1980-06-02

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing national necessity. In view of the recent arrest in South Africa of Reverend Tom Anthony, director of the Canadian Anglican Church's national and overseas mission, along with 52 South African clergymen, and given that these arrests have taken place at a time when clergymen from around the world are meeting in South Africa and have stated their opposition to apartheid at some considerable personal risk, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling):
That this House urges the Government of Canada to protest to the government of South Africa the arrest of Reverend Tom Anthony and remind South Africa in the most forceful manner possible of Canada's continued opposition to any form of apartheid.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LIONS INTERNATIONAL
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, under Standing Order 43 I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid):
That this House welcomes the members of Lions International, Multiple District "A" to Canada's capital on the occasion of their sixtieth annual convention, their diamond convention, which is taking place at the present time.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of growing urgency to many parts of Canada. There have been over 20 major collisions between ships in motion and standing structures since 1965, resulting in large loss of life and countless millions in costs. Every day of delay by the federal and other levels of government in providing fendering protection for bridge piers brings us a day closer to a major disaster, one which could be significantly reduced if not eliminated. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby):
That this House regrets and condemns the Minister of Transport's failure to bring together the appropriate authorities for the purpose of developing plans of action to reduce the ever-growing danger of a major disaster.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Given that there is universal recognition of the disastrous impact of acid rain upon our environment and economy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae):
That this House unanimously support a program to be undertaken by the Department of the Environment for a full public relations campaign directed at American tourists that would include billboards and leaflets at every border crossing and media advertising to educate our American neighbours regarding the insensitive and intransigent attitude taken by their legislators toward protection of Canada's environment from American pollution.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
1622

June 2, 1980


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE ACT
Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the frank and welcome acknowledgement by the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) that present internal discipline procedures are unfair as they pertain to members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police charged with offences which might result in the dismissal of such members, and in view of the promise of the minister to introduce promptly legislation to replace the totally inadequate procedures presently in place, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan):
That this House direct the government to revoke forthwith, by order in council, section 33 of the regulations of the RCMP Act which deny counsel to members of the force charged with offences which could result in their dismissal and that the Solicitor General require the Commissioner of the RCMP to issue a directive which would permit members of the force charged with such offences to retain professional counsel.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HOCKEY-GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE FOR NEW CALGARY ARENA-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the terms of Standing Order 43.
In view of the fact that the new Calgary team in the National Hockey League will be playing its home games for the next couple of years in the Calgary Corral, which seats fewer than 7,000 people, in view of the fact that all of those seats have already been sold for the entire upcoming hockey season, and in view of the fact that a new arena would greatly enhance Calgary's chances of getting the 1984 Winter Olympics, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wright):
That this House direct the Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sport to proceed immediately to provide any and all possible assistance from the federal government to ensure that Calgary will receive a new arena at the earliest possible date.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion require unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the actions of Manitoba Hydro have resulted in drastic reduction in the level of water in Cross Lake, Manitoba and that the people living there, including about 2,000 members of an Indian reserve, have lost the use of the ferry system to their community-


Some hon. Members:: No!


Rodney Edward Murphy: It is interesting that the Conservatives have not yet heard the motion. They are obviously not very concerned about the Indian people. Since they have lost the use of the ferry system and have been deprived of certain revenues and a vital food source usually available from fish in that lake, in addition to facing a dangerous health hazard to their water supply, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant):
That this House request the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to look into the situation at Cross Lake, provide assistance to the people living there and assure that Manitoba Hydro take steps to guarantee that an adequate level of water is kept in Cross Lake.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that municipally and privately-owned unlicensed earth satellite receiving stations provide popular television entertainment in many western and northern areas of Canada which otherwise are inadequately serviced, and in view of the threatened prosecution of certain station operators by the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox), I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That policy and regulations be developed whereby operators of such satellite receiving stations could be permitted to provide these desired community services within the sanction of law and that in the meantime they not be subject to such legal action by the government as would deny accustomed services to residents of remote communities.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
June 2, 1980


FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, 1, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the government has twice promised in Speeches from the Throne that it would introduce freedom of information legislation, in view of the fact that the Clerk of the Privy Council, one Mr. Pitfield, has indicated that he was not favourable to court appeal procedure when there was dispute between the government and the citizen, which is at the heart of freedom of information, and in view of the fact that there is a German delegation here meeting with us on the subject of freedom of information, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae):
That the government be instructed to bring in the same bill as was presented to Parliament by the former government as soon as possible.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion, under the terms of the Standing Order, requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


RECOGNITION OF NATIONAL CHAMPIONS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity to put forward a motion which should gain the full support of the House.
When this country joined the boycott of the Moscow Olympic Games we asked for the support of the athletes and they have given that support, in many instances at great sacrifice to themselves. Now we hear that in some instances national organizations or associations are not competing at a national level to determine national champions at a time when successful athletes should be so recognized and honoured.
1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson):
That in the interest of maintaining a high level of morale and co-operation in our Canadian athletes this House urge the national governing body of the individual elite sports within Canada to determine national champions through trials or other suitable competitions and that those national champions be appropriately recognized.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions THE ADMINISTRATION


CONSTITUTION OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO QUESTION SENATE MINISTERS-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the present system of appointing members of the Senate as ministers responsible for various departments denies elected members of the House of Commons the opportunity to question and pursue matters which are of direct concern to their constituencies, and whereas the present system of twinning a minister from the other place with one in the Commons results in the minister who answers in the Commons being nothing more than a messenger boy, which denies members of the House of Commons an opportunity to pursue a question where answers are vague or incomplete, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Patterson):
That the Prime Minister institute a system whereby ministers who serve from the other place may appear at least once a week before a special sitting of a parliamentary committee constituted specifically to have these ministers appear before that committee, whose sole purpose would be to provide elected members the opportunity to question them on day to day operations of their respective departments.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister and it concerns statements made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs over the weekend. On the television program "Question Period" the minister said, and I quote:
1 have a lot of reservations about American foreign policy, about their lack of consultation, about their lack of adequate leadership.
Since the hon. minister was speaking as Canada's foreign minister, could the Prime Minister tell us whether he was speaking for the government when he voiced his reservations about the lack of adequate leadership in the United States today, and have these sentiments been conveyed to President Carter and to the leaders of the United States Congress?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member looks at the other part of the same answer, she will see that the reservations expressed by the minister have to do with tactics but that the minister points

June 2, 1980
Oral Questions
out that we have a considerable amount of agreement with them. However, on some questions of tactics-


Mr. Nielsen:: Nice try.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On some questions of tactics there is obviously, naturally, disagreement.


Miss MacDonald:: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question because the minister very clearly articulated his reservations about the leadership in the United States today. 1 would like to go on further. In another part of that same interview the minister gave his view that the United States is at least partly to blame for the current crisis in Afghanistan in that it failed to counter the activities of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan some two years ago. I find it passing strange that the minister should condemn the United States for something it did not do two years ago when he, as minister, took two months to summon up courage to introduce a boycott of the Olympic Games following the invasion of Afghanistan by Soviet troops.
Can the Prime Minister explain why the minister is now levelling his criticism at the United States rather than against those who are butchering children in Kabul?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Here again, Madam Speaker, I think it is important that we look at the whole answer rather than just a part. The minister was not singling out any one country for criticism. He made it quite specific that he was talking about all the western powers. He talked about a mistake on the West's part.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: "Especially by the United States".


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He was indicating, with the benefit of hindsight, that it might have been better if indeed the West had a couple of years ago, to use his own expression, been more concerned when the satellite government was first set up in Afghanistan about two years ago. So I would not want the hon. lady to think that the minister was directing his criticism at the United States particularly. He was appealing to the West generally to be more vigilant against Soviet aggression.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: If the Prime Minister would take the time to read that statement, he would see that it says "and especially by the United States," which the minister did single out.
Then there is another comment which I would like him to explain, if he would. The minister said that the Soviet Union's policies were to look for weak points, that they picked them off, but they do not go against the heart of western civilization, of western Europe. Given that Canada has consistently argued over the years that detente is indivisible, that military adventurism by the Soviet Union in other countries indeed has a bearing on the pursuit of detente in western Europe, am I to assume, then, from the minister's statement that it is now the
position of the Government of Canada that Soviet aggression elsewhere in the world against any neutral, non-aligned or Third World country will no longer have a bearing on the pursuit of detente in Europe?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not at all, Madam Speaker. If once again the hon. lady looks at the question, she will see that the minister was indicating that this is not happening in Europe because there is some balance of power there. 1 think he would agree with the hon. lady that the danger is in other parts of the world where such a balance of power does not exist, where, to use his own words, they attempt adventures-
-and are more likely to attack a country like Pakistan or a country like Iran than they are to attempt an adventure in western Europe.
He was indicating that, because of the balance of force in Europe and because of NATO in particular, western Europe was not as endangered as were other parts of the world on which the Soviet Union was putting pressure.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: 1 have one final supplementary question, Madam Speaker. Just so that everyone will know that we are reading from the same transcript, I should like to quote the next line, which the Prime Minister refused to do, where he said that the Soviets are much more likely to attack a country like Pakistan or a country like Iran than they are to attempt an adventure in western Europe. The minister then said:
I think that's completely out of the question.
Will the Prime Minister tell us on what certainty the Secretary of State for External Affairs is able to base his comment that Soviet aggression against western Europe is entirely, completely out of the question? If that is the case, why do we have NATO forces, a NATO alliance? What have we been doing in this last number of years except making sure that we are indeed ready in the event of an invasion of western Europe?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it would seem to me that the hon. lady gave the answer to her own question. It is because there is a balance of power in Europe-I repeat, mainly achieved because there is NATO against the Warsaw Pact- that the minister is of the opinion that it is out of the question that the Soviets will attack western Europe at this point. The message is that, if we let down our guard, that certainty will be less plain.


SOVIET UNION-REPORTED REINSTATEMENT OF CULTURAL, SCIENTIFIC AND EDUCATIONAL EXCHANGES
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. The Toronto Star of yesterday carried an article written by Jean Edward Smith in which the writer praises the Prime Minister for what the writer calls his "deft use of Canadian power" in his decision to reinstate cultural, scientific
June 2, 1980

and educational exchanges with the Soviet Union next spring. Can the Prime Minister verify the accuracy of that statement and, if it is accurate, can he tell the House what led him to this dramatic reversal in policy; and if it is not true, could he indicate whether he is considering such a reversal and what are the circumstances which would lead to that kind of a change?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I have not read the article in question, and I am not sure whether it is within the rules to ask the ministry to comment on some published article; but I will gladly look it up and give the hon. member an answer.


Benno Friesen: Whether or not the Prime Minister has read the article, he should know what is going on in his mind, and if it is one of his considerations, could he tell the House whether he is considering that kind of reversal?
My supplementary question follows on the questions by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. It concerns the remarks of the Secretary of State for External Affairs yesterday in which he really roundly condemned President Carter for his so-called lack of leadership as well as the apparent runner-up, Ronald Reagan.


An hon. Member:: What about the rest of your question?


Benno Friesen: 1 should like to ask the Prime Minister if it is now the policy of this government to meddle with the domestic affairs of another country, something which the Americans happily did not do with Canada during the time of the referendum debate?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is repeating in a more aggravated form the question asked by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. The minister did not roundly condemn the American leadership. He indicated that on matters of substance there was considerable agreement, but that there was some disagreement as to the tactics. It seems to me that each country is entitled to have differences of view on tactical matters.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister; it concerns the state of the economy. The reports from both his Minister of Finance and from his deputy minister of finance indicate that the government is giving serious consideration to the possibility of ending the indexation of personal income tax, which means an effective tax increase of $1.4 billion. While we may agree that the index is particularly regressive and we oppose its introduction, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether, at the
Ora! Questions
same time as his government is contemplating massive tax increases on the personal income side and on the energy price side, the government also is giving serious consideration to the plight of low and middle income Canadians? In particular, is his government giving consideration to the possibility of introducing a cost of living tax credit which would have the effect of stimulating the economy before the recession takes hold?
[ Translation]


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State, Finance):: Madam Speaker, quite obviously the Minister of Finance is particularly concerned with the deficit. Surely the hon. member knows that the indexation of income tax rates and social measures set up by the government is extremely costly for the state. The hon. member raised a special point and 1 think his suggestion should be examined in the general ambit of all hypotheses now considered by the Minister of Finance.


Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, in light of the reply of the Minister of State for Finance, 1 should like to address a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. The recession in the United States is taking hold. Indeed, the official figures show that the leading economic indicators have plunged 4.8 per cent in one month, which is the largest decline ever registered on this particular set of indicators since they were started 32 years ago. Is it still the intention of the Prime Minister to delay the bringing in of a budget, or at least a partial budget, which would have the effect of aiding those Canadians who are most affected by the recession, until well into the fall, which means that we will have a winter without any significant stimulative measures for the economy?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance has stated his intentions quite clearly. He has indicated that there are basic factors which are constantly under negotiation and which will be of great importance in the drafting of the budget and unless some truly significant changes happen, the minister still intends to table a budget as soon as possible-and he did speak of this fall.


Bob Rae: I will try again to the Prime Minister one last time, Madam Speaker. I should like the Prime Minister to answer a riddle which I am sure perplexes many Canadians. When in opposition the finance critic for his party, now the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, said on December 12, 1979, as reported at page 2295 of Hansard:
Surely the health of the Canadian economy cannot be looked at primarily in terms of the government's deficit. What is also important, surely, arc measures of performance such as the growth of employment, the growth of the economy, and the level of the cost of living.

June 2, 1980
Oral Questions
He went on to say:
These measures are being given second place to a concept which was discredited or, at least, greatly called into question as a result of the bitter experience of the Conservative government of R. B. Bennett in the 1930s.
My riddle to the Prime Minister is this. Why is it that we hear that kind of language and that kind of policy from the Liberal party when they are in opposition? Why is it that the only economic statements made by his economic ministers have been on the problem of the deficit and not on the problems of unemployment, inflation and those difficulties facing the average Canadian?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I must disagree with the statement of the hon. member that those have been the thrusts of the policy of the Minister of Finance; on the contrary, we are now budgeting for a very considerable deficit rather than tending toward a balanced budget, as in the case of the United States. We have a very considerable deficit-


An hon. Member:: You better believe it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Even the Tories agree with that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We have not dignified it with the description of "stimulative deficit" that used to be the description given to it by the Leader of the Opposition.


An hon. Member:: You have no excuse.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is the effect of this deficit. This very House has adopted, as recently as last week, measures which will increase that deficit, precisely to assist people receiving the guaranteed income supplement and the hon. member was supportive of it.



INQUIRY WHETHER INDEXATION OF INCOME TAX BEING RECONSIDERED

Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, my question in the absence of the Celtic sphinx-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: -the hon. Celtic sphinx, is to the Prime Minister. My question is this: The Minister of Finance on May 24 in an interview with Le Devoir said that "the end of income indexation looms as a probability". Not as a possibility, not that it was under review, but as a probability. I refer the Prime Minister to the February, 1973, budget speech when his then minister of finance said that he was taking steps to provide a lasting solution to the problem should inflation continue. That is, the problem about the effect of inflation on a tax system which has a progressive rate structure.
Would the Prime Minister tell this House whether there is a probability, not just a possibility, that the reform introduced in February, 1973, by the minister of finance of the day at the suggestion of the hon. Bob Stanfield to index the income tax to
deal with this problem of inflation and the progressive tax system is being seriously reconsidered at this time by this government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, as the associate minister answered a moment ago, the government is considering various possibilities and that is one of them. 1 believe the point was made equally by the deputy minister of finance. I would advise the hon. member, as a former minister of finance, not to believe that a budgetary statement is firm and final until he finds it in the budget itself. And even then, as the hon. member knows, it is not always necessarily firm and final.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister, who has said that he is not worried; he has made it clear that a large federal deficit itself does not worry him. That does not worry him; it is just the debt charges, just the interest. He does not see the connection between the two.


Mr. Andre:: It is not the knife wound, it is the loss of blood!


John Carnell Crosbie: The deputy minister of finance appeared before the Senate committee on national finance on Tuesday, May 27, and said that a major study of the revenue system of the government is now being carried out, and I quote, "with the aim of reducing the federal deficit in coming years;" and he said there is need for some kind, and I quote, "of generalized tax increase."
Now that the Prime Minister has the bothersome matter of an election campaign over and he has a working majority, will he tell the House whether it is his aim to reduce the federal deficit and whether he is going to have generalized tax increases this year that he forgot to mention to the Canadian electorate up to last February 18?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member refers to the statement made by the minister himself in this House a few weeks ago, he will get the answer to that question. It is to the effect that over a period of time we would like to see the deficit reduced, but we would want to keep in mind that we will not do that if it is necessary to maintain some stimulus to keep the economy growing. That is the effect of the answer I gave to the member from the New Democratic Party a moment ago.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, in my final supplementary I put this to the Prime Minister. In February, 1973, when the indexation of the tax system was put into force, it was stated:
-the progressive tax system can leave him worse off than he was before because he has entered a higher tax bracket. What I want to do,-
This was the minister of finance of the day speaking:
-is eliminate that unfair and unintended result from our tax system.
Is the Prime Minister now telling the House that because he has four or five safe years in office he is going to forget the unfair and unintended results that inflation brings to the progressive tax system, with the inflation that he has allowed
June 2, 1980

to grow over the last eight or ten years, so that this year it is likely to be 10 per cent and even more next year; and is he going to forget the unfairness of that part-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Order.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it would seem that the hon. member is making an argument rather than asking a question.
1 would just keep him informed that there have been indexations of various forms of assistance like family allowance, old age pension, veterans pensions and so on. Therefore, we are assisting those most in need by indexing their pensions to protect them against the effect-


John Carnell Crosbie: And gouging the taxpayer.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, if one wants to protect those in need-


John Carnell Crosbie: Taxpayers need help too.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -help those who need it most, one has to get help from the taxpayer, yes, Madam Speaker. 1 would have thought the hon. member would have understood this.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. As the Minister of Employment and Immigration announced in Winnipeg on Friday that funding will now be provided for the building of the Sherbrook-McGregor overpass over the CP tracks, could the minister inform me whether he will now authorize the permit to build the overpass that was requested by the city in early 1979?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, what is happening is that the government as a whole is offering the province of Manitoba funds otherwise available, from DREE particularly, in order to effect the relocation program. 1 do not know what the reaction of the government of Manitoba and the city of Winnipeg will be. I am awaiting a report on the discussions held on this subject.


A. Daniel McKenzie: As the mayor informed the Minister of Transport, Madam Speaker, they were going to wait until the end of May to see what the government was going to do about rail relocation. We are now into June. The city of Winnipeg wants the permit for the overpass. Is the minister going to issue the permit now for the overpass, and will his department be providing some funding for rail relocation later on or the building of the overpass?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, there is no difficulty with issuing a permit for the overpass. There is no problem at all on that subject. This has been offered. The city is well aware that
Oral Questions
they can have it, and so is the province of Manitoba. I assume that in the light of new developments the province and the city would like to have a second look at what is possible.



USE OF ASBESTOS AS BALLAST FOR RAIL BEDS IN QUEBEC

Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Transport. It arises from a CBC documentary shown on the weekend that showed that CP Rail has used asbestos instead of gravel as ballast for 90 miles of rail line in the province of Quebec.

It is a threat to the health of railwaymen and the public. Is the minister prepared to have Canadian Pacific take out the asbestos at its own expense and launch an immediate inquiry into the matter?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, there is no legislation in Canada governing that aspect but the Department of Environment and the Canadian Transport Commission are now investigating and I will report as soon as I obtain the results of the inquiry.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, why can the minister not tell us why he has not ordered CPR to clean up the asbestos which they put on railway tracks?


Miss Begin:: That is what he just told you.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I know that there is an inquiry in progress, but I am wondering why the minister cannot tell us why he has not ordered CPR to clean up the asbestos which has been put on rail lines. Secondly, the government was informed 16 months ago in February, 1979, that asbestos is a carcinogenic substance. Why can the minister not say whether or not he has asked the CPR whether they will compensate any employee or person who might be affected by the activity of the CPR? Can the minister assure the House that the CPR and, indeed, the CNR has not done this type of thing in other parts of the country as well?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, that is exactly the reason why I said there was no law on the use of such rock in the building of railways. I specifically said that to indicate why 1 could not take the kind of action which my hon. friend has in mind. It seems to me that the proper approach is first to inquire prior to exercising the normal diplomatic pressures in these matters.

June 2, 1980
Oral Questions



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. It deals with national security. Books have been written, one by Gerald Porter, In Retreat, on our armed forces, and another, written by Peter Stursburg on our relationship with NATO. Mention is made, I believe, of the fact that the hon. Leo Cadieux threatened to resign if Canada pulled out of NATO. In view of his remark today to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, can the Prime Minister explain whether or not he has changed his mind about NATO?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member was not in the House at that time, but I should like to remind him that in the early seventies, or at the end of the sixties, we undertook to review our external policy and our military policy, with a view to re-examining Canada's membership in all those alliances, of which NATO and NORAD. We then even looked into both possibilities, of being completely neutral or multiplying our alliances. This study was sincere and lasted quite a while; a large number of citizens and parliamentarians took part in it. At that time, we decided to confirm our ties with NORAD and NATO, and we have not changed our mind since then.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In rationalizing the statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs regarding the policy of Canada in Afghanistan, the Prime Minister stated that the minister's concern was that two years ago the United States should have taken action. Is the Prime Minister suggesting that there was a difference in policy in this regard and that two years ago Canada suggested that action be taken and the United States disagreed? Or, if the minister is criticizing the United States, did Canada take such action or express such concern two years ago?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member will refer to the remarks of the minister, he will see that, as I told the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands, he is not attacking the United States in any particular way. Rather, the minister is saying that the west in general was at fault in not sensing the problem arising two years ago. Also, because the United States exercises leadership in the western alliance, the minister was saying "and especially the United States". The minister was referring to the entire west, and we consider ourselves a
western power. The minister, in hindsight, was regretting that we had not reacted then.



INDUSTRY


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, unfortunately my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, to whom I gave notice last week. Since he is not here, 1 would like to direct my first question to the Prime Minister. I appreciate that the Prime Minister will not have all the facts as would the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
In view of the meeting which the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion had with the Minister of Labour, some of the perennial corporate competitors of Michelin and certain labour officials a week ago today, which was called because of protests against any further expansion of industry in Nova Scotia through another Michelin plant, particularly with DREE money, can the Prime Minister assure the House that he will talk to his minister and that those in favour of DREE application, assuming there is still a DREE policy, will have an equal opportunity to make representations to the minister?
Would the Prime Minister also point out to the House and the country, especially Ontario, that the contemplated production of any increased plant is primarily for export and that, in view of the success of Michelin tires, such tire plant will be built elsewhere in the world-most likely the southern United States-if it does not come to Canada, albeit Nova Scotia?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker. I am not versed in the details of this particular presentation. It would seem to me that the hon. member has summed it quite thoroughly. I am informed that the government has already heard representations that they are now being considered, and an answer will be forthcoming as soon as possible.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of Labour. In view of the surprising and, to me, deplorable appearance of the president of the Nova Scotia Federation of Labour with a group which was lobbying against the expansion of industry and jobs in Nova Scotia, would the minister advise this House if he shares the views of the president of the Nova Scotia Federation of Labour that another Michelin plant in that province would be against the interests of Nova Scotia and against the job opportunities of the working man of Nova Scotia?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, obviously I do not share the views of the president of the Nova Scotia Federation of Labour in that regard. I am not sure, though, that his views go quite that far. He has expressed some concern about the labour laws of Nova Scotia, but I felt that after our meeting along with the minister of DREE during
June 2, 1980

which we exchanged our views, perhaps the president of the Nova Scotia Federation of Labour was to a greater degree able to realize that there would be great benefits to the Annapolis Valley in western Nova Scotia, and to Canada as a whole, if that project were to go ahead.



CANADA LABOUR CODE


Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of State for Mines. 1 would briefly like to congratulate the minister on her appointment. My question is with respect to the protection now afforded uranium miners in Ontario. In view of the minister's statement in Elliot Lake last Friday, as it is reported in The Globe and Mail of Saturday, with respect to last week's order in council referencing Ontario's occupational health and safety act and regulations under the Canada Labour Code, that "exactly the same thing" had been done with health and safety legislation in Saskatchewan, "and there have been no problems" and in view of statements by United Steel Workers of America representatives to the contrary, does the minister agree that this recent referencing will provide the uranium miners of Ontario the protection which both the minister and the Minister of Labour have pledged and that the referenced order in council and Ontario regulations will, in law, take precedence over the other weaker provisions of the Canada Labour Code?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State, Mines):: Madam Speaker, 1 thank the hon. member for his question. The Minister of Labour and 1 worked long and hard to ensure that bill 70 was referenced into the Canada Labour Code. I can assure the hon. member that it is the advice of several people, including the Solicitor General, that once bill 70 is incorporated into the Canadian Labour Code, it becomes a part of the CLC and, therefore, federal legislation. I foresee no problems.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of Labour. Given the Saskatchewan case in which federal labour officials, AECB officials and justice officials have held up for almost a year, on a jurisdictional point, an attempt to prosecute Eldorado Nuclear for conditions which led to the death of a miner, can the minister state clearly and in unequivocal terms whether the order in council making bill 70 part of the Canada Labour Code does take precedence over the provision in section 4 of the Canada Labour Code and, in the minister's words, whether the protective measures now afforded Ontario uranium miners via the order in council route "are as high as they would be under provincial jurisdiction"?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question on a very important
Oral Questions
subject. I would agree with the remarks made by my colleague to the effect that this protection is indeed provided.
The Saskatchewan case, to which the hon. member refers, had particular circumstances, and it was not a jurisdictional problem that delayed that case. The time restrictions of the question period do not allow me to explain that in detail. However, I would be happy to explain outside the chamber if the hon. member so desires.
Let me assure him that the referencing of bill 70 of the Ontario legislature is a step that was asked for by the unions involved after they became satisfied that there were delays and difficulties in trying to get a parallel set of federal regulations. That is the course of action that we would have originally taken, and it is the course of action that we have now taken. Any other course of action to give long-term, better protection would be a lengthy process. However, 1 want to say that if any of the companies were to see fit to challenge the validity and the force of these provisions, then I would be prepared to bring in very strong legislation indeed.



INQUIRY WHETHER ADVICE OF SOLICITOR GENERAL IN WRITTEN FORM

Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of State for Mines. 1 believe in her answer she indicated that advice had been received from the Solicitor General in this matter. Would the minister confirm whether that was the case. If so, would she tell us why the Solicitor General was involved, and further would she advise the House whether that advice was in written form?


Judith A. Erola: No, Madam Speaker. It was a short conversation that I had with the Solicitor General because the subject was brought up to me by the hon. member who requested the information earlier. I asked the Solicitor General if indeed the legislation was valid, and he assured me that it was and that there was precedent involved in this area.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, 1 have one supplementary that perhaps I should direct to the Prime Minister. Is it now the Solicitor General or the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada who gives legal advice to ministers on which action is taken?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice, the acting minister gives advice on his behalf.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, so we are clear about this, the advice given to the minister of mines by the Solicitor General, presumably after consultation with the law officers of the Crown, was given in his capacity as acting minister of justice and acting attorney general; is that the case?

