1980-05-29

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that 1 have received a communication notifying me that a vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely, the Hon. Lincoln M. Alexander, PC, member of the electoral district of Hamilton West, by resignation.
Accordingly, I have addressed my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a new writ of election for the said electoral district.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the Minister of Justice, on his recent tour to arrange for a constitutional meeting of first ministers, failed to visit either Yukon or the Northwest Territories, and whereas the Canadians living north of the sixtieth parallel demand to participate, as witnessed by the telegram of May 28, 1980, sent to the Prime Minister over the signatures of the hon. Chris Pearson and hon. James Wah-Shee of their respective territories, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That the duly elected representatives of the governments of Yukon and the Northwest Territories be included, with full status, in any first ministers' conference called to discuss the Canadian constitution.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FIRST MINISTERS' CONFERENCE-REPRESENTATIVES OF INDIAN AND 1NUIT PEOPLE-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Madam Speaker, in view of the constitutional conference to be held on June 9, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger):
That the Prime Minister declare his intentions as to whether he is going to invite the Indian and Inuit people of Canada to participate in the process of reform in areas directly affecting them.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the fact that the CPR increased the annual salary of its chairman by 70 per cent to over half a million dollars per year, while in the same year chiselling on retired CPR employee pensions and cancelling pass privileges of retired CP hotel employees, including one gentleman with 50 years' service with CP who had his gold pass revoked, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That this House require CP chairman Ian Sinclair, head of Canada's largest welfare recipient, CP Ltd., to appear before the House of Commons transport committee to justify these kinds of increases for CP executives, in the face of their inequitable treatment of retired employees.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

May 29, 1980
S.O.	43 GRAIN


WHEAT-CALL FOR INCREASE IN PRICE OF DOMESTIC WHEAT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In spite of the rhetoric and the endless pledges and promises of the Liberal government to heed and to act swiftly upon the needs and aspirations of western farmers and producers who have lost more than $25 million since this Liberal government was elected, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegre-ville (Mr. Mazankowski):
That the government immediately carry out the policy of the previous administration to make retroactive to February 1, 1980, the increase in the upper limit for the price of domestic wheat for human consumption.


Madam Speaker:: Such a presentation can be made only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


COAST GUARD
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Each year the report of the Public Service Commission points out the under-representation of women and Frenchspeaking people in the higher echelons of the federal administration, and since more than 30 per cent of administration graduates in Canada come from French language universities, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent):
That the Public Service Commission take immediate steps to put an end to the under-representation of French-speaking people and women.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of life-saving importance.
In view of the ever-increasing number of deaths resulting from marine accidents on Canada's Pacific coast, and in the light of testimony given yesterday in Vancouver before the Dubin royal commission, to the effect that there are no float-equipped rescue aircraft operating on the west coast, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen):
That this House direct the government to implement immediately the $300 million program to upgrade Canada's Coast Guard, a program to which the former Progressive Conservative government was committed; and I move, further, that as part of this program sufficient float-equipped rescue aircraft be provided in British Columbia to prevent further loss of life.


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


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. As Canada was the only country among the seven major free world nations to have a decline in productivity last year from 1978 levels, according to a recent U.S. government report, and all of the others- including Italy, Japan, France, Germany, Great Britain and the United States-had an increase in productivity, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain):
That the government commence discussions with this country's labour leaders in an effort to resolve this disgraceful situation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: No.
May 29, 1980


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the total number of Indians, Inuit and Metis in Canada is more than 1 million persons- more than the population of several of the provinces-and whereas these aboriginal peoples of Canada were never consulted with respect to the present Constitution, or agreed to its terms, nor with respect to the many federal and provincial laws which have critically affected their lives, lands and communities, and whereas the aboriginal peoples of Canada never voluntarily relinquished their political sovereignty over many areas of Canadian territory, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille):
That in the interest of moral justice, the Indian, Inuit and Metis people, through their national associations, be invited to attend as full participants the constitutional conference scheduled for June 9, 1980.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FREEDOM OF SPEECH
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, I, too, rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Canadians were shocked last week when the CRTC, a federal regulatory agency, threatened to cite an individual for contempt of court because it did not approve of comments made in an intervention before the commission. In view of the serious threat to freedom of speech, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga):
That this House, being disturbed by recent actions of the CRTC which threaten the freedom of speech of individuals before the commission, calls upon the Minister of Justice to make a full investigation of this incident and report to the House on what measures he feels are necessary to ensure that federal regulatory agencies do not place themselves beyond public criticism.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that Canada's major cable TV operator, Mr. Ted Rogers, in a submission before the CRTC in Vancouver, proposed to "redefine the role of cable TV as a communications medium and to offer a broad range of non-broadcast interactive services"-in short, to become another common carrier-and since both the Telecommunications Carriers Association and the Telecommunications Workers Union have expressed concern that cable's intention to duplicate existing and future natural carrier functions will, among other considerations, require a vast outlay of funds for hardware to be shouldered by the consuming public, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell):
That this House accept the recommendation of both the Telecommunications Carriers Association and the Telecommunications Workers Union to establish immediately a parliamentary task force to study the economic impact of these new services contemplated by the cable industry's apparent interest in becoming a common carrier.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN HOME INSULATION PROGRAM
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, I, too, rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43. In the Speech from the Throne, the government promised to bring in an extended home insulation program. The heating season is now over, and now is an ideal time for people to work on insulating their homes so that they will be ready for next winter. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone):
That this House does hereby direct the government to forthwith introduce rules and regulations for a new Canadian Home Insulation Program to subsidize home insulation for all homes built prior to 1976, particularly homes where it is impossible for the home owner who is forced to use home heating oil and where it is impossible or next to impossible for that home owner to convert to an alternate source of energy.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
1526

May 29, 1980
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MR. JACQUES COUSTEAU
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour of drawing the attention of the House to the presence this afternoon in our gallery of Mr. Jacques Cousteau, famous underwater explorer who has given us many great documentaries on marine life.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister relating to the constitutional meeting scheduled for June 9.
Can the Prime Minister tell the House of Commons whether a formal invitation will be issued to the Executive Council of the Yukon and the Executive Committee of the Northwest Territories to attend the June 9 constitutional meeting and to participate in those talks which might follow that meeting?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, the meeting of June 9 as discussed between the premiers and myself is for the premiers and the Prime Minister of Canada only. However, the Leader of the Opposition will recall that at the last constitutional conference that was convened in February, 1979, we put that item on the agenda and consulted the provinces on the possibility and the desirability, from our point of view, of involving native peoples on the one hand and making sure that their representations were made.
In so far as the Yukon and the Territories are concerned, we have always followed the practice of ensuring their presence either as observers or, in some cases, as members of the federal delegation.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister will know that there is widespread dissatisfaction in the north at the prospect of being either excluded from a conference of heads of government or being represented there by, in effect, federal bureaucrats. The Prime Minister indicated that it is the intention of his government to urge the participation of the territories' representatives in the process, if I correctly understood him.
May I ask the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to request of the provinces that an invitation to subsequent meetings be extended to elected representatives of the people
of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, elected members of their respective councils?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Madam Speaker. I do not want there to be any misunderstanding on this. In the past, I have encouraged the Yukon and the Northwest Territories to be present either as special observers or as members of the federal delegation. I do not intend to urge the provinces to change the practice.
At the meetings which have been held thus far under my government and all previous governments, the practice has been that federal-provincial conferences are attended by first ministers of the provinces and of the federal government, not by representatives of the Territories.


Charles Joseph Clark: The other day, in the House, the Prime Minister declined to indicate the agenda the federal government would be setting forth for the June 9 meeting because he had not received a reply from the government of Quebec.
Now that he has received a reply, would the Prime Minister tell us what agenda the government proposes for the meeting on June 9, and whether it will include a discussion of the means by which citizens of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories will be represented by people they elected, at subsequent constitutional meetings?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, no formal agenda has been agreed to by the provinces and the federal government; nor, I believe, was it the intention to have a specific and formal agenda. The meeting is an informal one on constitutional matters generally. We, for our part, have indicated, in correspondence which I will be pleased to table later today, that we hope at these meetings to agree on at least two things: the basic principles [DOT] which must underlie our federation and, second, the method by which progress could be made in updating and modernizing the Constitution.
As to the second part of the question, that subject is not specifically on the agenda. Of course, if the matter arises on provincial initiative, or if I see fit to discuss it, I will, but I want to tell the prime minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: See how easy it is?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, lest the opposition should think I am forecasting the shape of things to come, I want to say that sometimes I speak to myself.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: A supplementary to the Prime Minister regarding the June 9 meeting. In view of the great interest in the constitutional discussion across the country, has he made a firm decision as to whether those meetings shall be held in public or in camera?
May 29, 1980


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It was the generally expressed desire that the meeting of first ministers be private, but I believe it has already been indicated by one first minister that he intends to report everything that takes place. I, for my part, think I will wait until we have the meeting to see what rules of the game the first ministers wish to establish at that point.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Is it the right hon. gentleman's intention, at the meetings on June 9, to explore with the premiers the possibility of establishing a regular schedule of constitutional meetings with participation not only by the federal government and the provincial governments, but also exploring the possibility of future meetings on a regular basis to include Canadians in a broader pattern than is represented at a federal-provincial conference?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I feel that is a very constructive suggestion and I am quite certain the discussions will take that suggestion into account. When I say we shall be looking at the process for improving our basic constitution, that should be one of the methods we would look at. But I cannot at this time say what conclusions will be reached at the meeting of first ministers.


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, in the letters the Prime Minister is tabling at three o'clock, one common letter to the premiers of the predominantly Englishspeaking provinces and the other to the premier of the province of Quebec, there is a language difference: I do not want to suggest there is any difference in ideas; I just want clarification in light of what the Prime Minister has just said to the House.
In the letter to the premier of the province of Quebec, the Prime Minister indicates that the subject would be to reach agreement "both on the principles and on the process of constitutional change", whereas in the letter to the other premiers, the Prime Minister simply says that the purpose of the meeting is "to lay our future plans".
Does the Prime Minister really make any distinction between those two letters and, more specifically, is it clearly his intention not to attempt to reach an agreement on any matters of substance at the June 9 meeting?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I want to assure the leader of the New Democratic Party that both letters convey the same meaning and there was no intention, in the translation, of changing the emphasis of one aspect or another of the letter.
As for the second part of the question, I would ask the hon. member to repeat it.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I will include that second part in my second question. I asked the Prime Minister to indicate clearly, or reaffirm that it was not his intention to reach an agreement at the June 9 meeting, since it is private
Oral Questions
and since it is restricted to the first ministers, on any matter of substance in terms of constitutional change.
My second question, if the Prime Minister will deal with it at the same time, is this: last week he indicated an agreement in principle to the idea of including, as part of the federal delegation, leaders of opposition parties as well as, perhaps, other members of opposition parties in an attempt to get a broad, consensus approach to this serious question of constitutional change. Does he still stand by that, and is he urging his colleagues at the provincial level to establish the same principle?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, if hon. leaders of the opposition parties are willing and available, it would be my intention to meet with them next week, at their convenience, to have a discussion among ourselves to see in what direction they would hope the federal government or myself would be leading the conversations at the meeting on the ninth.
I would not expect to extract any form of binding agreement but 1 would be interested in knowing if, among ourselves, the parties represented in this House of Commons, there is some basic agreement on the general principles underlying our federalism and, indeed, the ways in which they think progress could be made in a rapid way in renewing our federalism. I am convinced that I will be enlightened by such meetings and I hope I would be able to guide my own participation on the ninth on those discussions.
In so far as the end of the previous question regarding substance is concerned, Madam Speaker, we hope that basic principles of federalism will be discussed and to that degree there will, of course, be discussions of substance. I would not expect, even in my wildest dreams, that there would be agreement on some form of words to be put in which ultimately would be an amendment to our present Constitution. If that should happen, and if 1 I of us should reach agreement at that meeting on part or the whole of a new Constitution, 1 would grab it and run.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I have a final, two-part question on this important subject matter. I think the Prime Minister misunderstood the second part of my last question. I asked, does the Prime Minister agree in principle that as part of the delegation which he would lead to such a first ministers' conference on June 9, and it would not therefore be a first ministers' conference exclusively, the Canadian government delegation would include the Leader of the Opposition, myself and possibly other members of opposition parties? I would like him to answer that question.
The second part to the question, to go back to the question of representation by the Yukon and the Northwest Territories and native peoples' groups, would he agree that at subsequent meetings which take place concerning constitutional change there should be an expanded delegation coming from the federal government and the provinces, native peoples, representatives of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon who ought to have an opportunity publicly to make submissions to such meetings.

May 29, 1980
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In answer to the first part of the question, Madam Speaker, i believe I already gave the answer a couple of weeks ago, but I will certainly repeat it: that if a measure of agreement can emerge among ourselves as to how best we can renew federalism, and do that with considerable speed, 1 would be most happy.
I can say in advance that, if such is the case, of course I would be happy to include members of the opposition and, certainly, leaders of the opposition parties in the federal delegation. But, of course, I cannot prejudge that until we have had some discussions.
With regard to the second part of the question, my answer is that just a few weeks ago 1 met the native chiefs and elders and their political leaders in Ottawa. I gave them an assurance that any constitutional discussions which would involve subjects close to their concerns-such as aboriginal rights, local government, and so on-would be subjects on which they would be consulted, without any decision being made before we had such consultations.
I fail to see at this moment that until we in the House, and perhaps we in the House with the Indians, natives and Inuit and we in the House with the people of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, have reached some measure of agreement, it would be productive to have federal-provincial conferences at which everyone airs their point of view but no progress is made. 1 think the House is seized of the importance of making progress quickly on this matter, otherwise we would be justifiably accused of not keeping our promise to renew federalism with as much haste as possible, and I want to create conditions where we can make progress.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AIR SAFETY
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport and it has to do with the important matter of air safety which continues to dominate a considerable amount of public attention.
Can the minister advise the House whether he has reviewed the policy of installation of mandatory frequencies at airports, since the Canadian Air Traffic Controllers' Association has voiced very strong objections to this installation inasmuch as it would constitute, in their view, a degradation of safety?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I have not yet done so.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Would the minister undertake to consult with CATCA before further installation, and would he not consider referring this matter to the Dubin inquiry?
With regard to a related question which arises out of the mid-air collision which took place in the Windsor area in July, 1979, and the subsequent investigation which was carried out which revealed there was inadequate co-ordination between the control towers of Windsor and Detroit, can the minister tell the House what action has been taken to rectify that dangerous situation?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I remember reading a memo explaining what went on, but I do not know what action has been taken since. But I will inquire as soon as I can.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Why don't you give notice of your questions?


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, I should like to put a question to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Could he inform the House and the farmers of western Canada whether he has investigated the problem of grade promotion, uppages or upgrading-they all mean the same thing-and if he has done so, could he tell us whether he has assured himself that the farmers in western Canada are receiving full value for their grain?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, obviously this is a question for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board and, as everybody knows, I am not in daily contact with the industry. I will inquire from the responsible member of the cabinet and I will report accordingly.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, would the minister, then, table a report to the House as he investigates this problem on the rationale behind grade promotion, uppages or upgrading, which right now is costing the Canadian farmer and the Canadian Wheat Board millions of dollars every crop year?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I will have a conversation with the minister responsible and report accordingly.


SHIPPING
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, my question, as well, is for the Minister of Transport. With regard to the government's contractual obligations to NSL, has the minister as yet determined a policy or formula for establishing an equitable subsidy for direct water shipment to Newfoundland?
May 29, 1980


Jean-Luc Pepin: This is obviously my day for very specific questions, Madam Speaker.
I will inquire on that one: I am not aware of it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, I am tempted to ask the minister when he is going to provide some bridge pier-fendering for the protection of lives and to save money, but I will ask a supplementary question.
When can we expect a resolution of this question, which is of crucial concern not only to the Clark interests and other direct water carriers but, more important, to shippers and users of those goods and services in that island province?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I know that I am supposed to know everything. Unfortunately, I can not live up to these expectations.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: I would like to say that if my hon. friends would like to give me notice of their questions, I could provide better answers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Poor Jean-Luc.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Since the U.S. Senate is unlikely to ratify the Canada-U.S. east coast fishery treaty, and since U.S. fishermen are expanding their scallop fleet and increasing the scallop catch in the disputed territory-in direct defiance of the Canada-U.S. treaty signed over a year ago by Canada-will the Secretary of State for External Affairs, rather than simply expressing displeasure with the U.S. position, tell the House what plans he has now, or what attempts have been made either to place real pressure on the U.S. government to finalize this treaty or to protect Canadian fishermen from current U.S. inaction?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, we are in the process of formulating a policy for dealing with this serious problem. I am having a discussion with an opposition spokesman immediately after the question period today, and of course the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and 1 are most preoccupied with this issue.


Edward Allan Miller: Either the government is really not aware of the seriousness of the situation, or they are unable to indicate their displeasure strongly enough to the U.S. government to ensure some action in that direction.
Oral Questions
I should like to ask the minister why he does not have, at this time, a plan of action and a timetable which he can place before the U.S. government at which time he would expect some action; or can he recommend what kind of action the Canadian fishermen can take right now to protect their fishery and their income?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I do not know whether or not I need to give the hon. member an elementary lecture on the U.S. government. Our problem is not with the U.S. government: we have made our point very strongly to them. Their problem is that they cannot control the U.S. Senate on this issue. We have to formulate a strategy which would take account of the U.S. Senate as well as of the U.S. government.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, and 1 trust that he will be able to answer it because it is important to the western producer.
Due to the action taken by the hon. member for Vegreville in getting grain moving when he was minister of transport, we now find that the elevator system within the Canadian Wheat Board area is operating at 47 per cent below capacity, and with one million tonnes less grain in the system than at this time last year. This is affecting terminal operating efficiency.
My question to the minister is: what action is the minister going to take to ensure that sufficient quantities of grain are in the country elevator system to ensure adequate supplies at the terminals? As of last week, it has been reported that CN could have moved 3,500 cars and only 2,400 were loaded.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I was in Winnipeg yesterday, meeting with the grain transportation authority. I was provided with a factual report on what was happening, and I found that the situation is not at all what it was described as this morning. The increase this year is at the 15 per cent to 16 per cent level in exports, which is slightly less than anticipated by my predecessor, but which is considered in western Canada to be a very good performance indeed.


Some hon. Members:: Answer the question.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Madam Speaker, the minister misinterpreted the question entirely and he did not answer it.


Charles Joseph Clark: He read the only answer he had.


Thomas Gordon Towers: With a differential of up to 70 cents per bushel between the off-board and board feed barley, and with producers not being able to realize a higher price because of lack

May 29, 1980
Oral Questions
of quota, could the minister state what action he intends to take before the end of the crop year? Will he increase the initial price paid to producers, as well as raise the quotas? The minister must be held responsible for this-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the initial prices this year were established at a level which was substantially higher than the initial prices last year. The minister responsible for the Wheat Board reported, at the time he made the announcement on the initial prices, that he would review them at the beginning of the coming crop year. That is the situation as it stands now.


An hon. Member:: Unbelievable.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice, I should like to direct my question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.
In view of the fact that Dr. Henry Morgentaler performed 12 to 15 illegal abortions a week in his Champlain clinic in east end Montreal-


An hon. Member:: Is that all?


Jesse Philip Flis: Someone from the NDP says, "Is that all?" It seems to me that 12 to 15 a week is too many. He, and he alone, decided who will and, occasionally, will not have an abortion. What appropriate steps is the hon. minister prepared to take to bring Dr. Morgentaler within the full reach of the law?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the law provides for abortion committees. These committees should be in effect in hospitals and clinics.


An hon. Member:: Tell us what you believe.


William Kenneth Robinson: If Dr. Morgentaler is not following the law, then this is a matter for the Quebec police or the local police to take action on. I would only say, from the federal point of view, that at the present time we are implementing the recommendations made in the Bagley report which was tabled in 1977.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. There are a number of outstanding and long overdue matters to be dealt with in the metropolitan Toronto area, such as additional runway capacity at Toronto international airport, the construction of a third terminal, the disposal of lands at Pickering, the decision on STOL at Island airport, the Buttonville satellite airport, the moratorium of additional landing rights, the broken promises on urban transit, the SOMPS report, and the Toronto Harbours Commission debt, just to name a few.


An hon. Member:: Question.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: That is just a beginning.


Otto John Jelinek: Could the minister tell this House what action he intends to take on these matters, especially considering the fact that in the previous government we had a plan of action which would have dealt with all these matters expeditiously? What action will he take?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend was speaking too fast for me to make notes on every question he raised. But if I were to act now on a number of them, what I would do would be illegal. The STOL question obviously is before the CTC. That is one I cannot rule on, obviously, because it would be illegal if I did that. On the Toronto Harbours, this question is coming before cabinet committee next week.


Mr. Stevens:: What about Pickering?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am attending to all of them as time permits and also as time permits my colleagues to become acquainted with them.


Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, I knew that federal transport problems were in limbo since the minister's takeover, but now I see the minister himself is also in limbo.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: In order to simplify matters for the minister- he did not answer it quite correctly-my supplementary question is, could he now assure this House that he will put into action forthwith the programs which were initiated by his predecessor; and, if not, why is he wasting time? He has been in office and has had an opportunity to grasp the situation in transport. Why has he not taken action which is long overdue to deal with these problems?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I am really doing a number of things. I could recite them here.


An hon. Member:: Go ahead.
May 29, 1980


Jean-Luc Pepin: In some cases there is no funding available. There were promises made during the electoral campaign. My hon. friend, who is a very distinguished gentleman, is also a very generous one, so he went around and made promises during the months of December and January the like of which has hardly ever been seen in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the presence of our distinguished visitor, Mr. Jacques Cousteau-who has been so concerned with the health of world oceans-I believe that my question is especially relevant today.
The National Energy Board has received notice from Trans Mountain Pipe Line Co. Ltd. that they intend to proceed with a rehearing this fall on their proposal to build an oil port in Washington state and to increase oil tanker traffic on the British Columbia coast. As the hearings are presently set for the fall of 1980, and as the last NEB hearings were held in Vancouver, will the minister undertake to hold these future hearings in Victoria, which is the area most directly affected by the proposal for increased tanker traffic?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I want to tell the hon. member that the government shares his concern over any increase in tanker traffic on the British Columbia coast. As my hon. colleague knows, the National Energy Board decides on its own where it will hold its hearings-it is an independent agency-but I want to assure him that I will convey his suggestion to the board. If it is possible, I think the NEB will consider his suggestion favourably. But again, I do not have the authority to force the board to hold its hearings in any location whatsoever.


INQUIRY WHETHER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDIES WILL BE PRESENTED TO HEARINGS
James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer. My supplementary question is for the Minister of the Environment.
In view of the fact that the rehearing is being scheduled to hear environmental impact concerns, and that in the final report of the west coast oil ports inquiry the commissioner, Mr. Andrew Thompson, called on the federal government, in
Oral Questions
the event of future proposals involving Port Angeles, to set up a public inquiry to study navigational safety and the impact of oil spills as they affect Canada, will the minister undertake environmental impact studies to be presented on behalf of the Canadian people at the hearings this fall?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, I will give careful consideration to the representations of the hon. member.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for the Wheat Board in this House. Members on this side of the House feel that the minister should keep himself informed.
Given the fact that farmers are subsidizing the cost of domestic grain consumed in Canada by $1 million a week, will the minister take the same steps taken by the former Progressive Conservative government and increase the price as of February 1, 1980, to bring some immediate relief to farmers?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, there is a wrong basis for asking these questions. I am not the minister responsible for the Wheat Board.


Some hon. Members:: Yes, you are.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I answer in this House for the minister who is responsible for the Wheat Board.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: No.


Charles Joseph Clark: Read the order in council.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Anyway, be that as it may, I will consult with the minister responsible for the Wheat Board and bring an answer to my hon. friend.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Would the minister also find out for us how the farmers are to recover the $25 million they have lost?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will look into it, Madam Speaker.


