye! All ten provincial governments please pay attention to this:
A large element of our expenditures especially in the social affairs envelope consists of transfers to the provincial governments. 1 have already indicated to my provincial colleagues that we will be examining these programs closely as they come up for renewal, and we expect to achieve significant savings here.
Where does this government say it is going to get significant savings from the programs it induced the provinces to enter into in the social service field? It is presumably in Medicare, the Canada welfare plan, hospital insurance and Canada assistance. They are going to put the squeeze on the ten provinces to achieve it. There is no expenditure reduction in these estimates. There is a tremendous burgeoning of expenditures. Where are they going to get some of that money? They are going to squeeze it out of the ten provinces. These ten provinces are supposed to be supermen. We are led to believe that these ten have ganged up on the Prime Minister. As I said the other day, "little granny Trudeau with these ten big brutes, get him in a room and assault him". That is the picture we are given. It is the wrong picture. It is superman Trudeau and the ten midgets. That is the real picture, because the ten provinces have no powers compared to the power of the central government. It is the biggest canard of the century that the federal government is weak or that the federal government does not have power. It has overwhelming power and the government is going to use those overwhelming powers now to squeeze those ten provincial governments. The budget document reads: "We expect to achieve significant savings here". That means the provinces, including the poorest provinces such as my own province of Newfoundland, and the province of Prince Edward Island. All the provinces are going to have to pick up where this government reduces its spending. That is what this government is going to do. It will reduce its spending, even if it does so on the backs of the ten provincial governments. That is this government's great principle of equalization and the great principle of the Prime Minister and how he is going to help strengthen the regions of this country. The man is destroying
the regions of this country. He is destroying the country with it.
So this is what the minister promises. This is where he is going to achieve his expenditure reductions. This is the government that inveigled them into it and dangled the bait which they could not refuse politically. It gets them in, keeps them there for years and then gives it to them with significant expenditure reductions for the federal government.
Look at this sick joke on page 13:
I would like to announce at this time a special allocation of $350 million over four years-
Over four years!
-to promote industrial restructuring and manpower retraining and mobility in areas of particular need.
The total amount has been divided equally between economic development and social affairs envelopes. This sum of $350 million over four years-is that $85 million a year? Is it $85 million out of $60 billion this year? Is it $85 million out of $66 billion next year? There is going to be an additional $85 million for manpower, industrial restructuring and manpower retraining. That is called a program? That is not a program. That is not even an excuse for a program. In our budget we had $250 million for youth. This was an employment tax credit for youth alone which was a $150 million increase over what the previous government had. This is supposed to be a great program. It should not have even been in the budget as a footnote. It is an insult to even have that.
There is one other thing I need to refer to under this section. I ask hon. members not to get your hopes up. When I run out of new material, I will sit down, but there is a lot of material here. At page 33 having to do with equalization and fiscal transfers, it reads:
The equalization figures for 1980-81 and 1981-82 assume the passage of Bill C-24 now before Parliament.
The government is assuming that the bill will pass. It is the bill which takes Ontario out of the equalization formula. It will remove hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue which Ontario could have had if the changes had not been made. It is the bill that embodies the PUITTA changes. This assumes that it will pass the House, and the government has therefore reduced its expenditures by that amount.
By the way, anyone who believes that equalization is entrenched in the constitution had better take another look at the document before they continue to think that.
I mentioned unemployment insurance last night. There is an increase there. Let us look at my budget from last year. I want to share it with you. Let us have just one more brief mention of last year's budget with a certain fondness and tender regard. Let us look at page 18 of my budget and at page 17 of the government's budget for this year. What did we do in our budget last year? We explained employment programs and unemployment insurance. At page 18 of the 1979 budget, it reads:
October 29, 1980

The weekly employee rate of unemployment insurance contributions for 1980 will be increased from $1.35 per $100 of insurable earnings to $1.60. The employer rate will be increased from $1.89 to $2.24.
The howl from the hon. gentlemen then in the opposition was deafening. They said that this was unconscionable. They said it was another unconscionable thing that we should attempt to raise the contributions from employers and employees to help meet the heavy costs of unemployment.
What is in the budget for this year? At page 17, the Minister of Finance said this:
I am announcing on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, that effective January 1, 1981, the weekly rate of unemployment insurance contributions will be raised to $1.80 per $100 of insurable earnings. The employer rate of contribution will be increased to $2.52.
That is 20 cents more than we proposed. The employer rate of contribution will be increased to $2.52. We suggested $2.24. That is 28 cents more. These are very significant increases in both categories in excess of $1 billion this year. That will be taken from employers and employees by the government which last year decried the practice and wept crocodile tears on the floor of this House. There are a few similarities in these two budgets, except that the minister's budget was far more unconscionable than mine when it came to raising revenue.
Other speakers on our side will be dealing with questions such as of research and development and how that has been ignored, as far as we can tell, and how the economic development envelope has been increased. We are told the economic development envelope is supposed to include a western development fund of $4 billion. I assume it will have to be increased if it is going to include that. It is very hard to see what will be increased in the economic development envelope if there is to be an additional $4 billion for the west.
Let me suggest something to hon. gentlemen opposite. Instead of creating this $4 billion fund for the west, so-called, why do you not let the west look after their own development by treating them fairly and squarely with respect to oil and gas? The federal government has certain responsibilities in the west just as it has in the east and in the centre. It has the responsibility for giving them a decent transportation system, a decent system of ports and a decent system of shipping grain, all these things that we have a right to expect everywhere in Canada. There is no need for a special suggestion that there is going to be a $4 billion fund. This is conscience money.
They are thrashing the west. They are bearing down on the west. They are taking control over the oil and gas industry. They are taking away many of their ownership rights. Then they say: gentlemen, we are going to give you a $4 billion fund for western development which we are going to spend on your behalf. It just so happens that westerners would like to have their own $4 billion to spend in accordance with their own priorities. Let the federal government spend its own money, got legitimately in its proper, legitimate areas of policy across Canada in its own jurisdiction. Do not think westerners will thank you for that $4 billion development fund for the west, not at all.
The Budget-Mr. Crosbie