June 2, 1980
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I do not know exactly what the terms of the advice were. The Solicitor General is the acting minister of justice, and it was natural for the minister to address herself to him as she would to any other colleague who was acting minister.



TWO-PRICE WHEAT-REIMBURSEMENT OF PRODUCERS

Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board-


An hon. Member:: Who is that?


Leonard J. Gustafson: -with regard to the domestic price as of February 1, 1980. The answer that came to my desk this morning reads as follows:
There is therefore no plan to reimburse producers for their costs-
On Friday this announcement was made:
Agriculture Minister Eugene Whelan today announced that a cheque for $5 million has been sent to Quebec-
Further on in this announcement are the following words:
Under the Quebec program, the federal government is providing $33.5 million over a five-year period-
This is for freight on grain from the prairie provinces.
In view of what the Prime Minister had to say in the Speech from the Throne, and in the interests of fair play, can the minister tell the people of western Canada, and the farmers in particular, how he can justify, on the one hand, turning down $25 million that came out of the farmers' pockets and paying out $33 million that comes directly out of the treasury? Would he reconsider his decision, please.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, this is not a question, it is a debate, obviously.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: I can only confirm what my hon. friend says that for a period of time the international price for wheat was higher than the maximum of the policy. Consequently, for a period of time western farmers lost a fair amount of money. I can confirm that. This is the reason why the new policy on two-price wheat for domestic use has raised the lower price to $5 and the upper price to $7 a bushel.


Erik Nielsen: At least you are trying to answer now.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Madam Speaker, is the minister aware that it was only eight months ago that the situation was reversed, and in this time of high costs, would he reconsider?


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member simply put a question and not argue, please.


An hon. Member:: It is a preamble.


Leonard J. Gustafson: My question is simply this, Madam Speaker. Does the minister consider it fair, and would he reconsider in this time of drought and high costs?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The decision on that subject has been made, Madam Speaker.



REIMBURSEMENT OF PRODUCERS FOR LOSS OF INCOME FROM DEPRESSED PRICES

Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Since the grain embargo has not been punitive to the Soviet Union but only punitive to Canadian farmers, because of depressed grain prices, and since the drought situation in the west is increasing the economic insecurity for many prairie farmers, will the Prime Minister fulfil his promise to reimburse grain producers for their loss of income so that some extra cash can be injected into the drought-ridden farm economy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I would want to disagree with the premise of the question stated by the hon. member that the embargo is not being effective. I can assure him that our information is that it is being effective.
As to the rest of the question, the matter is being considered, Madam Speaker.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Transport who is sometimes responsible for the Wheat Board. Economic security is an important factor when the farmer is facing the effects of a debilitating drought. Since higher initial grain prices will not be a subsidy but only an evening out of cash flow for farmers, will the minister do what he can to have the initial price of grains maintained at its present level rather than dropped 50 cents per bushel on July 30, as previously annouced?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, it is difficult to answer because some weeks ago I was asked to intercede to ensure that the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board would increase the hike of the initial prices. If I understand the question now, they do not want the prices to be lowered.


Mr. Epp:: No, we do not want them lowered.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: The minister in charge of the Wheat Board promised at the time he made the announcement on the initial prices that he would review them before the crop year, which is August 1.
June 2, 1980



PUBLIC SERVICE


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Now that there has been a very heavy favourable ratification vote for the CUPW settlement that Treasury Board entered into with CUPW on May 23, would the President of the Treasury Board indicate what the extra cost will be to the federal government treasury as a result of this CUPW settlement?


John Carnell Crosbie: Come on, "Dapper Don''.


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, as I indicated to the hon. member last week, the contract has not yet been ratified by Treasury Board. When it is, I will feel free to release full details obviously at that time. But 1 would like to take the opportunity of pointing out what a fine job my colleague, the Postmaster General, did in negotiating this contract.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Good old Ouellet.


Donald James Johnston: I would also add in that context, in setting a number of important precedents, it is the first time, I understand, that the majority decision of a conciliation board has not been accepted by this government through four hard days of negotiations for which I believe he deserves a great deal of credit.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the President of the Treasury Board could clarify why, if Treasury Board has not ratified the terms of the agreement, Mr. Parrot sent out a brochure to all of his members in which he enclosed a copy of the Treasury Board and Canadian Union of Postal Workers agreement signed on May 23, 1980, for the Treasury Board and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers.


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I would have thought that the hon. member, being my predecessor in office, would be aware of the procedures of contract ratification. I think that question should be more appropriately addressed to Mr. Parrot.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, my question is supplementary to those asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine of the Minister of Transport with regard to announcements made on Friday in Winnipeg regarding rail relocation and the Sherbrook Street overpass. Has the minister now said in the House today that the federal government will be helping in the funding of the Sherbrook Street
Employment Strategy
overpass, that they will also be including in those costs the additional cost due to the two-year delay and, if the overpass will be built, that rail relocation at the CPR yards is a dead issue in Winnipeg?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Madam Speaker. The offer that the Department of Transport made to the province of Manitoba for the use of UTAP money-the urban transport assistance program-still stands. No mention has been made of paying for the delay suffered by the city in having to undertake a study. They would have had to make it anyway. What is new since Friday is that an offer has been made to the province of Manitoba wider than the particular envelope that we have been talking about up until now. Presumably the province and the municipality will want to think about it before committing themselves either to agree, hopefully, or disagree with the new offer that has been made.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Which program?


Jean-Luc Pepin: We will find out when the minister who made the offer returns.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments-Mr. Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore).
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I rise today to inform hon. members of the programs the government is putting into place to deal with the immediate employment needs of Canadians, and to discuss briefly employment development in the 1980s.
Canada is, above all, a land of contrasts. In some areas, such as those relating to our ethnic roots and traditions, diversity is a source of national strength. This is not the case with the diversities in our economic well-being. The existence of groups of Canadians who are continually frustrated in their yearning to participate fully in the economic life of Canada is a condition that weakens us as a nation.
In designing our employment program, we looked first at the principles that would provide the basis for specific initia-

June 2, 1980
Employment Strategy
tives. The first of these principles is the principle of targeting, or reaching out directly to those who traditionally receive little or no benefit from the economic growth of the country.
Native people, even in the very wealthy province of Alberta, face unemployment rates of approximately 75 per cent, and this situation is even more critical for native women. Handicapped people everywhere face not only the challenge of overcoming their disability, but also must contend with the invisible barriers of prejudice and ignorance that bar their entry into the labour force. Women, and particularly those who have worked tirelessly in their homes to raise families, are told that they are not wanted in the paid labour force. Whatever else we do to ensure that all Canadians enjoy rising levels of real income, we must give special assistance to such people as I have mentioned.
The second principle upon which today's measures are based is the recognition that employment must have continuing and genuine value. It should offer an unemployed worker hope for the future, and contribute to his or her sense of self-worth. In the programs we are announcing today we are including criteria that will channel funds towards projects that will make a sustaining contribution to the Canadian economy and will be consistent with our national objectives and priorities.
The third principle reflected in these measures is recognition of the need to have the particular mix of employment measures tailored to regional needs. By this I refer not only to employment disparities or the fact that there are shortages of skilled workers in certain industries and regions, but also to the differing capabilities of regions to cope with problems in their respective labour markets. I have already begun consultations with my provincial counterparts to identify each region's needs, and these consultations are being carried out on an ongoing basis by our respective officials.
With these principles in mind, I am announcing the following programs relating to job creation and training:
First, we are introducing four specific job creation programs to meet special employment needs. The first is Canada community development projects. A major new program is being implemented to further national and regional priorities in such areas as fisheries enhancement, energy conservation, tourism development, and community restoration. In addition to providing valuable work, this program will contribute to the development of an expanded employment base. More than $100 million will be committed across Canada to such projects this winter and next year, with special emphasis in areas of high unemployment. This program also gives us the flexibility to respond to emerging employment problems caused by industrial dislocation, or major emergencies such as the fires and drought in western Canada.
Second, we are introducing a new technology employment program. This program is designed to assist men and women trained in technical and scientific areas to make full use of their skills in support of research and development. Funded at $7 million in the year 1980-81, this program will provide subsidies to firms and non-profit institutions that hire unemployed or under-employed post-secondary graduates to work in
research and development activities. This will help to promote innovations in manufacturing and the application of conservation and alternative energy techniques and programs across Canada.
Further, we will have a program called local economic development assistance. While the Canada community development projects are short term, it is our intention to increase the capacity of communities to meet long-term employment objectives. We will, as appropriate, use these funds for long-term employment development, through this new experimental program, as well as use existing programs such as LEAP.
The LEDA program is a new initiative aimed at providing selected communities with the means to develop comprehensive employment development strategies through non-profit community corporations established in each of these communities. LEDA will accelerate the process of economic development in these communities, first by us applying front-end money to develop appraisals, marketing and forecasts, and then provide short-term investments for equity investments in new businesses and small businesses. This is particularly appropriate for small towns and communities that want to establish a new economic base.
Funded at $3 million in 1980-81, it is intended as an experimental program and as a complement to other business development programs. Our target is to have a number of these pilot projects across Canada started in the summer and fall of this year.
Fourth, we have a community services program. This is a new program which will enable the federal government to enter into new partnership arrangements with non-profit voluntary agencies. The program will provide jobs for unemployed men and women and will, at the same time, increase, improve, and make innovations in urgently needed social and cultural services.
A major innovation of the community services program is that funding will be provided for up to three years on a diminishing share basis. Ongoing service activities will be funded, as demonstration projects, only if there is a reasonable expectation that the organizations will, over three years, be able to make other provisions for the costs of services. 1 expect that many service organizations will wish to use the program to help expand their volunteer base, or to develop fee for service operations, or simply to carry out three-year projects of real value to the community.
The labour market contains many striking and frequently unfair imbalances. In some parts of the country today, and particularly in the resource-rich areas of western Canada, industries have problems finding enough skilled workers in a growing number of occupations, while elsewhere the level of unemployment remains at intolerable levels. The economic potential of our physical resources cannot be fully achieved until we realize the human potential of the Canadian work force and, in particular, of native people and women.
June 2, 1980

Madam Speaker, in order to begin the process of establishing a balance between labour supply and demand, and to ensure that all Canadians get a fair share of the economic and social benefits of our society, we are taking the following measures.
First, we intend to add an additional $10 million to the amount available for the existing critical trades, skills, and training program. The level of funding will be increased immediately from $20 million to $30 million, an amount constrained only by the capacity of industry to utilize effectively the additional funds during the next 12 months. I am prepared to consider increasing funds for this program still further in subsequent years if industry is prepared to offer the necessary training.
We also intend to provide a special training program for native people. A special allocation of $10 million will be provided for additional training of men and women of native ancestry. The program is designed to enable them to take advantage of employment generated by new resource developments and to move into job opportunities in our urban centres.
We intend to embark on an experimental program called women in non-traditional trades. In order to help open the way for women to enter occupations traditionally dominated by men, $2 million will be provided to cover a wage subsidy of 75 per cent under the Canada Manpower Industrial Training Program to employers who train women in non-traditional occupations. This is a start-up program and, if it proves successful, it will be substantially enhanced in the following year.
Finally, because of the large number of Indo-Chinese refugees who have come to Canada, an additional $7 million will be provided for language training for refugees. This will speed the successful integration of these people into the Canadian labour market.
These initiatives, which provide a good indication of future directions in developing employment opportunities, bring total federal expenditures on training, including income support, to $834 million in 1980-81. A growing share of that training is being provided by industry, on the job site and in the skills that we so badly need.
I should also mention that another program dealing with people who have severe employment disadvantages will be presented at a later date, probably by way of legislation.
1 would like to indicate, however, that the proposed program will provide additional help to the same groups of people who will benefit from the measures I announced today as well as to other hard-to-place workers such as former prisoners and individuals with little or no education and those with physical handicaps and learning disabilities. The program will offer incentives so that disadvantaged workers are employed in the private sector. 1 have reserved $15 million in my budget for that program, one which will be later presented to Parliament.
Madam Speaker, in my capacity as minister responsible for the status of women, I would like to stress that our efforts today are only the first steps of a thorough approach to the
Employment Strategy
problems of women in the labour force. I will soon announce ongoing measures to improve employment opportunities for women, with particular priority to improving the affirmative action program in the public service.
The employment development measures outlined today will themselves have a considerable impact on the employment of women. Community services projects will assist organizations to provide services, such as day care and after-four programs, which are important to many working women and men. The cash incentive for firms to train women in non-traditional jobs is a significant innovation in terms of public policy, in Canada and in the industrial world.
Youth will also significantly benefit from the employment development measures announced today. Both the community services projects and the community development projects will serve to provide young men and women with valuable first-job experience. For young people who are qualified in technical areas, the new technology employment program offers opportunities to use their skills to advance the development and application of new technology. Young men and women under 25 can be expected to make up nearly two-thirds of the participants in our employment programs and training program expansions.
The increases in badly needed training and the new employment programs will cost $137 million in this fiscal year. These programs will be paid for with funds previously intended for tax credits and other funds set aside for programs planned by the previous government.
The measures that I outlined today are in addition to programs already planned for or in operation this fiscal year, such as the extension of the employment tax credit program. I hope members of the opposition will provide us with the co-operation which would facilitate the extension of that program so that both these announcements can go forward at the same time.


An hon. Member:: When is it coming?


Lloyd Axworthy: The hon. member will have it on his agenda sooner than he expects. Furthermore, this program must be seen in the context of additional programs such as the Summer Youth Employment program, the carry-over of Canada Works and the Local Employment Assistance Program.
In summary, these training and employment measures that I have announced are not the entire solution to our labour market problems. But they are an important beginning. We will focus on the training and employment needs of natives, women, young people, and other groups facing special difficulties in finding and retaining jobs. We will provide extra jobs in areas of high unemployment. We will reorient employment programs to serve key national and regional priorities. These measures represent the start of a new long-term approach to employment generation and national development. They point us in the right direction.
In my opening remarks I referred to the need to use our programs to meet Canada's different regional problems. There

June 2, 1980
Employment Strategy
is no group with a better understanding of such conditions than members of Parliament. In our Summer Youth Employment program, the advice and participation of members of this House have added considerably to the success of the program. It is our intention to draw on the intimate knowledge that members of Parliament have of their local areas, particularly for the locally-based Community Development Projects and through the use of local advisory groups which will assist in each constituency in the determination of priorities.
I look forward as well, Madam Speaker, to the results of the Parliamentary Task Force on Critical Skills for the Eighties, under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand). This special committee will provide members of Parliament with an additional opportunity to be involved in the formulation of an employment strategy for the decade we are entering.
Within Employment and Immigration Canada, a special high level task force is being formed to examine the entire spectrum of labour market needs, including training, employment programs, employment services, mobility of workers, and industrial dislocation. I am confident that these special bodies will be productive in their work, and enable Canada to move closer to its potential in the 1980s.
Madam Speaker, may I conclude by reminding this House that these programs represent an important investment in our most priceless asset-individual Canadians. Our free market system, for all its strengths, does not always distribute opportunities equally to our people. We are all diminished when any of our fellow citizens, for whatever reason, do not have the opportunity to develop their talents to full potential and contribute their full energy to the common good.
These programs are not public charity or government bounty. They are an investment which will bear returns beyond those we now devote to resource industries, the manufacturing sector or financial enterprises. They are an investment in our fellow Canadians-our true, genuine undiminished capital for the future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) for providing me with a copy of his statement, his press release, and a background paper. 1 received this material at noon and have taken the opportunity to read it over and reflect on it before making my response.
I must begin by expressing on behalf of the Conservative party a sense of disappointment, having waited so long for an employment strategy, to find so little that is new, exciting or helpful to Canadians. It is a small program, and the degree to which it tackles the long-term unemployment problems of this country is practically zero.
I point out to the House, for instance, that a one-cent tax on a gallon of gasoline would produce twice as much money for
employment creation as the minister has brought forward today. Public policy is always a matter of choice, and the failure of hon. members opposite to take responsible steps such as those the Conservative government was prepared to take in its budget, has strapped them for funds. Many useful social purposes must be overlooked or a band-aid must be put on them because we have a government which will not raise the money that the people of Canada require it to spend.
Unemployment is caused by bad economic decisions. The kind of unemployment which we in Canada experience today is a consequence of many bad economic decisions taken over a long period of time. Those problems affect regions in a broader sense. They affect provinces, and they affect areas within provinces. Quite frankly, 1 was looking forward today to a series of measures which would get us to the heart of the problems experienced in those parts of this country more than in other parts of this country, and as I look through the documents presented to me by the minister, I cannot find that mentality. 1 find many words asserting it to be true, but as I look at the detailed specifics of the program, I cannot find it.
In April the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) raised taxes and virtually ignored the measures in the Crosbie budget of December which would have created more employment in this country. This morning I glanced over that mini budget, and the minister left out eight specific employment creation measures related to the private sector. He chose not to reintroduce them, and we are facing a rather tragic unemployment situation in this country in the future.
How many people will we find in this country who would like to work, who would like to make a contribution to the well-being of this country, but who simply cannot find jobs? I have done a little calculating based on the figures which the government has provided to this House in the last two months, but 1 think there is general agreement among econometric forecasters that some time in the next two years the measured rate of unemployment in this country will be in the neighbourhood of 9 per cent. We are looking at measured unemployment of something in the neighbourhood of 1,100,000 Canadians. Econometricians will also tell us that as we get an increasing unemployment rate of that kind, then our hidden unemployment rate goes up.
The hidden unemployed are those people who have looked for work for so long that they are discouraged and are no longer looking for work. The best estimate of the number of people in that category at this time is 300,000 people. Then we look at this package of so-called job-creation measures which the minister has laid before the House today. With that package he says he will create something in the neighbourhood of 192,000 jobs in the current fiscal year. That is close to 200,000, and if the minister is correct and those people are working, they will not show up in this 9 per cent. When we add those three numbers, the predicted 9 per cent measured unemployment rate, the hidden unemployed, and those who are sort of tucked away in these subsidized jobs, we come to 1,600,000 Canadians who would like jobs in the real economy but cannot find them because of the economic policies of the government
June 2, 1980

opposite. That is close to 15 per cent of adult Canadians who would like to make a contribution, and 1 think that is a crime, a scandal, and something we should not continue to overlook.
1 think there are other choices available to the government opposite. Perhaps they are not available to the Minister of Employment and Immigration, but certainly they are to the government.
I would feel much more confortable as a member of this House trying to do my best to act on behalf of the Canadian people if I could see policies coming from the other side of the House which would contribute to the long-range development of this country, such as energy policies which would produce substitution, reopen coal mines in Nova Scotia, and develop the tar sands rather than retard development of the tar sands. When a tar sands plant is built, it takes $7 billion worth of wages and materials to build that mining operation, but at the same time a community must be created out of the bush which will house and service some 20,000 to 25,000 Canadians. In projects of that kind there are real jobs for those who make door knobs, doors, and steps and for those who build the houses and the plants.
I think if we trace back to the beginning of our confederation we will find that in times of trouble it was the job of the federal government to develop the economy on behalf of the people in the provinces, and it is that job which I think has been overlooked in the last decade. Our money should not be going into band-aids. Our money and our efforts should be going toward projects of real and lasting value to this nation.
Seventy thousand homes were supposed to be built in Canada this year, but they will not be built. Seventy thousand homes would create 100,000 jobs and leave 70,000 more housing units when those jobs are over. Some kind of subsidy program, in the face of high interest rates, would have produced those additional 70,000 homes, and in that way 1 think the money might have been better spent.
The program which was announced today is really an exercise in public relations which will not bear close scrutiny and examination. It is full of sympathetic words for the unemployed, but when we look at it closely we see that it reveals a tremendous number of basic inconsistencies. I do not know if that is a problem generated by the minister or a problem generated by his officials, but I would like to go into some of those inconsistencies arising out of the information which was presented to me today.
I think we need to look at the mathematics. First, the local economic development assistance program is going to cost $3 million of that $137 million, and in the minister's own background paper the number of jobs created by the expenditure of $3 million in that category is zero, so we are spending $3 million to create no jobs. In the question period the minister might care to bring us up to date on that.
I asked a question of the minister in the House of Commons a couple of weeks ago about which kinds of philosophy he might favour in the development of this program. The need for that kind of information becomes apparent when we look at
Employment Strategy
the figures provided to us by the minister. In the community services area, if we transpose the figures presented by the minister, the cost to the public treasury for each job created on a 12-month basis would be $22,000. In the new technology area, which is really the only innovation, the cost to the public treasury will be $20,000. Those are the two highest priced job-creation measures: $22,000 a year for one job, or $20,000 in the case of new technology. The lowest cost job-creation measure, according to the minister's own figures, is the employment tax credit. The minister estimates a total cost of $900 to the public treasury for one job created. There is a difference of something in the order of 25 to 1 in terms of the cost of creating new jobs on the one hand with employment tax credits and, on the other hand, with direct job-creation measures.
What about the cost of training? There is quite a bit of information in here about the fact that $834 million will be spent on training. Of that amount, $22 million is an increase; that is a 2.5 per cent increase over the money already allocated by Parliament in the main estimates. It is certainly not a significant amount. There are many, many other examples of flimflam.
I understand that you would like me to wind down as quickly as I can, Madam Speaker, but let me say that we do not have a definition of what a job is. The minister talks about 192,000 jobs. Are those one week jobs, one day jobs, or 12-month jobs? He talks about creating employment in nontraditional training for women and says he will provide 75 per cent of the wage costs for that activity. I would point out that existing programs provide 60 per cent, and in fact if you are handicapped severely they provide 85 per cent. So the program he announced here today is either a little bit of an improvement or a decline from what is available.
There is not really much change in what the minister proposes. He identified 11 programs in his background paper. One of those programs is to create employment for 1,000 people. Only one program is new, the others are a rehash of existing expenditure patterns and existing programs.
When the minister spoke about community development projects he mentioned fisheries, energy conservation, tourism, community restoration, and he went on to say that it might help us fight fire and drought in the west. Surely those are activities normal and natural to governments at both the federal and provincial levels. Are these really job-creation projects, or is this the borrowing of money from other departments to flimflam the Canadian public into believing that there is some kind of clear and consistent job-creation effort coming out of the Department of Employment and Immigration?
The minister spoke about community service program jobs which will be paid for on a declining basis: 100 per cent the first, 66 per cent the second year, 33 per cent the third year and no cost in the fourth. I ask the minister if there is any intention on the part of the Minister of Finance to provide

June 2, 1980
Employment Strategy
through the tax system better tax breaks for those who donate money to the private sector social welfare organizations. How can government start something without providing an opportunity for people in a local community to continue to make it grow and develop?
The minister bragged about the fact that in his estimates, without clearcut policy directives, 40 per cent of the jobs in training will go to women. Madam Speaker, around 45 per cent of unemployed people in Canada today are women. This program provides a disproportionate number of jobs to men. If the minister were really doing something to deal with the imbalance, we would find that 50 per cent or 60 per cent of the jobs were going to women. What he is doing is to perpetuate and intensify the disparity which already exists.
In summary, and in the questions which I hope we will be able to ask the minister subsequently, let me come back to the really basic issue, which is: is employment in Canada more likely to be the consequence of a fiscal policy? Are we, as taxpayers, better served when we provide subsidies to the private sector, or are we best served by direct employment-creation programs? I should like to engage in that debate in the context of Bill C-19 when it comes back on our plate. But I think it is impossible to proceed in a coherent fashion without clear answers on the differential costs and benefits from those three mechanisms.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, 1 wish to thank the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) for providing me with a copy of his statement earlier today.
To say that the measures being proposed by the minister are disappointing would be to make the understatement of the year. With rare exception, Canada has had the highest number of unemployed workers of the seven major countries in the last ten years. As of April of this year there are officially 937,000 Canadians out of work, or 8.3 per cent of the work force. When the hidden unemployed are taken into account, that figure jumps to an estimated 1,462,000 unemployed Canadians, or 12.4 per cent of the work force.
Unemployment in Canada is a national disgrace, and in the face of that all the government is capable of doing is to bring in programs that are largely cosmetic in their treatment of the most serious problem facing Canada today.
Several weeks ago 1 had the opportunity to speak in this House on the bill brought forward by the minister to extend the provisions of the Employment Tax Credit Act. At that time 1 expressed the hope that this government was finally serious about bringing forward measures which would get our country back to work. However, I also said that the record of this government was such that I was not convinced we would see the kind of action required to get the job done. Now that I saw the statement made by the minister today which alleges to deal with "employment development in the 1980s", I am convinced that this government is not serious about our unemployment crisis, or is incapable of coping with it. Rather than bringing in programs to stimulate our economy and providing
proposals for long-term job-creation, the Minister of Employment and Immigration is continuing to attack unemployment as if he were Canada's own Don Quixote, and he is doing about as much good.
Of the 14 programs to which the minister has addressed himself in the background papers which accompanied the statement, no less than eight have been in existence for some period of time, and the six new ones merely serve to indicate that the government recognizes there are problem areas within the larger problem of unemployment. These are all short-term and moderate cost programs.
There is not even a mention in this statement of the Liberal party's promise during the election campaign to develop an industrial strategy in Canada. There is no mention of the government's intention to regain control of our economy, either in the short or the long term. In fact there is nothing in this statement which will give Canadians assurances that this government is going to do much of anything to create meaningful long-term employment.
Placing an emphasis on skilled training, as these programs do, without referring to long-term job creation, simply means that somewhere down the road we will end up with an awful lot of unemployed skilled workers. Perhaps from the government's point of view it is preferable to be skilled and unemployed as opposed to being unskilled and unemployed, but this is not a view that our party shares. Rather than these measures providing solutions to unemployment, they tend to raise more questions than they provide answers.
Taking a look at the programs themselves, under the new technology employment program ail 1 can see is that it provides band-aid measures, given that 660 jobs are to be created in 1980-81 and that there are some 2,500 Ph.D.s graduating each year. Under the critical trades skills training program, the government has allocated $30 million which, in my view, is a drop in the bucket when one considers the critical trade skill shortage in Canada. Predetermined labour short trade occupations beg the question: how does the minister define or determine what those are? Under the non-traditional training for women training programs, 1 should point out to the minister that there are around 393,000 women who are unemployed, and the minister is allocating $2 million to assist these women to enter non-traditional training. At the very least the minister should be embarrassed even to introduce this kind of program to this House for our consideration.
Under the native opportunities training program, again there is not enough money in view of the decision to let the Canada Works program continue as it is now. Canada Works excludes provinces like Manitoba and Saskatchewan where there are pockets of native unemployment ranging from 50 per cent to 90 per cent. Also the focus on major resource areas presents a problem as to what happens when the resource projects are completed, that is, skilled natives versus unskilled natives. Under the community development program, this is intended to work along the same line as Canada Works and
June 2, 1980

LIP, with the exception of projects to be selected further to establish national and regional priorities.
The short-term results are that there will still be unemployment after the project is completed and there is not much money allocated to those programs. As 1 suggested, these programs raise more questions than they provide answers. If this government were serious about job creation, either in the short term or in the long term, it would have taken concrete action and accepted responsibility for the social and economic inequities being perpetrated on the Canadian population.
We need more than token gestures. We need to grasp firmly and control our abundant resource benefits. We need greater corporate financial responsibility in Canada. We need the creation of jobs and consequent reduction in unemployment, which should be one of the first priorities of this Parliament. A well-planned program of social reform must be initiated so that poverty can be completely eliminated. Low income and elderly people should be given a shelter allowance, bread and milk subsidies, and a tailor-made consumer price index should be brought down so that we can accurately assess their purchasing patterns.
A cost of living tax credit would help to alleviate the crush created by the drop in real purchasing power of family income. Inequities in income distribution should be attacked by the forms in the income tax, substituting refundable tax credits for some items which are tax deductible. We need to recognize and work toward a common goal, a guaranteed minimum income which would ensure that all members of our society receive a basic share of resources, goods and services as a part of their birthright. If this government were serious about doing something finally about the unemployment crisis in this country today, a crisis which was brought on by this administration over the last 11-year period, those are the kinds of things this government would do, instead of bringing in cosmetic items such as are contained in the program presented today which do nothing but help to cement the cynical attitude that the Canadian people have of this government and which certainly 1, as a member of this Parliament, share with them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes). Is it on a question?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Yes, Madam Speaker. Is it possible to ask more than one?