NATURAL GAS-INCENTIVE PRICING ARRANGEMENT FOR GAS DESTINED FOR NEW EASTERN CANADIAN MARKETS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources concerning the continuing negotiations, which have been going on for the past year, into an incentive pricing arrangement for natural gas going into new markets in eastern Canada.

May 29, 1980
Oral Questions
In view of the concern of many communities and industries that this gas price incentive be put in place, could the minister say when this agreement will be reached with the producing and consuming provinces; or is it awaiting the agreement which is yet to be reached on oil prices?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the question of incentive pricing for gas is part of the general discussions on energy prices which I am having at the present time with the producing provinces. I hope those discussions will be concluded favourably very shortly, and that the question of incentive pricing for gas will be concluded at the same time.


TRANSPORT
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for transport. It is a very important question because it deals with a matter of possible life or death for many Canadians.
In view of the fact that there have been thousands of sudden brake failures reported in the United States and Canada during the past 12 months, involving Volkswagen Rabbits, Sciroccos, Audi Foxes and Dashers, and since the mechanical defect of both the master cylinder and the back-up braking system appears to be the cause of this dangerous situation, will the minister inform this House what action his department has taken to protect Canadians from possible serious injury due to sudden brake failures in Volkswagen cars?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, first I will check to determine if there have been such complaints lodged. My department does not have the authority to recall. We investigate these situations and it is up to the companies to make the recalls. I will look into this very specific case and determine whether or not the company itself is in the process of recalling.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, in spite of the disclaimer by the Minister of Transport, it is a fact that officials of his own department have been investigating the safety-related defect since May, 1979, as has the U.S. national transportation safety administration.
In view of the fact that Volkswagen Canada, Inc., has failed to accept responsibility for repairing or replacing the defective braking systems, despite great risk to human life, will the Minister of Transport, in concert with his colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, take action through this Parliament if necessary to force an immediate recall of all Volkswagen cars sold in Canada since 1975, so that this very dangerous mechanical defect can be repaired at no cost to Volkswagen owners?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I just said that we could not force the companies to make recalls. I will consult with the company and try to exercise the normal diplomatic pressures so that this measure will be contemplated.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Transport. Will the minister advise this House whether he is prepared to accept the Progressive Conservative government's initiative that in cases where government money is being spent to upgrade rail lines or rehabilitate grade lines, public tenders will be called for such work as bank widening, ballast and any work that can reasonably be carried out by independent contractors?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I will look into present practices and act on the matter.


Douglas Charles Neil: Madam Speaker, can the minister advise the House whether he is prepared to follow through on the previous PC government's initiative to set up an advisory committee made up of representatives of various grain companies, railways and the office of the grain co-ordinator, which would be charged with the responsibility of recommending the priority of upgrading or rehabilitating branch lines comprising the prairie line network?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, my answer is the same as my previous answer.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The Canadian Commission for the International Year of the Child is meeting in Ottawa today. Since one of the commission's major recommendations is for greater participation of the federal government in expanding child care services across Canada, will the minister, in co-operation with the provinces, present a national child care act to this House to ensure a network of good quality child care services, and to help subsidize costs to low income parents?
[ Translation]


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I see that the hon. member reads the newspapers like everyone else. We have noted that the Canadian Commission for the International Year of the Child
May 29, 1980

will deliver its report to the Prime Minister and to some ministers in a few minutes. I would like the hon. member to be kind enough to let us receive the report and consider the recommendations. I intend-and I can announce it immediately to the House-to table the report in Parliament tomorrow morning.


Neil Young: Madam Speaker, since most communities do not have sufficient capital to develop child care centres, and many elementary and pre-school children are left at home without adequate care, will the minister approve shared federal funding up to 75 per cent for start-up funds to renovate and equip new centres such as vacant school rooms, so that affordable day care and out-of-school care can be made available in most neighbourhoods?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, the hon. member's question is based on statistics already out of date for 1977 and 1978 but in 1979, probably as the result of the excellent work to promote awareness made by the Canadian Commission for the International Year of the Child, the capacity of nurseries and day-care centres available for children who need them in Canada increased by 9 per cent as compared with the best previous year in 1976, that is, 17 per cent. This increased capacity is essentially due to a unique provision of the Canada Assistance Plan which encourages the expansion of nurseries with capital funds and payment of operating costs. The hon. member knows that the Canada Assistance Plan has that special provision only for nurseries, as far as I am aware, but we cannot do anything if a province does not take any action. In his case, I am sure that he will speak to the Ontario government.

[ English]


AGTL AND PETRO-CANADA JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT ON ALBERTA OIL SANDS PROJECT
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Could the minister confirm that the Alberta Gas Trunk Line company and Petro-Canada Exploration entered into a joint venture agreement to review the feasibility of developing a fourth oil sands mining complex in northern Alberta?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I can indeed confirm that agreement between Alberta Gas Trunk Line and Petro-Canada and the decision, I understand, was announced a few minutes ago.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Alfred Corbett: What a coincidence.


Marc Lalonde: This decision represents a significant development in the pursuit of the general objectives of the Canadian
Oral Questions
government, both in terms of ensuring supply of petroleum for Canada in the 1990s and also ensuring expansion of Canadian ownership in that most important sector.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Madam Speaker,
1 have a question for the Minister of Transport. I discussed the subject matter with him previously, so he will know what I am about to say.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Nielsen:: He still will not answer.


Charles James Mayer: It concerns the lack of scheduled first-class jet air service to the Brandon area. Would the minister tell the House and the people of that area what the government's position is in terms of this service, which is very much in need in that important area of Manitoba?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I had the great pleasure of meeting with the mayor of Brandon last night in Winnipeg. He informed me of the eagerness of the municipality and the authorities to express their views. As my old friend knows, the case is still before the CTC. The difficulty we have is that the CTC has so much work at this time that it cannot deal with this matter as fast as it would like. However, I am trying to help matters move faster.


Charles James Mayer: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question deals with the same topic, to the same minister. He spoke earlier to the effect that the previous minister of transport had been very generous. In this case he was not generous; he was very responsible in making a decision to allow a regional carrier to apply for that route. It is one thing to be sort of passive in agreement, but what we need is active support for that air service.
Would the minister give the same kind of support to that service, in terms of speeding up hearings at the ATC, so that the service can be put into place as quickly as possible? It is something we have done without in that area for far too long: there are 180,000 people without service, not only in southwestern Manitoba but in southeastern Saskatchewan.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, in some ways my predecessor could be accused of having forced the hand of the CTC in this matter. I would prefer, as I have every right under the law-


Charles Joseph Clark: He could be accused of knowing his portfolio.


Jean-Luc Pepin: -to revise the decision of the CTC. I would prefer the CTC to make an objective appraisal of the situation,
1534

May 29, 1980
Business of the House
knowing full well that I and the government as a whole can change that decision if judged necessary.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, it being Thursday, I wonder if 1 might put the usual House business question to the government House leader about the balance of the week, on the understanding that tomorrow is an allotted day.


Mr. Pinard:: Indeed, Madam Speaker, we will resume today consideration of the motion for second reading of the legislation to provide the government with supplementary borrowing authority for fiscal year 1980-81. Tomorrow is an allotted day. On Monday, in case we have not completed the debate on second reading, we will continue consideration of Bill C-30, to provide the government with supplementary borrowing authority for fiscal year 1980-81. Then, we will deal with the bill to amend the Employment Tax Credit Act, the bill to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, and motion No. 1, in the name of the government, calling for the establishment of a Ministry of State for Social Development. Later, we will go on to Bill C-28, to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. If, in the middle of next week, we have completed consideration of these pieces of legislation, I will then be pleased to inform my hon. colleague of the other measures ready to be dealt with.


Mr. Knowles:: Madam Speaker, as the government House leader knows, we on this side try to ask these Thursday questions in a low key without any element of confrontation. But I have to say to the minister that my annoyance quotient is getting very high with respect to his delay in telling the House anything definite about the bill that the Minister of Veterans Affairs is to bring in, having to do with the widows of disabled veterans. Two weeks ago the minister said I would not have to ask the question many more times, but a week ago he said it would be in before the end of the year.
Madam Speaker, this was the subject of a bill in the last session, so the work has been done. The Minister of Veterans Affairs said he hoped to make improvements to it. Before the House met, he indicated it would be brought in soon. This is a matter of great urgency, and I call on my good friend, the government House leader, not to play around with it any more but by next Thursday to tell us when that bill is going to be brought in.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I hope I can provide a satisfactory answer to my hon. colleague. However I am in a position to give him confirmation that as a result of his numerous representations and immediately following his first intervention I have asked the responsible minister to deal with this matter so that the bill may be drafted as soon as possible. The minister gave me that assurance personally and also gave it to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
We are now working on that bill and as soon as it is ready we will introduce it before the House and try to expedite it as swiftly as possible. However, I cannot give any personal commitment to my distinguished colleague that this bill will be introduced before Thursday next. If we can do so later on today I will, but if it is delayed to mid-July, we will do it then. We will do it when everything is ready and I can assure the hon. member that we will not unduly delay the introduction of that bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do it in June.


POINT OF ORDER
[Stage Direction]
MR. MacKAY-QUESTION PERIOD ANSWER OF MINISTER OF TRANSPORT
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker,
I have a very brief point of order with respect to the answer the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) gave the hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer). If I may have the attention of the Minister of Transport, I should like to direct his attention to the answer that he gave the hon. member for Portage-Marquette.
I may have misinterpreted it, but 1 understood from his answer that he, in effect, accused the former minister of transport, his predecessor, with forcing the hand of the CTC which is supposed to be an independent body. I see the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) has just come into the chamber: he might like to elaborate on that answer. I thought it might not be a good thing to leave it on the record in the form in which I understood it, if I understood it correctly.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, if I can say just a few words on that, I did not mean to insult anybody. I just said there are two ways of looking at this particular situation, one in which the minister defines a situation beforehand on which he expresses views, and then the case goes before the CTC and is implemented by the board. That is one way of going at it.
I said that in some ways this might be considered-I think 1 am very precise-or could be considered as forcing the hand of the CTC. I said that I prefer the other way around, that is, the
May 29, 1980

CTC makes a decision and because of sections 25 and 64 of the act I can, and the cabinet can, review that situation and change it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: On the same point of order raised by my colleague, Madam Speaker, I would simply reserve the right to check to see precisely what exchange did take place. If, as my hon. colleague indicated, the minister suggested that I had interfered wrongly or unduly with the operations of the CTC, I would certainly want to examine that exchange and reserve the right to raise a point of order or a question of privilege at a later date.


PRIVILEGE
[Stage Direction]
mr. Mcknight-lack of answers on Canadian wheat
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, I rise on this question of privilege with great reluctance, but I also do it because of the importance, the concern and the necessity of the people of western Canada, the grain producers, the farmers and the cattlemen who apparently are totally ignored by this government. I have asked five questions in this House; as a matter of fact, with four supplementaries. The only question that was answered was answered by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bockstael).
Madam Speaker, I should like to read from The Canada Gazette, part II, volume 114, No. 6, page 622, assigning the Hon. Hazen Argue to assist the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) respecting the Canadian Wheat Board, the Two-Price Wheat Act and the Western Grain Stabilization Act. The farmers of western Canada have a need and a desire for knowledge from this House. This is the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. He has an assistant in the other place-an assistant, not a minister.
I would ask, with all due respect, Madam Speaker, if anyone on the other side-the Prime Minister or anyone-could provide us with a minister so that we could obtain information here, and in turn present it to our constituents who demand it and desire it of us. If you find in my favour, Madam Speaker, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That the Prime Minister instruct a minister in this House to be responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Does the hon. minister wish to reply?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I can only observe that my hon. friends on the other side were organized today to bring the point that my friend is now making. This is a situation that I cannot, obviously, change; it is not in my power to do so. I was given the job, and I am trying to do it as well as I can.
Privilege-Mr. McKnight
If my hon. friends wanted to accommodate me to any extent, that is, when they ask me questions that in some cases even the Canadian Wheat Board cannot answer without days of research, if they wanted to give me notice of these questions beforehand, I think they could be accommodated very well. I could provide the information. Inasmuch as they do not want to, we have the situation that we have now.


Charles Joseph Clark: On this question of privilege, Madam Speaker, I regret that the minister not only does not understand his responsibilities, but does not understand the question of privilege that has been raised here.
He said in this House minutes ago, during the question period, that he is not the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. That was his statement. That was his claim. That was his excuse for knowing nothing about matters of basic and fundamental interest to the grain producers of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The point raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight), when he cited an order in council was that an order in council vesting ministerial responsibility does not vest the responsibility for reporting to Parliament for the Wheat Board in someone in the other place: it vests that responsibility, clearly and categorically, in the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin).
I will read again the order in council, PC 1980-605 dated March 4, 1980, in which His Excellency the Governor General in Council appoints the Hon. Hazen Robert Argue a Minister of State. I will quote the very relevant part, Madam Speaker:
-to assist the Minister of Transport in the carrying out of the latter's responsibilities-
That is, in the carrying out of the Minister of Transport's responsibilities. It continues:
(a) in respect of the Canadian Wheat Board: and (b) as minister for the purposes of the Two-Price Wheat Act and the Western Grain Stabilization Act.
The order in council makes it abundantly clear that there is not another minister in another place upon whom this Minister of Transport can shuck off responsibility for the Canadian Wheat Board. It is his job to know what the Wheat Board is doing. It is his job to report to this House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: It is his job to take responsibility. It may well be simply a matter of opinion whether or not the minister is carrying out that job well. We think he is carrying it out abominably, Madam Speaker. I cannot remember a minister in my time in the House of Commons who has come into this House day after day less prepared than the Minister of Transport has in relation to very important questions relating to the Canadian Wheat Board. But that is a matter of opinion.

May 29, 1980
Privilege-Mr. McKnight
The question of privilege at stake here has to do with the attempt by this minister to deny, here, on the floor of the House of Commons, responsibilities which are clearly assigned to him by an order in council. It is bad enough that he does not know the details of matters relating to the Canadian Wheat Board: what is even worse is that he should come before this House of Commons and try to tell us and the people of Canada that he is not, in fact, responsible for matters for which an order in council of his own government makes him responsible. It is time for this government and for this minister to accept responsibility here in this House of Commons, not to relegate the problems of Canadian grain growers to a secondary status or to a matter of being so unimportant that the minister denies his responsibilities for them.
I believe that we are seized here of a very real question that touches the rights of members on this side of the House of Commons and, indeed, members anywhere in the House of Commons who represent grain growers whose interests are affected by the operations of the Canadian Wheat Board. They have a right to expect that there will be a minister here who will answer questions.
The order in council and the law of the land imposes upon that minister, the Minister of Transport, the responsibility to come here. He has tried today to deny that he has the responsibility given him by the order in council. That is simply unacceptable, Madam Speaker, not simply to this House but to any concept of responsible government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, it is quite obvious that the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) longs for his few years of law and is trying to give interpretation to an order in council even though what is more important is that members of the House obtain information that is as complete and as accurate as possible. What the minister did today in the House in replying to a few questions was done in the most honest and the fairest way possible. He replied that he was planning on consulting the Minister of State responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, who sits in the Senate, and that he would obtain all necessary information and report later to the House so as to provide hon. members with the fullest and most accurate reply possible.
Madam Speaker, I find it difficult to understand why some members try to interpret a document simply for interpretation purposes without truly considering what they are looking for. When hon. members ask questions in the House, what they want is not so much to know how to interpret an order in council as to obtain an accurate, full and honest answer.
If the Progressive Conservatives really want full answers to their questions, 1 wonder why the Leader of the Opposition objects to the fact that the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) wishes to consult his colleague, who is in fact the
Minister of State responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, so as to be able to give specific details and provide the information requested by opposition members.
If this persists, Madam Speaker, we shall have no other alternative but to conclude that, in fact, what the members of the Progressive Conservative party want is not so much serious and full replies to their questions as the simple opportunity to play political games in a Parliament which has no time for such things.
Madam Speaker, 1 find it totally unacceptable for the Leader of the Opposition to take up the time of the House at this time, when Parliament has been in session only a very short time this last year because of two general elections in quick succession, to amuse himself by interpreting orders in council and attempting to show that the Minister of Transport is acting irresponsibly when he wants to obtain some facts to provide a full and accurate answer to one of his colleagues. I find this totally unacceptable. Instead of taking up our time by attempting to interpret certain documents, I would ask him rather to try to obtain full answers like the one the Minister of Transport wants to give his colleagues.


Madam Speaker:: I have heard two speakers from each side on that point of privilege. If I may, I would like to state that with the remarks made by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), this House somewhat strayed in my view from the original point of privilege. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition spoke on who was responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, while the point of privilege raised by the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) was rather in the nature of representations to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), representations stemming from the fact that the hon. member is not satisfied either with the answers he received or the situation arising in this House from the fact that a minister who is a member of the upper chamber is responsible-on which point I will not interpret the nature of his responsibilities because it is not for me to do so- or in any case on who should answer questions pertaining to the Canadian Wheat Board.
The remarks made by the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster were rather in the nature of representations, and certainly he will understand that points of privilege may not be raised to make representations. In conclusion, on its face, the point raised by the hon. member is certainly very important, it probably deserves to be debated at length in this House, but this may not be done under a question of privilege.


Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It seems to me that the hon. gentleman, the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight), has raised a substantive question of privilege. I am not challenging your ruling. Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member is referring to the ruling that 1 have just made, I feel that I
May 29, 1980

cannot hear him. If it is a point of order pertaining to some other matter, I will hear him with pleasure; but he must be very careful not to allude to the ruling I have just made.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, first I want to know what was the disposition of the substantive motion made by the hon. member in support of what he and many of us consider to be a prima facie case of privilege. The fact that there is a minister in this House who, under the order in council, is responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board is the question of privilege.


Madam Speaker:: Precisely. It was a substantive motion, and there was no notice given of that substantive motion. Furthermore, quite obviously, by the argumentation set forth by the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight), he was making representations to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) about a situation which he does not find satisfactory. He can debate that at any time he wishes, but my ruling must stand.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With respect to the question of notice, I think if it had been the kind of matter that occurred in other than the question period, it would be one upon which notice could be given at the appropriate time prior to the next sitting of the House. But I would not want your response with respect to the question of notice to imply that if written notice is not given, members are precluded then from raising at three o'clock matters that occurred during the course of the question period, otherwise we would be denied some very substantial rights. I am sure Your Honour did not intend that, but I want that to be clear. I hope that Your Honour would express that that is not her intention.


Madam Speaker:: I said two things: that a substantive motion does require notice. I also said that the nature of the argumentation brought forth by the hon. member seemed to me to be that of representations and did not appear to be a prima facie case of privilege.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When you recognized members to participation in the privilege motion by the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight), you did not recognize anyone from this party. I know you have the right to recognize whom you choose. What I want to say is that we support very strongly the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster. I do not know whether you will allow me to continue, because you have already made your ruling.
It is very important that I put on the record that we were not recognized to comment and that we support very strongly what the hon. member said. We are very unhappy with the way the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) has handled questions regarding the Wheat Board. When he said today that he is not responsible for it, we think that is a real infringement of
Point of Order-Mr. Jelinek
our privileges as members of Parliament who come from western ridings where wheat is very important.
We have an obligation in this House to pose questions on this topic. The government has an obligation to make sure there is someone on the government benches who can respond with intelligence to our questions. I see, Madam Speaker, that you are trying to cut me off. I want to make the point that I think we should have had some say in this debate.


Madam Speaker:: First, it is true that I did not recognize someone from the New Democratic Party. I said that I had listened to two members on one side, two on the other side, and that I felt sufficiently informed in order to make a ruling. However, I must point out to the hon. member that he, too, is arguing the question. This is a grievance that members have vis-a-vis the government. They are quite free to bring any kind of grievance before this House, but not under the guise of a question of privilege.


POINTS OF ORDER
Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, my point of order is on a related matter but not on the same question of privilege. It is a point of order which I believe the minister could clear up.
Today, Madam Speaker, as you saw and heard during the question period, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) put on one of the most disappointing, if not disgraceful, performances on record in this House. Not only did he not even attempt to answer questions pertaining to the Wheat Board, but he could not answer any questions relating to the Department of Transport today, as in the past. It is obvious that the minister is not taking the necessary time and effort to brief himself on one of the most important portfolios affecting every Canadian across this country-not only every member of the House of Commons but every Canadian.
I said at the outset that the minister could clarify the situation today, right here and now. I ask him to take the only honourable step open to him in respect of his performance so far in this House of Commons, that is, to resign from his position as Minister of Transport and allow somebody who will take the necessary steps to brief himself and to be responsible as a minister in this very important portfolio.


Madam Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member knows that the Chair is in no way capable of ensuring that a member will be satisfied with the quality, length or breadth of an answer to any question posed by a member of the opposition or, in fact, a member of any party. If a member is not satisfied, he can ask more questions day after day after day. That is the whole object of the question period. However, I do not believe it is a point of order.

May 29, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Malone


MR. TAYLOR-MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise, on a point of order, on the matter of false information being given to the House. When he talked about the Wheat Board, the minister said, "I am not the minister responsible". The order in council shows that he is the minister responsible. Therefore, I suggest that this matter be held in abeyance until after Madam Speaker has had a chance to read the record, because false information was given to the House.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member is entering into a debate. This is not a point of order.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a different and very important question of privilege dealing with the rights of all members of this House, and one that we can underscore as restricting members from their full opportunity to participate in Parliament. It deals with the fact that, for whatever the reasons, the government of the day has failed to put this Parliament into action, as demonstrated by the fact that as of this moment 13 out of 20 committees are not functioning. If we take a look at those committees, six of them have never met, and seven have met only to have their organizational meeting but have not met since.
In light of the discussion we just had on a question of privilege dealing with the Canadian Wheat Board, if we look at that particular institution it will be noted that the Canadian Wheat Board has a budget as large as the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan combined. It reports to no one except members of Parliament, and yet members of Parliament are denied the opportunity to call that agency to account. Members of Parliament are the only people who can call that agency to account.
If we look at the committees on agriculture, fisheries and forestry, health and welfare, justice and legal affairs, miscellaneous private bills, procedure and organization, and a great number of other committees, we find in fact that they have never met or they have in no way-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Veterans Affairs.