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: The government should be leaving $4 billion with the west in its oil and gas regime and energy package. That is something it should be doing for the west, letting them develop themselves, not taking billions and billions from them and then giving them back a little. That is the same situation they want for Newfoundland.
Imagine the Minister of Justice threatening the premier of Newfoundland in this House last week. What is this country coming to when the big $60 billion Government of Canada says that a premier of this country cannot speak his mind on constitutional issues or he is going to suffer, the Government of Canada is not going to give him any assistance if he does not do what he is told-he will get nothing on the Lower Churchill if he does not watch what he says?
Why is it that hon. gentlemen opposite will not recognize the coastal provinces as being the owners of offshore minerals? Why? Because it wants us down there like trained seals, waiting for them to hand us our gifts just like they are now asking the west to put their paws out for $4 billion for a western development fund.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: We are not coming to Ottawa cap in hand to this government or anyone else in Ottawa, those of us from Newfoundland or in any of the maritime provinces. We are going to speak our minds. We are full citizens of Canada. We have been here 31 years and we are going to have our say with no threats or bullying by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien). They are not going to deter our government, you can depend on that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Page 15 is where the minister is so satisfied with the capital gains tax. He is going to release a discussion paper.
It shows that Canada's system of taxing gains is favourable to taxpayers.
How come? Are they not paying any taxes at all? Is the minister going to index the capital gains tax? In all justice, if he is indexing the personal income tax as he should, there is a strong case for the capital gains tax to be indexed. Otherwise he is taxing the families of the poor farmer who dies. He is taxing them on all the inflationary elements of their so-called capital gains tax. The minister does not care about the inflation impact on capital gains. He says it is very favourable to the taxpayer. He said, and 1 quote:
As well, the taxes on inheritances and wealth in Canada are the lowest among 21 OECD countries surveyed. The paper notes that, while the system has imperfections, the taxation of capital gains is an important source of government revenue, has important lax structure implications and is essential for the equity and fairness of the system.
I wonder what the farmers are going to think of his position on capital gains and what the business sector is going to think. Much of their profit these days is not profit at all. It is because

October 29, 1980
The Budget-Mr. Crosbie
of the effect inflation has on the revenues and their balance sheets, and they are taxed on that. I hope the minister will take a deeper look at the question of capital gains tax and business taxation generally.
I went into housing assistance last night. I will not go into it again. Because I want to have this mentioned in the main body of my address, let me just point out there is nothing for the home owner, nothing for the tenant, no shelter allowance, no mortgage interest and property tax relief. There is not one iota of help for people now buying homes who are paying rates of 15'A and 16 per cent. There is not one element of help for them.
Apparently these people do not deserve help anymore. Why not? Because the Liberal party is in government. They deserved help when the Liberal party was out of government, but they do not deserve it today when the Liberal party is in government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: It is only the MURB. This year the MURB is going to cost the government $15 million. The MURB will be some help in having a few more multiple unit residential dwellings built, but essentially it is a tax relief. It is a tax device which assists those with higher incomes while incidentally helping to build a few more housing units.
Why did 1 stop it last year? 1 stopped it because of advice from the Department of Linance. What was the advice? That MURBs are no longer needed. The advice was that the provinces are responsible for housing, property and civil rights and many of the provinces have policies that interfere with and do not give incentive to the building of housing units. Some of them have strict rent controls. They are discouraging investment in housing, apartments and the like. All this MURB business is doing is trying to offset things which the provinces are doing that they should not be doing to give disincentives for housing.
If the Department of Linance gave me that advice ten months ago, how can they now be giving different advice to this minister? The answer is, they cannot be. What is the answer? The answer is this. The minister said to his department, "Gentlemen, there is nothing in this budget for housing. There is no assistance for housing. I have to have something, no matter how tattered. 1 need to have something to put in for housing so that I can pretend 1 am concerned about the housing situation in Canada."
We have had the lowest number of housing starts year after year for the last four or five years. 1 believe this is the worst year ever. Is that correct?


An hon. Member:: Right.


John Carnell Crosbie: Thank you. Therefore, the minister came up with a MURB. Resurrect the MURB. If anything needed to be resurrected, that was not one of the most important. The MURB might help this year. It might attract certain wealthy Canadians to put some money into building apartment units
and condominiums in certain areas of the country. Lor example, it will be very useful in British Columbia. There is a strong demand there for the MURB.
It is not even a flea bite in dealing with the housing problem, with the people who occupy houses or who are tenants in this country today. Where we were going to give the home owners this year $575 million in assistance, what are they offering the home industry? They are offering a $15 million deduction in revenue for MURB. Where we were going to give $1.2 billion next year to help the home owners of this country, they are going to give $15 million in MURBs. Enough said. I won't go into that.
I will give just one quotation because I am sick of showing what was said by members opposite when they were in opposition as compared to what they are doing now. One more little plank in the coffin. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) in the House of Commons on November 19, 1979, said:
The government could have started where the real problem lies and could have provided something for rental assistance.
Did the Minister of Employment and Immigration, once he was in power, go to the Minister of Finance and say that the real problem is there and something should be provided for rental assistance? He spent all his time in the couple of brief months in opposition saying that to us, that what was needed was assistance for the renters in Canada. Now this minister has not done anything.
There are a lot of other areas I could cover. I suppose we do want the members of the New Democratic Party to get on today so that they can move their subamendment. They are so good at subamendments. Their last subamendment-what an excuse for an opposition party that was over begging the government for favours.
The Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), just like a trained seal, went over begging for a scrap from the Prime Minister. He says: "Give me a scrap. Give me a scrap to help me in my problem. I have dissidents in my caucus. My caucus is all westerners except for a little, tiny pink rump here in Ontario. The Ontario rump is three people and the western rump is a big, healthy, steak-like rump. I have a dispute in my caucus and the western people in my caucus are very, very agitated about what you are doing in the energy field. They do not like this constitutional package and I have got to try to get them quietened down because I am from Ontario, from a district in Ontario. I am seriously worried that my position is going to be in jeopardy in the next election. Please help me, Prime Minister. What can you do to help?" That was the Leader of the NDP in his conspirators' meeting with the Prime Minister a week or ten days ago. And the Prime Minister said: "Don't worry about this, Ed. I offered to take you in with me after the election, you refused me, nevertheless, I, in my wisdom, am going to help you, Ed. I am going to give the right of indirect taxation to Saskatchewan and I am going to pretend that I am going to help you in the resource area, when
October 29, 1980