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member can ask one to begin with and we will see how long it lasts.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: 1 will start with the simple question. In terms of his background paper, could the minister define what a job is?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, considering that the hon. member at one time was reputed to be an academic of some note in the definition of work, it strikes me as seemingly odd
Employment Strategy
he would ask a question which he has already defined for himself. It is someone who is gainfully employed.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Could the minister indicate, whether my interpretation is correct-if somebody is employed on a project for one day or a half day, then that person is presumed to have been given a job by the public? Is that the kind of number we are dealing with in the minister's background paper?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member is deliberately trying to confuse the issue. What we are talking about is that when we put these programs forward, the different organizations such as voluntary organizations, municipalities and others, make applications for projects which we will measure according to their meaningful value. Obviously a job that will last one day would have very little chance of being considered, certainly when one takes into account that we will be asking for assessment and measurement by members of Parliament who we know are always very discerning in their judgment and attitude.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Dealing with the 192,000 jobs the minister is asserting he is creating, if we were to use a different definition of 52 weeks of work, then we might be dealing with the public sector creating something like 30,000 or 40,000 jobs. Does the minister have an estimate of the more normal meaning of the word "job" where they last for a fiscal year?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, there is nothing that requires us to define a job as lasting a year. A job is when one is making an income for the work one is doing. We have estimated in the extension of the programs we have announced today, combined with those that will be brought about as a consequence of the employment tax credit, that we will be creating opportunities for well over 80,000 participants, whether they last nine months or a year. In some cases they will last beyond a year because we have said very clearly in these programs that under the community development projects, the community services program and others, they can last a year, 18 months, or three years. So, what we might lose on the nine-month end of it, we will pick up on the other end of it.
I do not want to tell the member something I assume he knows from his own background, but 1 think in any labour force people are constantly changing jobs and coming in and out of the work force. However, we are defining a series of work opportunities and training opportunities that are well defined by the sponsors of these or by the agencies that put them forward which would provide work particularly in those areas where work is most needed in the high unemployment areas that sometimes may last nine months or 15 months. We will be measuring and assessing those projects on their merits.

June 2, 1980
Employment Strategy


Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, I note with interest that the minister is now restricted by the envelope system in the amount of funds he can use. In the opening paragraphs he mentioned that the aim of this program is for fishing enhancement. I should like to ask the minister how much money was taken from the salmon enhancement program and applied to this program for the fishing enhancement part of it?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I should like to make one small correction in the statement of the hon. member. We were not limited so much by the envelope system but by the niggardly estimates that were put in by the previous government for job creation. That is what we were limited by.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: One thing which gave me frustration when 1 took on this portfolio was to realize the previous government had totally wiped out all the direct job-creation programs, so that applying employment opportunities in those areas where they were most severely needed, or to the groups that most needed it, was not possible because they were going to employ exclusively the tax credit system. According to my figures, for example, some 60 per cent to 70 per cent of the job credit programs do not go into the high unemployment areas. So, what we were basically limited in is the very poor judgment and poor choice of the previous government. We have attempted in our best efforts to try to improve that in the time we have had. If we had not done this now, there would have been a total vacuum in job creation in this country for the next six months and thereby there would have been very major problems created.
But I can assure the hon. member that we did not take any money from his salmon enhancement program. 1 have discussed with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) that if a department such as his wished to put up capital works or capital money of that kind, then we would add to it the employment money so that major fish enhancement programs could take place. I think that is something which would be determined and blueprinted in each local region. We will be establishing a very strong area of autonomy for each of our regional officers to consult with the provinces and the private sector in each of the provinces to tailormake a jobtraining program which best suits their area. In those cases other federal departments could come in and add capital moneys to provide for a supplement so that we can undertake larger projects.


Benno Friesen: 1 am glad 1 had such a short question. Since the minister says he is taking nothing from the salmon enhancement program for the fisheries enhancement, 1 will be looking to the future to see whether the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) will be discussing the amount he is spending on the salmon enhancement program and allowing the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) to make up for his shortfall.
I should like to ask the minister about what 1 believe is called the new critical trades training program, or an appellation such as that. That is a good bureaucratic word; in street language it is called an apprenticeship training program. Could I have a short answer to that?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, in each of the provinces there are a number of ways the provincial governments organize the training of skilled workers. What we attempt to provide through our critical skills program is ways of paying allowances and ways of helping them pay for those programs. In some cases it is applied to apprenticeship programs; in other cases it is applied directly to the employer to provide on-the-job training on the factory site. It has flexibility in its application. That is why we do not try to restrict it to one use or the other.


Neil Young: Madam Speaker, in his statement the minister said he wants to aid target groups, and specifically he talked about the critical skill shortage in Canada. I have had some considerable experience in that particular area through the community college structure in Ontario. As a result of that experience 1 know personally that most employers have extreme difficulty in identifying the groups that the minister is attempting to identify. Could the minister advise the House what procedures or mechanisms he plans to use to do the kind of thing that employers seem incapable of doing?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I do not share the low regard for employers that the hon. member has. For the last two or three months 1 have been meeting with a variety of employment groups, both in the trade unions and in the products sector, and we have discussed the variety of skill shortages that they encounter. They know very well exactly what kinds of shortages they have. You only have to go onto the shop floor to know who they cannot employ. If it is a problem for those associated with the community colleges to identify that need, maybe that is one reason why we have difficulty, that those in the operation of educational institutions have not been communicating well enough with those actually working on the shop floor to identify what those needs are.
I can assure the hon. member that with the means we have available we put together a major catalogue of those areas where there are shortages, and we are attempting to work with each of the employment occupational groups. I would suggest to the hon. member that if he wants a good overview he should go back to the reports prepared by the previous Liberal government when they established the sector-by-sector approach, under the minister of state for economic development, which established a series of categories of skill needs in this country. I think that has proven to be very accurate forecasting.


Neil Young: Madam Speaker, I can assure the hon. minister that I have a regard for employers about equal to his own. My comments were based on personal experience with them. The minister identified social services such as day care, crisis
June 2, 1980

centres, and home care for the elderly, as essential services several years ago, or his ministry did. Would the minister tell the House whether the federal government has a commitment to see that these programs are not just implemented but are guaranteed to be ongoing? Are there any guarantees that after the programs have been completed they are not going to be left in the lurch and that there will be some federal moneys available, or will they be into short-term programs? What does the minister plan to do to make sure that those programs will be ongoing and will prove to be worth while? Could the minister give us some information in this respect?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, 1 will be very pleased to answer the hon. member's question as I think it is an important one. We were approached by a number of organizations, particularly those representing women, which indicated that one of the real problems in developing proper opportunities for employment of women in this country was a lack of support services such as child care, lunch and after-school programs, and various other forms of support services in the community. What had happened in the last two or three years, because of a kind of neo-Conservative philosophy bandied about or displayed by too many provincial governments and municipal governments, was that those services were the first to be cut and were in short supply. We feel that through this kind of program we will be able to assist such groups to regenerate those kinds of programs. We made it very clear to them that we could not usurp the jurisdictional responsibility of provinces for ongoing services.
This program is designed to provide an extra boost for groups and organizations in the non-profit, volunteer sector to start new programs which would help them to strengthen their organizations. For example, if a group or organization in the child care field wanted to develop a new volunteer base for its program, or fund raising for its program, this program is designed to do that. As we pointed out in our statement, we have extended it over a three-year period. We would measure and judge the program on grounds which would either indicate it would terminate after those three years or provide ongoing support beyond that.
We are doing it on a trial basis to see if it will work. What we think is critical is that we provide employment opportunities in that field and at the same time provide the service that will enable other people to become employed.


Neil Young: Past experience has shown. Madam Speaker, that once those programs have run their course and have proved to be useful to the community and the groups they were designed to assist, the funding has dried up, even though the need continues. The groups have been spending around 90 per cent of the staffs time and energy on fund-raising activities and the other volunteer services have been getting about 10 per cent.
Has the minister any specific plan to provide that once the funding has terminated this undesirable situation will not occur again, that there will be continued funding where these
Employment Strategy
programs have proven successful to the community and the user groups?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, perhaps I can explain it to the hon. member this way, that the ongoing support for the social services communities must come basically from the provinces. As he well knows, at the present moment the federal government pays 50 per cent of most of the costs of CAP. Those programs will be renegotiated and discussed with the provinces as the agreements are put in place. We are not trying to displace that major, ongoing social service funding arrangement between the provinces and the federal government with this program.
What we are trying to provide are supplementary programs to enable community non-profit groups to engage in extra activities that they would not otherwise be able to afford. For example, some people I spoke to this weekend who are in the child care field said their workers are so busy trying to provide the basic services that they do not have time to extend any additional services in the community, to measure needs, to do fund raising, to strengthen their base, or to develop the parental, volunteer side of their organization. Under this kind of program they would have the means to strengthen their organization under well-defined program objectives.
We are not only attempting to provide employment opportunities, particularly for women who will be working in this field. These are the areas that were cut out by the previous government through Canada Works programs and by municipal and provincial governments. It will enable those existing organizations to provide for extra activities, and demonstration projects or innovative projects that they could test themselves, or to provide supplementary activity. That is the reason we are putting this program into effect-to provide employment and to help those organizations strengthen their activity.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I have two questions, but 1 shall ask both at the same time. If the minister considers the over-all economic conditions in the country he will surely realize that in the auto industry, the farm implement industry, the housing industry, the steel industry, the retailing industry in general, the construction industry in general, and in the mining industry, there are massive employment cutbacks. Many people are being laid off in all those industries. Keeping that in mind, looking at the programs which the minister has brought in, and if we were in a period of full employment with many employment opportunities, and since this matter deals with a peripheral unemployment group, then I would say that this program is not bad.
Keeping in mind that we face massive unemployment and that we are following the economy of the United States into a further downturn, can the minister tell us exactly what programs such as these will do for people who are now becoming unemployed and who face the prospect of long-term unemployment because their jobs are disappearing due to the major downturn of the economies of the North American continent?

June 2, 1980
Employment Strategy
Can the minister specifically address himself to the matter of women in non-traditional trades where allowing $2 million to the extent of funding to 75 per cent of the total cost means 280 jobs at $10,000 a year per person. What in heaven's name is this supposed to do for unemployment?


Madam Speaker:: 1 am glad that the hon. member decided to ask his two questions at once. I would ask the hon. member not to make a speech and be brief in his questions. We do not wish to spend too much time on this matter, although I know that there are other hon. members who wish to ask questions of the minister.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, 1 think that the hon. member asked four questions and made five statements, not just two questions. However, the hon. member asked a very legitimate question. I am sure that everyone in this House would agree that major changes are taking place in the economic and industrial structure of North America. The problem will not be solved in a matter of two or three months.
As 1 said in my statement, this is why we have introduced a parliamentary committee, under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand), so that all members may join in public consultation over the next two months or three months with all the people in the country who are affected, to make their representations and concerns known. At the same time 1 have established within my department a major task force staffed by people from throughout the public service to begin working at the long-term public requirements in Canada in the 1980s. This task force will be chaired by the deputy minister.
As a result of those two major initiatives, 1 hope to be able to come to this House by the end of next year, in either October, November or December, with a major paper which will outline the employment requirements, what the public sector should be doing and what the private sector should be doing. This paper will also give an indication of our future direction based on those two initiatives. I agree with the hon. member that we must take a look at these matters.
In the meantime, the hon. member should not judge these particular programs as the government's only answer. As I said in my statement, the government is spending over $800 million this year in training programs. What I did was that I put more money into that fund. Over 250,000 people are being trained at the moment in this country with the support of the government. It seems that the hon. members ignore this obvious fact, that the government has a number of initiatives already in place.
What the government has tried to do with this program is to add to and supplement the other programs to fill in some of the vacuum areas, mainly in the area of direct job-creation programs. The government is fully aware of and sensitive to the needs, and it is trying to respond. As a responsible government should do, it is consulting first with those who are affected, looking at and reviewing its own programs, and, in the six fiscal months remaining in this year, it is using all the
available resources to apply to the hardest core problems, the special target needs in our society.
We must remember that what this program is doing is not with regard to a full year's financing. The cabinet was formed on March 4. There are only six months remaining in this fiscal year, and those are the months in which the $137 million will be applied. We cannot measure, as did the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), on the basis of a full year. What we are trying to do is correct the mistakes of the Conservative government.


Madam Speaker:: Order. I have a list of the hon. members who have risen. I will allow only one question each. The list includes the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), the hon. member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley), the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Kushner), the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), and the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy). The hon. members may not be called in that order to ask their questions. I would ask all hon. members to state their questions carefully and briefly. Each questioner will be allowed only one question, otherwise we will be here until five o'clock.


Mr. McDermid:: Madam Speaker, I have a point of order. 1 have been on my feet from the beginning, and 1 did not hear my riding called out as one on the list. 1 hope that you will include me.


Madam Speaker:: That is true. The hon. member is on the list. There is another piece of paper here.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Madam Speaker, I have a few very specific questions for the minister.


An hon. Member:: One question.


William Warren Allmand: It is one question, and 1 will get on with it. 1 believe that the minister mentioned in his statement that constituency advisory groups will be reintroduced. I would like to know whether those constituency advisory groups which, by the way, were abolished by the previous government last year, when it did away with the entire Canada Works program for the west end of Montreal, will apply to all the community programs, will the money be allocated on a constituency basis, and will there be a minimum amount of money for each constituency, which was not the case under the Conservative program.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his very pertinent question. I would like to answer yes to all three of his questions: Yes, the money will be allocated right across Canada, one region will not be selected over another, and there will be a basic constituency allocation for every constituency. There will be factors built in with regard to those areas of high unemployment, and those areas which have special needs such as native organizations will get a larger amount for distribution. Each constituency will have a basic
June 2, 1980

amount for its community development program. The constituency advisory groups that we established are being designed to enable a full and accurate reading of the real priorities in those areas. This reading will be provided through the person who is perhaps in the best position to judge, the member of Parliament.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, the minister in his statement indicated that while governments can move in these areas, there is a limit to what they can do, and that government efforts by themselves are not sufficient. What is required is a sound economic program to involve the private sector in job creation, co-operation between the provinces, and a whole host of other requirements. 1 am sure that one of the things which the minister would have in mind to assist what he has indicated is only a stop-gap measure to augment a program that is in existence now, would be some basis upon which he and we, as members of Parliament, and the public that we represent could understand the economic plan and economic direction of the government.
The minister must be as confused as everyone else with regard to the statements made by the deputy minister of finance in the Senate the other day and the statements made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) in the House about whether we will allow the deficit to grow or to decrease.
It is a confusing situation not only to employers but to everyone else.
Would the minister, given the importance of a sound base upon which any employment program can be built, call upon the Minister of Finance to end the uncertainty by bringing forth a plan of action and a budget so that the minister and other ministers will finally have some sense of direction as to where this country will go, and so that there can be real fight against unemployment in this country?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I would want to say to the hon. member that it depends on which side of the House one is on as to how one hears things. I am most impressed by the clarity and logic of the Minister of Finance in presenting the economic position of this government. By comparison to the statement made by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), when he predicted in his budget speech last December, that an additional 200,000 people in the country would be employed, the statements made by the Minister of Finance are exemplary.


John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, my question will take some leading into, but 1 will be brief. The minister has indicated to the House that he has done nothing but shuffle old money into new programs. He seems to ignore the fact that the government is borrowing $3 billion more than the Conservative government intended to borrow, which suggests that the minister has lost the fight for more money for more programs. That is the first point, and it is indicative.
My second point before I lead into the question is that the government in its previous incarnation as a government promised the Canadian people support for urban transit. It boot-
Employment Strategy
legged that in later on top of the program which was used to help solve the problem of railways at overcrossings, and called it the urban transit program. Today the minister indicated, after releasing the press release, that the major component of the program, the $100 million-which he indicates is no more money to be redistributed than there was in the beginning- will also be used for industrial relocation relief and for help in drought situations.
Is the minister, in fact, not saying to this House that he has lost the fight for more money for job creation? Second, has he already had to concede that some of those funds should be stripped from job creation for local salvation problems where they exist and are in real need, that those funds are going to be stripped from job creation programs so that in fact under this program we are going to wind up with substantially less money in direct job creation than would have been true?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, 1 find that a very surprising question. When 1 became the minister of this department there was no money for direct job creation. The Tories had stripped the funds totally from the estimates. There was not a cent left for direct job creation.
What we have tried to do is to restore the concept of direct job creation so that we can target in on very specific areas of unemployment because there was no money left in the budget by the previous administration to do that. It had decided, I guess for philosophical reasons which I accept, that the only means of creating jobs would be through the tax credit system. What was very clear in our measurement, that while the tax credit system has utility in some areas, and has been an effective program in part, it cannot be used to target in on the special problems of women, or of natives or the problems of high unemployment areas. The tax credit system is not employed, for example, in areas where there is unemployment over 11 per cent or 12 per cent, where there is not a small business component to take advantage of it. He says shuffle the money around. It is not so easy to shuffle the money around when the money is not there to begin with. What we had to do is restore direct expenditures of the government in the job-creation field because those direct expenditures had been removed.
1 would say to the hon. member that I do not agree that calling a necessity to respond to problems of reforestation, for example, in northern forests or on the prairie regions, is just simply a make-work project. There are major economic problems in those areas. I think nothing could be more useful than for this government to assist, whether it be in Windsor or in northern Manitoba, those Canadians to get back on their feet and start recreating an economic base. That goes back to the original principle of our statement: do we want to create work that serves more useful, meaningful job opportunities and national objectives? That is what we are trying to do. We are trying to twin those two objectives so that we get more bang for the buck".

June 2, 1980
Employment Strategy


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the minister regarding the programs, particularly those directed toward women, at least that is the suggestion in the statement. There has been a good deal of rhetoric expressed in recent months concerning the role of women. Certainly in the Speech from the Throne there were some welcome initiatives that were proposed. However, I would suggest that the amount of $2 million which is allocated in this particular program is really an insult to Canadian women, and what we should be looking at is a far greater amount in direct funding rather than essentially a bribery of the corporate sector to the tune of 75 per cent of the cost of the jobs.
I ask the minister to indicate in this area, partly as the minister responsible for the status of women, now that he has finally had a chance to put his rhetoric into action, whether this is the best that he can come up with. First will he not make a commitment to this House to restore the funding to Outreach programs which was slashed by the previous Liberal government? Second, will he not make a commitment to make direct funding for child care facilities, instead of hoping that some of the other funding which he has proposed will trickle down to the child care area? One of the ways in which women can be encouraged to enter the labour market is by adequate child care being available. Will the minister ensure that there will be substantially increased funding for child care?
Third, will the minister assure us that there will be tough affirmative action taken in the public sector to lead the way in this important area, rather than just making a suggestion that $2 million, which is really a slap in the face to Canadian women, is adequate to deal with the serious problems facing women in this time of difficult unemployment for all Canadians?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, it is sometimes unfortunate that certain members of this House are so eager and active in trying to engage in their own rhetoric that they refuse to see the real value when certain initiatives are being taken.
1 feel that it is too bad that the hon. member would be so anxious to condemn what is basically an important issue that has been discussed with a number of womens1 organizations across this country. I would say to hon. members that, in discussing the problem with a group called women in trades, for example, the fundamental problem that they faced after they had acquired certain skills in the workplace was providing an opportunity in the private employment sector to gain access into the specific shop.
I am trying to answer the question. If the hon. member does not want to listen, then maybe we should not talk about it. But I want to answer this question as honestly as 1 can.
When we examined what we could do and discussed it with different groups, they said that it is a starter program. You cannot inject a massive new program with money without seeing if it works. We put the money in. As I said, it is only within the latter six months of this fiscal year. If it proves to be effective, as 1 said in my statement, we will substantially enhance that program as a way of ensuring that women get
that opportunity in the non-traditional fields. But first we have to test it out. That is the intention of the program, namely, to test that particular formula to see if it works. If it works, I will guarantee to the hon. member that there will be substantially more funds for that program, and for other programs. But I am not going to rush into a program and spend all kinds of money without having an idea of whether it works or not.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: For the hon. member's information, at the present moment we have close to 80,000 women in training programs across Canada. By talking about 600 or 800, the hon. member does a disservice to mention those figures. There are close to over 80,000 women in training programs sponsored by the federal Government of Canada across the nation.
I can also tell the hon. member that the funds to Outreach have already been restored and we intend to increase them and develop new Outreach programs. We are consulting on that aspect at the present moment. As far as affirmative action is concerned, I would certainly tell the hon. member that we are presently working on an affirmative action program both in the private sector where we have signed a number of agreements with private sector employers, and we will be applying the same system to the public sector. We are presently negotiating to make that happen. 1 think that the hon. member will find that we will be living up exactly to the commitments made in the throne speech.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I am glad that the minister has not lost his temper yet. My question deals with the native opportunities training program. First, I would like the minister to clarify that the three defeated Liberal candidates whom he appointed in Manitoba and who reported to him yesterday on native employment projects will in no way be held responsible for the programs that are suggested today.


An hon. Member:: That is western input.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I am sure that they would not like to be blamed for any of the programs that came forward. Obviously if they made the report yesterday, they have no impact.
I would like the minister to explain how, by September of this year, he expects to find 3,900 training positions in the provincial institutions and in industry. I do not believe that by September this year it is possible to get these positions in line.
I do not believe it is possible, especially in light of what the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) said, to find positions in industry at this time. I think we are looking at a bunch of paper figures, that it is not actually possible to do what the minister is saying.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I can only comment on the total lack of faith which the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) constantly displayed in his statement about the ability of people to put things into effect when they want to. It may be that he is slow in moving on things, but we do not intend to be.
June 2, 1980

In this program we have already had several negotiations with native organizations. We do not intend to restrict our assistance simply to provincial institutions or to the workplace. We are also negotiating with a number of native organizations across Canada to see how we can assist them establish their own native training programs which would come with our basic principle of government, which is to increase the autonomy and self-sufficiency of native organizations across Canada.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam
Speaker, my question deals with a matter in which I have a special concern. 1 refer to the employment program and more particularly community development projects, community service projects, economic development assistance and so on. Are municipalities, municipal agencies, municipal libraries or other government levels eligible under those programs and, if so, can we take it that some municipalities might be interested in being actively involved and becoming the driving force behind those new schemes for the creation of employment?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, with respect to those programs I would tell the hon. member that in most of the cases the programs that we have announced, particularly those dealing with the leader program, we would welcome the participation of the municipalities. There are certain provinces, one in particular that is bordering on this province that we are now residing in, which does not allow the municipalities to participate directly in these programs.
As 1 said, I met with the provincial ministers to consult with them. What we intend to do is to allow each of our regional officers to sit down with provincial officials, private sector people and community people, to design a blueprint that is suitable for each of those regions.
In the application of the LEDA project, we would hope to have 15 to 18 of these projects in place by the end of next year. In these projects what we basically do is enable a community, a small growth community or even a downtown urban community, to establish a non-profit development corporation that would include representatives of the municipality, the business sector and the local residents. We would assist them to develop that corporation and provide seed money so they could take loans to establish new businesses. It is a way to try to get away from the short-term job creation and into long-term economic development programs.
I think it is one of the most exciting possibilities we have in terms of a new approach to job creation in Canada. If those 18 projects work, then we will expand the program, obviously. We would request and encourage municipalities to be involved in helping us with these programs.


Mr. John Kushner (Calgary East):: Madam Speaker, with all due respect to the minister, it is an embarrassment and an insult to the Canadian people-
Employment Strategy


An hon. Member:: Question.


John Kushner: Just a minute. 1 am just getting to the question. My question is: how can you blame the Conservative government when you have been in power for 11 years and you are still forming a committee to try to find out what the problem is? It does not make any sense.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Is he allowed to criticize the government?


John Kushner: My question to the minister is: in the technical and trade field, will the minister inform this Parliament if the trades in fact will be recognized by the apprenticeship board?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I am not quite sure. Perhaps the hon. member could repeat his question.


John Kushner: Does the minister know what a trade is, that you have to serve an apprenticeship and it has to be recognized by the apprenticeship board, the union, or whatever technical trade you may take? Have the unions agreed ?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member obviously knows, because he purports to be knowledgeable in this field, the apprenticeship program is under the provincial jurisdictions. They establish both programs and they establish the apprenticeship board. What we can do through our program is assist in the allowances paid to apprentices going into those programs. We have nothing to do with the licensing or authority dealing with the apprenticeship program.
I have met with all my provincial counterparts as well as having spoken to them on the phone. We have received proposals from them. We have indicated to them that we are prepared to co-operate if they want to extend their apprenticeship programs. The one thing that we do insist upon is that those apprenticeship programs have a much higher involvement of women and other people and not be so restricted. It is up to the provinces to negotiate the actual design of the apprenticeship program; that is a very clear constitutional authority. What we can simply do is aid and assist them in those areas.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I have a concern regarding the community services project set up with the funding of 100 per cent, 66 per cent and 33 per cent, a diminishing funding program for setting up various projects within communities. Has the minister looked into the experience of other government projects with diminishing grants from government to see the disaster that they have been? In fact once the federal funding has disappeared, the projects tend to disappear as well, or they are back at the door of another level of government asking for the funding that has been lost from the federal government.
I am thinking of an AHOP program, for example, which is a prime example of a program that in its original concept looked good on paper, sounded great, but when you put human nature into it, it turned out to be a real problem child. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove) likes to say that it is 95 per

June 2, 1980
Commission Representation
cent successful. 1 want to hear what he is going to say a year from now when all those mortgages come due.
In this particular program, has that type of thing been looked into? I am concerned that communities will be encouraged to establish these various projects, and then you will start withdrawing the funding and do not have suitable funding to replace it, and the good of the program will be lost.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I think that is a very legitimate question. It is one that we addressed a fair amount of time to, and one that we did talk to the provinces about. It is fair to say that we would not want to be in the position where we were simply designing programs that would then take flight and then come to a sudden thud. The reason for that in the previous programs was that it was usually just one-year funding and they would come to a dead stop.
What we would indicate, under the directions and instructions surrounding this program, is that those who apply for them would have to understand very clearly the terms of the programs. We have extended it to a two-year basis. Along the way they will have to become either self-sufficient or simply apply for a year or two to complete an actual project. When it is designed, as I tried to answer another hon. member when he raised the question, it is designed as a supplementary auxiliary program to allow those organizations to do things that they otherwise could not do because they would not have the people in place to do it.
We do not intend to replace or displace the base funding of a community served between the social services. That is a matter for a much broader negotiation between our government and the provincial governments in terms of the funding of health, community services, and cultural services.
What this will enable many of the organizations to do is to provide programs which they otherwise would not be able to provide in that time period of one, two or three years.
Just to give another example that comes to mind, there are a number of organizations trying to deal with the problem of immigrant women coming to this country, women who have arrived through the new refugee program. It is a program that is necessary to provide for education, counselling or services within the community. It is that kind of program for which this community services project would be ideally suited. They would have to define very carefully the objectives of the program. They have to understand that after three years it would terminate and they would have to become self-sufficient under those terms. What we would obviously want to have happen is that these programs would be worked out even on regional levels with our directors general of regional commissions, with the provinces and community service sector, so the programs would be well understood according to those criteria.


CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
Robert Lloyd Wenman: for leave to introduce Bill C-597, to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act (provincial representation).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Madam Speaker, we have arrived at a critical junction in our country's history. The vastness and diversity of Canada have always contributed to conflicting demands upon the federal system. Today these demands have climaxed into separatist movements in both the east and the west.
I do not pretend that this bill, the first of three which I will be introducing dealing with the question of provincial representation, will make more than a modest effort to slow down the divisive tendencies so evident in our society today. But I would like to think that these bills are in keeping with the spirit expressed both by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) in the House following the referendum, when they spoke of the legitimate aspirations of all Canadians and the need for more effective and representative national institutions and mechanisms.
My bills do recognize that provinces have legitimate aspirations and moreover, valid demands for input into decision making when the outcome of those decisions is of fundamental importance to them.
As it presently stands, the act establishing the Canadian Radio-television Commission does not provide for provincial input into the appointing of commissioned membership. Changing the act to require the approval of the majority of provinces for these appointments would go a long way toward overcoming provincial accusations that the federal government is ignoring the concerns of those regions outside of central Canada. These changes would, in effect, provide a mechanism whereby the provinces could ensure that their concerns would be recognized. At the same time these amendments would ensure that the administrative efficiency of the commission would not be impaired.


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

[ Translation]

Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 60, 1 am

June 2, 1980

tabling a notice of ways and means and 1 ask that it be put on the order of the day for debate.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
Order Paper Questions CROWN ASSETS DISPOSAL CORPORATION Questions No. 191-Mr. Herbert:
1.	For each fiscal year (a) 1977 (b) 1978, what was the total revenue and net earnings or deficits for the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation?
2.	For each year, what was the total (a) of direct or indirect subsidies or other benefits conferred by the government on the corporation (b) of loans, advances or guarantees extended by the government to the corporation (c) investment by the government in the corporation both before and after any write-off?
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)	Hon. J.-J. Blais (Minister of Supply and Services):
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 114, 184, 191, 283, 339, 612, 701, and 926.


Mr. Cossitt: Total Revenue	Net Earnings
I. (a)	$13,229,073	$(69,318)(b)	$12,656,680	$100,5481978	19772. (a)	nil	nil(b)	nil	nil(c)	$171,997*	$71,449*
* Working capital advance
1.	Was Commander Don Lory, Press Secretary to the Hon. Barney Danson when he served as minister of national defence?
2.	Did Commander Lory serve in the same capacity with the Hon. Allan McKinnon when he was minister?
3.	Is Commander Lory serving in the same capacity to the latest ministerial incumbent and, if not, for what reason?
4.	Was it government policy in the past to consider the position a political job and is it government policy, at present, to consider the position a political appointment?


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	No. As a military officer Commander Lory has been posted to another job.
4.	No. It was not government policy in the past and it is not government policy at present.


Mr. Herbert: As at March 31 in each of the past five years, what amount was outstanding in the accounts of Canada in respect of the National Museums Purchase account?


Mr. Peter Stollery (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: I am informed by the National Museums as follows:
Fiscal Year March 31, 1976 March 31, 1977 March 31, 1978 March 31, 1979 March 31, 1980
Amount $5,504,710 5,400,878 1,145,691 1,869,967 1,000,744


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


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: 1977	1978
1.	Total Revenue	24,461.000	24,730,000Net Earnings	96,000	137,0002.	(a) None(b) Loans from Government of Canada	9,540,000	14,564,900
(e) None


Mr. Herbert: Since April 1976, what properties, land and/or buildings have been (a) transferred out of (b) acquired by, the Department of Veterans Affairs?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: (a) 1. Westminster Hospital, London, Ontario, real property (lands and buildings) on the north side of Commissioner's Road (79.12 acres) transferred to the province of Ontario under the authority of order in council (PC-1977-3198, dated November, 1977).
2.	Westminster Hospital, London, Ontario, real property (lands and buildings) on the south side of Commissioner's Road (246.5 acres), transferred to the province of Ontario under the authority of order in council PC 1979-1460, dated May 9, 1979.

June 2, 1980
Order Paper Questions
3.	Queen Mary Veterans Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, real property (lands and buildings) transferred to the province of Quebec under the authority of order in council PC 1978-8/2264, dated August 4, 1977. Acreage 20.8.
4.	Camp Hill Hospital, Halifax, Nova Scotia, real property (lands and buildings) transferred to the province of Nova Scotia under the authority of order in council PC 1978118/723, March 9, 1978. Acreage 11.8.
5.	Colonel Belcher Hospital, Calgary, Alberta, real property (lands and buildings) transferred to the province of Alberta under the authority of order in council PC 1979-5/2919, dated October 25, 1979. Acreage 3.5 approximately.
6.	Lots 29 and 30, Block 70, Plan A-1, Calgary declared surplus to departmental needs and now administered by Public Works Canada.
(b) Nil.


Mr. Howie: How many lawyers are employed on staff in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans?


Roméo LeBlanc: The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has no lawyers on its staff. Lawyers assigned to the department are employees of the Department of Justice (4).


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


Ursula Appolloni: 1. Ten.
2.	(a) 10, (b) and (c) Nil.
3.	Four.
4.	$55,467.50.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to question No. 670, which states in part, that the Department of Supply and Services does not compile lists by electoral districts for the purposes of calling tenders on an invitation basis, did the department furnish the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville on November 9, 1979 with a list of those used for inviting tenders for Leeds-Grenville and, if so (a) was the list headed "Leeds-Grenville Vendor List" (b) how does the government explain the discrepancy in the answer to the question?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: The
department did provide the hon. member on November 9, 1979, a list of vendors registered with the department and located in the constituency of Leeds-Grenville.
(a)	The list was headed "Leeds-Grenville Vendor Listing".
(b)	The list is not "used for inviting tenders for Leeds-Grenville". The list was extracted at the request of the hon. member's office and drawn on the basis of postal codes for the constituency.
[English)


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, 1 would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, May 29, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen that Bill C-30, to provide supplementary borrowing authority for the fiscal year 198081, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose the bill now before the House. As a matter of interest 1 note there are now 19 members sitting on the benches opposite. I wonder how many of them will still be in the House at the end of my remarks. That will be a process of deflation; I shall be talking mostly about inflation.


An hon. Member:: Count your own side!


David Kilgour: I am sorry, 1 left out members of the New Democratic Party. There are six of them here.
As hon. members know, the bill authorizes the government to borrow $12 billion for the fiscal year 1980-81. Some of us do not know what $12 billion really amounts to, so I made

June 2, 1980

some calculations last night. The Ottawa Journal tells us that a Silver Shadow Rolls Royce now sells for a mere $138,000. So according to my calculations, $12 billion would provide 140,000 "Silver Shadows"-enough to buy one Rolls Royce for every man, woman and child in the city of Saskatoon.


An hon. Member:: Why not do it?


David Kilgour: A lot of Rolls Royces, Mr. Speaker! That example might help in putting this figure of $12 billion into perspective. As members know, the amount deals with projected budgetary and non-budgetary cash requirements tabled on April 21. I should like to begin by placing before the House examples of the way in which past Liberal governments have spent the taxpayers money. It goes without saying, I believe, that the policy of the present government, if it follows the pattern of Liberal governments in the past, will be: spend and spend, don't tax and don't tax, in an attempt to elect and elect. The examples 1 have selected are taken from a book entitled "A Legacy of Spending", published on the west coast; this is the second printing, I understand it has gone through many more since this edition was published. I bring them before the House on the premise that most Canadians will see the link between deficit spending and inflation, which is what most of us are concerned about. My first example, taken from this work, might be called item one:
Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau went on national television in a major press conference to talk to the Canadian people about inflation and the country's financial future. He said this-
There are, now, I think, only 17 members sitting opposite.
"We would be on the way to national disaster if nothing were done to bring spending under control. To spend vast sums on welfare, education and other programs while allowing inflation to continue-


Mr. Manly:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


David Kilgour: By all means, at the end of my talk. The quotation goes on:
-would merely place hundreds of thousands of Canadians on a treadmill they could not escape."
The Prime Minister also committed the government to a substantial cut in the federal civil service.
What has happened since August 13, 1969? According to this work, government spending has increased by $34 billion.
Item number two is a quotation from the Canadian Press in The Province dated Thursday, November 3, 1977.
Finance Minister Jean Chretien introduced legislation in the Commons which would give the government authority to borrow up to $9 billion . . . the request for new borrowing authority comes on top of a $17 billion authority to borrow which the government received in March of this year.
Now, of course, the government is asking for $12 billion, so presumably at the rate these demands are increasing it will be asking for authority to borrow $18 billion of $19 billion by fiscal 1984, if it is still in office.
My next item, number three, is a quotation from the Nobel Prize Winner in Economics, Milton Friedman, speaking on CBC Radio on February 20, 1977:
Borrowing Authority Act
There is only one place where inflation is made in Canada, and that is Ottawa. The unions don't make inflation for the simple reason that the unions do not own a printing press on which they can turn out those multi-coloured pieces of paper called money. The reason you have inflation is because the government has been printing too much and spending too much.
An example of this which many of us think of, though it is not in this book, is the loss of $130 million which Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, a Crown corporation, incurred selling its Candu reactor to Argentina, of all places.
The next example has to do with contracts. 1 believe members opposite know very well what contracts to their friends and consultants have amounted to over the years.
During 1975 and 1976 there were about 5,000 outside people under contract to the federal government to 72 departments, agencies or Crown corporations. The total cost to the Canadian taxpayer in those two years was some $148 million.
The latest example of what 1 call the government's use of contracts to reward its friends is that of the contract which was awarded to their candidate in Calgary West, Doug Laugh-lin, whom I know and find to be a pleasant individual. He has been hired by the Minister of Immigration and Transport at a salary, I am informed, of $50,000 a year, which is higher, I understand, than any other member of the same department.
I think the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) conceded last week that a large part of his job, if not the only part of his job, would be to try to build up the Liberal party in western Canada. I assure hon. members opposite that it will take more than Doug Laughlin or 50 or 100 Doug Laughlins at $50,000 a year to do anything about getting the Liberal party off the ground or out from under the ground in western Canada. However, I cite that as one example of why hon. members opposite are asking for $12 billion in borrowing authority.
Item number five is simply figures respecting the deficits of the Post Office. I will only give the last few because it will get monotonous if I go beyond that. In 1972-73 the deficit was $90 million. In 1973-74 it was $177 million. In 1974-75 it was $320 million. In 1975-76 it was $546 million. In 1976-77 it was $671 million. In 1977-78 it was $567 million. 1 am told that the current deficit for the Post Office is of the order of approximately $700 million.
I am also told that the agreement the government has entered into with CUPW is worth approximately $20 million. Other unions will understandably want the same thing in terms of lunch breaks, and this will increase the deficit by about $30 million. When all the other government agencies and public employees ask for the same thing, that could amount to hundreds of millions of dollars.
Item number six deals with the question of the burden of debt. Please bear in mind that this is a couple of years old, but I do not think the situation has improved. The total direct government debt at the end 1976 was $96 billion, of which about $60 billion was owed by the federal government. I am quoting here:

June 2, 1980
Borrowing Authority Act
Canadian governments are already deeply in debt at a time when they ought to be able to borrow to stimulate recovery. They have gone into debt to provide services and allowances the economy could not afford-to cover deficits, in fact. Governments have taken too much of the capital that was needed by private industry to build new or expanded plants-
I add parenthetically that that seems to have a relevance to what we were discussing a few moments ago.
-to create manufacturing jobs and beyond them service jobs. Servicing the enormous debt burden can only increase taxes (or borrowing, which in the end would be worse), and that can only further impair our already poor competitive position in world trade. Politics there has been. Foresight there has not.
Let me point out that interest charges on the public debt from January 1, 1976, to September 30, 1977, have amounted to $8 billion.
Item seven might be repetitive, but it is interesting. I am not sure of the date of this article, but it is a Canadian Press article and reads in part as follows:
The words of Paul Gerin-Lajoie, former president of the Canadian International Development Agency, did not come cheaply for the Canadian taxpayer.
In fact, it cost more than $20,000 to prepare and publish a speech he gave last May in Montreal, entitled The Arab World and Canada: Prospects for Co-operation.


Mr. Evans:: Did you lose your place?


An hon. Member:: How long is this going to take?


David Kilgour: Item number nine deals with annual reports from the Canada Council, and there are seven or eight pages or grants by the Canada Council. 1 think some of them are quite amusing, in a sick way. The first one is for $32,972 "to study the prehistoric cultural ecology of Caspian Escargotieres in North Africa between 8000-5000 B.C.". The next one is a mere $7,395 "to conduct research in England, Louisiana and California on administration values and logic". The next one is a mere $4,280 "to study what people do with themselves when they don't have something to do".


David Michael Collenette: They speak in the House of Commons.


David Kilgour: I think this one is priceless: $170,000 "to study air-breathing fish of the Amazon River". The preparation of a book on the functioning of the state cost $30,000. A study on the structure of households and social mobility in Graz, Austria from 1857 to 1910 cost $25,390.
The next item is under the heading " 'Madness' as reported by the Auditor General", and I quote:
A judge who sat on the bench for only seven months was given a pension of $18,677 a year and was paid a salary of $98,591. He was arraigned on criminal charges arising out of stock dealings of Northern Ontario Natural Gas stock. The judge was acquitted at his second trial.
Under the heading "What's a Million", Don Sellar of the Southam News Service wrote in November of 1977:
As even the wealthiest of men will tell you, a million dollars won't buy very much these days.
Probably no one knows this better than the Trudeau government, which spends several million dollars each year while running up deficits of several million more.
Here's a $1.1 million federal government shopping list culled from the files: -Flag display kits, the answer to our national unity woes, $421,000;
-Preparations for a study of "dynamic fatigue in fiat grass," a measly $100,000;
-A supply of "projectile simulators," $308,227;
Another item in the Vancouver Sun of June 27, 1974, carried the heading "The public paid $99,000 to create two jobs". It explains how $99,000 of our tax money went to create two jobs. I wonder if the jobs are still going.
The following might be of some interest particularly perhaps to members of Parliament. This item is entitled "It's a Sweetheart of a Pension Scheme".
A member of Parliament is eligible for pension after six years of consecutive service. It is possible for a person to be elected to the House of Commons at the age of 18, retire six years later, and go on immediate pension for the rest of his life.
The pension is based on the best consecutive six years of earnings by the MP Example: based on an average salary over the last six years of $20,000, an MP with-
Then it gives some figures. A member of Parliament with six years' service would receive $325 a month; with eight years' service, $466 a month; with ten years' service, $583 a month; with 15 years' service, $833 a month. How the Canadian public puts up with that is beyond my ken.
The next item is headed "The Prime Minister's Office, Cost of Operation Year by Year". In 1968-69 the cost was $767,000. In 1969-70 the cost was $1,103,000. In 1970-71 the cost was $900,000. In 1971-72 the cost was $1,131,000. I am rounding these off a little bit. It gets boring, does it not? In 1976-77 the cost was $2,270,000. In 1978-79 the cost was $2,676,000.


John Leslie Evans: Try 1979-80.


David Kilgour: 1 am sorry. I do not have that figure, but perhaps that question should be put on the order paper.


Walter David Baker: Put it on, John.


Mr. Anguish:: If you are out of words, count the members again.


David Kilgour: 1 think some of the members are getting restless. I will quote from a letter to an editor to try to perk them up. This letter was written by Simma Holt, who used to be a member of this House. It is hard to pick out which part to quote.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Quote it all.


David Kilgour: I will just quote the first paragraph. 1 know hon. members would like more. Simma Holt was writing to the editor of the Vancouver Sun, and she wrote the following:
On November 12 you carried a letter with a large picture of a dewy-eyed girl suggesting that I was a cruel, heartless woman because I refused to give this young lady and her small group $50,310 in Local Initiatives Project funds, thus depriving the old, young, disabled and sick-all those who sound helpless and pathetic.
She did not tell you, nor did you check far enough to find out for yourself:
-That this small group, using several names, working out of one small office, have been living off the public purse for the past three years;

June 2, 1980

If anybody wants to see more, I will be happy to show them the article.
The next one is a piece headed "Liberal Ridings Cash in on LIP" and the subheading reads "$106 million". Then 1 will quote Ian Hunter from the Vancouver Sun Ottawa Bureau. It reads:
Liberal ridings received nearly twice as much as Conservative ridings in LIP funds in 1972-73. Urban affairs minister Ron Basford's-
He is more or less defunct as a member of Parliament.
-riding received more than any other represented by a cabinet minister.
It mentions some other ministers' ridings. It says that the riding of the present Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) only got $2.8 million, that Westmount-which again has a Liberal minister-got $2.6 million, that Rosedale got $1.6 million-I wonder how much it will get this year-and the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) riding only got $615,000.
The final item here is a simple quote from an article of December 1, 1977, headed "Federal Spending Still Out of Control", quoting J. J. Macdonell. It would appear from the amount of the loan that the government is more than ever out of control in terms of spending.
I see I am going to run out of time, Mr. Speaker, so let me say something about the connection that this sort of spending has with inflation. At least in my riding inflation is one of the largest concerns of people who expressed this view to me. Again I am referring to a projected deficit of $14 billion, which hon. members opposite have indicated to us during the throne speech debate.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak very briefly now about what some of the leading world economists have said about inflation, and this might be applicable to Canada. I say that in that context, to buy what 45 cents would buy in 1968 now requires slightly more than $1 in Canada. First is Paul Samuelson who, I think, members will be aware is probably the dean of the economics profession in the United States. Literally millions of Canadian and American students have read his books. I think his views on inflation might be of interest to the House. He wrote that inflation
-can be stopped by reducing government spending, raising tax rates and swinging the budget into balance or surplus.
This appears to remain Dr. Samuelson's thoughts on inflation and deficit spending.
Second, let us refer to Milton Friedman who, like Samuelson, writes a weekly column in Newsweek magazine and won the Nobel prize for economics a few years ago. As hon. members here will know, he is the leader of the monetary school of economists and is clearly more professionally concerned with inflation than is Dr. Samuelson. Friedman has written that the way a government-


An hon. Member:: What are your views?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Borrowing Authority Act


David Kilgour: There are nine members opposite left in the House, if my adding is right, and they are making a noise over there. Here we are talking about inflation. Mr. Friedman wrote that the way a budget deficit is financed is the heart of the inflation problem. In his view, money supply changes alone account for long-term price changes. In his opinion, the only condition for prosperity without inflation is for the central bank to:
-stabilize the rate of increase in the money supply at a rate approximately equal to the real rate of growth in the economy, say 4 per cent to 5 per cent per annum.
What is not appreciated is that he is not opposed to deficits in times of unemployment, but would not allow governments to pay for them by means of new currency printed for that exclusive purpose. He says that politicians permitted to meddle with money simply print too much of it, which in turn brings inflation, destroys the frugal instincts of its citizens and in turn:
-creates conditions that force governments to play a larger role in the system. In due course, inflation leads to economic collapse, climbing unemployment, and hence an even larger role for the state.
Some hon. members will recall a few years ago when the government of Mr. Callaghan in Britain was finally converted, I think. Inflation then was running in Britain at about 25 per cent a year and unemployment, interestingly, had never been higher since the great depression. Trying to convince people that inflation and unemployment are connected is a difficult but worth-while task, in my view.
Next I should like to refer to John Kenneth Galbraith who, as we all know, was originally a Canadian and has written many books. It is interesting to note that as early as 1952 he concluded that inflation was:
-the clear and present economic danger of our times.
In "The Affluent Society", which we probably all read, Galbraith wrote that inflation:
-falls on the weakest members of society, those with fixed incomes and those too poor or powerless to bargain for compensating wage increases.
His solution, as many of us know, is price controls backed by appropriate fiscal and monetary policy.
Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to conclude at five o'clock, or perhaps just before five o'clock to allow my hon. friend a question. But before concluding let me say that, in my view, Canada can have full employment without inflation. Members opposite, particularly members of the NDP, might ask: how can you do that? My submission is that the only way we can do it is the way that West Germany and Japan have done it, namely, with a sound fiscal and monetary policy.
I have a friend who recently visited Japan where, incidentally, unemployment now is at about 1.6 per cent. You will get disputes on what inflation is presently in Japan and West Germany, but it is certainly below the 9 per cent we have in Canada. In fact I understand it was less than 4 per cent in Germany until very recently. I see that hon. members opposite are disputing that. I did say it was open to dispute as to what it is this month or last month, but over the last year my understanding is that it is less than 5 per cent or 6 per cent in

June 2, 1980
Adjournment Motion
both countries, for a very good reason. The reason is that they recognize what inflation will do to their country and what continued gross financial irresponsibility will do to Canada or to any other country, and it is on that basis that I think members on this side of the House recognize that we cannot go on running up larger and larger deficits or we will end up, as West Germans know so well, literally using a wheelbarrow to go to the store to buy groceries.


An hon. Member:: Call it five o'clock.


David Kilgour: I do not wish to call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker, because my friend in the NDP will call me a coward. May I accept his question and stop prior to five o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It will have to be with the unanimous consent of the House because it is now five o'clock. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has been quoting from the book "A Legacy of Spending" written, I believe, by a Mr. Murphy, and he has been quoting it with some approval. 1 wonder if the hon. member is aware that Mr. Murphy has been convicted in court in British Columbia of attempting to bribe a cabinet minister in the British Columbia government in order to remove land from the agricultural land resource.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Kilgour: Of course it has nothing to do with the quotes.


James Douglas Manly: It has a great deal to do with the quotes.


David Kilgour: I can assure the hon. member that the quotes were almost entirely ones from newspaper articles or other material. Even the Minister of Finance will tell us things which, if they are correct, we accept. Having been a Crown attorney in British Columbia for nine years, I can assure the hon. member that 1 have no sympathy with Mr. Murphy.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman)-Environmental Affairs-Detrimental effects from volcanic ash eruption of Mount St. Helens; the hon. member
for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser)-External Affairs- Reunification of families-Representations to U.S.S.R.; the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie)-Nuclear Energy-Underground water disposal research project in Manitoba.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions and public bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan to provide for the pensions payable under these two acts to be available at age 60 to all persons who meet the other requirements of the said acts and who are not in or are prepared to withdraw from the labour market, and also to provide for the basic amount of the pension payable under the Old Age Security Act, at age 60 for those not in the labour market and to everyone at age 65, to be increased to $400 per month, for this basic amount to be escalated each year by an amount that will enable pensioners not only to keep up with rising living costs but to share in rising living standards, and also to provide for the elimination of any means or income test from the Old Age Security Act, so that the full pension thereunder will be recognized as the established right of all our people.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I shall be stating the obvious if I suggest that this motion is in a field concerning which I have made a few speeches before today. As a matter of fact, although my concerns for the people I represent touch all areas of their lives, my concern most often expressed in this House during the years that I have been here has been for senior citizens, veterans, and others who deserve better than they are receiving.
As I have said on previous occasions, it was probably in the stars that 1 would have this interest in the House of Commons. It so happens that on the day I was born, which was June 18, 1908-please, that is 1908, not 1808-


Walter David Baker: We heard that, Stanley.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -this House was debating the second reading of the first piece of legislation dealing with a form of pensions for the people of Canada. It was the Government Annuities Act that was debated and passed that day. I was not involved in that day's debate, but I guess it got me started. However, it was not long after that, when I was about 18, that I learned of the effort being made in the House of Commons by Mr. Woodsworth, my predecessor as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, which resulted in the first old age pension. It was payable at the rate of $20 a month at age 70, with a very severe means test.
Not many years after that, indeed in the early years of the depression of the 1930s, my own father lost his job as a
June 2, 1980

railway machinist and found himself at the age of 58 without any pension or any resources other than the meagre savings which he had been able to put together.
I did not get up with the idea of telling my life story or doing that sort of thing-


An hon. Member:: Go ahead; it is Canadian history.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -although I am being encouraged to do so. It so happens that at that time I was a minister in the United Church in downtown Winnipeg. I had studied many years to be a United Church minister, and that was the career which I had intended. I still have that status, but the shock of what happened to my own father in 1933, and then the misery that I saw among so many people in so many of the homes I visited in connection with my work as a minister of the United Church, led me to the feeling that I had to do something more than preach about a better future; I had to get into the struggle. So, 1 was propelled into political life by a number of factors, but largely by what happens to older people in a society that is not really concerned for them.
I am proud to have been a member of this House through these several decades in which we have greatly changed the picture from what it was in the early years about which I have just talked. Instead of a pension of only $20 a month payable at age 70 with a severe means test, now we have a pension of about $186 a month payable to everyone in Canada who is age 65 or more, who meets the residence requirement, and we have the guaranteed income supplement which can be had on top of that, and also the Canada Pension Plan. Then we have other pension plans that have developed and in recent years. We have been able to improve the position of our veterans. So, the story is one of improvement, but it is no time to stand still.
Our senior citizens, for the most part, are still living below the poverty line. No matter how much we might boast about what we have done, we cannot be content when anyone can stand and say that, that most of our older people are living below the poverty line. To be specific, the fact is that all senior citizens who are single are living below the poverty line. Those who are married and living in rural parts are about up to the poverty line, and that is also true or will be true in July for those who live in smaller cities. But even for married couples who try out the proposition that two can live cheaper than one, many of them are still below the poverty line. That is why 1 put this motion on the order paper year after year. It usually gets talked out. Surely the attentive audience I have today will not talk it out. Surely we are all sympathetic. Surely we will pass this motion today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I say to the government that consideration ought to be given to the propositions set out in this resolution.
The thing I feel is most needed is what is stated in the first part of the resolution, namely, the lowering of the eligible age. We have it down to 65, but the number of people, particularly women, in years just below that, from 62 to 65 or 60 to 65, or
Old Age Security
even younger for that matter, who are in dire straits, is a disgrace to the good name of Canada. The arrangements we now have for the spouse's allowance do not meet the situation at all. The spouse's allowance helps some women in that age bracket, namely, those who are married to spouses who are over 65, but it provides nothing at all for women who are single, whether they are unmarried, divorced or what have you. The plight, as we all know, of unattached older women in this country is something of which we ought to be very deeply ashamed.
I feel very strongly that the answer to that is not more programs like the spouse's allowance, not programs that have a marital test in them, not programs that have a means test in them. My contention is that the most logical and humane approach is to provide the pension at age 60 to persons who are out of the labour market. It is very simple to apply that test. We had that kind of test once on the Canada Pension Plan benefits between the ages of 65 and 70, but we removed it in favour of no test at all.
In other words, I am not advocating that pensions be universal at 60 as they are at 65, but I say that those who are out of the labour market ought to get that opportunity, ought to have the right to receive their pensions, both old age security and the Canada Pension Plan. It would not take long for that kind of program to do far more by way of providing jobs for young people than was proposed today by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy). Just make it possible for persons between the age 60 and 65, by leaving the labour market, to draw old age security and the Canada Pension Plan and, 1 suggest, several hundred thousand jobs would be opened up right away.
That, however, is not my main purpose in making this proposal; the main reason I do so is that I think it just does not make sense and does not accord with the way we think about things in Canada for our older people to be suffering at all.
I suppose if this debate is not finished by six o'clock some of those who take part will say they are sympathetic with my viewpoint, that they want to do something for older people but we cannot afford it, that this is a time of restraint. That is what finance minister Charles Dunning said to J. S. Woods-worth when he first proposed a pension of $20 a month at age 70-the treasury could not afford it, the country would go broke. When the bill went to the Senate their honours opposed it because they said it would not be good for the old people to be getting pensions out of the public treasury! The pensions they were getting over there for life did not seem to bother them. It did not drive them to the dogs but it would do that to older people generally.
Let us not have that kind of statement today, Mr. Speaker. Even if it is a time of restraint it is not the time to put the burden of that restraint on the weaker members of our society. Families do not do that. If a family is in economic straits it does not put the main burden on the weakest and most helpless members of the family; it does some sharing and sees to it that