Arnold John Malone: The member of the New Democratic Party says that veterans affairs has not met. As hon. members know, if there is a motion in the committee and that motion is passed by the committee, it must be brought to this Parliament and debated here if there is a wish by any one member to call for it. However, we cannot call for that motion if the committee does not sit. We cannot speak in this chamber if those committees will not allow us to raise the motion with the possibility of passing it and therefore bringing it to this chamber.
Those members who have been here for some time are clearly aware of the narrow restriction of what is and what is not privilege: it is whether or not we are restricted to function in Parliament in this chamber. However, when we look at the issues that we could potentially face, the committee function, surely we have to come to the conclusion that you can bar a member in a committee by somehow not allowing him to speak, putting him out of the committee or physically or psychologically cutting him off. Surely you can do the same thing by never having the committees function, and thereby denying a member that right.
If you take the committee function which would bring to this Parliament a variation of activities, amendments, motions or whatever, and make it so it cannot be proceeded with here, then surely it has to be a concern when we say our right to speak or to influence this Parliament has been denied.
I wish to refer to citation 578 of Beauchesne which deals with the need to call committees early. It is citation 579(2), which puts a responsibility for that clearly on the government whip, and citation 570 which stresses that committees must give preference to due and sufficient consideration.
I am not sure what the members on the government side would consider due consideration, but today is the forty-fifth day after this Parliament resumed on April 14. Surely we do not need to wait beyond some 45-day period with more than 50 per cent of the committees either not formed or never having met for the first meeting. There are, before us, all the estimates. We should have a right to call those estimates, as members of parliament, in order to review them, analyse them, criticize them or make amendments. We should have the right to make a motion which would bring a debate to the floor of this chamber. However, we are denied that opportunity because the government of the day simply will not strike the committees or have the committees called to meet.
One of the questions that members of Parliament are starting to ask is, "Why are we here?" There are systems set up whereby we can function, work and represent our constituencies on the issues of the country. However, if they will not put the systems in place, then by default what the government is doing is making it so that Parliament will not, and cannot, work.
We see situations like the explosion of Mount St. Helens, in Washington, which is having an effect on the spawning of salmon on the west coast; but there is no fisheries and forestry committee. Very early in the spring and summer of 1980 we have had by far the largest number of acres of forest destroyed by fire that we have had in our history; but find there is no forestry committee meeting. When we find there is no forestry committee meeting, then surely the rights of members are, in fact, being denied.
I would like to quote just one other instance of this, Madam Speaker. I refer to the occasion just a few weeks ago when the member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) rose under the provisions of Standing Order 26. You will recall he was
May 29, 1980

endeavouring to bring to Your Honour's attention, and to the attention of the House, his concern about the very severe drought in the three prairie provinces. At that time, Madam Speaker, you denied the emergency debate on the following grounds-and I quote your words:
In this instance I am sure the hon. member knows that the matter can be raised in the committee where the estimates of the Department of Agriculture are currently being studied.
Madam Speaker, that was some weeks ago, yet the Standing Committee on Agriculture is only today meeting for the first time. So up to this moment, 45 days after April 14, when there was an urgent request made by one member followed by the suggestion that he could take the matter up before a committee, there has been no committee. So I would again say I think we are being denied.
If we take a look at the miscellaneous estimates committee we find that the committee met, mapped out two weeks of work, and has not met since. I think that speaks for itself about the kind and quality of work the government is directing us to do and about our inability to function. I argue that the right of members of Parliament to scrutinize estimates, to examine government policy, to analyse and make suggestions about alternative policy, belongs to every member of this House. A member is denied the privilege of being able to participate if the system denies him the opportunity to do so.
I believe I do have a question of privilege under the provisions of Standing Order 75(2), and I glean some information from that Standing Order although there are many others which are relevant. It says:
All amendments made in committee shall be reported to the House.
How can I, as a member of Parliament, affect in this House something that would come out of an extension of the House if that extension does not exist? The committees have always been viewed by members of Parliament as an extension of Parliament. When we sit in committee we are sitting in an extension of Parliament. I am sure members of all parties, when their constituents come to sit in the galleries in the afternoons and ask "Where are you?", tell them: "I am in committee, which is an extension of the House." That is a part of the House activities. Standing Order 75(2) states that all amendments adopted in committees must be brought to the House. But we cannot do this when more than half of the committees, 45 days after this Parliament met, are not sitting.
Madam Speaker, if in your judgment I have a bona fide question of privilege, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That the unacceptable failure of the leader of the government in the House of Commons to give instructions or references so as to cause the committees of this House to function, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
As a footnote, I would like to add that this is one of the committees which, by chance, happens to be meeting.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Yes, Madam Speaker. I would like to emphasize the remarks made by my colleague from Crowfoot (Mr. Malone), because it is absolute-
Privilege-Mr. Malone
ly unacceptable in my view that at this point in time, in the sixth week of this Parliament, a number of our committees are defective. I remember very well that when we were in committee to discuss the current rules of procedure, we ensured that it would not be necessary to wait for motions of reference from the government before estimates could be sent to a committee. In fact, once the estimates are introduced, they are automatically referred, and committees are in place because the first motions are for the nominations committee, and committees are appointed in a matter of days. But this is ended for the major part, and the government whip is directly responsible for this.
The only way we can act is to submit our grievance to the Chair. We can voice our grievances, and how! This is a tactic worthy of Marie-Antoinette, to say in the House that you can discuss a certain matter in committee when that committee does not even exist. This is not a satisfactory way to deal with matters when there is a crisis in one region of the country. When there was a dry spell in eastern Ontario, your predecessor, Mr. Lamoureux, had agreed to an emergency debate. And now, we also have rules in this respect; there is no interference with the work of the House since these emergency debates are held after the ordinary time for adjournment, such as Wednesday night. Therefore, why say that when it does not exist? However, tomorrow will be an opposition day. Such days are provided so that the opposition will use information to judge the administration of one department after having studied certain votes. But how is it possible to do that if half the committees do not meet? We cannot study the votes if we do not have them before us.
The opposition is completely frustrated in its efforts. It may be that government members do not know that we can be frustrated with respect to matters we want to raise during opposition days. And to state merely that those days exist and you may air your complaints, if it is not possible to seek out these complaints or to expound on them, this is another method worthy of Marie-Antoinette. I simply say that I agree very strongly with my colleague from Crowfoot and it is now imperative that the government whip be asked to appear before the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections to explain why he has neglected his duties, and on this point I support the motion.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, in speaking to the question of privilege raised by my friend the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone). 1, too, would like to reflect on the frustration I feel as a member of this House, duly elected and fully equal to all other members, to engage in the full parliamentary process in accordance with parliamentary traditions, and long-established and respected routines.
Without meaning any disrespect to the Chair, I think it is Your Honour's responsibility to recognize that there is an arrogance on the part of the government, a lack of co-opera-

May 29, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Malone
tion which ought to be unacceptable to the Canadian people and which is certainly unacceptable to members on this side of the House. In light of my interest in fisheries in particular, I find absolute frustration in the fact that some $300 million worth of spending under the jurisdiction of the minister responsible for fisheries is contained within the estimates for the current year, yet we in this House through the process of committee work are not able to examine those estimates. We have long, unresolved questions relating to federal fisheries licensing policy, questions related to reports which the committee should have been dealing with a year ago, and we are not even able to secure enough of the time of the House to get detailed answers from the minister responsible. It is, therefore, a travesty that the committee has not been organized, let alone called to this date after almost seven weeks of sitting of this House.
There have been two motions under Standing Order 43, one last Thursday and another again yesterday, moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnaty-shyn) censuring the government and directing it to get on with the calling of committees so that this important work might commence.
We recently had a volcanic eruption that has decimated the salmon stocks of the western Washington coastal region, and we have Washington fishermen now suggesting that they should have a greater share of the salmon yield from the Fraser River. That is a matter of some urgency in which all of our west coast fishermen have considerable interest. We should be able to question the minister on what approaches he is making to his American counterpart, and what initiatives he is taking on behalf of west coast fishermen to see that their interests are protected.
Of course, as my colleague the hon. member for Crowfoot mentioned, and other colleagues might wish to go into greater detail, we have forest fires raging across this country, a matter which ought to be before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
The fishing season is under way, yet the minister has yet to make any announcement on fishing licensing regulations and fee structures in the commercial fishery and the sport fishery. There are fishermen who are expecting to go out fishing or, indeed, are out already who do not know what size salmon they should be throwing back into the water. There is a whole host of related questions that we know the minister has under deliberation.
In the Speech from the Throne we heard reference to a special landing tax or levy against the catch of west coast fishermen, and we want to question the minister about that concept because we think the fishermen of Canada are very, very concerned about what that will mean to their incomes this year, particularly given a very tight situation in terms of the prices that world markets are yielding.
There are important conservation considerations, the east and west coast joint Canada-U.S. negotiations affecting our
fisheries, and there was a review of the Fresh Water Fish Marketing Corporation in process, all questions that have gone without answers because the government opposite is frustrating the process of this Parliament and its opportunity to get detailed answers to these questions.
In supporting this question of privilege I would urge that you, Madam Speaker, consider very seriously that the work of Parliament is being frustrated. Ministers are abdicating their obligations to members of Parliament and this is a mark of their arrogance and their lack of respect for Parliament. I think this is absolutely inexcusable.


Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, I will be rising, I hope, later today on another matter of privilege, or a point of order, I suppose, technically, but that matter pales by comparison with the import of the motion that my colleague, the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone), has put forward this afternoon having to do with the failure of some of our standing committees of Parliament to meet. While 1 had not intended to speak on the motion, I was so moved by his eloquence and the eloquence of other members I felt obliged to respond. The motion relates fundamentally to the rights of every member of this House, regardless of party and regardless of where any particular member might sit.
The hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon) has referred to the failure of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry to meet, a failure even to have an organizational meeting. He has discussed some important and urgent matters relating to fisheries. For just a moment or two I would like to elaborate on that point by illustrating the importance of some other issues coming under the rubric of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
I refer in particular to the urgent issues having to do with the environment, in respect of which I am the official spokesman of the Progressive Conservative Party. All of the urgent problems to which I might refer could not be itemized in the short time I have at my disposal. But I should mention, and it is only an illustration, the problem of acid rain, a form of pollution that is devastating our forests, our waters, our air, our land and our wildlife; indeed, it is threatening human life itself. That is a matter which could be dealt with effectively, not just in Parliament on the floor of the House of Commons itself, but as well in the forum that standing committees provide.
Another example is resource development. Huge initiatives being taken-for instance, in the Arctic-threaten our environment, our precious and delicate ecosystems there. That is an issue, too, that should be dealt with in the relevant standing committees of the House which are failing to meet.
What about the proposals for tanker routes down our coasts and the threat they pose to our environment? And what about oil exploration everywhere, including that in my own region of Atlantic Canada and the threat it presents to our fish stocks? Another illustration is agricultural spraying. All such matters cry out for urgent attention by every member of this House regardless of party and regardless of where a member might
May 29, 1980

sit. Because these standing committees are not meeting, the government is, in effect, failing to provide members of the House of Commons with one of the most important forums in which to address national problems. Members of Parliament are, consequently, being denied a fundamental right.
All those issues I mentioned, and many others that could be referred to, need to be discussed in standing committees. Since they are not, we are being denied the right, for example, to hold relevant ministers accountable for their portfolios. It is a basic principle of parliamentary democracy and of responsible government that ministers must account to members of the House of Commons in every parliamentary forum, whether in the House of Commons or in standing committees, which are, as one member pointed out, an extension of this House. We do not have that opportunity, for some of the standing committees have yet to meet. We are, therefore, being denied our full privileges, and in the process the principle of responsible government itself is being undermined.
It is for those reasons, and for many others, that I take great pride in supporting the motion put forward by the hon. member for Crowfoot, and I urge all other members to support it likewise.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, in my view there is no more fundamental question of privilege raised in this House than this; that has been my experience after serving eight years in this House. It is further testimony, to my way of thinking, to the arrogance of this particular government in denying the right of members on all sides of the House to exercise their functions; hence privilege. This is the definition of privilege. Members are being denied the possibility of even exercising their full functions to legislate, to inquire and to hold ministers to account for the performance of their duties.
There was a package of parliamentary reform available for presentation by the government in the Thirty-first Parliament. It was to have been placed before the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization and it would have obviated this particular problem we are now facing. That package would have permitted, had it been accepted, the members of the committees to call the committees together without having to wait on an inefficient, ineffective and arrogant government to agree, to condescend to allow committees to be brought together in order to fulfil their functions, or one of the functions of Parliament, and to permit members of this Parliament to perform their functions.
That package would have been brought before the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization in this Parliament had the committee been allowed to be brought together by an order of the House. There should be an automatic reference of every ministerial report, any departmental report, to committee so that the committee would have, by virtue of the tabling of that particular report, access to the minister in charge of the department.
Privilege-Mr. Malone
My colleagues have spoken of the various problems this country is facing owing to the drought, forest fires, the fall-out from Mount St. Helens and its effects on the forestry industry, the fishing industry and agriculture. But there is no possibility of discussing these subjects in committee because under the standing rules it is the government alone that makes the reference to the House. The House concurs in the reference once the government has drawn it up, but there has to be, if this Parliament is to have any meaning whatever and if your role, Madam Speaker, is to have any meaning whatever, with all due respect, a means for this Parliament to function and for members to exercise the duties and resDonsibilities for which they were sent to this Parliament by their constituents.
Therefore, I support every single word, comma, apostrophe and parenthesis, the whole statement, of my colleague, the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone). I encourage you, Madam Speaker, to rule that we should have the means now of calling the committees together so that we may fulfil our duties.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, with all due respect since several hon. members have spoken, I would not like to offend them by allowing a ruling to be brought down which seems obvious to me. The case before the House has nothing to do with the question of privilege. Intelligent reading of Standing Order 65(1)- I hear the hon. member from Vancouver howling. Let him have his say, after which I can resume my remarks. The Progressive Conservative member from Vancouver just yelled something. I did not catch what he said.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. President of the Privy Council has the floor.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I was just saying that intelligent reading of our Standing Orders shows that Standing Order 65(1) stipulates as follows:
At the commencement of the first session of each Parliament, a striking committee, consisting of seven members, shall be appointed, whose duty it shall be to prepare and report, within the first ten sitting days after its appointment, lists of members to compose the following standing committees of the House:
Then, a list is given of 20 standing committees of the House. We have fulfilled our obligation, Madam Speaker. The striking committee was appointed and the list drawn up of hon. members chosen to sit on those committees. The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) brought up two points which deserve consideration. The first concerns the organization of those committees, and the second the fact that some committees, though constituted, are not sitting.
On the first point, 1 want to advise the hon. member that I am surprised by his statement because, according to my information, the overwhelming majority of the standing committees of the House have been organized. In fact, it seems


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, would the hon. minister permit a question? I am not quarrelling with what the minister had to say, with one notable exception. My question is simply this: Does he take the position that only the government has the right to call an organizational meeting of a committee, just as only the government has the right to set the day when Parliament will meet? Parliament cannot meet itself because it does not have a Speaker; only the government can set that date. By the same token, only the government can decide when a committee will meet after it has been struck. Is the minister taking the position in this House that the government does not have the responsibility to convene a meeting of a committee after it has been struck for the purposes of that committee organizing itself and electing a chairman and a vice-chairman?


Yvon Pinard: I indicated clearly a few minutes ago, at least I thought it was clear, that some hon. members have maintained that committees which were organized had not met and I said they had not given any proof to their arguments demonstrating that the government was to blame if some committees had not yet met. I stated this clearly.
In answer to my colleague who asked whether it is up to the government to see that these committees organize themselves, in my view the government must surely have an important role to play in this respect. For my part, when there is a problem I have always been ready to discuss it with the parliamentary leaders of the other parties in order that all House services work as smoothly as possible. I have great respect for the rights and privileges of the opposition as well as ours and I like to see the opposition participate. And if there had been serious reasons, serious complaints or consequences for the opposition stemming from the fact that some committees, albeit a small number of them, had not yet been organized it seems to me that I would have heard about it from my eminent colleagues who are parliamentary leaders of the official opposition and of the NDP, but I have never heard a complaint of this nature.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the minister. The advice I have been given is that the committees which have not met are the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders, and the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. That is my understanding of the committees which have not met. Some of them are quite important with respect to issues, as members have indicated.
Now that the issue is here in the House, I have a question for the minister. Would the government House leader under-
Privilege-Mr. Malone
take to speak to the members of the committee-and I will for my part undertake to speak to members of the committee on my side of the House-so that they can be urged to ensure, in the event that it is found there is no question of privilege, that those committees get going? Although there may be no legal responsibility on the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard)-he may take that view-I think he has had the sense of the House. 1 now speak to him in his capacity as House leader. Having had the sense of the House, will he take some initiatives to get those committees going?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, this is what I referred to earlier in my remarks. Considering on the one hand that almost three-quarters of an hour were lost arguing about a question of privilege, which it is not, and on the other hand that this is the first time I have heard any complaints about this, I offered my services to speed up the organizing process of those committees that are not yet organized and to check whether there are serious or valid reasons why the organized committees have not yet met. Therefore I would repeat the offer I was pleased to extend to my colleague, the Leader of the Official Opposition, and I extend the same offer to the Leader of the New Democratic Party, who seems to be in agreement.


Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, I am wondering whether the government House leader would be prepared to accept the question in the form of a motion under Standing Order 43, that the matter would be referred to a committee thereby giving it a reference from this House. For example, 1 would be prepared tomorrow to formulate a motion under Standing Order 43 on fisheries and forestry procedure, requesting that that committee meet to discuss the matters that ought to be before it and to elaborate on the matters that ought to be before it. Would the House leader accept that form of a reference? He said that it is not the government's responsibility to produce references. If we can produce references in that way, I would be delighted to learn of it, because it will happen tomorrow.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, to answer the question, first there is nothing to hinder the hon. member from introducing a motion under Standing Order 43. Of course, we decide whether it is truly urgent, as we did on all those that came up until now. I cannot guarantee that the 281 members in this House will agree to a motion by the hon. member to refer any subject to a committee. Second, we jealously maintain nonetheless the government's prerogative under Standing Order 18(2), and we are responsible for establishing the order of things here. What I said earlier, and I would have expected my learned colleague to grasp it immediately, is that we sometimes refrain from referring subjects without consulting with opposition members.

May 29, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Malone
When I said that Parliament was involved, opposition members were involved in the references, I made it very clear later that this usually follows a lack of agreement in a debate that the subject or legislation or motion be referred to committee, whence the contribution by members from both sides of the House, including the hon. member who just put the question.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, I have a related question for the House leader. Should such a motion be put tomorrow, as indeed it was yesterday by the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn), would the House leader give us his assurance that he would urge all members of the government caucus to support such a motion? Would he make that commitment today and show leadership to this House, in view of the recognition he has given of the fact that he believes along with us that it is time we got on with meeting in committee?


Arnold John Malone: We want to work.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I am afraid my hon. colleague misunderstood my remarks. 1 encourage him-I do not wish to disappoint him-to read my answers. I think they completely cover the subject. I recognized no responsibility, all I offered was my co-operation. I therefore submit this is no valid question of privilege. We are ready to co-operate and we never had any complaints before today. For the rest, 1 would encourage him to read my remarks and he will see and understand my position.


Madam Speaker:: It seems to me that in the question of privilege which has been raised, there are two main issues which I must deal with. First, that the committees have not met. The arguments and suggestions which have been presented have led me to believe that committees have been set up, but the main grievance seems to stem from the fact that some of them have not met. The other question on which it would seem I am expected to rule has to do with an urgent issue which hon. members feel they could not debate. They suggest that this is an important issue and that the House should deal with it forthwith. As to the setting up of committees, this clearly comes under the organization of the business of the House and as a rule, as indicated by an hon. member, it normally depends on the initiative of the whip, as expressed in Beauchesne's citation No. 579. But it is not up to me to weigh the reasons why committees are meeting or not meeting. This is completely beyond the responsibility of the Chair. I am not certain, but 1 think that there were assurances that some committees would meet so that the question which some members consider urgent could be debated.
As I was given notice of this question of privilege, I noted that the Standing Committee on Agriculture, which is mentioned in the question of privilege, was meeting this afternoon at 3.30 and that the minister would be present at the meeting. Of course, the committee is now considering the estimates.
Some will say that this urgent question is not on the order of the committee, but members could try to raise it anyway and they might obtain satisfaction.
In any case, it seems to me that I must also consider the urgency of the question raised, because some time ago, concerning a motion moved under the provisions of Standing Order 26, I gave a decision which said in essence that other procedures could be used to debate the matter, including the fact that certain committees were to meet at a later date which I was unable to specify. These other procedures would, of course, be questions during question period, motions moved by hon. members and opposition days. In fact, what I want to emphasize, in accordance with my earlier decision on the above mentioned motion, is that there are procedures which can be used to debate these urgent matters.
However, in view of the importance of the question raised, in view of the dissatisfaction of some members concerning committee meetings which are not held, and in view of the fact that the question, as presented by some members, exceeds the limits of what could be discussed in the Standing Committee on Agriculture-I believe that certain members raised the issues of the environment and fisheries, and I do not know now whether these committees have been able to meet yet or not- in view of this situation and the importance of this issue, I would like, if I may, to review all the documents and see whether there will be other opportunities to discuss this question in the House, and I shall therefore defer my decision on this motion.


MR. ROCHE  CONSTITUENTS REFUSED ACCESS BY SECURITY STAFF TO MEMBER'S OFFICE
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: Madam Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege at this, my first opportunity to do so, on a matter that affects the rights of all members and certainly affects my rights as a member.
At 1.40 p.m. today five constituents of mine, whose visit was anticipated by me and who were introduced at the front desk of this building where I maintain my own office, were not allowed past the front desk and were, in effect, barred from going to my office, despite the fact that they were, as I say, properly introduced. Moreover, one of my secretaries was sent to the front desk to personally escort these people to my office.
I feel that this is an interference with my right to receive constituents in my office. I am conscious of the security problems, particularly in this building. I have always notified the security officials when I am expecting a large number of constituents. Today, the arrival of the five constituents was, as I say, anticipated. They were rudely treated. My secretary who went personally to escort them was harassed. My staff is owed an apology by the security staff at the very least.
But in any event, I think there is a larger point at issue here, that irrespective of the security provisions of this building, I do
May 29, 1980

not think it is particularly helpful to members of Parliament when their own constituents who come to visit them in a properly programmed manner are treated in a way in which they are made to feel unwelcome and in which they are shaken, as indeed these people were today. I believe that it is the right of a member of Parliament to bring constituents to his office and, moreover, to bring them to the gallery which is provided for opposition members.
These people were denied access to that gallery. The ordinary procedure is for members of Parliament to issue passes. The constituents line up in turn and if there is room in that gallery then they get in. It is not the function of the security staff at the front door of this building to bar people entrance to my office where they can obtain a pass and then take their chances of getting into the gallery.
I feel that it is an important provision, Madam Speaker. I will not take up the time of the House on the matter, but I would ask, respectfully, Madam Speaker, that you investigate this incident and make sure that the security staff operates in such a way that they are protecting the building, but not turning away people who have a legitimate right of access to the members' offices.


Madam Speaker:: Indeed, the hon. member has not raised a question of privilege but rather a matter of security which is under my responsibility. I am most surprised at the facts which the hon. member has related. I am sure that he is relating these facts correctly, but usually the staff at the front door or any of the doors of the House of Commons is most courteous.
Of course, we have given instructions with regard to security, that people should give their names and tell the security officers where they intend to go. We have juggled in our minds whether we would oblige any member of Parliament to send someone down to greet the people he is expecting, because that is the only way that we can ensure that these people do not go walking around and entering offices which they clearly did not want to visit at the time they presented themselves at the door. That is not a very difficult matter, but it could make the atmosphere a bit unfriendly if we had to resort to that kind of provision.
I am very surprised at the facts which the hon. member has presented and I will certainly inquire as to what exactly took place. Nobody should harass anybody in this House, but perhaps they had some reason for acting in the way they did. At any rate I will, of course, apologize to the hon. member's constituents, because I am sure like all of our constituents they want to be welcomed in Parliament.
Introduction of Bills



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table copies in both official languages of telexes sent by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to the premiers of all the provinces concerning the first ministers' meeting on the Constitution.


RESOURCES
Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), 1 wish to table a map being schedule C of an agreement between Her Majesty in right of the province of British Columbia and Her Majesty in right of Canada respecting the sharing of revenues from the exploitation of minerals in the Fort Nelson Indian Reserve.


PLANT BREEDERS' RIGHTS ACT
John Carr Munro: for leave to introduce Bill C-32, authorizing and otherwise relating to rights to be granted to breeders of new varieties of plants to deal in reproductive or vegetative material for their propagation.


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

John Carr Munro: for leave to introduce Bill C-33, to amend the Seeds Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 119, 189, 220, 270, 273, 327, 335, 404, 633 and 663.
I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Will the government consider extending the designated DREE areas to include grants to medium and major industries in the constituency of Leeds-Grenville?
2.	For what reasons are Renfrew and Cornwall designated for grants to medium and major industries when Leeds-Grenville is not?
3.	On what date were designated DREE areas last changed or in any way modified with respect to grants to medium and large industries?
4.	Was Leeds-Grenville ever considered and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The response for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows:
1.	The constituency of Leeds-Grenville is currently eligible for assistance under the Small Business Incentives program of the Eastern Ontario Subsidiary Agreement. In view of this assistance, the need for fiscal restraint and, consequently the limited development funds available, an extension of the area designated for RDIA assistance is not anticipated at this time.
2.	Cornwall is not within the area currently designated for RDIA assistance. However, from April 1, 1971 to June 30, 1973, Stormont-including Cornwall, Glengarry and Prescott counties were designated under the RDIA as part of Region "C", comprising Montreal and surrounding regions. Part of Renfrew county (including the town of Renfrew) was designated for RDIA assistance on the basis of such factors as low population and employment growth, high unemployment and remoteness from metropolitan Toronto and other large market areas. In Leeds-Grenville and other parts of southern Ontario, more favourable economic conditions have generally prevailed.
3.	From April 8, 1970, until December 31, 1975, Renfrew-Pembroke was designated under the DREE Act as a special area, allowing industry in the area to receive similar assistance to that provided under the RDIA program. As of January 1, 1976, the RDIA designated area was expanded to include part of Renfrew county.
4.	Yes. As part of its ongoing efforts, DREE continuously monitors the economic circumstances of all regions of the province, including Leeds-Grenville. RDIA boundaries are thus reviewed, as conditions warrant, in order to ensure their continuing appropriateness.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	For each fiscal year (a) 1977 (b) 1978, what was the total revenue and net earnings or deficits for the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Ltd?
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?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Transport Canada advises as follows:
1. (a) Total revenue-$42 Net earnings-$32 (b) Total revenue-$41 Net earnings-$11 2. Nil to all parts.