really I am only endangering the whole resource structure for the ten provinces across Canada." So, Mr. Broadbent threw in the hat. When he threw in the hat he threw in Mr. Nystrom with it. He went with the hat.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: It is not a ten-gallon hat now, it is a ten-pint hat because Mr. Nystrom is not going to be in that hat and he has already lost another member from the hat. So that was a mad hatter's tea party that the Leader of the NDP had with the Prime Minister. Now his credentials are gone. Now that his credentials are gone they should all go over there and join them. The Social Credit party used to be over there. That is about right where the NDP fits, over where the Social Credit were.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Their last subamendment destroyed a budget that was going to help Canada in the short term and the long term. It was going to help the medium and lower-income people of Canada. I demonstrated that earlier today. They are so blind in their NDP fanaticism that they destroyed a budget which would have helped the people they say they represent. Now they do not represent them one iota more than 1 do and they have not got any more of a heart than I have got. But I do not go around every day beating my gums about the great heart I have got. I do not wear it on my sleeve like the NDP.
Why do we in this party want to help the Canadian economy? Why is it we seem to have a fixation with the economy and producing more and more? Why? Because that is the only way we can give the people of Canada who need more, more. You cannot give them more if the pie is shrinking and not expanding. That is why we are concerned with the economy. So if we do not wear our hearts on our sleeve like the NDP it is not because we are not thinking of the little people of this country. The little people of this country are not going to have a thing if the economy of this country goes on for the next four or five years as it has gone on over the last four or five. There will be nothing for those people and we will be in a mad fight because the pie does not grow, it is diminishing. The groups who are suffering will be fighting one another for a piece of the pie and the people who are going to get the pie are the organized sections of society; the senior citizens are not going to get it. The defenceless and the unorganized are not going to get a piece of the pie. That is why we are concerned about the economy. That is why we wanted to take a long-term look, because if we do not take a long-term look there is going to be nothing for anyone. That is why we are concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: That is why I am hoping, with the moving of this motion, that we are going to destroy this government next Tuesday. Do not laugh, there may be 30 or 40 statesmen on the other side-there might be. After all, I was a statesman myself once and a member of the Liberal party and I left it. There may be 20 or 30 over there who will take the step to
The Budget-Mr. Rae
save Canada next Tuesday by voting for this motion. That is why I have couched it in extremely diplomatic terms, with the assistance of our House leader. So, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"This House condemns the government for the regressive nature of its budget and rejects the budget because it fails to assist monetary policy to combat inflation, fails to meet the campaign commitments of the Prime Minister, fails to control government spending, fails to reduce unemployment, fails to help low or middle-income Canadians meet increasing living costs, fails to advance effective policies to achieve oil self-sufficiency and fails to maintain national unity".


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, after that exercise in primal therapy I thought I would concentrate on this year's budget.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bob Rae: It is a Liberal budget. I think it was Woody Guthrie who said that some rob you with a six-gun and some with a fountain pen. If the Canadian public was held up by the budget last year there is little question it is being held up by the budget this year. The techniques are different. I do not agree with those people who say there is no difference between the Conservative party and the Liberal party. There is a difference of style. There is some difference of substance.
This is a budget which in its own way is just as unacceptable, just as harsh, just as regressive and just as reactionary as the one which was rejected not only by the NDP last year- surely the member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) could hardly have expected us to support his budget- not simply by the Liberal party united strangely in the thought they could win power. I would remind those members of the Conservative party, who continue to return to those halcyon days prior to February, that between the defeat of the budget and the return of the Liberal government there was an event of some significance. That event was an election.
If you want to take your case to anybody, in terms of blaming them for what happened, I suggest to those members of the Conservative party that they take their case once again to the Canadian people. There are to those who say, "Well, the NDP can hardly be expected to criticize the economic policies of the Liberal party because they were opposed to the economic policies of the Conservative party." I have heard comments such as that. It is a strange and wonderous thing that a person can be opposed to cholera in 1979 and be opposed to leprosy in 1980.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bob Rae: It is a strange and wonderous thing that we can attack one party of government for following policies which inflict great hardship on Canadian people and provide no economic leadership, and once again when another party takes power we can be just as critical of that same party for following exactly the same trend and the same thrust of policies. In fact, far from it being an inconsistency it is the