June 2, 1980
Old Age Security
the family as a unit gets along. Let us not put the burden of our economic problems today on those who are older by condemning them to continue to live below the poverty line, while we find money to spend billions on aircraft, while we find it possible to bail out Chrysler Corporation and outfits like that, while we appoint Dr. Cliff Mclsaac and the Hon. Leon Balcer to study the possibility of raising the pay of MPs. If they do recommend that, 1 hope we will have enough decency not to go for it while senior citizens are still living below the poverty line. Do not tell me that restraint has to be borne on the backs of those least able to bear it.
The whole business of government is one of deciding where to spend the money. Sometimes in this place you would think the job of Parliament is to keep government from spending money. 1 am not against government spending money but 1 want it spent fairly. It is not being spent fairly when our senior citizens are suffering as they do today.
As I say, this applies generally, Mr. Speaker, but it applies particularly to elderly women who are unattached. These things could be resolved by accepting the proposition set out in this motion.
I say in the first part of the motion that 1 think the eligible age should be brought down to 60, and I say in the latter part of the motion that the amount of the pension ought to be increased. The figure I give is $400 per month which is a little bit more than the total of old age security and guaranteed income supplement will be after July 1. My proposal is that it be on a universal basis. 1 am still as sold as I was the day I first came here on the proposition that it is not just, decent, and humane to say to older people that to get what they need they have to prove their poverty. Tax it back from those who do not need it. We could do it if we had a sensible income tax system. We should not require people to submit to an income or means test, however. My proposal is that it be paid universally and that the few-the 8 per cent or 10 per cent at the top who do not need it-can be required to pay it back. Let us not continue this concept of a means test as it applies with respect to the guaranteed income supplement.
I believe the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) agrees with me, but she always has to defend the other position. The other day she said she wondered why we kept pushing the concept of universality when, after all, it had been won. Then she said she suddenly got the idea that maybe the reason we do it in this corner of the House is because we are afraid that it has not been eternally won. She is dead right, Mr. Speaker. Battles do not stay won if people do nothing about them. There have been voices in this very session saying that we should reconsider the whole position and not stay with universality, that maybe we should take it away from some and give it to others. Unless some of us keep fighting for the principle of universality, we could lose even the universality we have as it applies now with respect to the basic amount of the old age pension.
I said the other day that I got out of character a bit, a while back, by attending a Senate function. It happened to be that testimonial dinner-


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't worry; it was not over there in the Senate chamber, it was in the West Block, which is a House of Commons office building. The guest of honour for the evening was David Croll, who deserved a testimonial dinner. In his speech, speaking as a man who has been through the same decades I have been through-although perhaps almost one more-he pleaded with the people who were there that night to realize that the two principal diamonds in the crown of social legislation that we built in this country are universal old age security and universal medicare.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: David Croll said, "Dont't let anyone take away from those basic victories." Every time we add a little more to the guaranteed income supplement and do not add any more to the basic old age security, we are moving from universality to selectivity. When we do it in respect of medicare by fees and that sort of thing, we are moving away.
These, in my view, along with some other things like family allowances and the improvements we have made for veterans, are the best things that Parliament has done in the years that 1 have been here, since 1942. 1 want to see them preserved. 1 do not want us to lose any of them whatsoever, but I also want to see them improved.
1 feel very strongly that Parliament is at its best when it is concerned with those who need concern expressed for them- those who are ill, disabled, children or older people. We have done well, but we must stay with it. That is why I ask this House today not to go through the usual ritual of talking out this motion, but to give it a chance. Even if the motion passes it does not put these things into effect. The motion cannot read that way because I am a private member and I cannot move anything that involves the direct expenditure of money. The passing of this motion would say to the government that it is the opinion of this House that these things should be done. I hope that is the view of hon. members who are in the House this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who just spoke mentioned the year of his birth, and I am glad he clarified that. There are some in this House and in the other place who feel he has been here for much longer than that. Although you and 1, Mr. Speaker, were born long after the hon. member, and came to this House long after him, I want to report that 1 came to this House for the first time as a visitor in 1950 when 1 sat in the gallery. My party was then in opposition, under the leadership of George Drew. 1 looked down upon the bald heads of the then Liberal government at such members as the Hon. Jimmy Gardiner, the Hon. C. D. Howe, and the Hon. Douglas Abbott. When 1 cast my mind back on those giants of Liberalism, I am really shocked at how this party opposite has crashed and tumbled down in ability and substance. But that is beside the point. I am not
June 2, 1980

here to castigate the government, but I could not resist that comment.
During that period of time I also saw and heard my first speaker for the New Democratic Party, which was then called the CCF party. The first speaker whom I heard was the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I do not know whether that was the name of his constituency then. He has nodded his head that that was the name of his constituency.
The hon. member was speaking during the course of a debate on the subject of the plight of old age pensioners- those who have left the work force, those who are dependent at that point on others for their way through life. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has mounted a tremendous crusade during the course of his parliamentary life, a crusade from which he has not deviated one foot. It is a crusade which the hon. member continued when 1 had the honour to act as House leader for a government in this chamber. During the Thirty-first Parliament there were calls by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon), who became the minister of veterans affairs in the Clark government, both then and while he was in opposition, asking for improvement in the plight of veterans, veterans' pensions and the widows of veterans. That call had been mounted for some time by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
When the hon. member for Victoria became the minister of veterans affairs-and I know that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will back me up on what I am about to say-one of the priorities of the then minister and the government was indicated in one of its earliest pieces of legislation, a bill which 1 think would be acceptable to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre if it was introduced today. The bill deals with improving the lot of veterans. I hope that the government, when the questions are asked in the House of Commons with regard to the position of veterans-a group of people to whom this country owes a great obligation and its independence-whether the questions come from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre or the hon. member for Victoria, that the answer will not be that the matter is before government. This matter has been before government for some time. There is a bill ready, and it should be introduced and dealt with expeditiously. When that bill is introduced-and 1 say now, doffing my hat as a private member and as a leader of my party in the House of Commons-we will give it speedy passage.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Such a bill is important, and it would have received speedy passage by our government. It is important that the bill be introduced and passed now.
While I pay tribute to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who has urged that cause, I want to pay tribute as well to the hon. member for Victoria who, being a veteran himself,
Old Age Security
when he was minister, and knowing the plight of these people, pressed the case in cabinet and brought a bill to the House of Commons which, I wish, could have been dealt with before the government fell.
There is not a member of Parliament, no matter from whence he or she may come and regardless of the constituency which he or she represents in this House, who will not say to anyone who asks that there are people in his or her own constituency who are disadvantaged as a result of raging inflation. Elderly people are disadvantaged by the requirements of old age, being unique in themselves, and the absolute inability of the present pension system and the amounts paid under it, even with the $35 which we added to the GIS last week through the mutual consent of the House. I am sure that there is no member who is prepared to say that the present amounts are adequate. If there are such persons, then I think those members are out of touch with the system.
A week or so ago the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) released a study on the future of the nation's elderly. The study said that if the prognosis for the future is to be gleaned from the report, one would have to describe it as bleak, and the largest burden would appear to be falling on women who tend to live longer. I hope that the government, spurred on by this motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, will speed up consideration of the changes which must be made in the pension system.
The changes apply not only to the public area, with which we can deal directly once the study which is under way is completed, but to the private sector which also has problems that must be addressed. The big bite with the whole pension system is with respect to inflation. This report notes that only a handful of private sector pension plans offer increases to help offset the effects of inflation on employees. In many places there have been ad hoc contributions to partially offset, but according to the report, such adjustments really only go about half way to answer the effects of inflation. That report was tabled in the House by the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
With respect to the public sector plans which have been described by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and with respect to the private sector plans, what we have is an inadequate system which cannot meet the needs of a population which is aging, not to mention the increase in the proportion of that population which is growing old. People are living longer today, and the figures in this area are quite dramatic.
I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that, in the name of restraint, it is inhumane and improper to look to those who are no longer in the work force, who are no longer contributing to inflation and who are, in fact, the victims of inflation to bear the burden of that restraint program. I am not suggesting that the balancing in government is easy. I was in government and I know that it is difficult. However, this is an increasing problem and that is why I am concerned.
1654

June 2, 1980
Old Age Security
The Globe and Mail of this morning indicated that the government is considering removing the indexation of income tax in order to reduce the government's budget deficit. Such a measure would not impact very heavily upon me or upon any other member of this House, but it will impact very heavily on people of lower incomes. Before the government moves to implement such a proposition, it must think very carefully about what it is doing. 1 believe that the index feature was put in place to help taxpayers escape the ravages of inflation. I think that that indexing feature as it applies to income tax can have a very important bearing on taxpayers of moderate income, and that includes old age pensioners.
When the government considers its programs for pensions and superannuation that are available to its own public servants, it is equally important that it not give with one hand and take away with the other, all in the name of restraint.
There has been a considerable amount of discussion over the years. It was discussed by the government of which I was a member, and it was discussed during the course of the Thirtieth Parliament. There was an attempt during the course of the thirtieth Parliament to come to some balancing of the equities in the course of that debate. 1 think that that balancing of the equities should at least be maintained. I think our efforts should be directed toward looking at the somehow private and the public system and attempting to marry them so that out of it there will come some adequate form of security for one's old age.
The most significant statement that appeared out of that report on the plight of the elderly, tabled by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, was this:
If the real value of such pensions is allowed to erode to the extent that occurred in the 1970s, the whole employer-sponsored system could well be seriously called into question.
What does that say to people who grow old, leave the work place, and have these inadequate pension plans in the private sector? They could ask about the obligations of the government in the public sector. What it says then is that we have an obligation, growing at an alarming extent, to examine the public sector side to see whether there can be an appropriate marrying. If we allow the pension systems in this country, both public and private, not to meet the needs of Canadians, and the failure to meet that need grows with the reality of the economic situation in the country, then I want to ask everyone in this House what they are going to say to old age pensioners, what they are going to say to retired people when they come and ask what the government intends to do about the situation that exists.
I guess a lot depends on one's view of the role of government. Quite frankly, I think if it is any role at all to govern, its primary role is to protect the disadvantaged. They can be disadvantaged because of physical handicaps, because they need new training to get other jobs, because social programs have changed or because they have grown old. They have become either unable to compete or are in such a position that
one ought not to ask them to compete in the work force. So those are the problems that face us as we go down the road.
The motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was a very timely one. I want to give you some indication of the seriousness of the problem that is facing the men and women of our generation and the generations that are to come who will sit in this House. 1 want to give some information that was in the study tabled by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tabled by the minister.


Walter David Baker: Tabled by the minister in this debate that has been brought on by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The study had some alarming conclusions for all of us, one of which was:
Only 48 per cent of workers were members of employer-sponsored pension plans in 1976. Many of these will never collect an adequate pension because most plans are not portable and rules regarding an employee's right to ownership of pension credits-known as vesting-are too stringent.
In other words, what is being said is that while we have to look at the private sector pensions, the writers are pointing down the road to a time when we will be asked by the general public to look at some augmentation from the public pension sector to enlarge those plans. Another conclusion reads:
More than half of two million retired persons collecting pensions also receive guaranteed income supplements-
These are the additional benefits paid to needy pensioners. Continuing, the conclusion reads:
This makes clear that many people who were not in straitened circumstances during their working lives find themselves in that situation after retirement.
That is what that statistic means. It is nice to have augmented it by $35 a month. It really means our assault on that problem with the provision of $35 a month is probably not sufficient, and we will probably have to face it again down the road. It was also pointed out in the report as follows:
The Canadian employer-sponsored pension system is behind most other western industrialized countries in terms of coverage and vesting provisions.
Less than half of workers with employer-sponsored plans have survivor benefits, leaving widows without any extra support in their later years.
Up to one-half of middle-income earners making between $12,000 and $24,000 will see a significant drop in living standards after retirement unless the public and private pension system is reformed.
I think that study which was tabled by the Minister of National Health and Welfare just a few weeks ago indicates how serious is this problem that we face.
I say to you that it is not an appropriate response to say that pension plans now indexed should cease to be indexed in order to meet the problems of government and the problems of restraint in government. That is and always was an improper approach to take. 1 think rather that our efforts in this House of Commons through the studies that are going on within the government-and I wish there was a study by Parliament to do it as well-ought to address how to improve the public pension program of the government, how to better marry that public pension program with the private sector programs and how to supply the benefits for that 48 per cent of workers.
June 2, 1980

What about the 52 per cent of workers, who were not members of employer-sponsored pension plans in 1976? How do we deal with the people who must go for a means test to get the G1S? This indicates an inadequate compensation under those pension plans. Those are the problems with which this Parliament should grapple. We should not let our efforts with respect to reform and review of the social system be overshadowed by events outside this place.
It is in that spirit that 1 believe the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has brought forward this motion time after time. There are arguments about retirement ages. The member for Winnipeg North Centre thinks the retirement age should be reduced to 60. I think that is something that ought to be reviewed very carefully, particularly by the groups studying the pension system. That hon. member is himself the best argument there is against compulsory retirement age in this House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Those are matters that we must address. We do not have the luxury of putting under the rug, putting aside and handling with little band-aids some very fundamental problems in our society as it changes. That is the spirit with which 1 greet the motion in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I want to thank him for giving the House an opportunity tp debate and discuss this important matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. David Smith (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss this motion put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I was interested in his biographical remarks made at the beginning. I believe the hon. member was born in Los Angeles. At the time he was born, my mother was living in Los Angeles, moved to Winnipeg shortly after when her father, my grandfather, became a minister of a church in Winnipeg. So we have that background in common.
This motion reflects the hon. member's ongoing interest in our public pension system. 1 consider the debate quite timely, particularly in view of the fact that we have recently debated plans to improve the retirement income system in Canada.
In my opinion, it would be most appropriate for me to focus my initial remarks on a brief discussion of these plans. In so doing, I am hopeful that at least some of the concern raised in the hon. member's motion will be alleviated.
I wish to refer specifically to two announcements made in the Speech from the Throne which give proof of this government's commitment to meet the social challenges of the 1980s. First-is the following:
Inflation strikes hardest at the old and those least able to take care of themselves.
We announced our intention to introduce legislation that would raise the guaranteed income supplement by $35 a
Old Age Security
month per household beginning July 1 of this year. As the hon. member knows, we have acted promptly in this regard. On May 24, all parties gave approval on third reading to Bill C-16, which proposes amendments to the Old Age Security Act.
The measures endorsed by this House will, as has just been mentioned, provide a $35 a month increase to each pensioner couple currently in receipt of the GIS and spouse's allowance benefits. It should be noted that this increase will be added to the quarterly cost of living increases already provided.
The fact that 1.3 million persons, representing over half the OAS population, receive these income tested benefits indicates that clearly there is prevalence of poverty among elderly Canadians. In effect, this means that all GIS recipients who are unmarried or who are married to persons who are not OAS or spouse's allowance beneficiaries will receive the $35 increase. In the case of a GIS recipient married to another GIS recipient or to a spouse's allowances recipient, each spouse will receive a $17.50 monthly increase so that the over-all increase in benefits will be $35 per household.
I have just described how the government's proposals will benefit current GIS and SPA recipients. I would like to draw the attention of the hon. member to another important aspect of the bill, namely, that an additional 45,000 persons will automatically become entitled to receive these benefits as a result of the increase in the GIS income threshold.
Broadly speaking, the proposals which I have just outlined reflect the government's concern for the economic hardships faced by pensioners on low incomes. For now, hon. members opposite should recognize that Bill C-16 represents an early attempt on our part to provide relief to elderly people who are facing immediate economic hardship.
What about long-term solutions for the retired population as a whole? I want to assure those present today that we are looking beyond immediate solutions in this short term. Indeed, during the course of the debate on Bill C-16, we stated many times that it is our intention to seek solutions to the many pension issues facing us now and in the years ahead.
During the debate we emphasized a commitment to convene a national conference on pensions this fall. This conference is being planned because we know there is a tremendous challenge awaiting us in terms of coming to grips with existing problems in Canada's retirement income system. Make no mistake; I am referring here to problems in both the public sector and in the private sector.
We know, for example, that the system we have is not giving pensioners enough retirement income to maintain their standard of living. It is not giving pensioners enough protection against inflation. It is not meeting the needs of women working in the home or women in the labour force. It is not doing enough for the disabled or the handicapped. It is not protecting the pension rights of workers who change jobs. In short, the system is not doing its job.

June 2, 1980
Old Age Security
This fact is well recognized by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre whose motion today is testimony of his commitment to positive reform. As the hon. member knows, we now have at our disposal a substantial body of well-researched material which identifies problems in the pension system and recommends alternatives. I could point, for example, to the report of the Task Force on Retirement Income Policy, which the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) tabled on April 21.
Among others, the report of the Ontario royal commission which is due this fall will undoubtedly provide important input to the discussions ahead.
So the background research is near completion. What we need now is a forum in which to focus our attention on the options open to us. That is the reason the National Pension Conference will be convened. It will provide such a forum. It will enable us to bring together members of society who represent pensioners, workers, employers, advisory bodies, the pension industry and the various levels of government. We want to obtain their views and to develop a co-ordinated course of action for the reform of the pension system. I should stress that any process of reform will require close consultation with the provincial governments, whose support and co-operation will be vital if the necessary improvements are to be achieved. We hope the result will be the find of adequate and effective pension system that Canadians want and deserve.
I realize I have devoted quite a bit of time in this debate to describing the steps now planned for improving Canada's retirement income system. It seems to me the motion before us cannot, and should not, be considered in isolation from current pension reform initiatives.
In effect, today's motion is, for all practical purposes, identical to the one put forward by the hon. member in January, 1979. This certainly speaks well for the hon. member's tenacity. When that earlier motion was debated on the floor of the House, the hon. member recommended that the basic old age security pension be increased to $350 a month. This time round, I note that the figure has been revised upwards to $400 a month.
I am sure that, in an ideal world of unlimited resources, we would all readily adopt the hon. member's suggestions. However, we all know only too well that these are far from ideal times, in economic terms at least. Our economic resources are limited.
1 was interested to hear the hon. member for Nepean-Carle-ton (Mr. Baker) give support to the goals of the motion. However, when the government of which he was a member was in office, I do not believe there were any initiatives along the line we recently demonstrated when we raised the supplement by $35 a month. His party is continually berating this side for the existing deficit, to say nothing of what the deficit would be if this motion were to pass. Our economic resources are limited.
One of the principal messages delivered in the throne speech was that "Canadians recognize the need to live within their
national means, and they understand that in doing so the state cannot meet every demand or satisfy every group." This government would be irresponsible to ignore the economic reality. And so, we are seeking to direct the limited resources available to those who need them most. That is exactly why we have introduced Bill C-16.
In contrast, this motion implies that we should eliminate the guaranteed income supplement program altogether, and opt instead for an increased OAS pension in the amount of $400.
That brings about some serious inequities. For example, assuming the OAS pension were raised to $400, persons now receiving the basic pension of $186.80 would derive a net increase of about $213. Certainly they would be at the low end of the need scale. But what about OAS pensioners who are now entitled to receive the maximum guaranteed income supplement? Already, these persons receive $314 at the married rate and $340 at the single rate. So their net increases would only amount to $86 and $60 respectively.
Over all, those in greatest need would benefit least from this proposal. Instead of narrowing the gap between rich and poor, this measure would cause it to widen considerably.
Aside from the question of equity, the suggestion to raise the basic OAS pension to $400 a month is simply too costly. As mentioned previously, the current OAS benefit is $186.80 a month, which adds up to a cool $5.3 billion a year. That does not including the guaranteed income supplement or the spouse's allowance which, together with the $35 GIS proposed for July, add another $2.2 billion to the over-all projected program budget for 1980-81. Were we to raise the pension to $400 a month, as the hon. member suggests, the annual program costs would skyrocket to $10.8 billion; $3 billion in excess of our projected budget. That figure only reflects the increase which would result if the age criterion remained at 65. If it were reduced to 60, the figure would be astronomical; it would go through the roof. Just imagine the increased costs if we were to follow another of the hon. member's suggestions, namely to pay the pension as early as age 60 to those who are not in the labour force.
In addition, since the Canada Pension Plan is a contributory program, the increased costs of paying earlier benefits would have to be borne by Canadian workers and their employers. We have known since the plan's first inception that the contributory rates would have to rise from the current 3.6 per cent of contributory earnings. Indeed, questions concerning how much this increase will be, and when it will come into effect, are currently being studied by a committee of federal and provincial finance officials. Although their study has not yet been completed, we do know that the contribution rate will have to rise to about 8 per cent over the course of the next half century. And that is the rate projected without major changes to the plan. If, on top of this, you were to add the increased costs resulting from retirement benefits payable at 60, contribution rates would start escalating dramatically. Before passing on that burden to future generations of contributors, I think we would need to weigh carefully the long-term implications of the hon. member's suggestion.
June 2, 1980

I would like to move on, now, to the suggestion that any means test or income test be eliminated from the Old Age Security Act. First, let me clear up any misconceptions here. Neither the guaranteed income supplement nor the spouse's allowance benefit is means-tested, if we define a means test as an examination of both income and assets. Rather, these benefits are determined by an income test, based on the income of the individual as defined by the Income Tax Act. The latter is a more generous approach which enables a pensioner to own assets such as a home, and still remain eligible to receive some financial assistance. It is also a more humane approach in that the individual's personal possessions are at no time subjected to scrutiny, as they would be under means-testing.
But I know the hon. member is more concerned with a discussion of principles, here, than with semantics. What he is really proposing is to raise the old age security benefit and to do away with the income-tested guaranted income supplement and spouse's allowance benefits. In other words, he is questioning the principle that financial assistance should be provided to those in greatest need, a principle which, as I said earlier on in this debate, will be the cornerstone of this government's approach to social policy for some time to come.
Given the limited economic resources available, I think it is fortunate that we have a vehicle such as the guaranteed income supplement program through which the government can continue to direct assistance to those who need it most. As mentioned previously, Bill C-16 will enable us to accomplish this goal.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, 1 note that the hon. member remains committed to automatic indexation of benefits based on some measure of the Canadian standard of living. This point was discussed at some length during the debate on Bill C-16. As we all know, old age security, guaranteed income supplement and spouse's allowance benefits are indexed four times a year, taking into account quarterly increases in the consumer price index. I must say I find the frequency of the increases and the close relationship they bear to recent rises in the cost of living to be two very commendable aspects of these programs. I know the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would probably not agree with me on this issue, but I think it would be very difficult for him to come up with an indexation tool which would be as available as quickly as the consumer price index is. The speed at which the index becomes available is one of the factors which ensures the responsiveness of these programs to the increasing costs of accommodation, food, clothing and so on which our pensioners must face.
One of the most common criticisms of the method we use to index these pension benefits is that the consumer price index is not representative of the increases in the cost of living of pensioners. Critics often say that the basket of goods used to determine increases in that index contains many items which pensioners do not include in their own shopping baskets. Many of them suggest that a separate index should be devised to reflect increases in the costs of items which pensioners actually
Old Age Security
purchase. In response to this suggestion, a number of studies were undertaken by Statistics Canada, the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Economic Council of Canada. The Economic Council stated in its 1976 Annual Review that consumer price indices calculated for different income groups deviated only slightly from the price index published by Statistics Canada. The health and welfare study substantiated this finding. Statistics Canada produced an experimental price index for a group of low-income families based on the 1969 family expenditures survey. They found that for the period from June, 1973, to June, 1977, the official CPI had increased to a higher level than the experimental CPI for low-income families. In other words, if the experimental CPI had been used to index pension benefits pensioners would not have been as well off as they actually were when their benefits were increased by the official consumer price index. Incidentally, I understand that Statistics Canada is in the process of analysing data received from the 1978 family expenditures survey. This may reveal a substantial change in the spending patterns of low-income persons and pensioners. If this is so, then perhaps the studies I mentioned might be redone to determine whether the results obtained the first time are still valid.
Other critics of our indexing methods have suggested that benefits be increased in line with changes in other indicators such as average wages and salaries, the average of salaries of persons in five designated categories of workers in the public service, the total disposable income of persons in Canada as measured by taxation data, and so on. On this subject I would like to say to hon. members who are concerned about a quick response to changes in the cost of living that most of these indicators are not available as quickly as the consumer price index, and for a variety of reasons. Wage and salary data is required from employers; contract settlements often take place months after the contract has expired and income tax returns are required only after four months from the end of the taxation years. The use of indicators such as these would involve an even greater time lag than the current method using the C.P.I. Further, I cannot see how salary or tax information could be used to provide quarterly indexation.
In the second place, the goal of the indexation of benefits is to maintain the purchasing power of pension benefits and protect pensioners from the effects of inflation. On the grounds of equity, it would be nice if pensioners could share in the increasing prosperity of the Canadian economy. However, it has been estimated that to increase OAS/GIS benefits according to increases in average wages and salaries would have cost us over $100 million in 1979. As most hon. members know by now, the government has chosen to adopt a policy of granting assistance to persons most in need. Thus, instead of granting assistance to all OAS pensioners-some of whom have enough income to disqualify from receiving GIS-we have chosen to direct funds only to GIS pensioners. If we were to have changed, at this time, the vehicle for indexing benefits, there might not have been sufficient funds for the $35 per household increase that we approved in this chamber last week.

June 2, 1980
Borrowing Authority Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. 1 regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question!


Mr. Peter Lang (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have just a minute or two left in which to make a few observations on this subject. I say the motion does not help those who need help the most. So it is not in line with what the Liberal government did when it brought down its proposal to increase the GIS by $35 a month. Furthermore, it would tend to worsen the plight of pensioners on fixed incomes, and do so in the following way: by increasing government spending we increase our deficit and accelerate inflation, and inflation hits the pensioner the hardest. This motion disregards the cost of such a program to the taxpayer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what Dunning said to Woodsworth.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock!
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being six o'clock, the hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has expired. I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At 6.01 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen that Bill C-30, to provide supplementary borrowing authority for the fiscal year 1980-81, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. When the debate was interrupted at five o'clock this afternoon, the motion for second reading of Bill C-30, to provide supplementary borrowing authority for the fiscal year 1980-81, was under consideration, and the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) had the floor. The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona not being present, 1 will recognize the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans).