Mr. Herbert: In each of the past five years, what were the unemployment insurance payments (a) in total (b) on a per capita payment in (i) the maritime provinces (ii) Quebec (iii) Ontario (iv) the prairie provinces (v) British Columbia?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: (a) Total Unemployment Insurance Payments ($ Million)
1979	4,009.1
1978	4,538.2
1977	3,928.2
1976	3,361.6
1975	3,159.3
(b) U.I. Payments Per Capita
			($)		
1979	1978	1977	1976	1975Newfoundland	407.8	442.0	384.4	329.2	290.3PEL	353.4	373.0	319.5	270.7	224.6Nova Scotia	227.8	257.4	231.0	185.6	157.7New Brunswick	324.3	358.0	322.7	268.1	229.0Quebec	241.4	270.7	236.2	201.0	174.6Ontario	120.5	137.5	121.0	112.1	1 19.9Manitoba	103.3	126.6	96.3	69.4	57.1Saskatchewan	76.5	95.0	76.3	56.6	53.1Alberta	60.7	73.6	60.0	47.7	48.2B.C.	175.7	210.9	179.7	165.0	177.5Yukon	351.9	387.1	317.5	334.9	267.6N.W.T.	122.7	126.1	87.8	70.4	63.1Canada	169.4	193.3	168.9	146.2	139.2Population Statistics Source:	Statistics Canada, Catalogue No. 91-201
Estimates of Population for Canada and the Provinces, June 1, 1979
May 29, 1980


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Is it the government's intention to move the Canadian Pension Commission to Prince Edward Island and, if so, on what date?
2.	What studies have been carried out to ascertain if there will be a communications problem if other branches in the Department of Veterans Affairs are operating in P.E.I. while the Canadian Pension Commission is in Ottawa?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. Yes. The relocation of the Canadian Pension Commission is planned for 1983.
2. A detailed review was carried out by the various branches that operate in support of the CPC in Ottawa to ensure that all necessary requirements of CPC can be met by these branches during the period of split operations. Special emphasis was placed on areas of finance, personnel and administration as well as various methods of communication that will be required between Charlottetown and Ottawa.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	How many employee positions are to be moved to Charlottetown, P.E.I. in 1980?
2.	How many persons presently filling these positions have indicated their willingness to be transferred?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: 1. One hundred and twenty-eight.
2. Forty.


Mr. Herbert: How many (a) permanent (b) other employees were on the payroll of de Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited and its subsidiaries as at March 31, 1979?


Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State, Small Businesses):: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: At March 31, 1979, there were on the de Havilland payroll: (a) 4,457 permanent employees; (b) 17 temporary and casual employees.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	(a) What is the present location of the employment and immigration office in Dorion, Quebec (b) is it intended to find new quarters for the office and, if so (i) by whom are plans being prepared (ii) has a site been purchased (iii) on what date is it anticipated that construction will start?
2.	Will the existing premises be used for another purpose or be offered for sale?


Lloyd Axworthy: Order Paper Questions 1. (a) Canada Employment Centre
Government of Canada Building 35 St. Charles, Dorion, Quebec
(b) No;
(b)(i) Nil;
(ii)	Nil;
(iii)	Nil.
2. No.


Mr. Herbert: How many public servants were under the general direction of the Treasury Board on March 31 (a) 1977 (b) 1978 (c) 1979 (d) 1980?


Mr. Robert Daudlin (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: The Treasury Board is the employer for departments and agencies listed under schedule I, part I of the Public Service Staff Relations Act. It also has control over a portion of the organizations listed under part II of the act. The number of public servants under the general direction of Treasury Board, on strength as of March of each year was thus:
	1977	1978	1979	1980
Public Service Staff Relations Act, schedule 1, part				
(a) Employees on strength for an indeterminate period	263,403	264,039	259,557	256,469(b) Employees on strength on a seasonal basis	1,462	1,433	1,237	1,400(c) Employees on strength for a specified period	44,264	52,015	40,805	36,357Sub-total, schedule 1, part I	309,129	317,487	301,599	294,226Public Service Staff Relations Act, schedule I, part II under the general direction of Treasury Board	4,602	5,195	5,889	5,765Total, public servants under the general direction of the Treasury Board	313,731	322,682	307,488	299,991


Mr. Howie: How many persons engaged in public relations, publicity or media relations, are employed on staff in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: As of April 30, 1980, the number of persons engaged in public relations, publicity, or media relations, including support staff, is: DFO headquarters: 24; Regional offices: 16; Total 40.


Mr. Howie: From January 1, 1977 to date, have any studies been done for the Department of National Health and Welfare by outside consultants regarding crisis centres?


Monique Bégin: No.

May 29, 1980
Borrowing Authority Act
[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: The questions 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 Wednesday, May 28, 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.
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, it always gives me great pleasure to rise in my place in this House and debate the business of the House. Today I have particular pleasure in debating Bill C-30, the borrowing bill- a bill in which the government of Canada is asking for the authority to borrow $12 billion for the current year.
We have heard some eloquent debates in this House. One was a two-hour debate by the former minister of finance, "Honest John Crosbie," who put forth a most magnificant case in regard to the need to debate this bill in depth. Then we heard a dissertation from "Slippery Allan," as 1 call him, the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), who spoke for a bare few minutes on a bill of great import. In watching him I was quite certain he would be a fine curler. He is an excellent sweeper, he can sure curl around a stone or an issue, and he can talk forever without saying anything.
The minister is offering this House an economic statement pointing to more of the same that has been handed out by the Liberal government during the decade of the seventies. What were the over-all economic directions of the Liberal government during the seventies? First, uncontrolled government growth, literally a form of de facto socialism. Second, a major preoccupation with the redistribution of wealth through a federal bureaucratic empire of enormous proportions. Third, the creation of debt to unload upon future generations-the creation of debt at enormous rates. Until this year, the debt creation, as far as I understand it, is in the order of $60 billion. Fourth, the promotion of consumption rather than production through every process known to governments. A vicious cycle of credit and the printing of paper money, therefore laying down the foundations of recurring inflation. Fifth, a massive subjugation economically of municipal and provincial governments to the bureaucratic direction of a centralized, political will.
It is this package of policies pushed to unreasonable levels that is tearing this nation apart. It is the federal government's unlimited and uncontrolled spending policies in provincial jurisdictions that is the primary cause of the constitutional difficulties that now exist in this country.
1 want to touch very briefly on one or two of these five policy points. Just a little over a year ago all governments in Canada spent approximately 42 per cent of the gross national product of the nation. What that means is that government at the three levels took from the people 42 cents of every dollar they earned, and they spent those dollars in accordance with their priorities.
Interestingly enough, in 1968 the provincial and municipal governments spent 46 per cent of the total spending of governments in Canada and the federal government spent 54 per cent. A decade later this was reversed and the provincial and municipal governments in Canada spent 53 per cent of total government expenditures and the federal government spent 47 per cent.
What this shows is a terrible desire by municipalities and provincial governments to control their own economic destiny. What it shows is that the federal government has been the catalyst to push growth at the provincial level and the municipal level to counteract the growth of the federal government which was running away during the seventies.
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. As hon. members know, federal government expenditures are to be in the order of $60 billion in 1980. This is literally about 22 per cent of the gross national product of this nation. This is a startling 2 per cent increase in just one year.
If anyone could put any type of term to it, it is galloping socialism. This is being done through borrowings, not through the collection of taxes, because the taxes will only supply $45 billion, and somewhere between $14 billion and $15 billion will be borrowings. This is catastrophic for the long term. Who is going to pay this debt? Who is asked to pay this debt on behalf of the nation? What is tearing this country apart is the absolute concentration by the federal government on the redistribution of the wealth, potential and opportunity of this nation.
Western Canada is now looking desperately for manpower. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) went out to the west and indicated on his return here the vital need for technicians and people to go to western Canada to fuel the western Canadian economy.
May 29, 1980

Why are people not going to western Canada? Because they are being kept immobile through handouts in the rest of the nation. These handouts are primarily given by the federal government. This is an exciting nation because of size, because of potential and resources. The young people in this nation have all this potential before them, but they are not seeking opportunity in this nation where there is opportunity. I ask the question again, why are they not doing that? Has this government had the determination, the honesty and the courage to look at that very question and answer it in this House? The federal government has used its spending power to keep the young entrenched, doing nothing, being unproductive and on welfare in part of the nation where there is no opportunity.
Let me speak very briefly about the accumulation of federal debt. The federal debt has risen to dangerous proportions. It is in excess of $60 billion and is rising this year by some $14 billion. That is about $3,500 of debt per capita. It is rising at some $700 per capita per year. Indeed, approximately 15 per cent of the federal budget now services debt.
A family of four existing in this nation effectively has a debt associated with it of $15,000. A family of four has to pay the interest on the debt of this nation. It has to pay interest on a debt of $15,000 incurred by the federal government, apart from having to pay its mortgage and the interest on the mortgage. This is catastrophic.
I have not had the opportunity to review conditions in every other nation, but I can say categorically that no nation in this world, with the potential, the wealth and the resources it has, is in any type of situation that this nation is in today. There has been absolute and abject mismanagement over a decade of irresponsibility by a Liberal government that should have been dethroned long ago.


An hon. Member:: Look who is talking.


William J. Yurko: Some of these people on the other side who ruined this country should have been brought before the justice of the law.


John Leslie Evans: Order.


William J. Yurko: To account for their mismanagement of this country, they should have been brought before the law of the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: They didn't keep you there.


William J. Yurko: I have got them excited now, Mr. Speaker. I thought they were going to be silent, but it is obvious that they are alive over there.


Mr. Chenier:: Because we are hearing untruths.


William J. Yurko: One has to be appalled, and I for one am, by the irresponsibility of government during the decade of the seventies.
Borrowing Authority Act
We managed to get into government by the people rejecting the Liberal government in 1979, and we tried to deal with the economic problems of this nation honestly, forthrightly, with pragmatism, knowing that it was going to be difficult but that hard decisions had to be made. So we specifically set out to control the mounting debt of Canada as we are moving toward national bankruptcy. Second, we set out to contain the growth of the federal government and make it more effective and responsible. Third, we established a comprehensive energy policy needed to make Canada self-sufficient in oil by 1990, and establishing a sound strategy for Canadian energy selfsufficiency for the next century. Fourth, we established a small business incentive growth policy, coupled with major employment stimulation processes, particularly for young Canadians, to tide this nation through a most difficult period which we knew was coming. Some people termed it short-term pain for long-term gain. It did not help us during the election of February 18, but it was an honest approach taken with the greatest degree of courage.
I say that the type of attitude being exemplified in this House now-a week ago, a month ago-by a minister who gave an economic statement without the courage to come out with a budget at the earliest opportunity, means that there is no one who is going to bankrupt this nation faster than that government over there. I wish it would come to its senses.
1 want to be more specific on energy. Most of my life has been spent dealing with energy of one form or another-at least most of my professional life. Therefore, I feel 1 have an appreciation of some aspects of energy.
I want to talk briefly about the flow of capital from rising energy prices and the direction it would take in this nation, and I would like to indicate why it should or should not take that direction. Second, what I want to talk about rather specifically is the constitutional prerogatives of provincial resource price-setting. In 1974 I was president of the Canadian Council of Resources and Environment Ministers of Canada. At the first conference I sponsored as president, I asked for a detailed examination of the constitutional prerogatives of a province in connection with its resources; in other words, what it can do and what it cannot do, when it can do it and so forth. We produced a magnificent report which 1 would like to refer to periodically through my speech this afternoon.
First of all, I would like to speak a little bit about the supply of conventional oil in the world and the supply of conventional oil in Canada. Much of the conventional oil that exists in the world now was discovered in a different economic time-frame. It was discovered under a low-cost regime, and so we have established throughout the world a series of conventional oil reservoirs.
I have said in the past that no one knows the value of the oil in the ground in a conventional reservoir. It is one of the most valuable commodities on this earth. No one can put a price on it, a market price if you wish, or a value because it developed over billions of years. It is a hydrocarbon of enormous value, enormous ability and flexibility in terms of its use by humanity.

May 29, 1980
Borrowing Authority Act
We have now gone in the world from a position of supply and pricing to a position of conventional oil conservation. We have moved massively in that direction. They have shown wisdom in the Middle East. The prevalent wisdom of Mexico was well displayed in this House recently. They have cut exports to Canada and have not committed themselves on a long-term basis to supplying us with 100,000 barrels a day, but only 50,000. That indicates without equivocation that the conventional oil reservoirs of their nation have to be extended and the rate of production of those reservoirs has to be reduced. The value of that commodity is so great for the future that it is sheer hypocrisy, in fact almost a crime, to drain the reservoirs at the earlierst possible opportunity and at the fastest rate possible.
The same applies in Canada, particularly in Alberta. Alberta has moved from a position of price being the most important matter in connection with its conventional oil reserves, to recognizing that maintaining the capacity of its reservoirs over the longest possible period is the single most important criterion. That government has to do that because it is the will of the people of Alberta, and Alberta owns those resources.
What did Saskatchewan say? There was a most remarkable dissertation along this same line. Indeed, from here on there will be a delay in the tertiary recovery of their reservoirs and every mechanism will be used to limit production. On April 22, 1980, in the legislation of Saskatchewan, Mr. R. A. Larter asked the following question:
Mr. Speaker, a question to the minister for Kelsey-Tisdale. In light of huge natural gas discoveries in British Columbia, and in light of what Premier Lougheed stated last night on television that the quickest way to strengthen the Canadian dollar was to export massive amounts of natural gas, is the minister now prepared to accept the fact that there is a little more natural gas than what he anticipates? Are you ready now to do more exploring in Saskatchewan and prop up this concept that there is a lot of natural gas available?
The minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, I've indicated to the member on previous occasions that we are reviewing the policy in respect of natural gas exploration and development in the province of Saskatchewan. We do believe that we have the probability of discovering larger quantities of gas than we thought was the case 10 years ago. A lot of that assumption is based on the success that Alberta has enjoyed, and to a lesser degree, that British Columbia has enjoyed, in the last decade in proving up pools of gas. We are not so ambitious to open the gates, as I believe the member is alluding to, because of the problems which go along with that. We have Alberta in particular indicating that they have a surplus of gas for a shorter medium-term period of time, and are seeking very ambitiously, large export permits into the United States.
I would suggest to the member that if we were to expand gas exploration and development in Saskatchewan, we would not want to attain that level of shorter medium-term extra capacity. Because we would like to guarantee that the pools of gas we have in the province of Saskatchewan will guarantee and give assurance to Saskatchewan consumers in years to come, that we will not be the victims of imported gas from outside this province, and pay what may well be a very heavy penalty in order to have that source of energy available to us.
I recommend this policy to the members of this House. It is a very deliberate policy in Saskatchewan to delay exploration and development so that the reserves in Saskatchewan can be maintained for that province in future years. I could go on with this topic for some time, but I want to cover a few other areas of the energy scenario, and I know time goes by quickly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: 1 have listened quite attentively to the hon. member for quite a while. I wonder if he is on the same bill. I draw to the attention of the hon. member that we are considering Bill C-30, known as the borrowing authority bill. I invite the hon. member to address his remarks to that bill.


William J. Yurko: I have been advised by some members of this House that when the government brings in a bill for authority to borrow $12 billion to cover its debts in all areas, we have before this House for debate all areas of government activity where these borrowings are to be used. It is in that light that I am discussing this bill today. I can think of no more important matter than the question of energy. With regard to oil compensation, I understand this government may need in the area of $5 billion, and they will need it soon. There is no more fundamental matter than the energy question when discussing this bill.
I want to speak very briefly on distribution of the money. I had an opportunity to look at the gross dollar generation of the whole mining industry, which includes oil and gas. The generation of dollars in this nation from mining each year is in the order of $22 billion. Of that, about $12 billion is for oil and gas and $10 billion for minerals, building materials and other products in the mining area.
Where does this $12 billion go? With the price of energy now, this $12 billion floats primarily westward, but a substantial proportion comes back eastward through the federal government taxation system in the form of individual taxes, corporation taxes and so forth. The $12 billion that flows westward represents approximately 4.5 per cent of the gross national product of this nation. Of that, approximately 2 per cent comes back east to the rest of the nation. Therefore the net flow of capital westward from oil and gas, a resource owned by western Canada, is in the order of 2.5 per cent of the gross national product per year.
What Liberal government can say that is too great a flow of dollars westward, or to any other region of this nation in order to upgrade it? I would like any member of this House to tell me that is too much per year when in fact this nation has such dynamic potential.
Let me go further and refer to the speech made the other night by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). There is a great deal of foolishness in that speech. I am surprised that a minister of his calibre would make such foolish statements as he did in that speech.


Mr. Darling:: Not foolish, sinister.


William J. Yurko: He obviously had an objective. It was not putting the case for a united Canada. I quote from his speech:
If we were to go to 85 per cent of the international price tomorrow, and assuming no further international oil price increases, we would increase the revenues flowing to industry, provinces and the federal government, assuming gas prices rose in tandem with oil prices, by about $14 billion.
The $14 billion represents 4.5 per cent of the gross national product of this nation. Is that too much? Is that too high in
May 29, 1980

terms of boosting the capacity of the regions? Why do the young people of the rest of the nation not go to where there is all this opportunity? I did in 1950 when 1 graduated in Alberta. There was no opportunity there at all. There were 64 of us who graduated as chemical engineers. Sixty-two came to Ontario to find opportunity. We were mobile in this nation. It was the greatest thing 1 ever did in my life.
I spent six years in Ontario, traversed the United States and then went back west again. I made the circuit three times. It is an exhilarating experience for young people. It is a tremendously unifying force for this nation. It brings all regions together. Young people get to know this nation from one end to the other. The idea of taking 42 per cent of the wealth of this nation, and trying to distribute it from the centre to fix people where they are without opportunity is ludicrous. I have never any difficulty with equalization on a health basis and for providing assistance to senior citizens wherever they may be across the nation, but I have a great deal of difficulty with this administration from the centre trying to collect funds from all over the country to maintain the immobility of young, dramatic people who should be developing the west, the north and the eastern part of this land. That is the fundamental reason this nation is creaking and almost falling apart. That is the fundamental reason this nation is tearing itself apart-because the federal government has used its unlimited spending power to create a situation which cannot sustain itself; all it does is go into debt more every year to sustain this unnatural and insupportable economic situation.


Mr. Harquail:: Sad.


William J. Yurko: It is a crime. It is a crime against the well-being of this nation. It is a crime against Canadians. I wish they would get some good advice on the other side and recognize that while the federal government should, indeed, have umbrella powers to bind confederation, it should not get itself involved in every corner and nook of this country with its bureaucratic regime feeding dollars, and with DREE trying to prop up this situation, when people could be used in some other part of the nation.
Mr. Speaker, I shall speak briefly on the oil price scenario, but before I do so I should like to quote a couple of statements by the minister of energy, that eloquent man who feels he is an expert in the energy area. This is what he said:
Let me turn for a moment to natural gas. It too must rise, we are told, because Alberta has depleting resources and will soon run out of revenue. At the same time we are told that we should export more gas because we have growing supplies and will continue to have growing supplies for as far into the future as one would care to look.
Again, I am baffled by the logic. Should Canadians pay another $4 billion a year for natural gas even though we have a huge surplus of it and growing exports? Remember, of the $4 billion about $500 million would go to the federal government, about $1.5 billion to the Alberta government and $2 billion to the industry.
Does the federal government not realize that it collects income taxes from all the wealth which goes to pay wages in the west and brings it back here at the rate of 33 per cent or 40
Borrowing Authority Act
per cent or 25 per cent of all those wages that are paid? Do they not realize that it comes right back in this direction through equipment purchases, income tax, corporate taxes and so forth?
Then the minister says:
I think we should be honest with each other. The position of the Alberta government has nothing to do with security of supply. It wants a higher price for natural gas because it believes that it has a right to higher revenues.
Mr. Speaker, I was part of a government which set drilling incentives in Alberta. The industry was drying up. There were no federal incentives and the Alberta government ended up paying 95 per cent of the cost of every dry hole drilled in the province and beyond. It is beyond my understanding that a minister in this government could suggest in a speech that the Alberta government has had nothing to do with gas reserves in the province of Alberta. That is absolutely false.
I see my time is running out, Mr. Speaker. I still have much to say, but I will try to get through somehow. Here is a further quotation from the minister of energy:
We have two opposing political thrusts in this country: regionalism and interdependence. We understand and support the desire of people in outlying regions to gain more control over their lives. I think it is due; many would say overdue. But provinces can't afford to pursue autonomy by undermining interdependence.
Interdependence-pooling of strengths-is what makes this nation great, why the whole adds up to more than the sum of its parts-
I think I was one of the first to use that statement at a Man and Resources conference some few years ago. How can a minister make statements of the kind he did, Mr. Speaker? Regionalism and interdependence are not incompatible. They are mutually supportive in every way. Strong regions provide interdependence in this country through the equalization process, through the taxation process. How could a minister of the Crown, supposedly an intelligent minister, suggest that these two processes are incompatible? I can only think that the minister is massively confused and fails to recognize the nature of this country; he has been so blinded by the Quebec referendum. It is sad. What else does he say? I quote:
We just came out of a referendum in which we fought hard for a united Canada. We defeated those who wanted political sovereignty with economic association. We did not carry out this difficult battle to get economic sovereignty with political association.
The minister is using terms foolishly, like a fool, like an arrogant school debater trying to create discord and division. What is economic sovereignty? It is inseparable from political sovereignty. The two are literally the same thing. Economic sovereignty means the collection and levying of all taxes by the sovereign state, as Quebec indicated in its program for sovereignty-association. What else does it mean? It means the state shall set all its commodity prices, import taxes, export taxes, excise taxes and so on. It means the conduct of all national and international negotiations in connection with the pricing of commodities. It means the printing of its own money, the establishment of its own banks and its own credit. That is what economic sovereignty means. Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister to get up in an honest way and tell the members

May 29, 1980
Classification Audit
of this House and the people of Canada which province is asking for economic sovereignty in this nation.
The only thing the provinces are asking for in this nation is respect for the constitutional prerogatives they have in connection with developing, using and marketing their resources.
That is what the provinces are asking for economically- respect for the constitution which is now in place, not a new one but respect for constitutional provisions which already exist. The provinces want the responsibilities they have under the constitution of working toward the goal of as much autonomy and as much self-sufficiency within their regions as possible though still under the umbrella of the magnificent federation we have created in Canada. Crazy statements such as the minister of energy made on the eve of constitutional negotiation-