October 29, 1980
The Budget-Mr. Rae
height of consistency and, I think, the height of a commitment to a certain number of principles which I hope to outline.
In my view this budget represents the three Ds of Liberalism. This budget is profoundly disappointing. It represents an opportunity missed. This budget is duplicitous. This budget, most important, is damaging to the Canadian economy, to the Canadian worker and to the future of our country.
In terms of our disappointment, I think all of us as members of Parliament should focus not simply on the balance sheet which has been presented, not simply on what is there and not simply on the number of issues which were raised by the hon. member for St. John's West but perhaps most clearly on our own constituencies and constituents. We should be thinking of the people who day in and day out work in those constituencies, cities and communities. When we return to our ridings on weekends or whenever we can to meet with our constituents, we should think of what it is that strikes at the hearts of those people. The thing which struck me about this budget is that just as in the other budget there was no mention of the unemployed. There was mention of unemployment. We have projections of what it will be this year, next year and the year after. Incidentally, it will be higher this year than it was last year and it will be over one million in the five years to come.
That is the kind of projection we are getting from the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), but I am not speaking about unemployment as a concept or idea. I am speaking of and thinking of the unemployed. As I am sure many hon. members do, I am thinking of young people, old people, not so young people, not so old people and the men and women who come in constantly and say, "Mr. Rae"-or whoever, Mr. Rose or Mr. Nystrom-"I would like you to help me find a job". We must constantly respond, if we are not members of the government party, if we are not living in that part of the world where patronage is a way of life, as is my case in the city of Toronto, by referring people to Manpower or trying to get them interviews or seeing if we can do something through the manpower system. But basically the force which dictates the level of unemployment and the fate of unemployed people is not whether the individual member of Parliament can make a telephone call and get somebody a job. It is whether or not there is a government in Ottawa which demonstrates leadership. I define leadership quite simply as an ability to respond to the deepest anxieties of the people, and ability to respond with compassion and direction and an ability to respond in a way which gives hope and strength to the Canadian people.
One thinks of a government like that of Roosevelt in 1932. One thinks of the Labour government in Britain in 1945. One thinks of those governments which decided they could change some things and some circumstances. They could tell people in certain situations that unemployment was not like the weather and not a function of climate but that unemployment was something which could be affected by the policies of government. We have never had such a government in this country. We have never had a "New Deal". We have never had a democratic socialist government. We have had the policies of
Mackenzie King, the policies of Mr. Trudeau, the policies of R. B. Bennett. We have had policies which have consistently told unemployed people that there was nothing which could be done. That is a very old message and basically a very mean message, a message of intellectual bankruptcy and precisely the message which is contained in the budget which has been put forward by the Minister of Finance. On September 9 in Halifax when the minister was making one of his few public speeches prior to the budget he said that a budget is more than a statement of economic accounts and more than a statement of how much we will spend and how much we will tax. "A budget must be an accounting of commitments, a statement of priorities and a blueprint for achieving our goals".
Measured by that very test which the Minister of Finance set out for us six short weeks ago, this budget is a failure. It is not an accounting of commitments. It is not a statement of priorities, and it is certainly not a blueprint for achieving our goals. Instead, the minister has made fun, as he is wont to do, of our party for talking about serious commitment. We asked him to make certain serious commitments, and he in his own way perhaps correctly said, "We in our party do not take ourselves quite so seriously. We are not in the habit of making serious commitments". The minister is in the habit of giving us lugubrious evasion, and I think what is represented in the budget today is lugubrious evasion. It fails to respond to the need for economic insecurity which racks so many of our communities. It fails to respond to unemployment levels in central, eastern and Atlantic Canada which are unacceptable. It fails to recognize the fact that Canada now has, has had for some time and will continue to have under this government, because of its projections and because of the policies it is making, the highest level of unemployment in the industrial world.
That is the only economic record in the OECD which we can claim to hold. We do not spend more than anybody else on research and development. We do not yet have the highest rate of inflation. We do not have the highest per capita income. We have one achievement and one achievement alone, and that is, we continue to have the highest rate of unemployment in the western world.
I am not going to refer to duplicity at the moment. Hon. members opposite said some things when in opposition and now say something else when in government. We have seen governments come and go and change a number of times in the past couple of years. Believe me, if we did not have a program we would not know who the players are. When the Tories are in opposition, they suddenly become the workers' friend. Mr. Crosbie suddenly portrays himself as a friend of the poor and disadvantaged. That is an unique role for him. In opposition we saw that Mr. Gray was the opponent of high interest rates. As Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I do not want to overdo the business of some of the House rules, but I should remind the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) that when referring to other members of Parliament the custom is that he refer to them indirectly as "the hon. member for" whatever rather than by name.
October 29, 1980


Bob Rae: I am sure you will use the same standard for all members, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. 1 do not know whether the hon. member is questioning whether or not the Chair applies the same standards to all hon. members, but that certainly is not a comment that is appreciated by any occupant of this chair. In the meantime, the rule stands for all hon. members, and I would appreciate it if the hon. member would observe it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bob Rae: When he was the hon. member for Windsor West and finance critic of the Liberal party, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray)-and I happened to be on the same television program-promised that he would resign if interest rates continued to rise, which they have done. They went down, and now they are going up again. However, that is not the principal point 1 want to make. The point I want to make is that there is a commitment and a consensus that unemployment will remain high. There is a consensus that inflation will remain high, and an examination of the budgets of the present Minister of Finance and the previous minister of finance, the hon. member for St. John's West, will indicate that that consensus exists and will continue to exist.
We can talk about a co-conspiracy. It is against that consensus that we in this party are speaking, and it is about the fact of unemployment and about the difficulties and the human cost of unemployment that we have to speak. 1 am constantly amazed that budgets can refer to unemployment statistics, but budgets can never mention the cost in human terms of being unemployed. Yet that is as much a reality as the statistics mentioned in the tables which are distributed with such glee and fervour by the Minister of Finance and his associates. We would have looked, for example, for a budget which recognized that because of the rates of inflation and unemployment there have been dramatic changes in our society.
There has been, for example, a dramatic loss in wages right across the country, with only two provinces being exceptions, a loss of wages of $200 on an average in the province of Ontario and $450 in the province of Newfoundland, nearly $1,200 a year. We have to deal with the fact that this very budget, rather than attempting to reverse the direction, attempting to establish a cost of living tax credit which would provide for advantages, for credits, and for income where income is needed most, the most progressive form of indexation that can be devised, the minister has continued with the old system of indexation which will guarantee that the average wage earner will fall further and further behind the cost of living.
We have to recognize that in this economy in the last year there have been 1,000 lay-offs a day. Every working day, 1,000 people are laid off right across Canada. One has to laugh rather than cry when one reads the response of the minister to this kind of situation. On page 13 of the budget he refers to the pension system which he describes, not as a disgrace or as
The Budget-Mr. Rae
tragedy for workers who have been laid off and left without pensions, not as something that affects the very justice of our system when workers in their fifties are laid off and are not able to find jobs, but as "defective in many ways". He describes the present pension system as "uneven". But then he has a final criticism. He says that not only is it uneven, it also hinders labour mobility. What about labour security, Mr. Speaker? What about the fundamental principle of economic rights, the rights in the constitution? What about the fundamental principle that, as well as being mobile, people also want to be secure? People also want the assurance, not that they have to move from Newfoundland, from Cape Breton or even from Toronto to go to Alberta in order to find a job, but that their government will be concerned to see that they get a job in the communities where they want to raise their families. That is the principle which is at stake when the minister talks about pensions and refers to the fact that there is no labour mobility.
The budget is a disappointment because it reads almost as if the minister had decided not to take so many critical decisions. For example, one reads the paragraph on the country's tax system and one wonders whether this is a statement by the Minister of Finance or a statement by a professor of economic theory talking about what kind of a budget it might be a good idea to bring in one day. This is what he has to say on page 15 of the budget. He observes that we have created a mammoth system, a grotesque system of tax expenditures, with tax expenditures now worth well over last year's figure of $32 billion. The minister says:
Tax incentives tend to pyramid with the result that a number of profitable corporations or wealthy individuals pay little or no tax.
The fact is that in 1978 there were 96 Canadians, and right now we know we have well over 100 Canadians, making over $200,000 a year who pay not a penny in tax, and the minister says this is what tends to happen. He tells us that other countries have responded by introducing minimum rates. He says:
While this approach may be an answer to the problem, perhaps a fundamentally different one would be preferable.
Is the minister going to tell us? I thought his job as Minister of Finance was to respond to the family making $15,000 a year which sees the inequity, which sees a stratum of people being subsidized by average taxpayers so they can spend their winters in Florida and their summers wherever they please. That is the system which the Minister of Finance is perpetrating and defending. He says:
One questions whether the economy might not be better served by a tax system with lower rates-
He says "one questions". What is this, an academic seminar? I would have thought the minister would have said not that "one questions" but that this is an abuse which has grown, that they recognize their mistakes, they see they were at fault and they are prepared now to do something about it. But that is not their response. Their response is that they question whether it might not be better for the economy. There is not a mention of social justice, not a mention of the disease of envy that is created in a society where you have such