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief, but I do want to say a few words about this. I have always worried about giving the government a blank cheque, and that in essence is what we are doing at this time. I can recall on other occasions in another place discussing similar kinds of legislation, and it worries me when the government asks, as it does here and it does traditionally, for authority to go into the marketplace to borrow money at any time subject only to the approval by itself.
The government is saying that it wants us in the House of Commons to allow it go to any part of the world to borrow in whatever amounts it requires up to many billions of dollars- $12 billion, to be exact-and to borrow in funds of any country from which it wishes, and to repay in those same funds. It makes no reference to how it will be responsible to this House. We have to understand that in this year 1980 and into the year 1981 we are dealing in the House of Commons with expenditures of a new government for which there has not yet been a budget.
We are dealing with expenditures of a government which has not yet presented to the House of Commons any indication of how it intends to spend taxpayers' money and how it intends to finance the ongoing programs of government. What we are being asked for today is somewhat unusual. We are being asked, prior to seeing what the government's expenditures are going to be or how it intends to finance its expenditures or how it intends to raise its money or how it intends to pay whatever portion of the deficit it may accumulate over the next 12 months, to authorize extensive borrowing. If not from here, at least from elsewhere my understanding has always been that prior to the government's asking for such authority it normally places before the House of Commons or the representatives of the public its intentions with regard to how it proposes to deal with the finances of the country or of the jurisdiction. We have no budget, we have no economic strategy, we have no clear program for reducing the deficit, and we have no employment strategy. We do not have any idea which area of the world the government intends to turn to in order to do its borrowing. We do not know at what rates of interest it may be interested in borrowing money. We do not know how it intends to pay it back.
We have no idea where the Canadian dollar will stand vis-a-vis other currencies in the world, and yet we are being asked tonight to authorize government borrowing of up to $12 billion.
However, and more importantly, the government has abdicated its responsibility with regard to fiscal policy in any event. It has said that we are going to pursue the same basic fiscal policies of the United States. It has handed over to the governor of the Bank of Canada absolute carte blanche-


John Leslie Evans: That is monetary policy.


June 2, 1980


Ian Deans: 1 am coming to that-with regard to monetary policy, so that at this point there is absolutely no responsibility on the part of cabinet for the monetary policy of the country.


John Leslie Evans: That is totally false.


Ian Deans: The governor of the Bank of Canada at the same time has turned around and said that he will allow interest rates to float in whatever way they may during whatever period of time he is in office.
In fact what we are doing is saying we are prepared to give to this government, which has run up substantial deficits, the right to continue to borrow for whatever programs it deems are necessary at whatever rates of interest and from whatever countries, without we or the government-"we" meaning the Elouse of Commons-having any jurisdiction over any aspect of monetary or fiscal policy.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: Thank you. Nice of you to drop by. 1 needed your help.
Let us put this into perspective for a moment. I think it would be more appropriate if the government, first of all, were to tell us what it intends to spend in ball park figures and with what goals over the course of the next year.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: Thank you. Before the government asks for authority to borrow, they should tell us what it is their budget is likely to contain. That is the first point. The second point is that the government should then set out for us, at a time of considerable economic stress, what their strategy is for dealing with the economic problems of this country. 1 think the government should establish for the House of Commons and the people of Canada how it intends to deal with the ever-declining economic conditions of this country and how it intends to use the necessary strengths that the House of Commons has given the government in order to try to develop a new and more progressive economic strategy. I think we have to learn from the government how it intends to raise whatever it intends to raise in order to begin a program of clearing up, over a long period no doubt, the deficit position in which we continue to exist. I think we are entitled to know from the government how it intends to deal with the ever-increasing unemployment in the country so that we can see who is going to pay the bills, and how the people are going to pay the taxes which will have to be levied in order to pay back the $12 billion that will be borrowed.


An hon. Member:: You talk like a Conservative.


Ian Deans: No, 1 am not a Conservative. I am talking about common sense.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: You are talking about sensibility.
Borrowing Authority Act


Ian Deans: 1 want you to know that the Conservatives and common sense are, generally speaking, poles apart.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that at this point in time it would be very difficult to convince the public of Canada, given what we do not know about the expenditure programs, about the fiscal and monetary policy, or what we do not have before us about the government's intentions in these important areas, that it is appropriate for the House of Commons to turn over to the government the authority to borrow.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Blank cheque.


Ian Deans: It is funny; that is the term that I used when I started. Had you been here, you would have heard it.
That is what worries me about it. 1 do not see how any government can ask for approval to borrow money until it tells us, at least in general terms, what that money would be used for. I do not see how the government can legitimately expect that the House of Commons would give approval to the government to go out and borrow this money without any understanding of how this government proposes it would repay that, over whatever period of time and in whatever way. I can recall the debate in which I was involved some years ago when the Ontario government borrowed in Germany in Deutschmarks. Perhaps for the first time in the Ontario government's history, it borrowed in foreign currency.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: This bill allows them to do it.


Ian Deans: Having borrowed in foreign currency, it discovered that not only did it have to repay the principal plus the interest agreed, but when it took into account the disparity in the value of the dollar-a considerable reduction had taken place in the time that it had the use of the money-it discovered that the actual interest rate it was paying was almost twice as high as the rate at which it would have been able to borrow the money on the North American money market. Incidentally, those were fiscally irresponsible Conservatives.
I want to suggest that, therefore, when this government puts into this piece of legislation that it should be given the authority to borrow in foreign money markets, you must understand that what the government is saying is that the effective interest rate must also take into account the value of the Canadian dollar in the money market and that the effective interest rate will undoubtedly be considerably higher, if all the current trends continue, than we would expect to pay were we able, with careful management over a period of time, to self-finance.
I want to say to the government that I think this is an inappropriate piece of legislation at this time. At least, I think that portion of this legislation is inappropriate. 1 am not so dumb I cannot understand that governments from time to time require to borrow just as other people do, and I am not pretending for a moment that I do not approve of the government borrowing money from time to time in order to finance long-term projects. 1 am not suggesting for a moment that we

June 2, 1980
Borrowing Authority Act
are able in any society to self-finance on an immediate cash flow basis. But I am suggesting that when we see a piece of legislation without knowing exactly the intent of the government with regard to expenditure and revenue, and when we see a piece of legislation which allows for interest rates about which we have no idea, when we get this from a government that has no real control over the monetary policy of the country, and when we see a rapid deterioration of the Canadian dollar against other currencies, and then we see the Canadian economy suffering as it is now suffering at the hands of multinational corporations which frankly do not care that much about what happens in Canada, and when we see people unemployed and unable to pay their share which they must ultimately pay if we are going to be able to repay these loans, and when you see the government bringing in, as it did this afternoon, a piece of legislation dealing with employment which in fact does not even begin to address the major problems which confront the majority of constituencies across the country from the east to the west coast; when you see all of those things happening and you understand that the unemployment that we are currently facing will continue to rise, then you have to ask yourself, where are we going to get this money from and at what rate of interest? You have to ask yourself, how are we going to pay it? What are we going to pay? What are we going to use as collateral? What do we have that other people need?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The savings of our older people.


Ian Deans: We have energy that other people need. We have certain natural resources that other people need. We have certain natural benefits, water being one of them, that other people need. What is it that we are going to mortgage away over the next ten or 20 years? I would like to know the answer to some of those questions because, frankly, I believe that it would be better if the government were to come to the House of Commons quarterly and ask for permission to go into the money market and raise whatever capital they require on that basis. 1 would much prefer that we agree to divide this bill so that at the end of the first quarter the government may have borrowed a quarter of what it requires, and at the end of the half year it may borrow another quarter, and so on, so that it is answerable to the House of Commons, having to come back to the House and justify its expenditures and its borrowing, its interest, and the depreciation of the dollar. I would suggest that an appropriate amendment to this might be made at some point in the future which would make the government answerable to the House in that way. 1 am really not prepared, as one member at least, to give the government carte blanche. I am not prepared to say 1 accept as a matter of course that the government will handle this borrowing appropriately, that it will not misuse it as it has in the past, that it will borrow with care and consideration, that it will get the very best deals, and that analysts will do an analysis of what the money trends will be at this time as opposed to what they were last time. Quite frankly. 1 feel that this piece of legislation, although no doubt it is necessary to give the government power to borrow, is asking for too long a period. 1 do not deny that it may be
tradition in the House of Commons, but tradition is something we can change. It asks for too much too soon. I would much rather the government reconsider it and came back with a piece of legislation which enabled us in the House of Commons to look much more critically and much more carefully, not only at the expenditures, but at the way in which it is going into the marketplace, the rates of interest, and the actual total dollars it would have to pay. For those reasons I feel very reluctant to see this piece of legislation passed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to fight the February election all over again.


An hon. Member:: You lost.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: No; as a matter of fact 1 won. In fact the message from western Canada was very clear. One of the obligations 1 must fulfil is to express the concern that at least western Canadians feel about the size of government. In the last campaign I campaigned largely on the basis of fiscal responsibility based on restraint in government spending and a gradual reduction of the national deficit. That was the basis of every speech I made. It was the basis of my campaign material, and the basis upon which the people of my constituency voted for me. Therefore, it is absolutely essential that I should stand up and object when in fact the people of my riding in western Canada are getting just the opposite.
Extending the authority of government to borrow lessens the will, the necessity and the capacity of government to repay and work toward balanced budgets and reduced national debt. In 1980 western Canadians voted against increased government spending and deficits. They voted for an end to the paternalistic control and domination of the manufacturing base of central Canada and domination of the manufacturing base of central Canada and the federal government. Somehow in western Canada there was in fact a double protest vote this time. It was more than just against large central government; it was against the paternalistic central control of big government. I think that needs to be recognized particularly at this time in the House.
This is a bill which further centralizes economic power through the onerous burden of escalating national debt. This bill can only add more fuel to an already growing sense of western alienation. The roots of western alienation or separation are complex and difficult to express. The roots are historical, geographical, sociological, emotional, traditional, but, above all, the roots of separatism in the west are economic. Western alienation is not a new phenomenon. Perhaps in the past the roots have been a bit dry and weak, but in the 1980s, watered by new economic powers in the west, they are blossoming forth with an identity that must be listened to, and must be understood. This must be responded to in the same way that Quebec has been heard and, hopefully, will be responded to, again with more than this traditional paternal pat on the head with some token words about responsible
June 2, 1980

Canadianism. Somehow in the west we are not supposed to say anything. It is somehow unCanadian if this comes from the west.
Specifically, what are the kinds of things the west is talking about? The question always comes up: "What are you complaining about? Do not tell us you are mad, angry, upset or that you do not like this. What specifically do you want?" Of course the question of oil pricing is paramount. But just to list a few, there is interference in the resource control management, unfair freight rate systems, inadequate transportation systems, inadequate incentives to process upstream, that syndrome of the hewers of wood and drawers of water. In addition there is insufficient access to the United States and Pacific rim markets in terms of the products we produce, lack of secondary industry and lack of representation on national boards and institutions. Somehow in the west they feel the great potential that is there is wasted, unrealized and held back. The reality is that westerners feel at this time politically impotent, ignored and exploited by both Ottawa and Bay Street.
Central Canadians have dominated the Canadian economic and political scene for so long it seems to anyone who comes from the west to central Canada that everybody believes it is his natural right to continue to do so. But I want to tell this House that central Canadian feudalism ended with the total rejection of the Liberals in western Canada, just as surely as it ended in Quebec with the election of Rene Levesque.


Mr. Kaplan:: Temporarily in both cases.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: 1 hope they are temporary in both cases, I really do. But if we take them lightly and pass them off, neither will be temporary. In fact they will become a reality. If the Government of Canada does not get the referendum message from Quebec, I can promise that it certainly will from western Canada. We often talk about "the true north strong and free". We stand up and sing about it, but the western part of this nation is strong and free also. We intend to remain that way. We want the understanding of the Quebec referendum and of the 1980 election clearly understood. We want to see a strengthening in a renewed confederation, a renewed confederation which recognizes the coming of age of western Canada.
Some people keep saying that it is just a few, that it is the lunatic fringe out there who are talking in terms of western alienation toward the centre. I used to think that perhaps that was true. In fact, approximately three or four years ago I sent out a questionnaire to my constituents, like so many others. 1 asked in that questionnaire: Do you want your province or region to remain as a part of Canada? At that time I was pleased with the response. I sent out some 45,000 and 95 per cent of the people who responded to that questionnaire said, "Yes", we want our province or region to remain within Canada. But I sent the same questionnaire out last month. 1 should like to report to the House of Commons tonight that it was the same basic group of people responding to the same question 3.5 years later, but this time it was not 5 per cent, but 14.7-15 per cent. There was a 300 per cent increase in
Borrowing Authority Act
western separatist sentiment in British Columbia over the last three years.


An hon. Member:: It is your fault.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: It is the fault of members opposite because they are not listening. It is not because of the way I am talking in the House. I have been here five years and I have never stood up and said that. I have tried to say that 95 per cent wanted to stay. I was not worried about it then, but 1 am worried about it today. I am very worried about these results. I believe them to be so. It is true that a lunatic fringe was speaking approximately six years ago. At least, we thought that is all it was. We passed them off, and I passed them off as a member of Parliament, but today in western Canada these are the businessmen and the men on the street. The number is increasing, no doubt. Dick Collver represents a certain sentiment which is much stronger in western Canada now than it has been in the past. It needs to be recognized.


An hon. Member:: That is the trouble with the Liberals; they do not listen.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: The concern that I have with my questionnaire is not just that we had an increase of 300 per cent, from 5 per cent in favour of complete separation to 15 per cent, but that 76 per cent of those who responded answered yes to the second question which was, "Do you wish British Columbia to negotiate a new status in confederation?" They want a new status for their province in confederation. That is pretty loud, pretty strong, and pretty clear to me, and hon. members opposite better hear it.


An hon. Member:: They laugh on the other side.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: I see that. Again it is the central Canadian indifference. How can I tell you, Mr. Speaker? Do not underestimate it. We might be small in numbers in this House of Commons but we are the elected representatives of the people in British Columbia and we are telling this government how things are. Speaker, after speaker has pointed out that this feeling is on the increase. It is not just a popular issue but a deep seated concern. Perhaps the Quebec referendum gave people the courage to say, "Yes, I feel that way too." There is some kinship between the people of Quebec and the people in western Canada.
It may be asked, what does Quebec want, what does British Columbia want, what does Ontario want? Perhaps to start with we should talk about what British Columbia wants.
British Columbia wants recognition, Mr. Speaker, of the fact that the strength of Canada lies in the total sum of its individually strong parts. That is a pretty important basic fact of nature in Canada that must be realized. Westerners, like individualists, feel that the strength of Canada lies in the sum of its individual parts, and to keep the centre strong does not require the usurping and sapping of the strength of the parts
1662

June 2, 1980
Borrowing Authority Act
but, rather, the opposite; the centre is as strong as realization of the potential of its parts.
1 am concerned that this bill is a centralization of economic power through the onerous burden of increased and escalating national debt. I see a little response from the other side. It seems to be a doubt, a wonderment.


An hon. Member:: They are asleep.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Sometimes we think they are asleep too, but there was a little response indicating, "Oh, come on now, it is not that bad." I see that response. Why can the paternal central government of Canada, instead of seeing the west with resentment or as something to take, not see us as a potential source of strength in the growth of this nation? Why can it not see the potential that is here?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: They don't believe in that.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: We in British Columbia are proud to be native sons of Canada. Why can the centre not take pride in us as we take pride in being Canadians? Instead of taking pride in us why does the central government just try to take from us? Why do they fear us? Why keep confronting western Canada; why keep fighting us? Why does the minister continue doing that?


An hon. Member:: Name calling.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Why do they not work with us to protect our resources from both international and national exploitation? Why should western Canada not expect the central government to help protect our resources from those other parts of the nation that are clamouring to steal our financial base? Why should we not feel we have the right to protection from the central government rather than exploitation? That is what concerns me, Mr. Speaker, because that is the attitude with which we are faced.
The potential of the west is just beginning to show as is the potential of the Pacific rim. I could list so many things in Vancouver and British Columbia that do not need subsidies. We are not looking for a subsidy mentality in British Columbia; we are looking for an investment mentality. We are looking for a recognition of investment in the Pacific rim. We are looking for a new face, a new western face for Canada. That is why the initiative started with the Pacific conference was good. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has said that is to be carried on. Mr. Speaker, we do not just want it carried on, we want it to grow like a snowball, to get bigger and stronger. We want the government to work on the Port of Vancouver. We want that bill to be passed in this House in order to give some autonomy to the western region. One of the architects of the bill is from the west. We want a trade and convention centre that can be a showcase on the Pacific face of Canada.
Somehow, in western Canada we get the feeling that we are a bunch of lumberjacks or something, and there is nothing wrong with that. We are very proud to be the lumberjacks of
Canada, the hewers of wood and drawers of water. Those are things to be proud of. But some people think it ends there, that we do not need a symphony or an art gallery, so that somehow our symphony gets a little less than the eastern Canadian symphony and somehow our art gallery is forgotten. We want those attributes of Canadian society and we expect equalization in that sense as well. We want the commitments made by the previous Liberal government, the Conservative government and this government, carried out to establish these amenities, as well as the investment in the development of this new Pacific face. We wonder about the constant subsidization mentality that is particularly prevalent in central Canada.
I wish we could get to the point where there was no subsidization in respect of cars in western Canada; in other words, that there was not a special pricing policy in western Canada. They are more expensive in western Canada and that is the special price; the double standard. There are not just two standards in time, there is the eastern standard and the western standard for prices. We do not ask that the price of our cars be subsidized but then we should not be asked to subsidize the price of gas for the east. That is exactly what is happening again, and again and again to the tune of billions of dollars. That is what a lot of this debt is for. That is what this borrowing is for; it is borrowing to exploit the west.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


An hon. Member:: $17 billion.


An hon. Member:: That is the way to create unity.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: That is right, it is the way to create unity. If the hon. member thinks we should keep these things festering and not have them out, here in the House of Commons, then he is mistaken. We have been put down enough. I am tired of being put down and told that I am not supposed to express these concerns for western Canada. They are real, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: You had better start listening to them.


An hon. Member:: You are a dreamer.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Somebody says I am a dreamer. If I am dreaming that there can be a better position for British Columbia in this confederation, if 1 am dreaming that the west cannot get a better deal out of confederation, then 1 think the hon. member had better watch out. He better be careful. Those are the sorts of words that are going to drive the west out of confederation and drive those splinters deeper and deeper.
My friends on the left had better hear what Premier Bla-keney has to say. He says the west's resource wealth should be used to initiate a vigorous manufacturing sector because secondary industry provides more permanent jobs and greater spin-off into job-creating service areas than resource development.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
June 2, 1980


Robert Lloyd Wenman: I like that too. It is the NDP and the Conservatives who have the base in the west and we applaud that kind of talk. We like being the hewers of wood and drawers of water but we also want an industrial base.
What does Premier Lougheed say? He says that decisions are going to be made more in the regions.


An hon. Member:: Boo.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Why would a member boo a premier of western Canada in this House of Commons? Can you imagine that, Mr. Speaker? 1 hope my colleagues from Alberta who heard that booing of the premier of Alberta report it to him. That was right here, in the chamber of the House of Commons. Talk about unity!
Will you hear what Premier Lougheed has to say or will you continue booing him down?


An hon. Member:: Give us the punch line.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Well then, listen. Premier Lougheed says, "Decisions are going to be made more in the regions; not just political decisions but economic decisions will be made in the west. We are going to have stronger regions and a stronger country because the regions are strong." That needs to be recognized, but it does not seem to be recognized here. What does Premier Bennett say?


Ian Deans: You're getting worse.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: It is interesting how I am willing to recognize all western leaders, because the leaders of all the provinces are saying the same thing, but the NDP are not willing to listen. Why not listen to Premier Bill Bennett of B.C.? He speaks for the people of that province because he was elected with a majority government.


John Leslie Evans: Who do you speak for?


Robert Lloyd Wenman: I speak for my constituents.


An hon. Member:: We speak for the people of Canada.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: My constituents are people of Canada, and we want to remain as people of Canada. But with your attitude and your division-causing ways, the country will take a long time to heal. Listen to what Premier Bennett has to say and take his message. If you do not want to take my message, you can take that of Blakeney, Lougheed or Bennett.


An hon. Member:: Speak on your own.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Premier Bennett says, "Energy resources will be the cornerstone of his province's growth strategy for the 1980s, but if the federal government dips into the B.C. gas revenues, it could mean a further $50 million penalty to the people of B.C. and it could make it difficult for us to carry out our policy of lessening our dependence on oil.
Borrowing Authority Act
These aspirations are not hard to understand, nor are they anything but reasonable and responsible under any form of renewed federalism. Provincial control of resources is seen as the primary instrument to redress the balance. But recent federal actions and court decisions challenge their control. Only western resources are singled out to be sold in Canada at less than world prices. No one imposes a federal export tax on Ontario or Quebec exports of hydro energy. No one subsidized Saskatchewan when it had to pay four or five times the Ontario price for electricity. No one in the east suggested a national subsidy or equalization of gas prices when it was more expensive in the west than in the east. That is very real among the people on the street.
There are those in the government who have the fantasy of twinning with members from the west. I wish you would come out west and hear what is being said. This bill thwarts the aspirations of the west by overcommitting the tax resource of Canada to the federal government. Any hope that moneys accruing to the federal government would be returned to develop the resource potential of the west seems slim indeed- in fact, even slimmer as I stand here tonight and listen to the response of the government. Almost all the evidence so far indicates that the fat eastern standard and the slim western standard continue with such things as subsidies, protective tariffs, government waste, central government patronage and so forth.
Let me give an example. This House was in an absolute crisis for two weeks while we worried about the jobs in the car industry. It is good that this House should worry and should be concerned. The government came forth with a guarantee of $200 million. That $200 million would provide a ratio of $1 billion in investment and would save 15,000 jobs. At the time there were discussions that Ontario's contribution would be between $10 million and $50 million. 1 want hon. members to remember those figures because they represent the eastern standard.
Now, let us look at the western standard. We are not talking about $1 billion in investment, but about $5 billion, five times as much, for developing the coal industry in British Columbia. They are talking about $75 million on a $1 billion investment. The federal government offers some $70 million and expects the British Columbia government to pick up the rest. The British Columbia government is forced to say "I guess we will have to go it alone as usual". That is the kind of standard this government has toward the west. Based on the eastern standard of five to one, the government should invest $1 billion to British Columbia's $5 billion.
if the government were to do that it would not just be subsidizing or maintaining jobs that are questionable, but investing in the most viable industry in the world right now, the energy resource industry, and the great coal resource of British Columbia. But you drag your feet, and when you come out west you cannot understand why the British Columbia government complains. You feel that because you have offered some $70 million the British Columbia government should say, "aren't you wonderful". We are talking about a $1 billion

June 2, 1980
Borrowing Authority Act
capital investment requirement and you say that you are doing us a favour by offering some $70 million.
The minister spoke this afternoon and talked about creating a few jobs which would cost anywhere from $1,000 to $22,000 per job to create. 1 am glad he is concerned about those jobs as we all are, but why did the minister apply the strategy, that the jobs which that money would create could be created with the same investment in coal and related energy products in western Canada, if we could but apply the eastern standard to the west?
Too often it seems that not much has changed since 1938 when the then government of British Columbia stated that approximately 80 per cent of the manufactured commodities imported into B.C. are from eastern Canada while 75 per cent of our main primary products are sold in open competition in the world markets. This means that B.C. has to buy in a protective market and sell in an unprotected market-in other words, buy the dearest and sell the cheapest. Still we compete, but imagine what we could do if the federal government reduced those tariffs.
My hon. colleague from West Vancouver, Howe Sound, stood up here and fought you on the steel tariff. Day after day after day no one listened to him. In my riding all kinds of jobs were lost because of these eastern and western standards. How many days have been spent in this House discussing the potential of the British Columbia coal dig-how much concern, how many hours of cabinet time? The jobs are sitting there waiting. The largest market in the world, the Pacific Rim, is sitting there waiting for Canada to begin to participate.
The majority of people who I represent do not want to join the Collver movement to join the United States. They do not want to separate from Canada. What they want is to rejoin Canada, and 78 per cent want a new deal, a better deal for British Columbia and all the regions within confederation. Central to these very real aspirations is the sanctity of the resource base as a building block toward growth in the west. How can Canada assume this vast new debt we are talking about tonight, unless there is some thought in the cabinet of trying to steal the resource base revenue of western Canada?
If this government feels that somehow it received a mandate in the last election to equalize, steal, take, borrow or share the resource base of western Canada in another form of equalization, they completely missed the message and they have completely underestimated the depth of the feelings held by most western Canadians. This is the kind of miscalculation that could lead to severe stress and a break up of this nation. Surely the government learned from the Quebec referendum and from the 1980 election that the message of both Quebec and British Columbia is that it must respect the aspirations of the regions of Canada.
If the government forces this bill through the House and proceeds to borrow more and spend more because it has a majority government, then it will only lead to trouble. You throw good money after bad in subsidizing uneconomic industries in central Canada, and fail to develop the secondary
industrial base of western Canada. Surely some of that money, and we are talking about billions of dollars, should be spent on new jobs and new industries in western Canada.
When the minister responds, if he does, let him tell us how he plans to do this. We hear this request echoed here and over there. What we are concerned about is, being asked to pass the bill before we have heard what the bill is going to do. Would the minister stand up and tell me that the government is going to recognize the potential of the west and is going to develop the secondary industry, that it is going to work in partnership with British Columbia to develop a common front that it will meet the entrepreneurs of the Pacific rim, the Japanese, the Asian nation representatives and develop the west?
Talk about the excitement of the west; it is an exciting frontier and it has an exciting potential. If the minister can tell me that he is going to do those things and tell me how much money the government is going to give us to do it, then I might have to reconsider my position. History has told us that that will not happen. 1 hope history can be proven wrong.
My hon. colleagues who spoke before me have already asked this question again and again. I wonder if it will be heard. The government does not choose to tell us what it is going to do with the $12 billion. This is the same group that defeated the Conservative budget then promptly reintroduced most of its measures. This is the same group that protested interest rates while in opposition and let them rise unimpeded once they returned to their cosy chairs on the other side. This is the same crew who criticized the Conservative finance minister for seeking borrowing authority before introducing a budget. The same bunch is asking us in Parliament and the Canadian people to trust them. "Trust us", they say, "and we will look after you". They have certainly looked after us. They have done such a good job that they are asking us for more money than ever before to bail them out of the huge deficit of their own making.
The interest on the public debt has grown at an average rate of 17.7 per cent over the period 1969 to 1979. It has increased at a rate of 22 per cent since 1974. So the Liberal government has looked after us since 1979, to the point that interest costs amount to 15.4 per cent of federal government expenditure. The record is tragic indeed.
The Conservative government was going to operate on a borrowing requirement of $8.2 billion for a full fiscal year, yet still offering within that package a mortgage and property tax credit. The people of my riding voted for those too.


An hon. Member:: What about the 18-cent tax?


Robert Lloyd Wenman: And the people of my riding voted for that too. They found that acceptable. They understood the issue in western Canada. That is what I am trying to tell hon. members.


An hon. Member:: That is what you told me; that you were rich.



June 2, 1980


Robert Lloyd Wenman: We are rich? 1 think we are all rich in Canada, but the basic richness of Ontario is that it is the major benefactor of all of this confederation.