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



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: 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 East (Mr. Patterson)- Administration of Justice-Safety of persons living in proximity to penitentiaries' the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis)-Air Canada-Request retirement age of pilots be extended; the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis)-Small Business-Plans to assist businessmen.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills, notices of motions (papers), public bills.
In view of the fact that there are no private bills, we will move to notices of motions for the production of papers, No. 3.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTION FOR PAPERS
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil) moved:: That an order of the House do issue for a copy of the data base upon which the Report on the Classification Audit in the national capital area and the non-national capital area was based.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the object of the motion is to try as best we can to obtain a little more information on what is happening in the public service in the area of classification. I have been trying for some time to get progress reports over the years either by seeking papers or by asking questions, and this motion is one of several that I have put on the order paper dealing with this subject.
Back in 1979 Mr. Lincoln Alexander-and I can use his name today-the hon. member who left us yesterday, put a question on the order paper, No. 329, dealing with job classification in the public service. Some time later in that same session question No. 600, also dealing with job classification appeared. When this gentleman became a member of the cabinet in the government of last year, I thought that since he was so interested in the subject he might be willing to produce some documents. I produced some motions for the production of papers which essentially were worded along the same lines as his questions on the order paper. However, even from this new government last year which had indicated its intention to be very generous in producing information, nothing was forthcoming.
Of course, what we want, not so much the documents themselves, is some idea of what progress we may or may not be making as a result of the studies, papers and books that are produced on various subjects with the intention of improving efficiency in the public service.
The Treasury Board secretariat has carried out cyclical audits since delegation of the authority to classify positions up to SX-2 was given to departments and agencies some six or seven years ago. Although this activity provided information about the administration of various aspects of the system, the subjective selection of positions used did not allow quantitative statements about classification for a particular department or the whole public service.
Therefore, in 1976 a project known as "Classification Evaluation" was established with three stages, and the report referred to in the motion deals with stage one, which was to develop and apply a scientific sampling scheme that would enable statements to be made with confidence about the quality of the output of the classification system.
For the survey design a sampling method was selected. The public service is divided into departments and agencies, and within each department positions are divided into occupational groups, and each group is divided into levels. The disadvantage is that proportional sampling applies the same sample ratio, in this case one out of every 69 positions, to all strata in the
May 29, 1980

population. As a result, for small departments the method generated such a small sample that it did not provide a meaningful estimate.
The sample taken outside the national capital area represented 1.5 per cent of the public service. The postal operations groups were excluded because the sample would have been dominated by those large groups. Thus the figures I mention are from some 135,000 public servants outside the national capital area.
The evaluation process consisted of a comparison of performed duties with the classification standard, a comparison of the written position description with the classification standard, and a comparison of the performed duties with the written position description.
The results of this study were the first data available and provide a base for future comparative studies. Over one position in six of those examined was judged to be misclassified, and five of the six were overclassified, and that, of course, means overpaid. Let me quote from the report:
The sample data indicate that throughout the public service there is a distinct tendency to overclassify. This suggests that misclassification does not occur by a simple erroneous application of the classification standard which would likely result in about the same number of positions overclassified as underclassified. It appears that there are motivational and environmental factors within the classification program which encourage overclassification.
The incumbent is not performing the duties described in the job description and a significant cause for misclassification is the misapplication of the classification standard. In this study the possible net salary cost of misclassification was estimated at $43,600,000 per annum.
On February 26, 1976, a report was tabled by me in this House resulting from some 18 months work in what was popularly known as the Finkelman committee, or more properly the Special Joint Committee on Employer-Employee Relations in the Public Service. Under the heading "Classification", eight recommendations are listed. Has any action been taken in the intervening four years?
The report on the classification audit is a cross section of the public service excepting, as it does, the postal groups. Thus we can get no impression of the effectiveness of manuals issued for selective groups. I have in my hands one of these that runs to some 200 pages, or so, which is entitled "Classification and Selection Standard, Scientific Regulation, Scientific and Professional Category". It cost, when it was issued in October 1974, $9.75, obtainable from the Department of Supply and Services. I will read two short paragraphs, if I may:
This standard describes the plan to be used in classifying and evaluating positions in the Scientific Regulation Group, and in selecting personnel for appointment to them.
The second paragraph reads:
The Scientific and Professional Category is composed of occupational groups engaged in the application of the comprehensive body of knowledge acquired through university graduation in fields specified in the group definitions, and of professional groups in which membership in Canada is generally controlled by legally established licensing bodies.
Of course, the point here is that this is quite a sizeable document for what is quite a small segment of the public
Classification Audit
service. I have no idea whether similar documents are produced for every sector, but that in itself is a pretty good base on which to be working. That was issued in 1974. This first report to which I am referring, the one that appears in the motion, is now some two years old.
In February of 1979, just over a year ago, the then president of the treasury board produced an impressive document entitled "Program Performance Measurements". 1 wonder, and I think I have a right to wonder, just how you measure the performance of a person who is both overclassified and overpaid.
In March of 1979, the final report of the royal commission on financial management and accountability was issued. This report, commonly known as the Lambert commission report, is a most interesting document into which not only was a tremendous amount of work put but in regard to which there has been a considerable number of seminars and studies conducted since its issuance. Of course, it deals in part with the subject of classification which we are debating this afternoon.
The question-and it is the same question I am putting all the time-is: What action has been taken since the issuance of the report? I should refer also to the fact that that report runs to some 586 pages and costs $8.50 per book, whether it is the French or English edition. In September of last year we received a 259 page report entitled "The Report of the Special Committee on the Review of Personnel Management and the Merit Principle." This report, popularly known as the D'Avig-non report, runs to some 291 pages in French and was issued at a cost of $10.
When I put motions such as this on the order paper, 1 am trying to underline a point which I have been trying to underline since I came here some eight years ago. I would like the government to tell us just what progress has been made, at what stage we are at, what has happened since the issuance of the report which is the subject of the motion, what has been done with all the recommendations in the Finkelman report to which I referred earlier and which was tabled several years ago, and on which personally I have heard nothing regarding the progress and implementation of the many recommendations in it, recommendations, incidentally, which I can say were almost unanimous.
I think that hon. members present in the House would not dispute my saying that that report was almost unanimous. But we have heard nothing and there has been no subsequent report and no subsequent reference, and therefore no subsequent study on implementation. I can say that the same thing applies to the Lambert commission report and the D'Avignon report.
My motion is therefore a plea to the government to look at some means by which we can be better informed. May I suggest that one of the best ways in which we could be informed is by making it possible for us to study the subject in committee? Of course, we need a reference. There are many

May 29, 1980
Classification Audit
other matters being referred to committee at the present time, but surely efficiency in the public service should be a priority.
The motion was turned down by the government because the wording might not have been precisely correct. After all, we do not always know enough to know precisely what to ask for, and as a result the motion was turned down. I am not taking particular issue with that; I am only saying that it did give me the opportunity to say a few words on the subject of classification in the public service. I should like to include in that general plea a request that an opportunity be given for discussion of whatever progress might or might not have been made as a result of the production of these numerous reports to which I have referred in my remarks.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to thank the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) for bringing this matter forward for debate, notwithstanding the fact that I am sure he shares with me some disappointment in not being able to have the specifics for which he originally made his request. He has indicated his understanding that the base which he sought does not exist. I share with him the interest he has in the entire question of classification, as I am sure many hon. members in this House do, particularly those who have sat on the committees to which he referred, in particular the Finkel-man committee upon which both he and I and other members whom I see present in the House have sat and have laboured so diligently.
Notwithstanding the fact that that information does not exist-and the hon. member was so advised-it is good that we at least discuss the subject matter today, in order perhaps that we get on the record and clarify for the sake of hon. members here today how far we have been able to progress, and indeed what is the current state of conditions with respect to the concept of classifications.
1 should like to refer as well to the three reports which the hon. member has mentioned-the Lambert commission report, the D'Avignon report and the Finkelman report-and I would like to advise him that all of these reports are currently under intensive study at the level of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston). He is requesting on a bi-weekly basis to be updated with respect to those studies so that implementation can be achieved at a fairly early date of at least some of the recommendations that have been made in those reports so that there can be some results obtained from the work that went into them.
The present classification system in the Public Service of Canada was developed in accordance with recommendations made in 1965 by the preparatory committee on collective bargaining. At that time, the committee concluded that a new classification system should have the following objectives.
The first objective is to bring together civil servants and prevailing rate employees under one system; second, to be flexible enough to meet both the demands of the labour market and those of internal relativity; third, to provide a logical framework for the determination of bargaining units and the
negotiation of pay rates; fourth, to permit different approaches to wage and salary administration and to personnel administration generally, for different types of employees; fifth, to be conducive to effective career planning and development and to provide strong incentives to superior performance; and sixth, to permit extensive delegation to departments of the authority to classify positions.
The preparatory committee concluded that these objectives could be achieved by developing a system based on the principle of occupational grouping. The resulting system, which is in use now, was designed to have the following features.
The first is to provide a logical framework for comparing and ranking positions within an occupational group; the second, to provide a means by which a series of positions within a particular group can be compared to each other and to similar occupations in the non-federal public service and the private sector for the purposes of establishing salary relativity for collective bargaining; the third, to permit the establishment of a basis on which the employer is able to attract and retain employees, that is, against which appropriate rates of remuneration can be established for the specific job responsibilities, and periodically revised; the fourth, to permit the identification of the skills, aptitudes and abilities required of the incumbent in a position; the fifth, to permit the establishment of a career structure for clusters of employees; the sixth, to provide the means by which the employer, the employee and the bargaining agent can achieve a common understanding of what management wants done and what is therefore expected of the employee; and the seventh, to provide the means by which the over-all organizational role or objective can be divided into individual position responsibilities.
While the classification system was designed to have the foregoing features, in itself it is intended to do nothing more than establish the basic level of responsibility for the duties of a position and the relativity, within an occupational group, of one position to another.
At present, occupations are divided into six broad categories, with 183 groups and subgroups within these categories. The occupational category is a family of occupations related in broad terms by the nature of the functions fulfilled and by the extent of academic preparation needed by people engaged in these occupations.
The six occupational categories to which I referred earlier are as follows. The first is the occupational category which includes the groups in which manual and related work of an unskilled, semi-skilled or a skilled nature is performed and supervised.
The second is the administrative support category, including the groups in which the preparation, transferring, systematizing and maintenance of records, reports and communications, or the direct application of rules and regulations, or the supervision of these functions are performed.
The third is the technical category, including groups in which specialized techniques are performed that require highly
May 29, 1980

developed skills and a defined minimum of secondary school education.
The fourth is the administrative and foreign service category, including the groups engaged in planning, execution, conduct and control of programs, including those directed toward the public and programs of internal management.
The fifth is the scientific and professional category composed of groups in which specialized qualifications attained in university or professional institutions and specific to each occupational group are required.
Finally, the executive category is composed of groups engaged in senior managerial and policy-making responsibilities, or in tasks calling for exceptionally high standards of performance in the development and execution of policy, or in the introduction of new or improved administrative processes.
Classification is basically a judgment process by which a rank order-for example a relative worth-of a series of positions is established. In a small, simple organization, this ranking may be based on nothing more than the perception of the manager. At the other extreme, such as in the case of the public service, where classification authority is extensively delegated and the classification systems cover an extremely large and diverse work force, a highly sophisticated system is obviously required.
Therefore, public service classification standards exist to ensure that judgments are based on common and consistent criteria, and that the relative worth of a position can be established not only in relation to other positions in a group within the organization or department, but also in relation to positions in the same group in other departments and agencies.
There are four basic types of evaluation plans currently in use in the federal public service. It would probably do us some service to explore, at least briefly, those four groups. The first is the ranking system. These types of evaluation plans are used where there is a high degree of homogeneity in an occupational group and a limited number of different types of work situations. Usually there is already an established and understood job hierarchy in such occupations. An example of this type might be the law group. The second is the level description which is a refinement of the ranking system. It is used when most of the same conditions as in the ranking system apply but a greater variety of work situations exist. By way of example one could look at the engineering subgroup.
The third is the so-called predominant factor system. This type of evaluation plan is used when an occupational group has common characteristics, but a variety of work situations exist which cannot be easily related to each other on the basis of a direct job to job comparison. An example of this type might be the commerce group.	.
Finally, the point rating plan. This type of evaluation plan is used when a high degree of heterogeneity exists among jobs in the same occupations to the extent that neither qualifications nor work situations can be compared easily one with the other. An example of this would be program administration.
Classification Audit
The classification system I have been describing has now been in use for 13 years, and from time to time in recent years the question has been raised as to whether it is still appropriate for the 1980s or whether it should be changed from one based on occupational groups to one based on departments, or to other approaches such as a classification index or centralized classification system.
Under a departmental system, one or more departmental groups would be established which could recognize departmental relativities but would ignore interdepartmental relativities. A similar system existed prior to 1965. Flowever, the present public service classification system is based on the premise that most jobs are similar across the service and there are very few occupational groups which are unique to individual departments. The current approach encourages and facilitates interdepartmental mobility.
A departmental system would solve the problem of intradepartmental relativities, but would not lead to over-all improvement. The extensive administrative exercise required to make such a transition would be traumatic, while the cost of such a change-over is prohibitive. The system would introduce equity problems and would require changes in the Public Service Staff Relations Act and a restructuring of the bargaining units.
The provinces have a variety of systems and practices depending on the size and complexity of their public service work force. Where collective bargaining is permitted, there are fewer bargaining units than are found in the federal public service. As well, classification delegation is far more restricted. Generally, according to provincial authorities, control problems exist wherever classification delegation is permitted.
In the Canadian private sector, classification systems range from ones which are far simpler than those of the federal public service to ones which are equally complex. The degree of complexity generally increases with the size of the enterprise and its geographical dispersion. For example, in the grain industry there is a high degree of consistency between companies and the classification system is very simple.
In a number of companies, for jobs which would be allocated to groups in our operational and technical categories, no formal classification plan exists and job descriptions are very basic. Again I offer as an example the electrician whose job classification is to supervise all electrical work, to assign staff their duties and to perform electrical-related work as required.
At the other extreme, the steel industry uses a system, the co-operative wage study evaluation system or CWS, covering thousands of plants and office workers in the United States and Canada. Two classification plans, a 12-factor plan for blue collar workers and a seven-factor plan for office workers, are used. Despite access to a grievance procedure, including provision for final and binding arbitration in the event that union-management agreement is not reached and revisions that have been periodically incorporated in the 35-year history of this old plan, steel unions have recently gone on record as considering that significant modifications are required to the CWS classification plan.

May 29, 1980
Classification Audit
In the private sector there is usually a distinct split between managers and others, whereas in the public service classification plans a complete spectrum of work from most junior to intermediate or senior management level is covered. As well, our plans, except for senior executives or the SXs as they are called and personnel administration, the PE positions, normally cover both unionized and excluded employees. Private sector ones do not and the demarcation is much more distinct. Management levels in significant private sector organizations are usually covered by direct or partial reference to compensation systems developed by consultant organizations.
Generally in the private sector both personnel administration and classification are highly centralized. Where there is a measure of delegation, this is usually exercised under tight guidelines which leave very little room for discretion on the part of the manager. In effect, the manager establishes a position by selecting one of a series of job descriptions that has been developed at the corporate level. Because the diversity of work and programs in the public service rarely exists within one company in the private sector, more centralized and straightforward approaches to classification are possible in the private sector.
In the United States, at the federal level the classification system, commonly known as the GS system, closely approximates our class and grade system which existed prior to the introduction of collective bargaining. There are a large number of series and grades in existence for the clerical through officer classes of work. These grades in turn are assigned to one of some 18 GS pay levels. Thus, a biologist, a chemist and an administrative officer, although classified in their own distinct classification series, could all be paid in the same GS pay level. The introduction of a similar system in the Canadian federal public service would require a revamping of the entire existing bargaining unit structure to allow the negotiation of a unified rate structure for all occupational groups.
Another difference in the American system is that while delegation is permitted, collective bargaining is restricted or prohibited. While the pay system is simpler, there are a number of problems in the classification area and studies have been under way to reform the system.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: I am glad that hon. members are happy to see that the studies are under way. I commenced my speech by indicating that the studies are under way. As any good teacher would do, having started with the point, I am reinforcing the point through the middle of the speech and I will conclude with the same point.
As is evident from the foregoing, the current American classification system and classification in the private sector operate in a significantly different and highly varied arena. The systems used range from those which would be totally incompatible with our organizational structure to ones which
are comparable and, except for the cosmetic differences, essentially the same.
In conclusion, I have endeavoured to describe the particulars of the current classification system in the public service. As I have indicated, it is a complex system, but I assure hon. members that the classification policies and procedures are under constant review to maintain a system that is fair to both employees and taxpayers.
The President of the Treasury Board, 1 believe, has indicated in this House and, therefore, publicly, and privately to many hon. members who have an interest in this topic, as has the hon. member for Vaudreuil, that he has a personal commitment to see that these three reports to which I referred earlier do not languish in the dust on the shelf, that they in fact receive a complete examination and that that examination results in some action in terms of the implementation of at least parts of those reports.
It is a commitment on the part of the President of the Treasury Board that this be done quickly and effectively, and that in fact it should be done in the context of changes in the PSSRA legislation which obviously will have to come forward. I would ask the assistance and co-operation of all members of this House to see that this matter is dealt with quickly.
I agree with the hon. member for Vaudreuil when he says that this has been a matter of long standing and that it requires that something effective be done soon in consultation not only with members of this House but with members of the public service who, obviously, are vitally interested and concerned and who will be affected by what happens.
[ Translation]


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) for giving us this evening the opportunity of discussing a topic that although not of the easiest to understand, still concerns a subject of interest to at least some hon. members and also to the House generally because, in the final analysis, Parliament is responsible for the management of human resources. This question of job classification and its standards is inevitably linked with the whole question of human resource management and civil servants.
I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of Treasury Board (Mr. Daudlin) indicate some of the steps that have been taken to ensure that in a few months, if not sooner, solutions will be brought to the problems pointed out by my colleague from Vaudreuil. I would remind the parliamentary secretary and his minister that we have been impatiently waiting for four years already for the results of the study made in 1976 by a joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate on employer-employee relations in the civil service of Canada. That study which, I believe, was presided over by the hon. member for Vaudreuil some time ago recommended that classification be made negotiable and that, of course, certain conditions attach to the application of the new formula.
May 29, 1980

Job classification is, put simply, the first step toward filling a position. The manager must, in fact, determine the parameters of the job, evaluate the work to be performed and, after analysis, locate that position at the appropriate level in the general classification scale. The level of classification having been determinated, the Civil Service Commission is then asked to set the selection standards. So, on one hand the employer has the exclusive right to determine the classification standards, the work to be done. The employer decides what will happen. On the other hand, the Public Service Commission must by law choose the candidate who seems best qualified to fill the position. Therefore, on one hand we have the employer who must identify the work to be done and on the other hand we have an agency which must find the person best suited for the work.
As we can see, classification represents one important part of the management of our human resources in the civil service. According to the law now in force, the employer unilaterally decides on the classification standards, though ordinarily a consultation process takes place between negotiating agents. Normally, before applying or changing any standard, the Treasury Board consults with the negotiating agents.
In the public sector, as my colleague the parliamentary secretary to the minister has mentioned, it is different, even in the United States. Four years ago I thought we were slowly on the way to adopting a much more modern system, that the employer, although he may be completely in charge of setting the classification standards, would have understood that his task was an integral part of personnel management and that if classification meant money-if I hold a senior position, I am well paid and if the salary is negotiable-it necessarily follows that classification should also be negotiable. 1 negotiate with respect to salary so I should therefore negotiate with respect to classification.
This is what the employer-employee relations committee which met in 1974, 1975 and 1976 recommended; and 1 will simply read an excerpt for hon. members because this document has gathered a lot of dust in the last four years. Its recommendations were never followed up and I would simply like to remind hon. members of what the House and Senate committee recommended. I quote from page 4721:
Your committee is of the opinion that the law should provide for some extension of the scope of bargaining so as to include classification standards, and recommends as follows:
34.	That, having regard to the established jurisdiction of bargaining agents in the public service, bargaining classification standards be interpreted to mean the determination of the relative worth of jobs within an occupational group.
35.	That provision be made in the law for the bargaining of classification standards following the three-year period after promulgation.
36.	That collective agreements incorporating classification standards be treated as "special agreements having their own duration".
Classification Audit
37.	That in accordance with regulations made by the Public Service Staff Relations Board, disputes arising in negotiations and involving the development or redevelopment of a classification standard be subject to reference to and arbitration by the Board.
38.	That the provisions of the act relating to the appointment of conciliation boards or conciliators not apply in cases of disputes arising out of the negotiations of classification standards, but that the board be empowered to appoint a mediator.
39.	That resort to strike or lockout to resolve classification disputes be prohibited.
40.	That arbitration of the pay plan attached to a classification standard be dealt with by the Public Service Staff Relations Board only with the consent of both parties.
As we can see, Mr. Speaker, four years ago members of this House made seven recommendations on how, in a clear and precise manner and step by step, standards of classification could become negotiable just as salaries and other working conditions are negotiable. This brings us back to the problem raised by the hon. member for Vaudreuil. Four years ago it was realized, according to the report under study today and which is the basis for this motion for the production of papers, that the issue of classification audit in the public service posed certain problems. That report indicated certain positions were overclassified or underclassified, overpaid or underpaid. And I remember at that time, four years ago, that document was alluded to and it was said once again that civil servants receive more money than they deserve and do work that bring them working conditions and salaries that far exceed what they are worth. Mr. Macdonell, the Auditor General, recently told us that federal civil servants were for a large part unable to do their work with the same efficiency and effectiveness as the private sector. We were told that 50,000 federal civil servants could do the job as effectively as 36,000 comparable workers in the private sector. And that was used to hit again civil servants over the head and tell them: Listen, you are overpaid, there is not enough strictness to prevent those abuses. And the press jumped on that.
I must say that classification is determined by the employer, who is also responsible for personnel management. And when one talks about the efficiency of federal civil servants, one should not forget that it is management, and in the final analysis the agencies themselves, and perhaps this Parliament, that is responsible for that. Because we did not make sure we had the controls we needed, we did not make sure for many years we had in place a necessary approach to management so the managers could administer their departments effectively.
And then the civil servant gets blamed-that happened four years ago when the report on classification was released, and again recently when the Auditor General acted on a very doubtful basis. Mr. Speaker, 160 civil servants were extrapolated on 50,000, and that is what the Auditor General based himself on to conclude there was a lack of effectiveness and efficiency in the public service. What the hon. member for Vaudreuil sought is to get-
1558