October 29, 1980
The Budget-Mr. Rae
inequality. That does not feature in this budget. Those words are not trendy at the moment. It is not done to talk about equality in our society. It is all supply economics and what is good for the macro-economy, and it may not be good for the macro-economy to have so much money being sheltered from the tax system.
One can say the same for capital gains. The minister tells us he is looking forward to a good discussion on the problem of capital gains. There is no mention in this budget of the problem of equity. There is no mention in this document of an industrial strategy for our country. It is amazing that a government should have laboured so long and produced a document which says nothing about the problems of our industries. We have the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who is desperate for funds, who is faced with crises week after week. He comes to the House looking exhausted and worn out. He has been in negotiations giving away the sink to Chrysler Corporation and to Massey-Ferguson. He comes to the House desperately trying to explain what he has been doing. Is there a mention in this document of industrial strategy? Is there a mention in this document of the problems faced by central Canada, by Quebec and by Atlantic Canada? Is there a mention of runaway plants and workers left abandoned? They talk about spending $350 million over four years, $85 million a year. That is a lot of money these days, Mr. Speaker, and it will go far to deal with the problem of industrial restructuring. There is no mention of the underlying disease, no analysis of what is causing this problem, no mention of the fact that there are people in every industrial city in this country and in every community who are looking for leadership, who are looking to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and to the Minister of Finance to show leadership, to show that just as much as they are prepared to take steps on the constitution, just as much as they are concerned with our becoming politically whole, so too are they concerned about the country becoming economically whole once again.
I can think of no greater condemnation of this government than that they have learned nothing in opposition, that they have seen nothing of what is demanded of Canadian people, and that they continue with a policy which lacks direction, which lacks compassion and which does not speak to the Canadian people in the language and in terms they can understand, in terms that will allay the anxieties which exist in far too many homes. I could mention the fact that this document says nothing about a science policy for Canada, the fact that scientists are leaving by the dozens and by the hundreds from our universities, the fact that we suffer now from an intellectual brain drain, that we have to constantly import scientists from overseas, the fact that there are fields of research and science into which our young people will not go any more because there is no hope, no industry, no determination for the government to say, "Yes, we have a technological policy, yes, we have a scientific policy, and we are prepared here to provide employment for people coming out of our universities."
This is a disappointing document because it is fundamentally empty. It is a duplicitous document because it is doing things it claims it is not doing and because it is not doing things which it claims to be doing. It is doing things it claims not to be doing; it is claiming that it is not increasing taxes. But what are unemployment insurance contributions if they are not a tax on payroll, if they are not a tax which comes out of the salary of every salaried employee and which comes out of the payroll of every employer who hires an employee? What are they, if not a labour cost for the employer just as much as if the employee paid for those costs himself? The minister understands what I am talking about. The minister knows perfectly well that the unemployment insurance contribution is a tax just as surely as any other form of tax. Also he knows that it is a regressive tax, and because of the upper limit of $15,000, he knows that the average working Canadian pays for his own unemployment. No one else pays, and they call that redistribution and equalization. It is redistribution among the working people of Canada. It is not redistribution from those who have to those who do not have. It is duplicitous because they are saying there is no tax and then they are imposing a tax, only they are doing it another way.
The hon. member for St. John's West did not mention one interesting contrast between his budget and that of the Minister of Finance. In the budget of the hon. member for St. John's West, they increased unemployment insurance contributions. That is true, but in their explanation they said, "We are increasing them from $1.30 to $1.60." Mr. Speaker, do you want to know what the minister said in this budget? He said, "We are increasing unemployment insurance contributions to $1.80." From where? Do the press know from where? Does the average citizen reading the budget know from where? Would it have taken anything other than a commitment to openness to say that they were raising them from such and such to such and such which represents a net increase of 33Vs per cent? That is all it would have required, yet it is symbolic. It is a small thing, it is not a major thing, but it is symbolic of this government that they will not even tell us in their own budget what the net increase is. Everyone must figure it out for himself.
This has got to be the height of chutzpah. They tell us there will not be a natural gas export tax. The minister said they received so much opposition from the producing provinces, Alberta and British Columbia, that they decided not to impose an export tax and as an alternative, which is the way the minister described it in his budget, he was proposing a very different kind of tax. He was not going to tax the export of gas, he was going to tax all gas. I see the minister nodding his head. I would simply say to him that what he proposed is not an alternative, it is an addition. I woke up to the CBC news on the radio this morning and heard the press solemnly saying, "There is no export tax on natural gas; the government has handed out an olive branch to the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia." It is not an olive branch. Who is the minister trying to kid? He is simply providing a natural gas
October 29, 1980

tax and in addition he will tax everybody else. That is all it is.
I think this should be said clearly. They are taxing the exports of natural gas, they are taxing domestic consumption of natural gas and all forms of natural gas.
I understand I need to move the subamendment in order to gain some extra time. I should like to move a subamendment to the amendment of the hon. member for St. John's West. 1 do not think any cannons will go off if I move it. Therefore, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent):
That the amendment be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma, and by adding immediately thereafter the following words:
and this House condemns the government for continuing the Liberal-Conservative policies that have brought Canada to its most serious recession since 1954, in particular for its policies of high interest rates, indifference to the poor, punitive taxes, and inflated prices; and this House further condemns the government for its failure to introduce in this budget a program of capital investment, a fair prices commission, cost of living tax credits and a serious commitment to public ownership in the oil industry to ensure that Canadians would no longer be industrial tenants in their own land.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bob Rae: I will leave the question of energy as the key example of the government not doing things it claims to be doing. I do not want to spend a great deal of time on this because of the limitations of time and because the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) will be dealing with this question, but I want to make clear to the minister the nature of our objection. 1 am glad the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) is here. In the question period today 1 mentioned the cost to the Canadian economy of this phony goal of 50 per cent Canadian ownership. We are trading David Rockefeller for Conrad Black. So what? What is the importance of this?