Mr. Malone:: That is why the Liberal beachhead stops at Winnipeg.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: That is exactly right.
Where is the relief for those who need it the most? The economy is in trouble with no shining light at the end of the tunnel. All the government can do is continue on the same old path of subsidy. I was so disappointed in the western minister today, namely the minister of immigration. Humanist and fine man that 1 know he is, either because of his liberal leanings or because he is not far enough west yet, he cannot catch the excitement of western Canada and its potential. He should have looked for the creation of new jobs in that section or region with its potential.
I am introducing a private member's bill. As part of the legislative program. It seeks to limit federal government expenditure to a fixed percentage of the gross national product. With this I would hope to ensure that government spending would always be present to ensure a proper functioning of the economy without being so great as to stifle productivity.
Until we realize that government spending will not cure all of our ills, that massive borrowing will not solve problems it created in the first place; until that time comes one cannot expect to realize the full economic potential which our country possesses. With the bill I am introducing to restrict government spending, it would in fact impose a limit relative to the gross national product. Ideally, of course, such a limit would also apply only to provincial governments, but those kinds of arrangements are outside of the authority of this House. As it presently stands, there is plenty of room for improvement within the federal government alone.
Federal government expenditures rose from 17.8 per cent of the gross national product in 1970 to 21.3 per cent in 1978. There is quite simply nothing to prevent the federal government's expenditures from rising to 30 per cent, 50 per cent, or even 75 per cent of the gross national product except, of course, that the government would have to borrow more money to do so. That is exactly what we are being asked to approve here today.
How much will the government borrow next year? Will it be $16 billion or will it be $20 billion? Where is it all going to end? Are we to expect the provinces to limit their spending when they are witnesses to the magnanimity of the federal government freely tossing around the money of Canadians? It is unfortunate that the government should have to pass a bill to limit its own excess. The government should be responsible enough to do that without legislation.
1 had the naive belief that Parliament was supposed to play the watchdog role. Unfortunately, Parliament has little role to play in the control of expenditures. The government has unfortunately seen to it that certain fiscal matters are above the authority of Parliament. Now it would appear that we
Borrowing Authority Act
cannot even debate spending proposals because the government has no intention of telling us what it wants to do with the $12 billion. The government has no intention of bringing in a budget until after this bill is passed.


Arnold John Malone: Just keep coming back to the trough.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Obviously there has to be some level of external control. Part of that control is in fact this debate in the House of Commons tonight.
In conclusion, 1 would like to remind hon. members that one of the bases of western alienation is the growth of the central government. This bill promotes that growth. Because this bill presents the growth and the abuse of unlimited spending, I do not feel 1 can support this bill. I look forward to hearing the minister's response in this regard.
[ Translation]


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, today I should like to refute the reproaches addressed to the government by the financial critic of the opposition in his speech last week. My remarks will go from the general to the particular. Speaking generally, I shall start by explaining why the government needs borrowing powers and why the House should approve the bill now before us. I shall also give a certain amount of information in answer to the specific question put by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) within the scope of the study of this bill. I shall close my remarks with a few observations on more general matters raised by the hon. member and other colleagues.
[English |
1 would like to start by stressing, contrary to the assertions of the hon. member for St. John's West, that the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) has been quite forthcoming with this House. In his statement of April 21, he presented a projection of the government's fiscal position for 1979-80 and 1980-81 to Parliament for the consideration of the borrowing authority bill. This statement was intended as part of that background information.
The minister was very conscientious to make this projection available to the House at such an early date. Parliament had only been sitting for a week when the minister made his statement. I would suggest this is indicative of the high priority which the minister attaches to keeping Parliament informed on the government's fiscal position.
The hon. member for St. John's West has criticized the Minister of Finance for not presenting a fiscal plan to Parliament. He also suggests that the minister should bring down a budget by late June. Surely of all the members in this House, the hon. member for St. John's West should appreciate the difficulty of putting together a fiscal plan.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Feed us a budget. Why can you not bring one in?

June 2, 1980
Borrowing Authority Act


John Leslie Evans: This is not something that should be done in great haste, it is important to take the time to do a proper job.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Blais:: Order.


John Leslie Evans: In response to the comments being made at the moment by hon. members opposite, 1 suggest that is the reason the hon. member for St. John's West waited some seven months before bringing down his budget.
There are complicated issues of expenditure planning which must be resolved. There is the envelope system of expenditure management which was established by the previous government. I believe this system is a major improvement over its predecessor, however if it is to function properly, the cabinet committees involved must be given time to prepare strategic plans and carefully consider the issues before a fiscal plan is finalized by cabinet. Hon. members opposite are surely aware of the time it takes to resolve a matter of this importance.
Another difficult issue is that of energy pricing. I need not remind hon. members that the previous government sought to establish an energy price agreement with the provinces and still had not succeeded in finalizing it some seven months after taking office. The present government is now involved in the process of negotiation with the energy producing provinces. It is important not to create an atmosphere which will make the negotiations more difficult.
[ Translation]
The minister will table his budget when he feels these matters have been dealt with satisfactorily. The financial strategy of the government will be part of this budget. I cannot predict just when the minister will table his budget. For the time being, however, I should like to return to the reasons we are seeking authority to borrow $12 billion. In his statement of April 21, the Minister of Finance indicated that he expected financial requirements of $11.7 billion for the fiscal year 1980-81. This figure was based on the current structure of revenue and expenses. The minister had also emphasized that setting up a blended price system for oil could in itself reduce the financial requirements by up to $1 billion. Should this saving occur, it is clear that the financial requirements could come down to $10.7 billion. Therefore, the financial requirements range from $10.7 and $11.7 billion.

We are seeking a $12 billion borrowing authority to allow us to meet these financial requirements and to allow us some margin for contingencies. 1 believe it would not make much sense for the government to plan to seek borrowing authority more frequently than once a year. Hon. members will have adequate opportunities to debate on the estimates and on the budget, to express their views on the government's financial policies without having to allocate scarce parliamentary time to a more frequent consideration of borrowing authority bills.
I turn now to answers to some specific questions raised by the hon. member for St. John's West. Then I will turn to answer some specific questions raised by other hon. members.
First with respect to updated figures on the precise burden of the oil import compensation program, it is true that the minister undertook to provide these figures to the House. The reason that these figures were not provided to the House more quickly is that it took some time to do a thorough costing of the program. As a result of this costing, it has been estimated that the recent increases in the international price of oil would raise the oil import compensation program to $3.32 billion this year and would increase the deficit on the petroleum compensation revolving fund out of which the Syncrude subsidy is paid to $275 million.
There were also questions about indebtedness and public debt charges. As of March 31, 1980, the outstanding stock of treasury bills was $16.3 billion. The stock of domestic marketable bonds was $32.9 billion. The stock of Canada Savings Bonds was $18.1 billion.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: That is as of what date?


John Leslie Evans: As of March 31, 1980. Of the marketable bonds outstanding, approximately 28 per cent could be characterized as long term, meaning that they have a term of maturity of over ten years. Of the $72.2 billion in unmatured debt outstanding, $67.5 billion is payable in Canadian dollars and $4.7 billion is payable in a foreign currency.
Public debt charges in 1980-81 were estimated by the minister in his April 21 statement to be in the order of $ 10,750 million. This represents 17.8 per cent of the total government outlays and 3.7 per cent of gross national product. The current estimate of the outcome for public debt charges in 1979-80 is $8.6 billion, the same as that contained in the budget of the hon. member for St. John's West. Final information will only be available in August and we will be glad to provide hon. members with the final figure at that time.

The hon. member also asked what percentage of the funds- [English]


Donald Alex Blenkarn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary can confirm what he said, that the amount required to borrow this year will be $8.6 billion.


John Leslie Evans: No, Mr. Speaker. The figure that I gave, the current estimate of the outcome for public debt charges in 1979-80, the year ending March 31, 1980, is $8.6 billion. That figure was given in the budget of the hon. member for St. John's West in December, 1979. That is what the $8.6 billion refers to.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member also asked what percentage of the funds will be borrowed by the government on the capital market and from the public pension plan. The funds will be entirely borrowed on the market. The borrowing authority
June 2, 1980

provided in the bill under consideration does not take into account the increase in commitments with respect to the public pension plan which should assure to the government $2.3 billion during this fiscal year.

1 will now respond to a few general issues raised by the hon. member for St. John's West. First, the hon. member quoted with approval Mr. Carl Beigie's statement, as reported in The Globe and Mail, that Canada will not begin to solve its inflation problems until the federal deficit is reduced. The hon. member appears to believe that this view distinguishes him and Mr. Beigie from the minister.
To disabuse him of this notion, I would suggest that he re-read the April 21 statement. The minister was clear in saying that he was "particularly concerned to ensure that government deficits and financial requirements diminish as economic growth resumes." 1 share this concern.
The hon. member for St. John's West correctly noted that the government has authority to borrow to replace previously issued securities and asked what implications this had for the borrowing authority. He made particular reference to the redemptions of Canada Savings Bonds since April 1, 1980. The net Canada Savings Bond redemptions have amounted to about $1.3 billion to date in the current fiscal year and, therefore, the government has had to raise this amount of cash from other sources. The source of these new funds has been the issuance of marketable debt with a particular reliance on treasury bills. This switch in the source of government funding from Canada Savings Bonds to marketable debt has not provided any new net cash to the government, nor has it used up any portion of the $2.9 billion of borrowing authority which was outstanding on April 1 of this year. The hon. member states that there was $2.9 billion of unused borrowing authority outstanding on November 1 of 1979 and which was available to be carried forward. However, the Minister of Finance has stated that this was still the case on April 1, 1980, and the hon. member would like to know the facts. The facts are that the Borrowing Authority Act, 1979-80, introduced by the hon. member last October to provide the government with $7 billion of supplementary borrowing authority contained a clause stipulating that the new authority came into force on November 1, 1979. Consequently, all new moneys raised between November 1, 1979, and March 31, 1980, were charged to this authority and the $2.9 billion of unused authority obtained earlier and which was outstanding on November 1, 1979, was left intact. Since all unused authority provided-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can the parliamentary secretary tell us how much was raised on the authority for the $7 billion between November 1 and March 1?


Some hon. Members:: Order!
Borrowing Authority Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.


John Leslie Evans: I am sorry to inform the hon. member I do not have that information with me but 1 will make a commitment to get it to him at the earliest possible opportunity.
Since all unused authority provided by the 1979-80 act was cancelled on March 31, 1980, the government has charged all new moneys raised in the current fiscal year, that is, since April 1, 1980, to the $2.9 billion which was carried forward from a much earlier borrowing authority. So far in this fiscal year the government has borrowed $1,645 billion through treasury bill issues and $1,625 billion in marketable bonds including an issue sold May 13 for delivery on June 1 and net CSB redemptions have been $1.35 billion. In addition, the equivalent of $357 million Canadian was drawn on our standby credit in April. The hon. member for St. John's West has asked how the government plans to raise the $12 billion being reflected in this borrowing authority.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: How much is left?


John Leslie Evans: 1 am sure the hon. member can appreciate that in financing the cash requirement the amount of cash raised through the issue of various types of security in Canada varies from year to year and depends on prevailing economic and financial conditions. The actual debt program for the past two fiscal years illustrates how the cash requirements have been met in the past. This is illustrated in a table entitled Cash Requirement and Sources of Financing which I intend to have tabled in the House.
In 1978-79 foreign exchange transactions substantially reduced the cash requirements and the $8.8 billion debt program resulted in a $1.9 billion addition to cash balance. In fiscal 1979-80 foreign exchange transactions had almost no impact on cash requirements and these were financed by a run-down in cash balances which had been built up in the previous year and a $7.9 billion debt program. In 1979-80 a greater use was made of treasury bills and marketable bonds than in 1978-79 and there were net redemptions of CSBs over the fiscal year. In fiscal 1980-81 we do not plan to make much use of cash balances to finance cash requirements. Consequently, we plan to raise all the cash requirements in the capital market. Since the government has for some time being playing down the role of Canada Savings Bonds we do not expect to raise much new money from this source during fiscal 1980-81. We have also been making more use of the treasury bill market in this year. Consequently, we expect that the proportion of the debt program met through the issue of treasury bills will be larger than in the past two fiscal years and the proportion met through issue of marketable bonds will be closer to that in fiscal 1978-79.
[ Translation]
The hon. member asked what we intended to do about the Canada Saving Bonds and about the volume of redemptions that the government could absorb. I agree with the hon.

June 2, 1980
Borrowing Authority Act
member that the government should continue to resort less to CSB issues and that is exactly what it has been doing since 1974. The proportion of outstanding CSB issues relative to the whole amount of the debt in Canadian dollars has dropped from a high of 43 per cent in 1975 to somewhere in the range of 27 per cent now.

The hon. member asked how many CSB redemptions we can absorb. So far this fiscal year net redemptions have amounted to about $1.3 billion and this amount has been paid out of our cash balances. In recent weeks we have offset virtually all of this cash drain through our borrowing operations in marketable securities. Very recently net CSB redemptions have fallen off rather sharply, which to a large extent reflects the sharp decline in interest rates that has largely eliminated the gap between interest rates payable on competing financial instruments and on outstanding CSB issues. We expect that the CSB redemption problem is over.
The hon. member for St. John's West also asked how much of the government's indebtedness was in the form of various types of instruments, how much was short-term debt, how much long-term debt and how much is payable in foreign currencies. The answers to these questions are provided in the Bank of Canada Review. However, I will briefly provide an outline of the current debt structure as at the end of March, 1980.
GOVERNMENT OF CANADA DIRECT AND GUARANTEED SECURITIES ($ millions)
Payable in Canadian Dollars		%
Treasury Bills	16,325	23Marketable Bonds	32,939	44CSBs	18,189	26Total	67,453	93Payable in Foreign Currencies	4,701	772,154	100
The average term to maturity of the government debt is seven years, two months. This compares with three years, eleven months at the end of 1974. Excluding loans and CSBs, 49 per cent of their direct and guaranteed debt had a term to maturity of less than three years, 17 per cent a term of three to five years, 6 per cent a term of five to ten years and 28 per cent a term of ten years and over.
The hon. member asked how much of the domestic debt program was taken up by the Bank of Canada last year and how much will be taken up in this current fiscal year.
While 1 cannot forecast who will buy the government's securities over the balance of this fiscal year, the following table, which I will read to the House, provides the distribution and changes in holdings of marketing securities for 1979-80 and up to March 21 of this year. As of March 31, 1980, the Bank of Canada held 14.6 per cent of the domestic marketable
Government of Canada securities. As of May 21 of this year it held 12.7 per cent, a drop of 1.9 percentage points. The government accounts held 1 per cent as of March 31, 1980, and as of May 21, 1980, it was down to .9 per cent. Chartered banks held 9.7 per cent as of March 31, and as of May 21 held 10 per cent, an increase of .3 per cent. The general public held 24.5 per cent on March 31, 1980, and now it holds 27.9 per cent as of May 21.
As the figures reflect, the major purchases of government debt this fiscal year and the last have been by the general public. So far in 1980-81 the Bank of Canada has been a substantial net seller of Government of Canada securities.
The hon. member for St. John's West has stated that the interest costs on the foreign debt last October were $326 million and has asked what they are now and what are the net interest costs.
In answer to the first question, these interests costs are substantially unchanged from what they were last October. The specific net interest costs, however, are difficult to determine at this time. To the extent that the foreign currencies raised by these loans are maintained in official exchange reserves they are invested in short-term U.S. dollar government securities. To the extent that the U.S. dollars are converted to Canadian dollars through foreign exchange operations the Canadian dollars are deposited with Canadian chartered banks where they earn 90 per cent of the current Treasury bill rate. In this latter case, government cash balances are increased, and this offsets the need to borrow in Canada.
Most of the foreign currency loans were made in 1978 and early 1979, and since official U.S. dollar reserves are currently around $1.8 billion, most of the proceeds are either deposited with Canadian banks where they currently earn around 10.35 per cent or have been spent to offset borrowing in Canada at current high levels.
The U.S. dollars in official reserves earn interest at a level of around 8 per cent. Much of the interest cost on foreign loans is below these levels.
With that as a background and in an attempt to respond as fully as possible to the questions raised by the hon. member for St. John's West I would like to turn to commenting on some of the questions raised by other hon. members, first of all the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) in his statements on Bill C-30 late last week. I would like to quote passages from the statements of the hon. members and then try to give a frank appraisal of the answer which can be brought forward with regard to each of these statements.
First, the hon. member for Edmonton East stated, and 1 quote:
Rather interestingly, in this new Parliament what has now been given to us in the economic statement is an indication that the federal level of spending in relation to the gross national product will grow by 2 per cent in one year from approximately 20 per cent of the gross national product to 22 per cent of the gross national product.
This is simply not true. As the hon. member for Edmonton East will see when the budget is presented, federal government
June 2, 1980

expenditures or a percentage of GNP will remain in the same range they have been in since 1975.
Slight fluctuations may occur in either direction due to the changes in gross national product, but the hon. member can be assured that they will not be in the order of 2 percentage points.


Mr. Wilson:: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. parliamentary secretary would not want to mislead the House with that last statement he just made. I think the statement he likely should be adding to that is that one of the reasons the percentage figure has gone down is the very substantial increase in government spending that the Minister of Finance announced in his so-called mini-budget earlier in this session.


John Leslie Evans: No, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member mentioned, I would not want to be accused of misleading the House or mislead the House in any way. However, the facts of the matter are that the statement was made by the hon. member for Edmonton East, and I have responded to that statement with our best estimate of what will happen to federal government expenditures as a percentage of gross national product. We are saying that at the end of this fiscal year they will be in the range that they were in 1975, and they will not be increasing by anywhere near 2 percentage points over what they were in the last year.
There is another statement to which 1 would like to respond, if 1 might. The hon. member for Edmonton East has indicated, and 1 quote:
The federal debt has risen to dangerous proportions.
I have heard this being stated by a great many hon. members opposite during the debate on Bill C-30. Well, the net debt will be at 26 per cent of gross national product in 1980. That is net debt. This is not a dangerous proportion of gross national product. In fact, it is below the 27.7 per cent of gross national product which was the case in 1966 and far below the 33 per cent to 34 per cent range recorded during the period from 1957 to 1962 when hon. members opposite formed the government.
The hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) raised an issue, and I will quote from his statement as follows:
Since the April 21 statement projected cash requirements of $1 1,730 million why is the Minister of Finance asking for $12 billion? Furthermore, there is also the $2.9 billion unused borrowing authority which is being carried forward. These two authorities, in effect, would provide the government with $14.9 billion of borrowing authority.
Then the question the hon. member asked was the following:
Why does the government need this amount when the cash requirement is only $11,730 million?
As I mentioned earlier in my speech, the $12 billion of borrowing authority now being requested is related to the government's cash requirement. There is also a need for contingencies such as borrowings in foreign currencies should the need arise from foreign exchange operations. This does not imply that such a need is imminent or that the government has any preconceived level for the value of the dollar. It simply is a margin for contingencies should any arise. Furthermore, all
Borrowing Authority Act
unused borrowing authority provided by Bill C-30 will be cancelled on March 31, of 1981.
In his statement before the House-I think it was on Friday-the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) made a statement that I think should be responded to as well, and I quote:
In fact in 1969 this government had a surplus of $605 million. In one decade the situation has changed so that we now have a deficit of $ 16.185 billion.
Being a member of the public accounts steering committee, the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake should know that the 1978-79 fiscal year figure of $16,185 billion is not a true representation of the fiscal position of the government.
It merely results from recording accounting adjustments in one year which had occurred during a number of previous years. The true figure was presented by the hon. member for St. John's West in his last budget, and that figure, as we all know, was $12,103 billion.
Later in the debate as well the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) made two or three statements which I think deserve an answer.
First, and I quote:
In the spring 1980 review, the Friedland Mercantile Group. . . set out the comparative CPI figures, the wholesale increase figures and the current account positions with respect to ten of the most industrialized nations in the world . . . The first chart deals with the consumer price index. It ranks Canada sixth among the ten.
While I cannot comment on the validity of the consumer price comparisons of the Friedland Mercantile Group review except to say that the statistical methodology varies from country to country and from statistician to statistician, however, in the latest issue of the highly respected periodical The Economist, Canada is ranked fourth out of ten at 9.5 per cent on a year over year basis for the latest month available, only slighly behind West Germany at 6 per cent, Holland at 6.5 per cent, Japan at 8 per cent, and far ahead of such countries as France at 13.5 per cent, Italy at 20.5 per cent, Sweden at 13.5 per cent, the U.S. 14.5 per cent and the United Kingdom at 20 per cent inflation. The hon. member for York-Peel also said:
For example, what that review highlights is the tremendous imbalance of taxation in this country compared to that of the United States. I refer to page 136 of the review, table 11.22.
We are here to debate Bill C-30 which concerns federal government borrowing, but the hon. member for York-Peel will notice that table 11.22 of the economic review to which he refers indicates that the federal Government of Canada spent a full percentage point of GNP less at 21.5 per cent than does the federal government of the United States at 22.5 per cent.


An hon. Member:: In what year?


John Leslie Evans: In the year referred to by the hon. member for York-Peel.

June 2, 1980
Borrowing Authority Act
Finally, I should like to refer again to the hon. member for York-Peel who said:
-there is an international comparison of central government expenditures on page 135 of the review at table 1 1.21. It is interesting to note that there is only one country that has a higher central government expenditure than Canada.
With due respect, the hon. member for York-Peel must be reading his copy of the review upside down. It is clear from page 135 of the review to which he referred that Canada is tied with Switzerland with the lowest central government expenditure at 21 per cent of GNP, and far below the average of 31.5 per cent of GNP for the nine countries that are listed in that review.


An hon. Member:: Tell us the whole story.


An hon. Member:: That is misleading, John, and you know it.


John Leslie Evans: The hon. member for St. John's West has asked in his statement before the House, in referring to the Minister of Finance, what is he going to do? He said the minister should not just come to the House and ask for $12 billion and refuse to tell us or give us any indication of what he is going to do. I will simply refer the hon. member for St. John's West to the estimates that have been tabled and reviewed by this House and that indicate what the spending plans are for the government.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hate to say this, but the parliamentary secretary is certainly misleading the House. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston)-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: -when introducing the estimates that were tabled in the House-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: -specifically said that the estimates do not indicate the spending plans of this government. If they indicate the spending plans of the government, we are happy, but the President of the Treasury Board said they did not.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) will realize that other hon. members have been calling for order. The first question is the language, which may or may not be parliamentary, and I would like the hon. member to give it some thought. The second question is that the hon. member seems to be entering into a debate, not a point of order. Under the circumstances, 1 think I should recognize the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Evans).


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, the estimates, until modified, are the official spending plans for this government, and until the supplementary estimates have come in. Every government, not only brings in the main estimates, but brings in supplementary estimates. Members opposite, when they were in office, also brought in main estimates and supplementary estimates. As
soon as supplementary estimates are brought in, the main estimates are no longer the official spending estimates of the government. But until those supplementaries are brought in, the main estimates represent the spending plans of the government. There are always supplementaries as conditions change.
The Minister of Finance of this government is concerned about the deficit. 1 want to make that point extremely clear and I hope the gentlemen opposite are listening. He is working hard to prepare a budget, but you know as well as I do that this depends on the development, as I have said earlier, of a fiscal plan to ensure the kind of equalization mentioned here tonight, for example, by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman), and it depends also on agreement on a national energy policy. Until we have these, a budget simply would not be appropriate. Regional schizophrenia and other things are what I have been hearing throughout this debate on Bill C-30. I hear on the one hand from hon. members that we should reduce the deficit-and we agree we should reduce the deficit and the minister is working on ways to reduce it-and on the other hand we hear a call from hon. members opposite to spend more money on their particular regions. You cannot have it both ways; you cannot reduce the deficit and increase spending at the same time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Listen and learn.


John Leslie Evans: I should like to conclude by saying that we must all look at the nation as a nation. If we are to reduce the deficit, we must all share the burden. If we are to have vibrant regional development, we will all have to co-operate on priorities. The budget that the minister is now preparing will attempt to allocate equitably the burden of deficit reduction and honestly realign national priorities.
Tonight I have tried to answer a great many questions that were raised by hon. members opposite with regard to borrowing authority and what the debt position of the government is, as well as to some extent what the government spending plans are without the presentation of a formal budget. I think the time has come for us to move forward on this bill and get on with the business of the House in looking at legislation that is extremely critical, and to stop the kind of delaying tactics that have been used and will be used tonight and tomorrow to stop the passage of a bill which is a fair and honest bill, a bill of borrowing authority the same as ministers of finance have brought down in every government in the past. I think we should get on with the bill, pass the bill and move to other pieces of business.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could answer some questions. Could he tell us, as of the end of May-we are now in June and perhaps he has those figures-or, shall we say, as of May 15, what Canada Savings Bonds are outstanding, what ordinary market bonds are outstanding, what ordinary bonds held by the Bank of Canada are outstanding-
June 2, 1980


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member again but the hon. member for Mississauga South is not, in my understanding, raising a point of order or an appeal to the standing rules of the House. It has been known that when an hon. member has some remaining time in his speech, with his permission, another hon. member, such as the hon. member for Mississauga South in this instance, might want to put a question. But there must be a limit to that. So, the Chair will recognize a question hopefully composed of not too many parts, and then it will be time to move on to the next hon. member.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I presume the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Evans) spoke tonight in order to answer a number of questions asked by hon. members on this side. Unfortunately he did not answer all of the questions. I was hoping that we could impose upon him sufficiently to answer some of the questions which 1 think not only members on this side but the people of Canada would like to have answered.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the number of questions which seem to be in preparation by the hon. member opposite could not in any way, shape or form be answered verbally in the House tonight. I would request that the hon. member submit the questions to me. 1 will prepare answers for the hon. member, and 1 will return them to him at the earliest possible opportunity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the parliamentary secretary.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) that I must agree with the parliamentary secretary. I tried to leave some room for a quick exchange on a point of clarification, but again the hon. member for Mississauga South seems to indicate that he has quite a series of questions in mind-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I have one simple question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: -that does not fit within the rules of the House. We have tried it twice, and I am afraid the Chair will have to move on and recognize the next hon. member.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I was trying to seek Your Honour's attention just for a brief clarification. It is not worth writing letters back and forth, but 1 wonder whether the parliamentary secretary would answer it. If I tallied up his statement properly, the parliamentary secretary is saying that Canada is in debt to the tune of about $72 billion of secured debt at the present time. Over and above that $72 billion will be the $12 billion which is being requested at the present time. Is that correct?
Borrowing Authority Act


An hon. Member:: For a total of $84 billion!


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that on a net debt basis that is what we are talking about. That is a net debt basis, and 1 think the hon. member should understand the distinction between net debt and gross debt.