May 29, 1980
Classification Audit

We are told that the data behind this study is unavailable. I accept that. Possibly it did not exist. I do not know, but somebody made a statement that 17.8 per cent of public servants in the national capital area were overclassified, and somebody made a statement also that outside the national capital area it was a lower percentage than the national capital area but, nevertheless, an important percentage were overclassified. In both instances I claim this is not the fault of the public servants; it is the fault of the system. On the one hand, we do not have a general policy, a philosophy of management, and on the other hand classification is the employer's exclusive responsibility. Perhaps some day we can set up a system which will give the employees and the unions a chance to negotiate classification standards.
The problem, of course, arises when we divide normal negotiations on standard things such as salary and fringe benefits like health, pensions and such things. Some of them are accepted as part of normal negotiations today. In our report, in the D'Avignon report and the Lambert report for that matter, it is suggested that the staffing process be part of another type of negotiation, separate from the normal negotiations going on regarding salaries and other conditions.
I see some difficulties with that. If the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of Treasury Board is serious, I want to warn him that there may be some difficulties inherent in double negotiations-on the one hand negotiating salaries and conditions of work and, on the other hand, negotiating staffing and classification standards. A contract signed for a period of time covering salaries and working conditions may be arrived at in the next month or so, but a contract in regard to classification standards and staffing functions may be effective only next year. The process of negotiation would then start over again and the public service and the government would find themselves negotiating pretty well all the time on two different contracts, one dealing with money and other conditions, and one dealing with classification and staffing. I would caution the parliamentary secretary about that. Two negotiations going on at parallel times could complicate the whole process and add to the complexities of the problem.
I should like to talk now about the classification question. For the past several years Treasury Board has carried out ad hoc audits of departmental classification decisions, and has taken the necessary corrective action. I accept that they cannot audit everybody all the time. They audit some medium and large departments every 18 months, and I understand that they audit small departments, boards and agencies, every 24 months. Although this provides information about the administration of various aspects of the system, the subjective selection of position used does not allow quantitative statements about classification for particular departments in the whole public service.
When these audits revealed possible problems with the classification system as a whole, it was decided to carry out a full scale audit. A full scale audit is required if we are ever to come to grips with the management philosophy-the over-all
responsibility of this Parliament, this government-to make sure that we reach effective goals in administering public funds and that we obtain efficient services and value for money from our taxes.
I understand that the evaluation and analysis made in 1976 was done in consultation with Statistics Canada. The method automatically ensured that departments and occupational groups were represented in this sample. In the national capital area, one of every 33 positions was selected. That is what we call the subjective approach system. In the non-national capital area, one out of every 69 positions was selected. Here again we are taking advice from professional statisticians and trying to cope with a very challenging problem but doing it with well recognized scientific methods.
The application of the staffing method resulted in approximately 2,000 positions being selected in the national capital region, which represented approximately 4 per cent of the full-time employees who had been in the same job for over 12 months. After completion of the national capital area phase of the program, the audit was repeated for another 2,000 positions in the rest of Canada outside the national capital area, to substantiate further and expand the results of the study in the national capital area. This sample represented approximately 1.5 per cent of full-time employees outside the national capital area. The combined results of these two phases provided the assessment of the entire public service.
I am not much of a statistician, Mr. Speaker. I know nothing about statistics and have never taken such a course. I suspect, however, that we are in a situation similar to the one the Auditor General was in when he apparently used 160 public servants out of 50,000 and, from that, extrapolated the finding that they were not efficient. I do not know how acceptable that is to the ordinary person. I find it difficult to accept that we can extrapolate 160 to 50,000 and that we can extrapolate from 1.5 per cent of full-time employees outside the national capital area and say there is great difficulty here in classification standards.
[DOT] <1750)
The systematic audit of 4,000 positions in the public service showed that a significant percentage of positions were misclas-sified, I quote from the document, both inside and outside the national capital area. The NCA was 20 per cent, while in the non-NCA-that is the non-capital area-it was 16.7 per cent. For the public service as a whole, the percentage of misclassi-fied positions was 17.8 per cent.
I would like to point out that there will always be some subjectivity in the administration of any classification system. There will always be some cases where the duties and responsibilities of the particular position could be at the lower end of one particular classification level, or at the upper end of a lower level. Because of this, and because of the size and nature of the classification system in the federal public service-the system covers, I understand, about 300,000 positions-there will always be some degree of misclassification. That is acceptable in as big a shop as that employing 300,000 people and it is
May 29, 1980

expected that there would be movements up and down and some misclassification. But in the order of 20 per cent-the extrapolation that has been done-if it is right, it is in dire need of change, and it is wrong, it is in great need of being readjusted. That is possibly why the hon. member for Vau-dreuil wanted to see the data that produced these figures so that we could understand where the problems were.
As a result of the initial findings of the audits in the national capital area, departments were advised of the general results of the audit while the Treasury Board continued with the audit outside the national capital area. In addition, the Treasury Board undertook a thorough study of the classification system in the personnel policy branch of Treasury Board and one other operating department, as well as a detailed review of all the policies and procedures relating to classification in the public service. They reviewed the policies and procedures.
I do not want to speak too long on this subject because I know we could possibly get into the Lambert report, the D'Avignon report, and explore the recommendations in the report of the.committee on the employer-employee relations in the Public Service of Canada, but I fail to understand how Treasury Board, who admit that their classification system is 17.8 per cent inefficient at this time are charged now- according to the answer given by the President of the Treasury Board to my question a few weeks ago-with reviewing the whole system. In view of the Lambert commission's report and recommendations, the Royal Commission on Financial Management and Accountability, how can the department charged exclusively with classification standards tell me that it will now review, with the hope of listening to members of Parliament on both sides of the House, when four years ago it was recommended that this thing be made negotiable?
I could relate pages of testimony of Treasury Board statements on classification where to a series of questions that we put to them with regard to classification, the answers were "no" or "not supported". And yet the same minister and the same department are being charged with a review of the classification standards based on a report which my colleague, the member for Vaudreuil, brought up which said that 20 per cent in Ottawa, or the national capital area-17 per cent nationally-are overclassified. Likewise they will not let us know on what data they are basing their statements; neither will they allow the unions to get into the data or negotiations, nor will they follow our recommendations that we made some four years ago-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. gentleman to advise him that his allotted time has expired. He could continue if there is unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Classification Audit


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I also congratulate my colleague from Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) who asked once again for the necessary information to carry out his duties in the House. We know that for several years the hon. member for Vaudreuil has often tried to obtain the information he needed to take some decisions for his constituents.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I must add that on several points I agree with my colleague the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) and also with the member for Essex-Kent (Mr. Daudlin) who spoke about declassification. However, there is an aspect of the matter with which they did not deal and it is the point that I would like to discuss.

Classification audits such as the national capital and the non-national capital audits which were referred to by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, have found that some positions are either overclassified or underclassified, that is, the pay for the actual duties being performed is not consistent with that for similar positions elsewhere in the public service.
It is evident that corrective action is necessary in such situations. Where a position is underclassified, the employee immediately receives the benefit of the higher salary, which is just. If, and looking at the position in the first instance, we find that a man or woman because of the job they are doing is underpaid, then it is incumbent upon the employer to see to it that they are justly remunerated for the work they are doing.
In cases of overclassification, the process known as red circling is somewhat different. It is to this point that 1 wish to address myself. In the mid-1960s, with the introduction of the present category and group classification system, mentioned by my colleague, the hon. member for Essex-Kent, who referred to a study which was carried out in the United States, we found that the employer provided for corrective action, generally resulting in a freeze of the employee's salary for 60 or 90 days after notification of the overclassification situation. That was done unless-and this is very important-the position could be restructured to sustain the overclassified level. This freeze was to continue until the salary for the correct classification level coincided with the employee's frozen rate of pay. The employee suffered no monetary loss. My colleague from Timmins knows that from his studies and from the people working in his riding-we discussed this a little bit earlier- this was a very important aspect for them as it bore directly on the well-being of their families as well as on colleagues working in the same offices.
As 1 said before, the employees suffered no monetary loss. But later, to protect the red circled employees from adverse effects of increases in the cost of living, lump sum payments were instituted. In their time, these red circling provisions were at least equal to corrective classification provisions of other employees.

May 29, 1980
Borrowing Authority Act
It should be noted that in 1975 through a memorandum of understanding jointly reached between the employer and the Public Service Alliance of Canada, an improved red circling process was instituted. However, shortly thereafter, a legal challenge was made to the employer's authority to bring employees salaries into line with the correct level of their positions, and this question was finally resolved through a Supreme Court decision. 1 see that it is six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock 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):: When the House rose at six o'clock. Bill C-30, an act to provide supplementary borrowing authority for the fiscal year 1980-81 was under consideration. The hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) had the floor. Since the hon. member for Edmonton East is not present, I will see what other hon. member catches the eye of the Chair. The hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish).


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of honour this evening to rise and address this House on Bill C-30, an act to provide supplementary borrowing authority for the fiscal year 198081.1 trust, Mr. Speaker, that you will bear with me when I say a few words about my constituency, since this is my maiden speech in the House of Commons. Because of the very nature of the bill and the wide scope which it encompasses, I am sure my remarks will be appropriate to that. I would like to start by thanking the people of The Battlefords-Meadow Lake constituency for seeing fit to elect me as their federal representative
in the House of Commons and to present their views here to the best of my ability.
The Battlefords-Meadow Lake constituency is located in northwestern Saskatchewan and geographically covers about a quarter of the entire size of the province of Saskatchewan. It stretches from the Borden Bridge in the southeastern corner of the constituency, along the North Saskatchewan River to the Alberta border, and north to the Northwest Territories, taking in communities such as Meadow Lake, The Battlefords, as 1 already mentioned Buffalo Narrows, and Uranium City in the extreme northern corner of the constituency.
The constituency has a fairly diverse economy. Its economic base originally has been mainly agriculture, and fishing and trapping as we move further north out of the agricultural areas. Agriculture has been and likely in the long term will always be the number one industry within The Battlefords-Meadow Lake constituency, although it is a bit overshadowed at the present time because of heavy oil development, some manufacturing and mining, and an equitable distribution of income from a sound resource policy of the government that we have in Saskatchewan, as well as extensive forestry operations which take place within the constituency. However, they have been devastated somewhat recently because of the numerous forest fires of such a large extent that have been experienced in northern Saskatchewan and throughout all of northern Canada.
The constituency has a rich cultural background of Ukrainian people, people of Scandinavian ancestry, German, French, British, and in the largest part of the constituency we actually represent people from all countries in the world. As well, about 45 per cent of the constituency is made up of native people. Here I speak of treaty Indians, the registered Indians, nonstatus Indians and the Metis people who live within the constituency.
As you are well aware, Mr. Speaker, we have an NDP government which has been in power since 1971. It has done a very good job of providing the people of Saskatchewan with a good diverse economy. It provides the people of Saskatchewan with the kind ot representation that they have enjoyed very much. That shows in the electoral results of the federal election as well as in the provincial elections since 1971.
The NDP government, as you are well aware, Mr. Speaker, came into power in Saskatchewan after seven long lean years of Liberal administration under the Hon. Ross Thatcher.


An hon. Member:: The famine in Egypt.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Prior to that time the province had been represented with the CCF administration of Tommy Douglas, Woodrow Lloyd and other such notables. They brought to us programs of electrification and the resource ownership that we enjoy so much in Saskatchewan today and, again, an equitable distribution of the income and economy within that province.
I would like to say a few words now that tie in a bit more closely with Bill C-30, the act to provide supplementary borrowing power for the federal government to the tune of $12
May 29, 1980

billion. I would like to express at this time that that is an amount that would run the provincial government of Saskatchewan for eight years. This government, in less than one page of Hansard, is asking us to provide borrowing power of $12 billion. That is disgraceful.
When 1 looked at the throne speech of April 14, as a new member of Parliament 1 had great hopes for the Liberal government. 1 thought they were finally going to work with the other members of this federal House in establishing a good sound country to provide equitable distribution of resources and income among all classes of the population and throughout all geographic areas of the country. They told us in the throne speech that we would have to follow two main principles in this Parliament. First, we would have to live within our means-and I can certainly agree with that as most Canadians would, so long as you have the bare means of existence. Some Canadians who live below the poverty line-and that includes many of our senior citizens and those on fixed incomes-do not even have the bare means of existence. I think that this government addressed some of those problems in the throne speech, and I was very happy to hear that.
The second thing they told us in the throne speech is that in the 1980s we will have to make sacrifices. It seems to me that this is a ridiculous statement. We live in a country which has an abundance of resources, in many areas we lead in technology, and we are an industrialized country which should be able to provide many jobs and a high standard of living. We should not have to make personal sacrifices in a country such as ours.
I think that some parts of the throne speech were good where they said that members of Parliament from all parties would be consulted in a non-partisan way on how the country should proceed through the 1980s. 1 mentioned in many reports to my constituents and to the media in Saskatchewan my high hopes for the Liberal government. I also mentioned some of the problems which were not addressed in the throne speech in terms of agriculture. No meaningful legislation was proposed to deal with the problems of agricultural communities in Canada, and unless the government takes some initiative to help the farmers and cattlemen in their plight, we will be facing not only an economic and an energy crisis in a few years' time but a food crisis because we are driving farmers off the land.
Nothing was said in the throne speech about transportation except for one brief statement that transportation was an important part of the Canadian industrial strategy. No mention was made of double tracking which was proposed during the last election campaign, nor was there any mention of an industrial strategy, which the Liberal party does not have anyway. I do not know why transportation was not made an important part of that strategy, a strategy which does not exist within an incompetent transportation policy under the auspices of a minister who cannot even handle his own portfolio, let alone carry out responsibilities for the Canadian Wheat Board.
Borrowing Authority Act
At that time the Liberal government did not accept any responsibility for the high interest rates. They blamed them on the poor Conservatives and their short-term government. But actually the reason for the high interest rates can be traced back some years ago when the Liberal government was in office, and that brought us to the bad state in which we are now. Now that the interest rates are coming down, the Liberals want to take credit for it. It is not due to the Liberal government that those interest rates are coming down because the Liberal government had no policy with which to achieve it, just as the Conservatives have no such policy. I submit that the NDP put forward a policy during the election campaign for an industrial strategy and some type of long-term planning so that the people of this country would not have to make the sacrifices which they are expected to make today.
Many parts of the throne speech were taken directly from the NDP policy in the last election campaign. The petroleum price auditing agency proposed in the throne speech is exactly what the NDP was calling for during the election campaign when it proposed a commission on oil profits and prices. In fact, the Liberals found that in order to win the last election they had to swing to the left, thus almost treading on socialist ground in order to get some of the strength away from the NDP and also from the Conservatives.
The throne speech made mention also of some other matters similar to some contained in our policies put forward during the election campaign. It referred to the retaining and expanding of Petro-Canada as a Crown corporation. I think that this is a very good idea. We were great advocates of that agency when it was first formed and we supported it throughout the election campaign, as we support it now. We believe that not only should Petro-Canada be involved in 50 per cent of the petroleum industry in this country but that within the next five years it should own 100 per cent of the petroleum industry in Canada.
Still in the area of energy let me point out that it was stated in the throne speech that the government would explore the possibilities of building a pipeline from western Canada to supply the energy requirements of eastern Canada. This was taken almost directly from the NDP policy stated during the election campaign.
The government stated in the throne speech that a meaningful role would be given to members of Parliament from western Canada. As members know, and as all Canadians know, this Liberal government desperately needs representation in western Canada outside of the city of Winnipeg, and we doubt whether even that representation is adequate.
We hear now about the Liberals twinning constituencies across this country, sending their political lackeys across Canada in an effort to gain support in the west. I submit to you, sir, that they will not achieve that. I think they had better pay attention to those members of Parliament from the west who were elected by due process. I do not want to hear about proportionate representation. The people in western Canada worked for over two decades to get rid of the Liberals-we will not work now to help them back in. Another thing the Liberals

May 29, 1980
Borrowing Authority Act
have been talking about is a coalition between the NDP and the Liberals. That is a bunch of hogwash.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Keith Anguish: Again, we do not want the Liberals fooling around in western Canada because they will drive us to the same bankrupt situation we had in Saskatchewan in 1944 when the CCF government had to bail Saskatchewan out because of the shameful Liberal administration.


An hon. Member:: Horsefeathers!


Douglas Keith Anguish: Horsefeathers for sure! Mr. Speaker, the $12 billion that this government is asking for in its request for blanket borrowing powers is nothing more than money to help their corporate friends, just as the Conservatives would have done had they been in office. We spoke about the problems of government and the big deficits that we have had, but when people who work for this government ask for proper compensation, we cannot even afford to offer them 5 per cent in a two-year contract.
1 should like to quote some of the salaries of the top executives in this country. Let me take Seagrams as an example. Their top executive received $788,974 in 1979 as his salary. The second top man-they do not have any women in their administration-received $585,501 in 1979, and the third top person in line for the presidency received $553,413. In 1979 the chairman of Imperial Oil received $649,172. The chief executive officer of Canadian Pacific received over $500,000. The list goes on and on and on.
I agree with the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) when he says we should nationalize them. We in fact should, because they do this country no good whatsoever. At the same time we scrounge around depriving people of a decent standard of living, some of whom actually work in the House of Commons around here as clerks. They actually live almost below the poverty level. 1 think that is shameful. They do nothing for women's rights in order to give them equal status. As a result of the futile attempts governments made and the hundreds of reports we have received, there have been no significant gains.
The real problem with this government is that the $12 billion we are being asked to approve is being spent to help their corporate friends. That money is not needed in fact because there are about $14 billion in accumulated unpaid corporate taxes which the government chooses not to collect. The Liberals will not collect it, and the Conservatives did nothing about collecting it. If we collected that money we would not have to go out and borrow $12 billion.
I have talked about something before in this House during the question period and at committee meetings, as I happen to sit as the NDP representative on the Public Accounts Steering Committee, namely, the deficit of this government which last year was $16,185 billion. That is shameful. I would like that to go on the record. This is to be found in the 1978-79 public
accounts and the audited financial statement of the Government of Canada, section 2 on page 2.5. It is there for all Canadians to read, and it is shameful. The reason for this is that the Liberal government has squandered our resources, given them away to multinationals without any thought for the Canadian people. 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. At this rate it will not be long, and mark my words, before this country is in the same situation that Saskatchewan was in in 1944 when the CCF government had to come and bail it out.


Mr. Elzinga:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


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


Peter Elzinga: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question.


Douglas Keith Anguish: No, Mr. Speaker. I will permit a question after I am finished.
As I said, in 1944 the CCF party had to come in and bail out the people of Saskatchewan because of shabby Liberal administration. Up until that time the Liberal government, and before that the Conservative government for a brief period of time, and I will mention that later, gave away the resources and collected no revenue, bankrupting the province. In 1944 when the CCF government came into power members had to put up personal guarantees. People like Tommy Douglas, Bob Wooff, who represented the Turtleford constituency, and Clarence Fines, had to sign personal guarantees so that the government could in fact borrow money to put Saskatchewan back on a sound base. Today that province is on a sound base with an abundance of resources, not second to anywhere in Canada. That Liberal government came to power through the help of their corporate friends and ripped off the people of Saskatchewan.
The only time it was different was in 1929 when the Ku Klux Klan backed the Conservative party that came to power in Saskatchewan. That is the only time they ever formed a government there, and it is the only time they ever will.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Keith Anguish: I am very happy that 1 have the attention of the House so that I can express some of the concerns I have about the people who administer this government.
Through my experience on the public accounts committee I have been exposed to reports of the Auditor General and the setting up of the office of the Comptroller General to introduce a sound base for the introduction of an efficient and accountable government which is effective and honours the wishes of the Canadian people.
I am sorry that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) left, because he could use some of this experience.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
May 29, 1980


Douglas Keith Anguish: Let me refer to some of our other problems to emphasize the need for this government to get control of our own economy. In 1978 we had $75 billion in foreign ownership in this country which stimulated about $4 billion a year in profits that just left the country. Those profits go to Imperial and Exxon, and to countries all over the world. Those profits are not kept here. They give money to Inco and Inco does not expand here in this country, it lays people off. That company goes to Indonesia and other places in the world to build its fortunes there. These companies in no way help the Canadian people.
We do not need to borrow because of inefficient government, but rather because of inefficient politicians who have done a poor job of running this country. I would like to use stronger words but I guess that would be unparliamentary.
We think that we should have a program in this country for effective control of our energy. We should have effective control of our financial institutions and of our transportation agencies. We should clean up our environment. The Liberals do not pay much attention to that, and the Conservatives with their many provincial governments pay no heed to it either. We should be able to provide full employment to the people of Canada rather than driving them out of their homes with high interest rates. Although the interest rates are getting lower now, many people had to renew their mortgages at 17 per cent and higher. This is the fault of Conservatives like you, and the Liberals like you.
In the area of energy, we still feel that Petro-Canada should be involved as the sole agency, with public ownership, to go into competition with other companies involved in the petroleum and the energy sector. We feel that Petro-Canada should be involved in exploration and research. It should be involved in refining, wholesale sales and retail sales. I suggest that we should get Petro-Canada involved in exploration because we in fact do not know how much conventional gas and oil we have left in this country.
In the 1973 annual report of Imperial Oil the president of that country told us, "Do not worry Canadians, we have enough gas to last us for hundreds of years." Some two years later he was telling us that we had an energy crisis. The president of Imperial Oil miscalculated by a couple of hundred years. What is even worse, the Liberals and Conservatives believed him. That is disgraceful.
We need Petro-Canada as a public agency to tell us how much gas and oil there is. Petro-Canada should also be involved in research regarding alternative forms of energy because some day the gas and oil we have will run out and we will have to look at alternate forms to satisfy the great needs we have in this country. We should consider keeping some of our energy at home to provide for our needs first, and then exporting the surpluses to other countries which are in as much need as ourselves.
We should not sell it to the United States, as Alberta does, without putting one single cent into confederation. That province does not pay one penny in export tax on the gas that they
Borrowing Authority Act
export. Saskatchewan pays about $500 million a year in respect of the export of heavy crude. The only reason Saskatchewan has to export this crude is that it does not have an upgrading plant in proximity to upgrade that crude so that we can utilize it. This is something we will be working for in this Parliament, to be situated in northwestern Saskatchewan.
We say also that Petro Canada should be involved in the wholesaling of petroleum products. This will likely be one of the most important areas when the real energy crunch comes and our gas and oil supplies are running out because the multinationals will not sell to the little service station up in Uranium City or to the little service station in Buffalo Narrows, or to the independent service station operator in the Battlefords, Meadow Lake or St. Wallburg. They will sell to their own service stations, the privately-owned ones in the larger centres, or they will sell where they can maximize their profits by obtaining the highest possible dollar without consideration for the regional distribution of supplies. Petro-Canada should be involved in the wholesale trade and sale of petroleum products just to ensure that we have an adequate supply of petroleum in all areas of this country, not just in those areas which can afford to pay the most.
We also think Petro-Canada should be involved in retail sales, not so that it can dominate the market as the multinationals do now, but so that the people of Canada may have a choice, when they pull up at a pump, to fill up their vehicles, or when a truck comes up to the farm to fill up your tank, you may have a choice between paying a multinational company to do it and exporting the money out of the country, exporting employment. You should have the choice to buy either Co-op or Petro-Canada and ensure that all your money stays in Canada.
We also believe there should be some effective control over financial institutions. The Liberal government has said it does not care to become involved in controlling interest rates. The monetary policy of this country is not set by the government. But monetary policy should be set by the government. We should not bleed the credit unions and the caisses populaires trying to make them go broke, declining to raise the ceilings for them from the $1,500 in the Small Loans Act and forcing them to charge only 12 per cent when they should at least be able to compete. This government does not let competition flourish. The field is dominated by multinationals.
When considering the subject of transportation in this Parliament we need to give serious consideration to a transportation policy designed to move people and goods across this country in a manner which is fitting to all areas of Canada, not just central Canada where the majority of the population is centred, but to the east coast and to the west coast, to move people and products throughout this country and to help in overcoming the disparities which exist now.
The fourth thing I want to talk about is the environment. We have a real problem right now with the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) failing to move to negotiations with the United States to stop sulphur from going into the air,

May 29, 1980
Borrowing Authority Act
causing acid rain to fall in this country, killing hundreds of lakes, especially in Ontario. That acid rain which is now moving throughout this country will be our biggest problem in the decades ahead unless some action is taken now to clean up the environment. What we need to do is not to find remedies after the fact. We have to look at the environment itself. Nature has always been acknowledged as the best cure for damage by pollutants that enter our environment. So if we regulate the amount of pollutants which go into our environment, nature itself will take care of that for us and we will not have to try to open up negotiations with the multinationals through inept Liberal and Conservative administrations.
The other thing we would like to see go through is a policy of full employment within Canada, and it is a policy I intend to work toward. It is ridiculous that in our country today people should be laid off in the automobile industry, in the forestry industry and elsewhere, or that people should have a hard time finding jobs in any area of this country. It is not pleasant to be faced with unemployment. Everyone is aware of the grave social problems which occur in families and communities when the unemployment rate runs so high.
In Northern Saskatchewan alone, three mills had to close down in the last few months just because of the bad administration of the federal government and its unwillingness to act to bring down high interest rates which have caused a sort of snowball effect on our economy. Things will get worse yet before they get better, because it takes times to catch up. It is definitely ruining the economy.
I should like to close by saying we have to do something about gaining control of our spending. Either revenues have to be increased or else programs will have to be cut to reduce expenditures.


An hon. Member:: A total paradox.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Someone within the Liberal administration has to make a decision about what should be done to overcome the disastrous effect on our economy. We have moved from a surplus in 1969 to a deficit of $16,185 billion a decade later. This is the difference between the amount of money we take in and the amount of money we spend. Then what happens? The politicians of this country turn around and blame it on the civil servants and on the people of Canada for not living within their means, though the fault rests entirely with the politicians who are here in Ottawa, especially those who have held the government purse strings but who have failed to act and have done nothing to solve the problems of this country.