Mr. Blaikie:: Big deal.


Bob Rae: Big deal, as the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) said. The key point is that the outflow of dividends will continue to be as big a problem in 1990 as it is now. It will be even bigger, because the amounts we are talking about will be so much bigger than they are at the moment. It means that the multinationals will be allowed to increase their market share. It means a few wealthy Canadians will benefit from this phony nationalism and that there will be continued foreign domination and outflow of dividends. The goal of 50 per cent ownership is meaningless unless one talks about control. It is a meaningless figure, it is a meaningless idea. It is so meaningless that it was stated by the Prime Minister in 1974 as one of his key objectives of the next six years. In the national energy policy released last night the minister said, "We do not know how we will get there, we have no method of enforcing it, but it continues to be a very important objective of the government."
The hard fact of the matter is that we are charging $16.75 for a barrel of oil right now. Imperial Oil, the largest oil company in Canada, has total assets worth $4.6 billion and an annual revenue of $6.6 billion. The province of Manitoba has revenues of $1.7 billion. That is the size and kind of institution
The Budget-Mr. Rae
about which we are talking when we are charging $16.75 for a barrel of oil. Imagine what revenues will flow and what the assets side of Imperial Oil will be by 1990. Imagine how big, how mammoth it will be, all of it subsidized by the phony policy of this government.
It is just amazing the press is able to say that it represents a tremendous advance to Canadianization and that we in the NDP must be really worried because the Liberals are moving in on our ground. We were shaking in our boots last night as the minister read his statement. We felt that the two ministers combined had come up with a real radical document. Imperial Oil will only own all of Canada by 1990, and we can take satisfaction from the fact that 50 per cent of it will be owned by the wealthiest people in Canada! That gives us a lot of worry.


Mr. Rose:: It is a fake to the left.


Bob Rae: As the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) has so aptly described it, it is the biggest fake to the left since the last fake to the left of the Liberal party.
Finally, this is a profoundly damaging budget because it continues to apply the same unsuccessful phony remedies as have been applied by Liberal and Conservative governments to our basic economic problems for too long. It is damaging in another sense, because it is an admission of defeat. It is a declaration of intellectual bankruptcy because it does by stealth what the Tories tried to do openly, but it does exactly the same thing and has exactly the same effect.
1 should like to refer to just two matters because I know my colleagues will be referring to others.
The projections that are contained in this budget for the social services provided to the people of Canada by the Government of Canada indicate that those basic services will be under the most severe attack since they were established. There is no getting around that fact. There is no getting around the fact, for example, that the rate of growth in this so-called envelope will be 10.6 per cent in 1981, 6.3 per cent in 1982 and 6.9 per cent in 1983. I see that the minister would like to argue that this matter should be taken care of by the provinces. Will eight Tory provincial governments provide social services to the people of Canada? That is a statement coming from a government which is supposed to care about the provision of services for the people.
I say to the minister quite honestly, and I know his role personally in the introduction of medicare, that if this was the attitude of the Pearson government in the 1960s, we would never have had medical care for all Canadians; never. It is a guarantee that we will never take on the new challenge of providing daycare so that women can have a genuine choice between whether they want to stay at home and whether they want to go to work. We will never have a national co-ordinated system which guarantees that women in Newfoundland have the same rights in this vital field as the people of Manitoba or Saskatchewan. It is a guarantee that the over-all level of social

October 29, 1980
The Budget-Mr. Lalonde
spending and the provision of social services for all our people will go down.
That is not an abstraction. It means, quite simply, poorer people, more poorly clothed people, more poorly housed people, more poorly fed people and more poorly educated people. It is a tragic abdication of even the minister's professed interest in being progressive. I was reminded of the ultimate statement of bankruptcy when the minister said that the concept of sharing seems to be close to the distinctive fibre of the Canadian tradition, and that he does not think the state should do it all. What are we going to rely on, the United Way? Is that the answer, that we go back to the United Way and the handouts of lady dowagers who come down to the poor people of Broadview-Greenwood and say, "Here is a handout. I am sharing with you by bringing you a turkey at Christmas and a cake on your birthday."? Is that the kind of sharing about which the minister is talking?
The return to private charity is an abdication of the fundamental social rights of the Canadian people. The notion that we should return to some kind of private sharing is worthy of the rotarian that the Minister of Finance has now become.

Mr. Speaker, France had a socialist government 45 years ago. The premier of that government was a great socialist of democratic tradition, Leon Blum. At the end of his life someone asked him: Are you satisfied with what you have accomplished with your government, that popular government during the 1930s, those very difficult years? He replied: Well, yes, because 1 received a letter from a grandfather who wrote to me: "Thanks to you and to your government I was able to see the beach and the sea before dying."