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by complimenting the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Evans) for answering a good many questions tonight. But 1 must say to him in all seriousness that I think he spoiled the effect of his speech by accusing the opposition of delaying tactics. 1 would suggest to him with deference that perhaps because members on this side of the House have quite rightly refused to give the kind of blank cheque the government initially seemed to want, he came forward tonight in a very constructive manner and gave what I thought was a very good speech. Had he or his minister been a bit more forthcoming initially, I believe there would have been a lot of time saved in this House and a lot of hon. members on this side of the House would have been spared the time and effort of putting very valid questions forward, which he has only just now answered.
I was very interested in the content of the speech of the parliamentary secretary. He is quite right when he talks about the difference between the net debt and the gross debt. As hon. members know, in fiscal 1980 the net debt amounts to $67 billion as I understand it. This is the gross public debt minus certain assets. These assets normally include such items as repayable loans to Crown corporations and national governments and equity investments like Petro-Canada and the Canadian Development Corporation. But I believe that in fiscal 1980 the gross debt was $105 billion which indeed is a great deal of money. Following what the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) said, I also understand that the gross public debt charges for fiscal 1981 will amount to $10.3 billion and as I think he said tonight, 17.7 per cent of budgetary expenditures.
These matters are very esoteric to most of us. I do not pretend to understand all the subtleties of finance. 1 was always told that if your outgo exceeds your income, your upkeep will be your downfall. I understand that, but also I understand that there has been a great increase in the total amount of public debt since I first came to this place nine years ago. Whether we get into proportions of debt or not, vis-a-vis the GNP, it is fair to say by way of emphasis that the amount of the deficit now is as much as the total budget was when 1 first came here. Whether or not this is as alarming as it sometimes seems when one relates it to the proportion of the GNP, I leave that to the judgment of my peers here in the House. But nonetheless it is a striking figure.
In looking for historical parallels and wondering just how the Liberal party conducted financial affairs in its early days, I looked at Canadian Quotations and Phrases, Literary and Historical. That is not hysterical, but historical, compiled by Robert M. Hamilton. Wanting to be fair and equitable, 1 looked through the section on the Liberal party, wanting to

June 2, 1980
Borrowing Authority Act
find the good and the bad. I found some fairly complimentary things that were said with some justification. For example, I found a quote by William Lyon Mackenzie King when he was speaking to his Liberal supporters in August of 1919. It reads as follows:
The Liberal party will continue to stand as its illustrious leaders stood in the past, for unity, good will and the open mind.
That is a fine tribute, but I looked forward to see if 1 could get something that was a little more objective than the assessment of the leader of the party, however, related to the kind of spending and fiscal and monetary capacity this party exhibited back in those early days. I was fortunate enough to come across something which was featured in a supplementary to The Montreal Gazette, a paper with which Mr. Speaker is familiar, back in 1891. It is a quotation from The People's Almanac. I will read it just for a little bit of change in pace in this debate tonight to see what the assessment was of the Liberal party by The People's Almanac, regarding its financial management capabilities away back before the turn of the century. It reads as follows:
See the faces of the Grits.
Grizzly Grits,
What a woc-begone expression at present o'er them flits.
They are thinking, thinking deeply How to run this country cheaply And they wonder How in thunder It is going to be done.
But the people-they who vote-of their twaddle lake no note.
For they know the dismal, dreary, direful dole Of the Grits
Of the moribund, morose and melancholy Grits, Grits, Grits, Grits.
The greedy, grubby, garrulous old Grits.
Now, I would never say anything like that myself, but I thought it might be worth while to put it on the record from such an objective source as The People's Almanac. Despite the fine speech made by the parliamentary secretary, I believe there is still a bit of room for constructive criticism and suggestion as to how some of this vast sum of money, the $12 billion, might be allocated.
The hon. parliamentary secretary, to do him some justice, answered a lot of questions, but he quite properly added in response to comments from this side of the House that of course there are some details which have to be filled in yet. However I think one of the things he said that is interesting before we get to that stage, was the bit of information which he gave us, if I took it down properly, that we owe $4.7 billion or close to $5 billion to foreign countries payable in their own currencies. Having in mind the state of the Canadian dollar relative to most of the countries where we do our borrowing these days, such as the United States, Switzerland and West Germany, I presume that that $4.7 billion in effect means a lot more indebtedness than it would first appear. To be fair about it, I suppose there must be a discount there of at least 15 or maybe 20 per cent when we have to pay those funds back.
When the parliamentary secretary is answering more questions, as he indicated he would do, I wonder if he might give us the premium we will have to pay. This leads me back to the point the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) made in his speech as to why we need that particular, explicit authority in clause 2 of the bill, if we have already managed to incur that kind of a debt. Perhaps it is related to trade, 1 do not know. As you know, Your Honour, subsection 2 states very clearly that this government does want authority, for greater certainty that they can borrow, in effect, currency other than that of Canada. I would hope that until our currency improves a little bit more in terms of its relative value to most others they would not avail themselves of that option-that if they already have it they would refrain from doing it and that if they get it, they will use it very carefully.
I think it was the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) in his always quiet, persuasive way, who pointed out that we were away behind value in most currencies in the world, including the Zambian kwacha. Whether we owe any Zambian kwachas or not, I do not know but 1 hope not.
i believe that in considering the large amount of money this government is requesting-and properly so-it would be in order for a member such as myself to make some suggestions about how some of this money-which is about $5 billion more than the former minister of finance, the hon. member for St. John's West required last fall-might better be spent by this administration as they bring forth their budget and prepare their special estimates.
It seems to me, for example, that recent events on the international scene indicate very clearly that if there is one place where the Canadian people would find it advisable to see their hard-earned, borrowed money, spent, it would be in the improvement of the capabilities of this country to defend itself and to take a proper place in the defence of the western world.
1 know these figures have been put on the record before and 1 do not propose to take up much of the time of the House but it seems that when talking about GNP, percentage of spending and so on, these figures issued by the Institute of Strategic Studies in London on the military balance which are fairly new, might be interesting to hon. members.
The percentage of government spending of our budget in 1979 was 8.6 per cent, less than it has taken to service our national indebtedness by far. On the other hand, the United States which carries the burden of our western defence, spent 21.6 per cent; the United Kingdom 11.5 per cent; the Netherlands 9.1 per cent; Sweden, a supposedly neutral country, 8.4 per cent and Czechoslovakia 7.1 per cent. 1 know it is very difficult to precisely relate the percentages for some countries, particularly those in the eastern bloc which sometimes bury their military expenditures in other ways.
The percentage of the GNP, which is another way of expressing the priorities of these countries that I picked out at random in reporting their military spending, indicates that 1.8 per cent is all that this country spends; United States 5 per
June 2, 1980

cent; United Kingdom 4.7 per cent; The Netherlands 3.3 per cent; Sweden 3.4 per cent and Czechoslovakia 3.8 per cent. It is evident we are not doing our part. We are a nation, small in population, that controls a very large percentage of the real estate on this planet and a disproportionate amount of its natural resources. I say to you and to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that unless we are kidding ourselves we cannot believe that we can even patrol the treasure house we have in the north, much less defend it.
1 certainly hope in considering what is going to be done with these funds the government is asking Parliament for, that very serious consideration be given to doing something about protecting the future of this part of the continent. If one can take seriously the reports emanating from different parts of the world, the Soviet Union is now in a very, very interesting position. Their military machinery, their electronic capability, the relative disarray of the west, puts them in the position where, between now and 1985, they might be very tempted indeed to go to some other type of military adventure.
Surely every country in the western world including ours, in particular, as we are so close to the United States and so deficient in meeting our own defence commitment, has an obligation to do something quickly to send out signals showing that we are prepared to act.
Henry Kissinger was interviewed for an article in Time magazine recently. As he was one of the principal architects of detente it is interesting to note that he said it is absolutely imperative to get across to the Soviet Union that their definition of detente is simply unacceptable. He said their definition of detente is to be committed to defeat the United States peacefully and that they would either have to accept that they could not undertake a geo-political offensive or would have to give up detente. He went on to list some of what the Soviet Union has done since 1975: Cuban troops in Angola; Cuban troops in Ethiopia; Soviet bases in South Yemen, Ethiopia and Libya; for the past few years the Soviet occupations of Afghanistan, the Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia under the cover of a friendship treaty, and a Soviet brigade in Cuba which he claimed happened after 1976 no matter what nonsense is being put out.
In a recent magazine article Maclean's magazine reminded us of the grizzly anniversary of the massacre in Katyn Forest in Poland which up to this point the Soviet Union has tried to blame on Nazi Germany. It is becoming clear that it was perpetrated by the Soviets.
I only mention these things to show that in my humble opinion there is much to be said for the definition that Winston Churchill gave of Soviet diplomacy at a time when he was holding all parliamentarians enthralled with his picturesque and accurate speeches in various parts of the western world. I do not know where it was he made the observation that the Soviet Union's diplomacy is like a burglar in a hotel: They go down the hall trying every door until they find one that is open.
The detente policy and the way we have been conducting ourselves has been an open-door policy but the doors have all
Business of the House
been opened into our resources. 1 believe that some $60 billion has been loaned to the Soviet Union by western financial institutions. I doubt if they can service the interest on that debt, since we are talking large figures tonight, so what is going to happen about that?
1 am trying not to stray too far from the bill before us, Mr. Speaker. I want to make my feelings known to hon. members opposite, however, regarding the priorities they might seek to establish for this rather large amount of money they are asking this House to give them.
Regarding another priority, 1 should like to quote some words of the parliamentary secretary-"a vibrant regional development priority"-or policy, 1 believe is what he said. As he said, we cannot have it both ways-we cannot cut the budget and spend money at the same time. We can re-examine our priorities, however, even if it is almost a cliche to say that it is a good idea to spend money in order to make money.
The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. De Bane), whose aims and philosophies I support, spoke eloquently in this House in a rather unusual fashion not long ago when he made a public plea to his peers for more money for regional development. It is interesting to note that in the priorities of this government, this department, which is perhaps the newest major department to be created in the last ten years, was once the recipient of about 2 per cent of the budgetary allotment of the government; it is now barely half that. Its thrust has been changed. The legislation that governs its use is becoming almost obsolete. Surely the RDIA, which is the basis for these grants, must be changed to bring them in line with different practice and to make sure there is adequate lead time to do this. The minister knows this and I knew it when 1 was minister. We were proceeding to bring forward legislation to improve the operations of DREE. That is not enough, however; additional funds will have to be found for DREE if it is going to continue to have a useful role in developing this country.
It is ironic that the transfer payments have been going up dramatically while DREE declines. That is not all bad, but the amount available for DREE has been going down, which shows again that the proportion of money that this government has available to create the wealth which some departments are so anxious, and properly so, to distribute to our people; that this amount of money is disproportionately larger than the amount of money which goes to departments like Industry, Trade and Commerce and DREE to develop our country.
Surely this is a situation that must be looked at in the context of the large amount of money which is being borrowed. As large as the deficit is and as large as the amount which is being borrowed is, I am not as concerned about the fact that it is being borrowed as I am about the way in which it will be spent. Sometimes in the past I think that this government had an edifice complex, not an oedipus complex, and that has to stop. These fine and imposing buildings like the Bank of Canada building, are very nice and very energy inefficient, but they do not do much for the productivity of our country. The

June 2, 1980
Adjournment Debate
Bank of Canada building is nothing more than an elaborate financial temple. It is probably as elaborate, if not more elaborate, than those in any country of the world. 1 see that it is past ten o'clock. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to know from the government what the order of business is for tomorrow. Can it confirm that the business for tomorrow will be continuing the debate on Bill C-30?


Mr. Turner:: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that we will continue to debate Bill C-30.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and indeed the Prime Minister of Japan have all stood before this House and warned that we are entering a dangerous decade fraught with instabilities and deteriorating super power relations. The global build-up of arms is a reality. Widespread proliferation of weapons and technology is becoming an increasing reality. The accelerated efforts of both our friends and potential foes to provide protection for their civilians against nuclear threat is a further reality.
We are all charged to work toward global peace, and we can take pride in the fact that Canada's history as a peacemaker is internationally recognized. But to pretend that the nuclear holocaust will not or cannot happen is to lose touch with reality. Worse still, it is shirking our responsibility as members of Parliament toward the people of Canada.
It is certainly not the fault of the Canadian people that civil defencS is so misunderstood. In other countries of the world governments have ensured that their people have the maximum amount of safety and are well versed in emergency measures in the case of nuclear war. I am sure that many hon. members saw the television show on Sweden which talked in part about the underground parking lots which were built to also act as fall-out shelters. Yugoslavia, Finland. Norway and Switzerland have similar programs for their citizens. China has the capacity to move most of its millions of citizens in Peking underground in a matter of minutes.
It is reported that the Soviet Union has spent $65 billion on civil defence in the last ten years. In the United States new plans are being announced and accelerated for mass evacuation of cities in the event of a world crisis. In Britain recently, the House of Lords devoted seven hours of debate to the subject of civil defence. The French Senate called recently for a new and accelerated program for their nation.
However, we in Canada still cannot find out who is the minister of civil defence. In fact, we find that all ministers are ministers for civil defence, but no one is really in charge of civil defence policy and planning. There is no mention of what are the roles of the members of Parliament, the cabinet ministers, the municipal government or the provincial government. It is all very muddy and unclear with each government shifting the buck back and forth.
There is far too much at stake to allow this kind of indifference and this state of unorganization. A congressional committee in the United States estimated that in the event of a nuclear attack on targets in the United States only, there would be two million casualties in Canada. At the present time in our current state of preparedness, a nuclear attack on Canada as well would wipe out over half the population of this country-over half of 23 million people, which amounts to 11 million Canadians. That number could be reduced considerably if the government were to take appropriate action similar to any of the other allies or even our potential enemies.
Some military people say we are being optimistic with those terrible statistics. They argue that Canadian cities would be prime targets. If there were in fact nine prime targets in Canada, that could be a threat to half of our population. If 100 people were threatened and we knew about it in this House of Commons, we would be outraged and calling for action right now.
I direct this question to you, Mr. Speaker. Do you know what you would do if a nuclear bomb were to drop in downtown Montreal? Would you know how to direct the citizens in your riding? Would any member in this House of Commons know what to do as a responsible leader in his community if there were a nuclear attack? I do not think so. I do not think the person who will respond to me can tell me even after he has researched the subject.
We are in an appalling state of affairs with respect to civil defence in Canada. The Prime Minister knows where to go. He has told us; he has his bunker. Some of the cabinet know. They have their protection. There are about 7,000 people out of 23 million who can find a place of reasonable safety in a nuclear war. But what about the other 23 million? There is no place for them, no protection for them and there is no plan for them.
We spend billions of dollars. We just spent $4 billion on planes, guns and tanks. How much do we spend on civil defence, I think it is $1.9 million. The figure is about $2 million. The ratio in $2 million to $4 billion, the amount spent
June 2, 1980

for planes. Civil defence has become a nonentity in Canada unfortunately.
For the past seven years since October, 1973, when the Government of Canada announced that there would be changes in the emergency planning structure within the federal government, there has been almost deadening silence about what the government intends to do. One of the problems stems from the fact that no single minister of the Crown has clear responsibility for civil defence preparedness. Heightening the difficulties is the division of responsibility among the federal government, the provinces and municipalities. Perhaps civil defence must be decentralized. But surely this refers only to the post-attack phase, not to the program policy-making and planning that precedes a nuclear war. To slough off responsibility on to the provinces is to abdicate one of the primary roles of a central government-of any government-to protect its citizens in time of war.
It is clear that the federal government is passing the buck in terms of its responsibilities for civil defence.
The Prime Minister on Friday, May 16, said that he had not received a request for increased civil defence funds nor did he believe that increased funding was necessary. Where has he been among the leaders of the world? I would not like to say that the Prime Minister was misleading. He did not seem to be referring to the true facts of the situation. The Prime Minister did not mention that the federal government has undercut the federal-provincial financial assistance programs to such an extent that the provinces today can scarcely devote any attention to war preparedness. Yet, the Deputy Prime Minister in his response last Wednesday placed the responsibility for implementing existing civil defence plans, such as they were, firmly in the hands of the provinces.
Is the Prime Minister aware of the fact that the Department of National Defence is responsible for establishing public information programs for use in an emergency-just brought up to date-and that the emergency broadcasting system is not reinstated? Their siren system must be enlarged to provide coverage for expanded urban communities, and evacuation plans need to be established in our major cities in any type of war.
There are so many things that need to be done. Canada is not ready. Canada's concern for its citizens must come up to that shown by other countries of the world. Other countries have shown a desire to face the unfortunate reality. It is time that Canada did the same.


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the statement that responsibility for detailed implementation of the necessary plans is in the hands of the provinces, and that public works and national defence are the federal departments having the most direct responsibility, is indeed correct. Public Works Canada has responsibility for carrying out planning at the federal level for protection of the population of Canada against the war time effects of radioactive fall-out from nuclear weapons. This work is being carried out under the national shelter program. At the present time,
Adjournment Debate
emphasis is being given to completing surveys of fall-out protection inherent in existing buildings.
Information collected by these surveys is made available to provinces and includes the levels of fall-out protection in existing buildings throughout Canada and the people capacities of these buildings, having regard for natural ventilation and physically usable space. These data together with detailed population distribution by city block and small area, constitute the key ingredients to development of both provincial master shelter plans and the more detailed community shelter plans. The work of planning for protection of people certainly points to significant involvement by provinces and communities as well as the federal government.
Provincial master shelter plans and community shelter plans already exist for New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, but the major planning work for the rest of the country has yet to be accomplished, and this can only be achieved if the provinces concerned are willing to co-operate actively in the planning. Although the major survey work across Canada is expected to be completed by the end of 1980, it will take significant effort and resources to bring to fruition the balance of the necessary plans and arrangements that would reduce the vulnerability of Canadians to the effects of radioactive fall-out under nuclear war conditions.
The hon. member opposite decries the confusion and lack of ability of the various jurisdictions to get together. Perhaps the hazard that he speaks of, the threat that he calls to mind as a result of changing world conditions may motivate the various jurisdictions in this country to pull together. At a time when the first ministers are getting together to talk to a total review of our constitution and governmental arrangements, this question is timely and should be on the agenda as this level of government considers its role vis-a-vis the other levels of government.
In conclusion, civil defence cannot be solely a federal responsibility. Provinces and municipalities must of necessity be involved in development of emergency plans affecting the health and well-being of people, whether they be wartime emergencies or peacetime emergencies.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-REUNIFICATION OF FAMILIES- REPRESENTATIONS TO U.S.S.R.
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, on May 20 the hon. member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille), speaking from the government side of this House, moved the following motion:
That this House strongly urge the Soviet government to fulfil its undertakings in regard to the provisions of the Helsinki Final Act, specifically those calling for the reunification of families, and to allow the Jewish refusenik. Lev Ovsishcher, to emigrate to Israel.
The motion was seconded by the hon. member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling), a member of my party. I congratulate the House because the motion received unanimous consent, which is unusual. That indicates some expression of regard for the

June 2, 1980
Adjournment Debate
seriousness of the issue that was raised. On May 26, 1 raised the matter in a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan). 1 would like to speak for a moment about Lev Ovsishcher. He was born in Russia in 1919 and was raised as a boy in the city of Minsk. When he was 17 years of age, in 1936, he enlisted in the Soviet army in which he served loyally and with distinction for the next 25 years. He rose to the rank of colonel and retired from the army in 1961.
It is a sad commentary on human events that today in the Soviet Union it would appear to be government policy to denigrate the patriotism of Soviet Jews. Colonel Ovsishcher's military record was outstanding. He was wounded in action at Stalingrad and fought in many of the major battles on the Russian front, including the defence of Moscow. At the end of the war he had received 17 medals for extraordinary bravery and efficiency as a soldier in the terrible struggle to repel the Nazi enemy,
Colonel Ovsishcher emphasized the patriotism of Russian Jews in a speech he made in 1976 quoting statistics well known to the Soviet government. He pointed out that more than half a million Soviet Jews bore arms against the enemy during World War II. Of these, 150 rose to the rank of general. One hundred and seventy thousand Russian Jews were awarded medals or citations for bravery and 160 received the title "Hero of the Soviet Union" for extraordinary valor and devotion to duty. These Jews fought for their homeland, Russia. To us, it seems extraordinary that today only because some of them wish the right to emigrate to Israel they should be cast as traitors to the state.
Colonel Ovsishcher applied for an exit visa to Israel in 1972 and stated his desire to emigrate to that country. The harassment which has become commonplace in such cases commenced immediately. He was deprived of his rank of colonel. He was demoted in his place of employment. His mail was intercepted, his telephone calls disrupted and in 1973 his telephone service was discontinued. Government agents searched his apartment, Yiddish and Hebrew books were confiscated and he was interrogated numerous times by the KGB.
Colonel Ovsishcher defiantly reminded the authorities of his civil rights under the constitution. The harassment continued and in June, 1975, he was advised that he would not be allowed to leave for Israel for at least another three years. As of today, he is still not allowed to emigrate to Israel, unable to join his daughter who is now there.
After the war ended, Colonel Ovsishcher returned to his home in Minsk where in March, 1943, the Nazis executed 5,000 Russian Jews. He and other veterans erected a memorial to that evil act in memory of the victims. This year, as in past years, ceremonies were planned at the site of the memorial; they were especially significant as it was the thirty-fifth anniversary of the defeat of Hitler's Nazi regime. Colonel Ovsishcher was to have attended but was prevented from doing so by the KGB.
On March 6 of this year, with the help of friends in Canada and Russia, 1 was able, along with others, to put a telephone call through to Colonel Ovsishcher from my Vancouver office to him in Minsk. We later received from him a moving letter which reads in part:
I want to express my gratitude to you for your help in our difficult life and for your support which you have shown in your telephone call of March 6. The fact that you have not forgotten us in our hard fight is so important, not only for me but for many other families who are now in the same situation. You know, one man alone can be very weak but we are strong because we know we have supporters and friends. This is what gives us faith that we shall overcome.
When the war against the Nazis was over, we hoped victory would bring us not only peace but also human rights. Unfortunately, it was not so and today the voices of suffering people from many countries ring in the free world asking for your help. It is very important for us that you may hear and listen to these voices.
We must not break faith with Colonel Ovsishcher and the suffering peoples of whom he speaks. I urge the government to convey to the government of the U.S.S.R. the unanimous motion of this House and the remarks which I have had the privilege of making in this House of freedom, the Parliament of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ursula Appolloni: Mr. Speaker, we are, indeed, aware of the case of Colonel Lev Ovsishcher, a Jewish refusenik who wishes to join his daughter in Israel. The Canadian government has had no involvement with this case and since it is a third country which is concerned there is little we can do in the way of representations to encourage the Soviet authorities to grant him an exit visa, much as many of us would like to help him.
Past experience has made it clear that the Soviet Union might well challenge Canada's involvement in the case and that our interests could be jeopardized in other questions with a direct Canadian interest.
Although direct intervention is not a viable option, cases such as that of Colonel Ovsischer are relevant in the context of the 1975 Helsinki Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. Basket 111 of the Final Act of this conference refers to human contacts, including the question of the freer movement of people and, in particular, with humanitarian cases of this nature, involving the reunification of families. While progress has been made in this area with the U.S.S.R., there remains, unfortunately, considerable scope for improvement. For this reason the Canadian delegation to the review conference in Madrid this autumn will press for a more forthcoming Soviet attitude toward family reunification, including such cases as that of Colonel Ovsishcher.


NUCLEAR ENERGY-UNDERGROUND WATER DISPOSAL RESEARCH PROJECT IN MANITOBA
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, my purpose tonight is to comment on the complete inadequacy, and worse, the cynicism, of the answers I received on May 12
June 2, 1980

from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. MacLaren) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) respectively.
I asked about a specific project at a specific place, the underground waste disposal research project in the vicinity of Lac du Bonnet, inquiring as to whether further work on this project might be suspended and that public hearings be held to provide a forum for the discussion of all the attendant scientific, economic, social and ethical issues.
Instead, I was blandly assured by the parliamentary secretary that the whole question of radioactive waste disposal was under active consideration with provincial governments, and particularly the governments of Ontario and Manitoba, and that he would be glad to report to the House any further developments. The parliamentary secretary's kindness in not burying me with specific or even remotely relevant information pursuant to my question, is not appreciated.
He seems to have been taking lessons from AECL in how to keep a closed mouth about difficult questions, breaking secrecy only to indulge in badly disguised propaganda, to brand concerned citizens as emotional or irrational or to admit that accidents which they previously denied have actually occurred. No more irrational, emotional or intellectually craven state of mind could be imagined than that of the promoters of nuclear energy in this country who would have Canada pursue a nuclear future without adequate public debate of any kind. Instead, they blindly advocate that the public uncritically accept their self-interested overconfidence in their own abilities and hide from appropriate political and moral discussion about this issue behind the faqade of technical expertise and the urgency of maintaining the viability of the industry, as they call it, an answer which begs the question, to say the least.
Therefore 1 call on the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to tell us now whether there will be public hearings into this research project at Lac du Bonnet, whether he can assure the House that this will indeed always be a research project and that this is not the first step in Manitoba's becoming a burial ground for Ontario's radioactive waste.
Mr. Speaker, there is already a great deal of nuclear waste in this country that needs to be safely disposed of-there is no question about that-if indeed it is possible to dispose safely of it, so research into safe disposal is in order, but only because we have arrived where we are now without choosing. It is now time to make a choice and to initiate a public debate about nuclear energy through the framework, as 1 suggest, of a moratorium, public hearings and a referendum. For this reason 1 hope the parliamentary secretary will say something
Adjournment Debate
tonight about the government's intention in this regard and not just put off the question in the way the Prime Minister did on May 12. An internal departmental review is not enough. The people must be allowed to think and to speak openly about this issue, and a conscious decision must be reached, whatever that decision may be. My personal hope is that Canadians might choose to change their way of life in such a way as to permit a more renewable, decentralized, conservationist and less risky energy future, not just for their own sakes but for the sakes of future generations. But if the people should choose otherwise, so be it. All I ask for, and all others who are interested in this issue ask for, is that we be given such a choice and that the government demonstrate that it is not simply a tool of the nuclear establishment in this country but a servant of the people.


Mr. Roy MacLaren (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, since June, 1978, the Ontario and Canadian governments have been working on the first phase of a long-term project to ensure that nuclear spent fuel can be permanently disposed of in an environmentally safe manner.
Most of the geologic research, conducted under the auspices of AECL, is at present being carried out in the Ontario portion of the Canadian shield. On May 28, the Manitoba government approved the plans for the construction of an underground research laboratory near AECL's Whiteshell research establishment in the municipality of Lac du Bonnet. This new research facility is estimated to cost $7.5 million and will no doubt create many additional jobs in the area.
This is another example of how the two levels of government are capable of reaching agreement on matters of importance to all of us.
I should like to add that there has been extensive citizen involvement in the decision to locate the research laboratory in this area. For the past several months, there have been public meetings examining the question in the Whiteshell area. A citizens' liaison group formed by the reeve of the rural municipality of Lac du Bonnet found, according to the reeve, that between 96 per cent and 98 per cent of the citizens in the area approved of the project. A total of five local municipal councils passed resolutions approving AECL's plans for research in the area, and on May 7, the municipality of Lac du Bonnet informed the Manitoba government that it supported the AECL proposal. Contrary to critics' charges of a lack of citizen participation, the public is informed and is an integral part of the decision-making process.

June 2, 1980
We can all be proud of our country's unique contribution in the area of nuclear energy. In a world of decreasing energy sources and increasing energy costs, Canadians find themselves at the forefront of one of the most technologically advanced fields. We must continue our efforts to ensure that adequate energy sources are available to all in the future. I am certain that all members support accurate and timely scientific
research to ensure the continued development of our full energy potential.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow afternoon at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.28 p.m.

Tuesday, June 3, 1980