An hon. Member:: Take a look at the Crosbie budget.


Douglas Keith Anguish: I would like to close by putting on record a short quotation which was referred to earlier by other members of this caucus, originally by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen). The quotation is from John Foster Dulles-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Douglas Keith Anguish: -who said:
The measure of success is not whether you have a tough problem to deal with but whether it is the same problem you had last year.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it has been several decades since we have had the same problem with us and it is because of this government. We have proved it in Saskatchewan. Through equitable taxation of corporations, not just the little people of this country, we have a thriving province; we have moved from being a have-not province to being one of the most prosperous provinces in Canada, and that will not happen in this country as a whole until the people wake up and realize that the NDP can provide the only sound administration for this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Elzinga: The hon. member indicated he would be good enough to answer a question after he had concluded his remarks. He showed a deep regard for the deficit and for spending. Perhaps he could explain why, when we introduced a budget to reduce the deficit and cut government spending, his party voted against it.


Douglas Keith Anguish: I do not think that was the reason the people necessarily alone voted against the Conservative government. The reason the people of Canada voted against the Conservative government was-


An hon. Member:: Joe Clark.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Joe Clark. Second, because of the 18-cent a gallon excise tax they were going to impose-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order. With the greatest of respect, the hon. member indicated at the beginning of his speech that it was his maiden speech. The Chair has therefore allowed the greatest latitude, though there were moments of difficulty when we reached the Ku Klux Klan and other subjects. But I think I have even more difficulty at this point understanding the relationship between the exchange of the two members and the subject of Bill C-30, an act to implement a borrowing authority. Perhaps the Chair might recognize the next hon. member who hopefully will show hon. members the joys of relevance which perhaps would assist the House.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I appreciate your Your Honour's degree of latitude in allowing me to go on in my maiden speech in the House of Commons. As Mr. Speaker can appreciate, I had difficulty in sticking with Bill C-30 to give the government borrowing powers. But in response to the question the hon. member opposite was asking me-


An hon. Member:: That is not a point of order.


Douglas Keith Anguish: -I was only trying to go on with the long list of problems, as to why the people of Canada in fact defeated the Conservative government.
May 29, 1980


Peter Elzinga: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think the hon. member illustrated his intelligence in answering my question, because 1 did not ask him why the people of Canada voted as such. I asked him why his party voted against a budget that would reduce government spending and bring down the deficit.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair is having a problem recognizing the relevance of even the points of order.
I recognize the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling).


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, 1 will certainly endeavour to heed your very, very excellent advice and stick to the subject for most of the time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stan Darling: I know we are allowed a little bit of latitude.


An hon. Member:: Do you want to bet?


Stan Darling: I bet occasionally. The strayers from the subject time and again are the hallowed group to the left of me-


An hon. Member:: Hallowed!


Stan Darling: -who think they are saints personified.
On Tuesday, May 27, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso, introduced a profoundly significant bill. Bill C-30. It is a bill to grant the government the authority to squander more of the hard-earned money of taxpayers, and then the minister spoke in defence of the bill for less than five minutes. Just imagine, Mr. Speaker, asking members of this House to allow it to borrow an additional $12 billion, and then speaking in defence of such a request for such a very few minutes. I presume he is going on the basis that the government has a majority and that it will be able to ram it through despite the objections of the combined opposition.
At the time the minister introduced the bill, he said the following:
Mr. Speaker, I will follow the advice given by members of the opposition and make my remarks very brief-
Certainly the minister held to his words. His remarks in defence of this terribly significant bill occupied about three quarters of a page in the May 27 edition of Hansard. Can you, Mr. Speaker, fathom such arrogance, such dishonesty and such insolence? It is bad enough that the minister spoke in defence of the bill for such a few minutes. What is even worse is that he said absolutely nothing of consequence. He told us nothing. He told Canadians absolutely nothing. Does the minister think he can hoodwink Canadians a second time? Does the minister think Canadians are uninterested? Does he think Canadians are all stupid? It is high time the government realizes that it is dealing with taxpayers' money. It is deplorable that the minister would ask for permission to borrow such an enormous sum and not provide members of the House with
Borrowing Authority Act
any indication whatsoever of how it intends to dispose of and spend that money.
Actually the government had the audacity, the unmitigated gall and the temerity to ask members of the House to provide it with the authority to borrow an additional $12 billion for the fiscal year 1980-81. I would remind the government that just a few months ago it was declared by certain Liberal members that the Clark administration had lost control when it requested the authority of the House to borrow $7 billion. At that time it was suggested that we only required $3.5 billion. 1 believe that suggestion was made by the finance critic at that time, the present Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray), who was in his seat a few moments ago. I wonder what he is saying now about this $12 billion. My apologies, I see the hon. minister is talking very confidentially with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan). I am wondering what the minister who now sits on the Treasury benches, the finance critic of the Liberal opposition party during the very short tenure of office of the Clark government, is now saying about this $12 billion request.


An hon. Member:: Nothing.


Stan Darling: Nothing; that is quite right.
The government is asking members of the House to trust it. Let me repeat that. The government is asking the members of the House to trust it. It is requesting authority to borrow a lump sum of money without indicating why it needs the money. It is saying to Canadians, "Let us borrow the money and let us spend it just as we see fit". What will the government do with the $12 billion? This is information which the House deserves to be provided with before it grants any such authority. Certainly we do not intend to give them a blank cheque, or a cheque for $12 billion and say, "Away you go, boys, spend it as you like."
There is no doubt about it. The government has lost control over government spending, if indeed it ever had control. One only needs to refer to the long list of cost overruns which was supplied recently by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston). In committee of the whole the minister referred to a list of 497 projects with cost overruns of $1,064 million. The list with which we were supplied contained only 471 projects. Why were we not supplied with a complete list? Not only was the list incomplete, it was seven months old. One cannot help but wonder if the government is deliberately endeavouring not to reveal the actual seriousness of the problem. Is it possible that the amount of the cost overruns of these 497 projects is probably a good deal greater than the $1,064 million stated by the minister in the House?
It is bad enough the government has permitted the magnitude of the problem to skyrocket. Members on this side of the House want to know what the government is doing to make certain the problem is being brought under control. Mr. Speaker, 153 projects out of 223 projects under the Department of the Environment have experienced serious cost overruns. Certainly that is scandalous. Does this department have
1566

May 29, 1980
Borrowing Authority Act
no control at all over its spending? Permit me to mention just a few of the more serious examples.
The Lachine Canal project had a cost overrun of $45.9 million, or 90 per cent over the original cost. The Art Park restoration project had a cost overrun of $6,550,000, or 54.4 per cent over the initial estimate. The Elalifax Development project has had a cost overrun of $14,063,000, or 97.1 per cent. I cannot imagine a cost overrun that is in excess of 95 per cent. That is unforgivable and deplorable. The Newfoundland Highway 430 project had a cost overrun of $12,537,000, or 298.5 per cent. That is absolutely unbelievable. The Fort Anne Nova Scotia Development project had a cost overrun of $4,174,000, or 302.7 per cent. It is getting worse and worse as I go along. What kind of estimates did the government come down with?
A good many of us on both sides of this House are probably considering that these departments, when they originally ask for this money, know that even the Treasury Board chairman of the present government would have turned them down if they knew the true facts. Therefore, they hide them by estimating at rock bottom prices because they know when the time comes the figure will go up, but by then the government has committed itself. Once the project is under way, it is much easier to say, "You cannot shut the project off now because it is half done". In that way, they are able to extricate the extra money out of the government.
Part of the money which the government is asking to borrow this time will probably go to this very same thing. The Department of the Environment is not the only department which is experiencing serious cost overrun problems. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is experiencing similar difficulties. In fact 42 of the 76 projects under the jurisdiction of Indian and Northern Affairs are experiencing cost overrun problems as well. National Defence, Public Works, the National Research Council, and the National Capital Commission are all experiencing serious cost overrun problems.
The Quebec sewage program and the road network projects under the National Capital Commission have experienced phenomenal cost overruns. The Quebec sewage project has a cost overrun of $14 million, or 35 per cent. The road network project has a cost overrun of $10 million, or 6.7 per cent. I am sure that a good many of us are aware of the hundreds of millions of dollars which have already been poured by the National Capital Commission into projects across the river in our sister city, Hull.
The Lethbridge laboratory project which falls within the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture is experiencing a cost overrun of $16,136,000, or 503.6 per cent. Just imagine, Mr. Speaker, 503 per cent over the original suggested cost. One would think that the government is not overly concerned about the problem. If the government is willing to allow one of its projects to realize such a fantastic overrun, then what other conclusion can we reach? If, by chance, this government would
like to give the impression that it is indeed concerned, then why has it not established a special committee to investigate cost overruns, a move, by the way, which was initiated by the previous Conservative administration?
It is abundantly clear that the government has lost all control over government spending. What is even worse, it appears that it is not prepared to do anything about the problem. In light of this appalling evidence of bad fiscal management on the part of the current Liberal administration, I would strongly suggest that the government not be given the authority to borrow $12 billion until, first, it has produced to this House solid proof that it is endeavouring to adopt a more responsible attitude with regard to the expenditure of the people's money. Secondly, this government should provide this House with a definite indication of how it intends to spend the money which it expects to borrow.
We are all well aware, and the subject has been mentioned by previous speakers, that a good deal of this money will probably be used to offset the high cost of energy and the greatly increased cost of offshore oil. There is no argument that the price of oil prior to 1973 was dirt cheap. However, that is certainly no longer the case. Hon. members are aware that about one-quarter of the oil that we use is imported, and the difference between the cost of that oil and the price of Canadian oil is subsidized from general tax revenue.
At the start of last year the subsidy for oil was $4.60 a barrel. This month the subsidy is a staggering $21 a barrel. From 1968 to 1978 the budgetary deficit increased by 11 times. In 1968 the deficit of the federal Liberal government was $800 million. In 1978, ten years later, it was a staggering $9.2 billion. The size of the Prime Minister's office staff between 1968 and 1978 rose from eight people to 90 people. In 1968 the Privy Council staff consisted of 194 persons, and it now contains 368 persons. That is a total increase of 127 per cent.
Let us look at some other figures. Unemployment in 1968 was 4.5 per cent, and in February of 1978 it was 8.3 per cent. The important thing is to cut down on the borrowing and other costs and attempt to get more people back to work. Unemployment insurance benefits in 1968 cost the government $438 million. In 1979 the amount paid out for unemployment benefits was a staggering $3.9 billion.
I have with me tonight a very interesting article. It is the verbatim transcript of a dialogue between two very prominent Canadian citizens, which was broadcast to us on April 23. I do not think that either of these illustrious gentlemen could be classed as strong supporters of the Progressive Conservative Party. One of the individuals was the very notable and redoubtable Pierre Berton.


Mr. McDermid:: A millionaire socialist.


Stan Darling: Yes, a millionaire socialist. There is no doubt about that. The other individual almost took the leadership of the Liberal party in the province of Ontario, Charles Templeton.


John Horton McDermid: Charles who?
May 29, 1980


Stan Darling: The brief conversation between these two gentlemen went as follows:
Templeton: Pierre, I gave up, temporarily, on Canada when the results of the last election came in. I now say the chickens are coming home to roost-we are going to rue the day.
Berton: Well, after looking at last night's mini-budget, Chuck, there is only one question to ask: what ever happened to that word 'restraint ?
Templeton: Pierre, Mr. Trudeau said, during the campaign, among the few things he said, that he would cut back on government spending. The budget they sneaked in-calling it a non-budget-Mr. MacEachen said two things which beyond all the inspecifics ought to be noticed. He said the higher interest charges on the public debt and further escalation of the oil import subsidy is going to mean that there will be two billion dollars more federal spending than was anticipated last December 11. Secondly, the budgetary deficit is going to go up in this one year, 2.7 billion dollars to 14.2 billion dollars, and still there is nothing in this mini-budget designed to cut spending or to fight inflation or to combat unemployment.
Berton: Well, this is the government that knocked out the Conservatives because of their budget. This is the government that invented the word 'restraint', and said that they were going to cut back on government spending before the last election. This is the government whose auditor general on retirement two weeks ago announced that there was one-third too many civil servants in the country. This is the government that last night through Mr. MacEachen said that federal spending would not increase 10 per cent this year as predicted by the Conservatives, which is horrendous enough; it will increase 13.5 per cent. In other words, there is no real effort being made to cut the cost of government, which the Auditor General himself tells us is necessary. They tell us now that unemployment is going to go up from 7.4 to 8 per cent, that inflation is going to go up from 9 to 10 per cent. The economy is going to slow down to .5 per cent growth.
Templeton: Oh, that's what they estimate.
Berton: Yeah.
Templeton: There's going to be no growth, no growth at all.
Berton: Well, either, as you say, no imaginative or sensible projection-
Templeton: Never mind imaginative or sensible, no projections.
Berton: That's correct, nothing at all.
Templeton: What they're going to do is get more money to spend.
That is certainly proven in this bill.
Berton: They're going to rent more money, they're going to borrow more money at 20 per cent interest rates.
Thank goodness, Mr. Speaker, the rates have started to come down so they are not exactly correct in that.
Templeton: They're going to borrow it. They're going to steal a little bit off tobacco smokers, steal a little bit off alcohol, but they are not going to charge anything more for gasoline. They are not going to do anything about conservation. They're gonna put a surtax of 5 per cent on federal income tax from corporations, but that is temporary. You see, what I, what really burns my-
I will say posterior, and not use the exact word that Mr. Templeton used.
-is the absolute corruption of the Liberal government who pay no attention to what they promised the people, who make no attempt to keep the promises they make, who lie in their platforms and who lie when they get in office. They don't even call this a budget.
1 guess, Mr. Speaker, some of them find it difficult even to lie straight in bed at night.
What it is, it's a way to get more money so they can spend it because that's the Liberal way of governing.
Berton: One thing they've got Charles, you have to admit-
Templeton: Power-
Borrowing Authority Act
Berton: -they've got power that the people gave to them, you know. What the heck, you say, I gave up on Canada, people get the kind of government they deserve and 1 think they're gonna rue the day they got this one, that's just unbelievable what went on last night in the House of Commons.
Templeton: Pierre, if you look at the proposals here, if you look at the suggestions, they are absolutely . .. first of all, how in heaven s name can you bring down a government, as they did, in company with the NDP on the NDP s amendment. . . how can you bring down a government and then bring back virtually all of the things that government was going to bring, except the things that matter. Namely, a cutting down on spending; namely, an increase in the taxes on driving. The very things campaigned against are the things that are done. We have an immorality in this Liberal government and in its leader, that 1 find just incomprehensible.
1 find it impossible to believe for whatever the charisma may be, or whatever the myth may continue to be, the people continue to support, but they do. And they have a majority they can run on-
Berton: There's four years, they're there for at least four years and I think Mr. Trudeau's gonna stay in for four years-
So do I, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: So do 1.


Stan Darling: He continues:
-and he's going to prevent any attempt to challenge his leadership until four years are up.


An hon. Member:: Tell Gerry Regan that.


Stan Darling: Templeton finishes up with "A pox on him '. 1 say the same-a pox on this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in joining in this debate, on Bill C-30 tonight, which 1 remind hon. members of the House and the public is a bill in which the government is requesting authority to borrow a further $12 billion, 1 feel it might be helpful, first of all, to try to put that sum into perspective. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I believe we in this House often lose total sight of the figures with which we are dealing.
As a result of the government's borrowing needs, they are now required to pay something like 12 per cent interest per year when they borrow money. To put that into perspective, as we debate tonight this small bill, large in its impact, remember that with interest rates running at 12 per cent, money on a cumulative basis doubles in six years and goes up four times in 12 years. This means that we are not in fact talking about $12 billion, we are talking about the creation of debt in the name of Canada that will require, over the next six years, a further $12 billion simply to service it. Then 12 years ahead, the total amount of debt and servicing charges that will be required is $48 billion and within 18 years it is then, of course, $96 billion.
The reason I emphasize this, Mr. Speaker, is that 1 am so totally and unbelievably shocked by the indifference of this government to the magnitude of what they have asked this House to do by introducing this bill.
To put it again into perspective, once I was told by a bureaucrat, when there was a little uncertainty as to whether he meant in the case of this deal, $10 million or $10 billion, that we never use the last three digits in Ottawa. That is part

May 29, 1980
Borrowing Authority Act
of this nation's problem, Mr. Speaker. We have had a government for the last decade especially, with the brief interregnum, that frankly does not relate to the figures they are forcing the Canadian public to accept.
It is easy to do the arithmetic. What we are considering tonight, in effect, is whether the government should be empowered to go out and, on behalf of every man, woman and child in Canada, borrow $500. That is what we are talking about. For a family of three we are being asked to allow the government to go out and borrow $1,500. It is as simple as that. With interest at 12 per cent and applying the cumulative factor, that means that for every man, woman and child we are, in effect, going to incur a debt of $500 on their behalf, that becomes $1,000 in six years, $2,000 in 12 years and $4,000 in 18 years. This does not have to continue, Mr. Speaker. With a responsible government, a government that is willing to attempt to balance its budgetary position, this ongoing increase first, of budgetary deficits and second, of debt requirements, could be halted.
I was rather encouraged as 1 came into the House tonight to hear the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) at least showing some alarm with respect to what we are being asked to consider and approve tonight. 1 think it is good that any member of the House, whether he be socialist, Liberal or Conservative, has the courage to stand up and say, "We have had enough of this and we are not going to rubberstamp it any further."
I know it is commonplace for this government that believes only in political power, is totally indifferent to the economic consequence of its actions, to say, "Maybe things are not as good as we would like in Canada but, after all, we are not doing badly compared with other countries." In that connection, let me refer to a couple of things. In the Spring 1980 Review, the Friedberg Mercantile Group have an interesting chart in which they 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. If hon. members think that Canada is not doing too badly, I ask them to please take a look at these charts.

The first chart deals with the consumer price index. It ranks Canada sixth among the ten. The next chart deals with wholesale prices and it ranks Canada ninth out of ten; only one country is worse, and that is Italy. With regard to our current account deficit, we have the distinction of being the last. We are the ninth worst in the industrialized world. There were no figures for the tenth country to show how it performed.
Somehow this is all knitted together. I know that members on the government side might be quick to say that is just one economist's or company's views, but let me quote their own figures to them. Earlier this week the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen)-who I am quite disappointed is not in the House tonight while this bill is being considered-tabled his Economic Review. Again, I invite all members to leaf through that review because it they do not want to accept the figures
that may be put on the record from this side of the House, surely they will accept the figures from their own Minister of Finance.
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. That shows a Canada-United States comparison of government expenditures by function as a percentage of their gross national product. I emphasize that this is not dealing with simple dollar terms, it is dealing in the percentages being spent in those two countries in relation to their respective gross national products.
In the case of the United States, it shows that the total expenditure in that country is 34.6 per cent of its gross national product. That is the expenditure on account of government. In Canada, the expenditure is 41.8 per cent. As one can see, it is over 7 per cent higher, and it is over 20 per cent higher, if you want to take one percentage over another, than that in the United States. That is onlv part of the story, Mr. Speaker.
You will find the reason that the American figures are as high as they are is that they are spending 5.4 per cent of their gross national product on defence, while Canada is spending only 1.7 per cent. If those figures are equalized, and if the Americans, for example, only spent on defence-and I am not suggesting that they should-what we are spending relatively, it would mean that their total governmental expenditures are 30.9 per cent compared to Canada's 41.8 per cent.
I refer to that because sometimes we lose sight of the fact that in Canada we have not only become one of the most over-governed countries in the world, we have become one of the most inefficient, expensive countries in the world as far as government is concerned. This is so significant because the figures that I have given are comparative figures to those of the United States.
The Americans are our main trading partners. It is the United States that holds out the greatest hope for further exports as far as Canada is concerned. I can only tell hon. members, Mr. Speaker, to the degree that we are loading our Canadian public with approximately 20 per cent more in government expenditures, that we are handicapping our people in their productivity and in other means of exploiting that American market.
That brings me to the discounted dollar, because the two are related. As hon. members are undoubtedly aware, we had to let our dollar fall because we could no longer compete on the world markets with a dollar roughly at part with the United States. One reason why we could not compete was because we had loaded our workers with this excess government spending which meant extra taxation on their backs compared to their counterparts in the United States. The phony equalization mechanism is simply to allow the dollar to fall, roughly 15 per cent, which then makes the Canadian worker a person working for 15 per cent less than he used to work for in terms of American dollars. That is what happened with a discounted Canadian dollar. We require every worker in Canada in terms
May 29, 1980

of American dollars to simply take a pay cut of over 15 per cent in order to allow the Liberal government to continue with its high-flying spending approaches.
I could read into the record certain other rather startling revelations that are in the Minister of Finance's economic review. I stress these are not Conservative or socialist figures; these are figures tabled by the government of the day.
For example, there is an international comparison of central government expenditures on page 135 of the review at Table 11.21. It is interesting to note that there is only one country that has a higher central government expenditure than Canada. Guess who? It is Italy. That is the only country. Australia has a total expenditure of 29.7 per cent. I could read the whole list into the record. Again, it is interesting to note that as far as international comparisons of central budget balances are concerned, again, in 1977, those are the last available figures, there is only one country worse than Canada, and that is Italy.
Again, most importantly, when we compare the budgetary deficit in Canada for 1979 with that of the United States- and these figures are available on page 133, Table 11.19 of that Economic Review-I am pleased that you are seated, Mr. Speaker, because how many people in Canada realize that while these Grits have led us to the position of where we have a deficit in relation to our gross national product of 3.5 per cent, the Americans are virtually in balance with minus 0.4 per cent in relation to their GNP? These are the facts.
I believe it is particularly relevant tonight to be putting those facts on the record as we consider a bill in which the government is asking us to approve it borrowing, on behalf of every man, woman and child in this country, an extra $500.
Think what this government has done to interest rates in the country. There seems to be great confusion about this. I have heard our socialist friends to the left stand up and say, "Reduce interest rates" and the next speaker will stand up and say that certain expenditures should be increased as far as the government is concerned, without realizing that if you increase expenditures with a government that is already spending one-third more than its revenue, you have no place to cover your expenditure other than going into debt further which drives up interest rates.
Let me again refer to the Economic Review of the Minister of Finance. What they have loaded Canada with is all spelled out. For example, on page 141 of that review there is a chart which indicates that in 1970-73, interest rates in Canada at one time were actually below 6 per cent. That is as recently as the 1970-73 time-frame.
In 1974-77 they got up as high as 9 per cent. In 1978 they were almost continually above 9 per cent. In 1979 they got up to almost 11 per cent, certainly over 10 per cent. As we know, recently interest rates on Canadian government bonds got as high as 13% per cent. This is the bottom line, if you like, of the inept bungling on the part of the present government.
Borrowing Authority Act
I would like to refer, and perhaps read into the record because it is so interesting, what the Economic Review says concerning comparative interest rate levels at the federal government level and the provincial level in Canada. Referring to page 141 of the Minister of Finance's own Economic Review, it states:
While there may not be a close relationship between nominal interest rates and total borrowing requirements, relative yields within the Canadian financial markets have been influenced over the past decade by the relative volumes of securities available. For example, the yield on federal securities has increased relative to the yields on comparable private sector securities over the course of the decade as the federal government increased its marketable issues at a rapid pace. Thus, while federal government marketable bonds represented 20 per cent of the Canadian dollar bond holdings of the general public in 1970 and almost 25 per cent in 1979, the yield differential between federal and provincial bonds dropped from 1.13 percentage points in 1970 to 0.53 points in 1979, and the spread between federal bonds and comparable private securities narrowed over the same period from 1.27 to 0.69 percentage points. A similar situation occurred in the short-term money market where the federal government's securities constituted less than 4 per cent of the market in 1970 and more than 10 per cent in 1979.
Expressed simply, what that review, or the economist who wrote that paragraph, is saying is that the federal government, which used to be able to borrow money at over one percentage point less than the provinces in Canada, has now borrowed money to such excess that that differential has been cut by more than half. That is significant.
I know some may say, "What do you do about it?" We are faced with a bill requesting the $12 billion to which I have referred. Here is where I feel the official opposition is on sound ground. On December 11 last year we tried to do something about it. In the budget that was brought down that night, we attempted for the first time in Canadian history to show an economic program that would in fact lessen the deficit and the necessary borrowing in this country, that would not only just raise revenues, but would also lower expenditures as far as the federal government level was concerned.
Within two days we were voted out of office. We must never forget this: The old alliance between the NDP and the Liberal party deemed it in their own political interests to trigger an election in this country. With that background, Mr. Speaker, you can understand, as I said before, my pleasure in hearing the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake talk about deficits and the fact that he was alarmed at the size of our deficit. On the other hand, surely we must all agree how totally inconsistent members of Parliament can be within their own caucuses. Here you have that member being coached by the person who brought in the motion that was supported by their friends, the Liberals, that defeated the government which would have lessened deficits in this country. We are told tonight by another member of that caucus that that is exactly what should have happened.
Here is the consequence of what we are looking at. If the present Minister of Finance does not arrest the present trend as far as spending and revenue forces are concerned, it will mean that the cumulative extra deficit, which means net debt, between now and 1984 will be $27 billion. Unless the present government arrests the trend, that is the net position as far as expenditures and revenues are concerned. The net cumulative

May 29, 1980
Borrowing Authority Act
deficit will be increased by $27 billion if the Minister of Finance does not come up with something comparable to what we proposed on December 11 to narrow the deficit in this country.
Let me give the figures. At the present time the total net debt in this country is approximately $67 billion. Under the budget that we proposed, by 1984, with the restraint that we proposed, and with the revenue increases that we suggested, the total net debt position would be $105 billion. Without that budget, and as the trend is now in place, the net debt will be $133 billion.
Let me put that into per capita terms. It will mean there will be approximately $1,200 of added debt over and above what we would have suggested for every man, woman and child in this country. If there is any compassion in these ruthless, hungry political people who somehow or other covet power over everything else, surely they are going to bring a halt to this type of extravagant expenditure performance that has been their tradition in Canada.
It is so typical of the government now ruling this country for me to be able to look across the aisle and see the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) giggling and laughing as if this is one of the funniest things that has ever happened in the nation.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I am only wearing my nice, usual smile.