There is not one Canadian, be he in Broadview-Greenwood, or be he anywhere else who will be able to write the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister and say, "As the result of this budget, thanks to you, 1 will finally be able to see the sea and the beach", because the seas and the beaches are reserved to exactly those people for whom they have been reserved for far too long in our society and nothing has been done to change that.
That is the simple reason why it gives me the greatest pride to move the amendment that 1 have moved to stand as firmly and as resolutely opposed to this phony budget, a mile wide and an inch deep, with its statement of intellectual bankruptcy and its condemnation of the Canadian people to a future far less bright, far less generous, far less hopeful and far less compassionate than the one they deserve.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: After consultation, the Chair has found the subamendment put by the hon. member to be in order, is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I can see that the NDP is disappearing, but I hope it is only physically. It is my privilege to speak
today in this debate about the national energy program and what it will do for Canada and for Canadians. Before getting into the more substantive elements of my remarks, I would like to spend a minute on the long rumination of the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) on the, as it was called, "budget of a dead government".
The hon. member referred last night to a 30 per cent cubic foot increase in the price of gas. 1 am not surprised that he had so much trouble as the minister of finance because he cannot tell the difference between one cubic foot and 1,000 cubic feet. The hon. member cited many figures today. For the record, 1 would like to put a certain number of figures in Hansard and before the Canadian public so that they may judge what the Conservative budget of last year may have meant in terms of their prices for gasoline, home heating oil and natural gas. I will satisfy myself by putting the figures on the record. I think they speak for themselves. According to our estimation the 1979 budget, the so-called "Crosbie budget", would have meant that the per gallon price of gasoline would have gone up to $1.56 in 1981; $1.75 in 1982; $2.32 in 1983 and $2.63 in 1984. If these figures are compared with the present budget with its per gallon price of $ 1.36 in 1981; $ 1.53 in 1982; $ 1.71 in 1983 and $1.95 in 1984 there is a difference of over 60 cents in the price of a gallon of gasoline between our budget and the budget proposed by the hon. member for St. John's West last year.
The difference in the figures on natural gas prices is even more telling. If one were to take the price of natural gas at the Toronto city gate in terms of dollars per 1,000 cubic feet, not per cubic foot, the 1979 budget proposal meant the following prices: 1980, $2.75; 1981, $3.45; 1982, $4.10; 1983, $6.55 and 1984, $7.90. Our program will mean the following prices for those years: $2.90 for 1980, $3.05 for 1981, $3.50 for 1982, $3.95 for 1983 and $4.60 for 1984.
The difference between $7.90 and $4.60 per thousand cubic feet in 1984 means a difference of over $3.30 between the so-called "Crosbie budget" and the budget presented by the government last night.
The hon. member made a lot of references to heating oil. He was crying about the fate reserved to people who are going to heat their homes with oil in the next few years. I would remind the hon. member, and the Canadian public at large, that the 1979 "Crosbie budget" would have meant, under the present assumptions and assuming no substantial and large increases in the international price of oil, $1.96 per gallon. Under our proposal there will be a maximum of $1.51, a difference of about 45 cents for every gallon of heating oil. Yet the hon. member for St. John's West dares to shed tears, though he was trying to do this to the Canadian public last year. I think the Canadian public saw through this last February so 1 do not intend to spend more time talking about the consequences of that dead budget-dead, fortunately for the country.
In energy, as in other things, the essence of good politics is to make sensible promises to the electorate and the essence of
October 29, 1980

good government is to keep those promises. In the budget of last night and in our national energy program, we have done both. And 1 believe Canadians everywhere in this country will agree with us in the weeks to come.
Some hon. [Members: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: In the election campaign, we offered an explicit alternative to the Conservative view of energy policy. We offered a "made-in-Canada" oil price, not one determined by the whims of OPEC, or the vagaries of a turbulent oil market. We were very specific in our commitment-oil price rises less than $4 a barrel in 1980, and no more than $4.50 a barrel in 1981, 1982 and 1983. We offered a revitalized Petro-Canada. We offered major initiatives to increase Canadian ownership of the petroleum sector.
We won the election. We received a clear mandate from the electorate to develop energy policies and programs consistent with our principles. In the Speech from the Throne, we made it clear to the people of Canada that we intended to fulfil our election commitments; that we would resolve the nation's energy problem, in all of its dimensions.

Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne we promised that oil prices would be set by Canada, not by OPEC. We promised that there would be no 18-cent excise tax increase on gas. We promised that we would renew our efforts to conserve energy in Canada. We promised that we would speed up implementation of programs to substitute plentiful energy sources for the petroleum which is now getting scarce. We promised new incentives for renewable energy. We promised to double our efforts to promote the discovery of new petroleum supplies in Canada. We promised to expand Petro-Canada, not to destroy it as the Tory government wanted to do last year. And we promised to give every Canadian a greater opportunity to take part in this huge industry everywhere in Canada, an industry which is ever growing, to participate directly in our rich energy legacy, particularly petroleum and natural gas. We made those promises in the Speech from the Throne. In earlier speeches I had the occasion to define certain of those elements and I stated in particular that our policy has three great objectives: the security of supplies, the opportunity for Canadians to participate in the benefits of that industry, and fairness. [English]
No one who heard or read the Speech from the Throne or read my remarks since should be surprised by "The national energy program" tabled Tuesday night. It addresses each of these principles with a vigour and determination never before attempted by a Canadian government. It does exactly what we said we would do. It delivers on all of our promises.
The document tabled by my colleague last night is very significant in two respects. First, it represents what is probably the largest and most fundamental set of economic initiatives taken by the Government of Canada in this generation. Second, it is the most comprehensive government enunciation
The Budget-Mr. Lalonde
of energy policy in our country's history. I know of no other energy-rich nation that has taken its energy challenges and obligations so seriously.
The national energy program means energy security. It means becoming independent of foreign oil supplies well within this decade. It provides the price and incentive basis for accelerated exploration efforts so that new supplies will come on stream to replace imports. The program will stimulate the process of substituting other domestic fuels for scarce oil. It will foster more vigorous efforts to conserve oil and other fuels. Oil demand will be reduced dramatically, and the growth of over-all energy demand will be held below 2 per cent per year. In this way, we will achieve a more efficient energy-using structure, and bring demand in line with available domestic supplies.
But the program is more than a single-minded thrust toward oil security. It assigns high priority to other goals. One of these is energy opportunity-Canadians everywhere will be able to participate in the management and benefits of the energy sector. This means, obviously, a greater role for Canadian companies. We have three principal goals for the petroleum sector: First, at least 50 per cent Canadian ownership of oil and gas production by 1990. Contrary to what the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) said earlier, this does not necessarily mean only the better-off in our society. We have had fruitful negotiations with people in the credit unions, the caisses populaires and wheat pools who have expressed interest in investing in the Canadian oil and gas industry and in participating in this big movement to patriate the oil and gas industry in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Second, our policy means Canadian control of a significant number of the larger oil and gas firms, and, finally, an early increase in the share of the oil and gas sector owned by the Government of Canada.
Our opportunity theme has another, broader aspect. We intend to ensure that the benefits of the energy boom already under way in this country are enjoyed by Canadians in the west, as the petroleum boom takes on new momentum stimulated by our initiatives; in Atlantic Canada, as the offshore begins to deliver on its promise and new electricity sources are developed, and in central Canada, as the spin-off business stimulated by the national energy program creates new jobs and new prosperity.
And we are talking about real opportunities-for jobs and growth and new industry. There are offshore drilling rigs to be built. Canadians should build more of them, and they will. Given a real fair chance, we can compete with the best of them. The national energy program will provide that chance. Canadians can provide more of the equipment needed for oil sands plants. And they will. Consider, too, the dramatic off-oil effort. Equipment and installation will be needed meaning more activity, more industry, more jobs. We set the stage; we provide the stimulus. Thousands of jobs, Mr. Speaker, for Canadians-thousands of jobs across the country, not just in

October 29, 1980
The Budget-Mr. Lalonde
the oil producing provinces. Helping to meet our energy goals means meeting our economic and social goals as well.
Let me now turn to a central challenge that faced us as we developed the national energy program: I mean, fairness. Is the energy program tabled with the budget last night fair? The answer is emphatically and undeniably, yes. It is fair to the oil and gas producing provinces, fair to the consumer, and fair to the national government. Moreover, it is fair to the petroleum industry, which will continue to enjoy the same prosperous outlook most other industries do as it becomes more Canadian in its ownership and control.
First, the producing provinces. There has been hard bargaining with the producing provinces. The provinces brought strongly-held principles and objectives to the table. So did we. Both sides communicated their views to the Canadian public in clear and forceful terms. That was to be expected.
But now it is time for compromise and for conciliation. On our side, broad principles and concerns must override our negotiating objectives on revenue shares and revenue-raising objectives, for example. So we have adapted. We have yielded some ground, as a matter of fact, a lot of ground, and we have searched for a common ground. This is essential for the unity we all want. We have adapted our energy principles seeking a renewed, strengthened harmony between this government and those of the producing provinces.
When I began these negotiations, 1 said 1 was prepared to walk an extra mile to get an amicable agreement, to get a deal responsive to the position taken by the governments of British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan. Any objective observer will agree that we have walked several extra miles. Let me explain.
As we all know, there was a near-agreement between the producing provinces and the federal government in the December 11 budget speech. The terms then being discussed would have brought the producing provinces some $40 billion in oil and gas revenues in the period 1980-83. In our negotiations, the provinces took the view that they should get the "same benefits" from any arrangement with us.
The producing provinces, especially British Columbia and Alberta, placed other constraints upon our negotiating position. They wanted no gas export tax and no federal tax at the wellhead.
It was almost impossible for us to accommodate these provincial concerns and restrictions. 1 still believe that an export tax on natural gas would have been fair, and that it represents no intrusion upon provincial rights. Nevertheless, we accommodated the provincial positions. And let us see how.
First the $40 billion. Under the national energy program, the producing provinces will receive $38 billion directly from oil and gas revenues and a further $2 billion, with $2 billion more to come in the form of the western development fund. So we have met their target. In the case of British Columbia and Saskatchewan, we have made them even better off than under
the December 11 budget proposals. As well, we have spread the benefits to Manitoba, which will share in the growth resulting from the western development fund.
The percentage shares of revenue are also important. Over the past several years, the governments of the oil and gas producing provinces have received approximately 45 per cent and the federal government about 10 per cent of petroleum production revenues. What does the national energy program do to this revenue-sharing relationship? It raises the federal share to 24 per cent, and reduces the provincial share from 45 per cent to 43 per cent. The producing provinces, under the national energy program, would see their aggregate share drop by two percentage points. But the total tie would be much larger and their total revenue would be much larger than ever before.
Surely this is reasonable and fair, by any standard. The Canadian provinces will continue to enjoy a higher share than is the case in any other state in the world, more than double the share that would go to a U.S. state such as Texas, and triple the share going to Victoria state in Australia. Both of these states own their resources, just as the Canadian provinces do. In short, our package yields provinces a share much greater than the international norm. That is what 1 mean by going the extra mile to get an amicable deal.
Let me be more specific about the Alberta government's position under the national energy program. Its revenues in 1983, $9.7 billion-that is to the government of Alberta-will be more than double those it enjoyed in 1979. Over the period 1980-1983, its revenues will be over $31 billion. In per capita terms, the province's oil and gas revenues, about $1,600 in 1977, will be $4,300 in 1983. No other province can expect this sort of growth in its revenues and no other province in our history has ever known such a fantastically rapid growth under any regime. This outlook is in a province which already enjoys massive budgetary surpluses. Indeed, Alberta has a greater fiscal capacity than the average Canadian province, even without its oil and gas revenues.
Under our proposals, the government of Alberta will obtain more than $100 billion over the decade from oil and gas. It will go on earning large revenues in the foreseeable future. Alberta's vast energy endowment will ensure prosperity to its government and its people well beyond this decade. We are not talking about a short-term boom of a few years. We are talking about a new financial and economic presence in Canada, a new centre of gravity for our economy. Our policies, as indicated by the national energy program, will encourage that new wave of prosperity.
In our negotiations with the producing provinces, we sought a system which would give the Government of Canada a more reasonable share in the windfall revenues accruing from increases in the world oil price. 1 refer mainly to the increases in natural gas export prices. We have repeatedly noted the basic unfairness of a system that gives the gas-producing provinces all of the upside gain, while we are saddled, as the national government, with the financial and economic burden of higher oil prices. We wanted to change that; we wanted to
October 29, 1980

share in the upside potential. How? Through an export tax similar to the one we have had on oil since 1974, and the one we have had on electricity for over 35 years up to 1963 and which was affecting essentially central Canada.
But the provincial governments were adamant on this point. No amicable deal could ever have been struck, had we insisted on a system that satisfied this basic principle. So, Mr. Speaker, again we yielded. There is no export tax on gas as was planned. Moreover, we will henceforth share 50-50 revenues from the oil export charge, in place since 1973, rather than keeping it all as we have up to now.
As far as British Columbia is concerned, the B.C. government is not losing today one penny of the money it was collecting yesterday either from B.C. citizens or from its exports. It is a total fabrication to pretend otherwise.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: I am sure the provinces realize the importance of our concession on the export tax point. They know what upside potential means. It means that if world oil prices rise again the next few years as they did in the past couple of years, the provinces will derive a huge gain from export sales.
The Budget-Mr. Lalonde
Under such circumstances, with no federal export tax, again the provinces would be the chief beneficiaries.
We yielded most reluctantly on this point. I hope this gesture will remove the barriers to the concerted effort needed to get new supplies on stream. So here we have given ground in terms of both principle and revenues, now and in the future. Our projected revenue share-24 per cent-is smaller than that enjoyed by any national government I know of. Moreover, our methods of raising new revenues have been carefully chosen to avoid conflict with publicly stated provincial positions. There is no gas export tax, no wellhead tax. We have been conciliatory; we have bent over backward in a search for harmony. Our efforts will be richly rewarded, if they create a new basis for us all to work together.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Pursuant to Standing Order 2(1) this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At 6.02 p.m. the House adjourned without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, October 30, 1980