Mr. Gray:: Mr. Nice Guy.


Marc Lalonde: That's right.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Anybody who finds much to smile about when we are talking about adding $500 to the debt of every man, woman and child in this country as a result of the sheer incompetence of his government is a strange person indeed.


Marc Lalonde: Don't you smile now.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: That strange, strange Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources-


Marc Lalonde: You are smiling too.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: That strange Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to whom I have been referring is the same person whom I heard say in the House-and at that time 1 think he had a straight face, but perhaps he was laughing to himself- that he saved the Canadian public 18 cents a gallon in lieu of the excise tax which was not imposed in the mini-budget brought in by the Minister of Finance.
Let us put that into perspective. They did not save one nickel, let alone 18 cents. What they have done simply is to add it to the deficit, which means it is added to the debt and is going to be in the general pot, accruing an interest of 12 per cent a year.


An hon. Member:: Do not mislead the House.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Let there be absolutely no doubt about that. This government, in saying that it has saved the Canadian public 18 cents a gallon-


An hon. Member:: Is telling the truth.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -is not telling the truth because all that has happened essentially is that the government has proposed, if we grant them the authority tonight, to write IOUs to cover 18 cents a gallon, which means that all they have done for those who fill their tanks, is to give them approximately $3 on a tank of gas. This money ends up in the debt column in Ottawa to be paid by future generations.


Mr. Kaplan:: It ends up as profit for your friends in the oil business.


Mr. Kempling:: The bionic mouth over there is speaking.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Let us put something in perspective because I have heard certain comments coming from the Liberal backbenchers. They are well back, I might say. I did not talk about certain expenditures so far as our budget was concerned that would have offset the 18 cents tax to which I referred. Here are the hard figures, so far as the budgetary transactions were concerned, under the conservative budget of December last our revenues were to amount to $46,835 million. The revenues under the mini-budget brought in by the Minister of Finance were $45,635 million, that is $1,200 million less than our revenues. So far as expenditures are concerned, we proposed under our Conservative budget to spend $57.3 billion. The Grits brought in a mini-budget calling for expenditures of $59,800 million, or $2,500 million more than we proposed. Those are the figures. It means that in total our deficit, which was higher than we would have liked, amounting to $10,465 million, expanded in those few brief months by the time the Minister of Finance came up with his mini-budget to $14,165 million, or a jump of $3.7 billion.
Any time a Liberal backbencher wants to ask me a few questions like that, I will be only too willing to read into the record the disastrous incompetence on the Liberal side.
In summary, let me put it in other words. An NDP spokesman tonight referred to John Foster Dulles.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The new guru of the NDP.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Being a truly progressive Conservative I should like to refer to the words of Thomas Jefferson who had this to
say:
I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers ... we must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretence of caring for them, they will be happy.
I rest my case. No MP in conscience could vote to pass Bill C-30 until the government has produced a proper fiscal plan, namely, a budget for this country to examine. It would be irresponsible for members to start voting in support of this bill in light, first of all, of the government's hesitation to bring in a
May 29, 1980

budget, and second, to give us a five-year overview such as the United States has produced, the United Kingdom produces, the Lambert report has suggested be done in Canada, and we did in our December budget. In short, it is time that members of the House stood up and were counted for the Canadian public instead of simply playing it political.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, 1 welcome the opportunity to speak on Bill C-30, an act to provide supplementary borrowing authority for the fiscal year 198081. I do so because the wording of the bill and the minister's introduction to it on May 27 raise more questions than they answer. In fact the minister's speech is surely a model of brevity. When he wrote it he must have been looking at the three monkeys. By that I mean the three monkeys that hear no evil, speak no evil, and see no evil. He definitely made certain not to tell the House any more than the barest essentials. In fact, his speech is so naked in content that had it been presented anywhere but in this chamber, I feel that the minister may well have been charged with indecently exposing his borrowing act.
I listened to the minister's speech, I read and reread it, and I did the same thing with Bill C-30. But because it tells me nothing about the government's plans I cannot in all honesty, as the representative of the people of South Shore, vote for this measure. As close as I can determine, the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) stood in his place and simply stated that the government needs borrowing authority for $12 billion for the fiscal year 1980-81, in foreign currency as well as in Canadian money. Obviously he has already had a little twinge of concern that he and his colleagues may have gone once too often to the cookie jar and that perhaps the cookie jar may be becoming empty. So now he wants to make certain that he has the right to go to some other country's cookie jar in order to get the funds he may require, if it is necessary. All this may be due to the minister's Scottish background and his ingrained sense of thrift which causes him to make certain that sufficient funds are available from any source for his needs. If this is the case, our only regret is that his sense of thrift is obviously not shared by his colleagues.
The minister also referred to his statement of April 21 when he tabled a projection of the government's budgetary requirements for 1980-81 in the amount of $11,730 million. Since then, however, he has decided he needs a little extra margin of borrowing authority to provide for contingencies. So he is rounding out the figures and he is asking for a blank cheque of $12 billion. Well, the difference between the minister's April forecast and his request in May is $270 million, which is not an insignificant amount seeing that little more than a month separates his two statements. It reminds me-and I go back a few years-of the C. D. Howe statement when that gentleman was prone to ask the question, "What's a million?" Obviously this type of thinking still prevails among the present day Liberals. One would hope that they had learned a lesson
Borrowing Authority Act
because the "what's a million" statement cost them the government at that time.


An hon. Member:: Now it is "What's a billion?"


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Yes, now it is "What's a billion?" The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) must have been reading my notes because that is exactly what I was going to say.


An hon. Member:: He wrote them.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I am sorry but I have to correct the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). The notes that lie in front of me, sir, for your information, were entirely composed and compiled by me; good, bad, or indifferent, they are my effort.
The $12 billion that is in the bill is not the total story. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance in his brief remarks told us that the unused borrowing authority which is available for use at any time, and which is being carried forward, amounted to approximately $2.9 billion at the beginning of the fiscal year 1980-81, which is really April 1, April Fool's day. The minister may take us all for April fools, but quite frankly I believe that the Canadian electorate is at least entitled to know what this government planned to do not with $12 billion, but $15 billion. That, as was so adequately described by a previous speaker, is $500 for every man, woman and child in Canada. That is in effect what the government is asking the right to borrow at the present time.
I say this because it is now obvious to everyone that the Canadian financial ship of state, sir, is out of control. You need only look over the years in which the Liberal party has been in power to realize the truth of that statement. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was first elected on June 25, 1968, Canada then had a population somewhat in excess of 20 million people, and according to the record, "How Your Tax Dollar Is Spent", which was put out, I think in 1978 by the then president of the Treasury Board, the Hon. Bud Drury, we read that in 1968 it required less than $10 billion to look after the needs of our people. What has happened in the intervening years? Our population has grown to a little more than 23 million and today we require $58.4 billion, perhaps $60 billion, to look after our needs.
With the exception of a brief period during which my party was in office, unfortunately too brief a period, when we proposed to reduce Canada's deficits, the Liberals had been in power under their present leader for some 12 years. The problems which had been brought about by their mismanagement and deficit financing must be laid squarely at the feet of this present government. The $15 billion borrowing pill might be a little easier to swallow if it was coated with the sugar of explanation, and obviously this can only be done if the government provided this House with a budget.
The minister in his shy, retiring manner has given no indication of when we can anticipate a budget, or what his

May 29, 1980
Borrowing Authority Act
final spending plans are for this fiscal year. Obviously we can only anticipate his reticence as being indicative of something more sinister. I refer to his reticence to come clean. He could be "Mr. Clean" with Canadian taxpayers, but we can only judge his reticence as an indication that worse is yet to come. "Come grow old along with me," says the Minister of Finance, "the worst is yet to be." That is about what we are facing tonight.
This bill is asking for SI2 billion borrowing authority on top of, as I said, almost S3 billion already approved. This means that the total sum of $15 billion will have to be borrowed by the government, or will be available to be borrowed by it to finance its operations and to meet its cash requirements during the current fiscal year. This amount, as I said previously, is more than the minister predicted in May that he and his government required. The increased amount is substantial. When one calculates the interest at current borrowing rates, something like 12 per cent, all of which will have to come from the pockets of individual taxpayers, one will see that the load that must be carried by Canadians to support this spendthrift government is staggering. The $15 billion at 12 per cent means a carrying charge for one year only of $1.8 billion.
Why do you need borrowing authority for $14.9 billion? 1 ask the Minister of Finance that through you, Mr. Speaker. Why do you need that when you stated on April 21 last that your total requirement would be only $11.730 billion? That is $3,170 billion more than his own estimate. When you ask for this much money in excess of requirements you certainly cannot any longer hypocritically keep telling the Canadian people that you are a government of restraint or a party practising restraint. This is the course you have been following, but it is way past the time when you should match your words with concrete action.
On January 11 of this year, for example, Mr. Trudeau campaigned for votes, outlining five general commitments to Canadians which were the echoes of some of the same old, reprinted promises we have heard for the past 12 years.
I ask the government, through you, Mr. Speaker, how does it relate this request for almost $15 billion in borrowing authority with Mr. Trudeau's statement that, if elected, the Liberal government "will manage more vigorously the nation's finances in order to make more effective use of the taxpayer's money?" That is his statement. Is it any wonder that the Canadian electorate today are cynical about promises made by their leaders? That is unfortunate, sir.
On May 31, 1968, in his first campaign, Mr. Trudeau told a Moncton office that his government would spend no more than it earned. On August 3, 1969, he said in Ottawa that a new Liberal government restraint program would bring government spending under control. On February 19, 1973, his finance minister promised government determination to impose restraint on its own spending in order to avoid aggravating inflation.
In the throne speech of September 30, 1974, and in the budget speech of June 23, 1975, the Trudeau government promised spending restraints. When announcing wage and
price controls in October of 1975 Mr. Trudeau promised spending restraints. On October 18, 1976, the Liberal president of the Treasury Board promised spending restraints. On August 1, 1978, Mr. Trudeau went on television to tell the nation his government would cut $2 billion in government spending. This is one of the benefits of being around this esteemed chamber for a few years, you can look back and draw on your own experiences. I recall, having gone through ten campaigns, the many promises that had been made by these people on the other side.
With all this restraint we must ask ourselves why are the Canadian people today groaning under an onerous tax burden which siphons the money away from the private or productive sector of the economy and places it in the public or non-productive sector of the economy, thereby contributing to horrendous inflation, while at the same time building up bureaucracy? The answer is that this government has not kept its promises to restrain spending, for the figures tell an entirely different story.
In the fiscal year before its defeat last May the Liberal government spent six times as much as it did in 1968 when Mr. Trudeau first took office and it ended that year with a deficit of more than $12 billion. It seems to me that the Minister of Finance, stating in less than a whole page of Hansard that he wants borrowing authority for another $12 billion-that is a billion dollars a month, or a thousand million dollars a month-is showing his contempt for Parliament. That is a lot of money. That makes the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources smile. 1 am sure his computerized mind was working that one over, but it is a thousand million dollars a month and we have no explanation whatsoever about the manner in which this vast sum of money is to be spent. When they do this, the government and the Minister of Finance are showing contempt for Parliament.


An hon. Member:: Careful, now.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Somebody over there says "Careful, now." Analyse what I have said and I think members will agree with me that, as far as the minister is concerned, we are not supposed to ask any questions about where this money is going and for what purpose it is to be used. We are simply supposed to sit here quietly while the hon. gentleman plays his bagpipes, or when he decides to tinkle those little bells that ring in the corridors. Then we are supposed to come into this chamber and rubber-stamp the measure before us. One of the hon. members over there-I think it is the hon. member for Burin-St. Georges (Mr. Simmons) keeps interrupting me. He says "Right on!" He doesn't get up and make a speech. It shows what little understanding he has of what is actually happening in Canada today.


Mr. Simmons:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) indicates that I was interrupting him. Actually, I was trying to help the gentleman on. He suggests I might want to make a speech. Mr. Speaker,
May 29, 1980

if he would yield 1 would certainly like to make a few pertinent comments on the bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) has the floor.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Thank you, but my time is somewhat limited. I was saying we are expected to sit here and rubber stamp this measure. This is something 1 cannot do, for the government, by following its present course, is not showing any respect for Parliament or its representatives. 1 ask supporters of the government whether any of them could tell us why the executive should require these vast borrowing powers. Why is the government following a course of action which gives them more than $3 billion in excess padding over and above the minister's stated requirements, requirements which have not been explained in any detail to the House? Is this cushion required to maintain the dollar at current levels if there is new pressure against it on the foreign exchange markets because of the obvious mismanagement of the country's affairs? Or is the cushion needed to blunt and contain the adverse effects on the economy of the slow-down, the recession which unfortunately is already under way? All these questions could be answered if the government had the courage to present the House with a budget.
Why are they seeking this enormous, this tremendous, this scandalous borrowing authority without first presenting a budget to Parliament? It is unfair and unjust to ask anyone in this chamber to vote for this measure in the absence of a budget, since we have no way of knowing what to expect by way of revenues and expenditures or what will be the resulting deficit and cash requirements to be financed by borrowing for the balance of the fiscal year.
It is possible some of us might think differently about this request for authority to borrow $12 billion if the minister would open the door just a bit-just wide enough to give us a little peek at his plans. For example, his party has not been adverse in the past to adopting Conservative proposals. Sometimes the stone which the Liberals rejected becomes the headstone of their party's platform. For example, is he giving any thought to adopting our income-tested refundable energy tax credit of $80 per adult and $30 per child a year phased in over two years for the benefit of lower and middle-income Canadians, the group which is hardest hit by present-day high energy costs? Is the minister giving any thought to introducing our mortgage interest and property tax proposals, or a somewhat similar proposal, which in these periods of high interest rates and high property taxes would go a long way toward easing the burdens on our young and not-so-young home owners?
Is the minister perhaps thinking of assisting our small businesses by recognizing the contribution many wives make toward running the business and allowing them to receive salaries as a deductible business expense? Perhaps the hon. gentleman plans to encourage greater regional development by promoting investment in Atlantic fishing vessels built in Canada. This would be helpful in our area. Possibly the Minister of Finance is even thinking about our farmers and is
Borrowing Authority Act
planning some substantial relief for them from the problems caused by the taxation of capital gains when farmland is sold. These are all measures which might use up some of the billions the minister wants to borrow.
However, if I haven't scored bingo on any of my questions, surely the minister must have a shopping list of his own and surely he must realize, now, that he ought to take the House into his confidence and outline his plans to the Canadian people who, in the final analysis, must foot the bill. It is just possible we may see some action on the Prime Minister's promise in Halifax on June 25 that his party seeks to achieve energy security at a fair price for all Canadians. Among other things he promised there would be "a natural gas pipeline to ensure that all Canadians had access to their resources." Liberals, he said, would take "immediate action to begin negotiations for the construction of a natural gas pipeline to Quebec City and the maritimes." Initially, the line was to carry natural gas east, but when maritime supplies were ready the pipeline would be like a natural gas railroad with a return delivery facility as well. That was the promise. Well, it seems that the National Energy Board ruling has put a stop to that prospect, and the ones being railroaded are the people of the maritimes. We cannot have energy security at a fair price in Atlantic Canada as long as this Liberal promise remains a Liberal promise. Energy security can only become a reality for us when our own Canadian natural gas is flowing by pipeline to Nova Scotia. We need action, not promises, though it seems, looking back over the years, that we have had more promises than action.
For example, in 1974, 1975 and 1976 the government under the present Prime Minister promised to develop Canadian resources and tar sands and to promote conservation. The minister of energy at that time, Mr. Alastair Gillespie, who had been in favour of self-sufficiency in oil, was compelled to back off by the cabinet of the day in favour of a meaningless policy of "self-reliance". Obviously he was not happy, for in May, 1977, he said it was "-in Canada's interest that we should move our oil price up because any other policy would have disastrous consequences for Canadians in the future." However, despite this far-sighted prediction, the government failed to back Mr. Gillespie.
The thought occurred to me that the Minister of Finance may need these extensive borrowing powers in order to bring about some improvement in regional disparity. This has been a very promising area for the Liberals, for the Prime Minister and his followers. Campaigning in 1980, he promised to build greater economic strength in Canada's regions. In 1968, according to the record, the Prime Minister promised to end regional disparity, and 1 think, without reading every one of his promises, he promised to do this in the course of every election which followed.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that the hour approaches ten o'clock. In closing, I should like to say it ought not to be necessary to remind the government that promises are the paper money of principle and, like our currency, Liberal promises have been greatly devalued over 12 years of reissue. I say it is time to end

May 29, 1980
Adjournment Debate
this charade. It is time to get down to the serious business of governing Canada. We need a new budget and we need one soon. In the absence of a new budget we do not know the facts about the state of our economy, we do not know the facts about the oil price agreement which the government is seeking or the effect rapid increases in oil prices will have on new cash requirements which have to be met.
The Canadian people do not realize the debt burden the government is placing not only on this generation but on generations yet unborn. This is indeed strange conduct for a government under a leader who has promised greater participation by Parliament in solving the nation's problems, a man who promised to bring about the "just society" and who, in 1980, promised to enhance individual security. How can anyone claim to be enhancing the security of individual Canadians while blatantly denying members of this House and, thereby, the Canadian people the facts about the state of the economy?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of my remarks tonight is to bring to the attention of the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) the continuing inadequacy of security measures in our penal institutions with the consequent danger to the residents in the areas where these institutions are located.
Perhaps the residents of my constituency are more sensitive to the dangers than those in other areas because of the fact that we have five federal institutions in the riding, plus two more on the border, and several provincial institutions as well. There are continuing reports of escapes from several of these prisons and the rather lengthy list of incidents has had and is having a very disturbing effect upon the local population.
One of the most recent incidents, the one providing the basis of the present problem, was the escape of an inmate from Mountain prison at Agassiz, British Columbia, and the murder of a local postmaster, and this individual has now been charged with the crime. A protest rally attended by approximately 400 people was held in Agassiz where the local residents, including mayors, community leaders, school representatives and others, expressed their views and called for action to halt this kind of activity.
Numerous communications have been forwarded to the Solicitor General and others, including myself as the member of Parliament for Fraser Valley East, protesting the lack of adequate protection for residents of the community. A school has been closed because of the absence of protective measures to ensure the safety of the staff and pupils.
I should like to read a communication which I received from M. D. Dunn, the mayor of the district of Kent. It refers to communications which he had with the Solicitor General on various occasions. It reads as follows:
Security at Mountain institution has been a major concern of council and the community for many years. By the repeated lack of action to upgrade the security your office must assume the responsibility of the event of April 28, 1980.
This is when the murder took place. It continues:
I feel that past events show that the facilities at this institution arc totally inadequate for a medium security institution and would urge that these prisoners be relocated to other more suitable institutions immediately.
Also I have a telegram from Mayor John Allen of the village of Harrison Hot Springs, and communications from residents, the school board and school principal, all calling for action to deal with this serious danger to private citizens.
The Solicitor General visited the area shortly after this tragic event and I understand he made some commitments. Unfortunately I did not receive an invitation to attend, so I am just taking my information from the reports of it that I received. Certain commitments were made. One was to tighten up security. The second was the construction of a second fence. The third was double gatehouses. The fourth was more adequate perimeter lighting. The fifth was an impact study with local input before any increase in prison population is considered.
May I say that there is a deeping conviction that the two institutions in Kent district, the Kent maximum security institution and Mountain prison, which is a medium security institution, are too great a burden and danger for this area to bear. In discussions with some of the elected officials, I was made aware that Mountain prison should be closed and necessary facilities to house the prison population should be located in some alternate community.
There are a number of problems that have arisen which have caused great concern. One is that apparently there has been a reclassification of prisoners and certain individuals who were previously in the New Westminster penitentiary, which is now closed, were reclassified in order to put them in a lesser security prison because maximum security facilities were not available. When there are one or two individuals who are unruly and are not observant of the rules and regulations of the prison, then trouble can be expected. That is exactly what has happened, and it is causing a great deal of concern among the general prison population.
There have also been escapes from custody when inmates were appearing before provincial court in other parts of the constituency. I have an article here which details the escape of
May 29, 1980

two inmates from the maximum security institution at Kent while appearing in court in Chilliwack. Of course, they were later charged and their sentences extended. Employees of the hospital in my constituency are refusing to provide medical care to prisoners because on a number of occasions they have been faced with incidents in which inmates have drawn knives or guns in an attempt to escape.
I am not blaming the local directors of these institutions. I am saying that the department of the Solicitor General and the minister who propounds the philosophy and implements policies which fail to protect society from those who break the law and endanger the lives of law-abiding citizens, are the guilty ones. I believe that they must be called upon to give reasons why these incidents are happening and why there is such a failure on the part of the authorities to maintain the security of the population in these areas.


Mrs. Celine Hervieux-Payette (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to answer the question raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Patterson) as I went to the Mountain prison a few days after the incident, and the minister also went through that area on May 10 to assess the situation and discuss with local authorities. So I am pleased to tell him the steps that have been taken during those meetings the minister had and after my report to the minister on my visit before that.
First of all, security measures including a high security double fence, a new perimeter lighting system, new security towers, a new gatehouse, all those additions amounting expenditures of some $ 1.2 million were immediately agreed to by the minister. The officers of the municipalities will be consulted on the plans before they are finalized. There was previous consultation and there will be consultation during the implementation of these new security measures.
In addition, the Solicitor General being aware of the conditions of the roads in the surroundings of the prisons in that area said he is also prepared to consider federal financial contributions toward the improvement of the roads. A study on the community impact will be undertaken by independent consultants before expansion work is undertaken. So, the whole situation, Mr. Speaker, will be reviewed.
Also, a system of notification including a system of audible alarm that could be heard by the residents in the area will be installed so the community will be immediately alerted if other escapes were to take place. Indeed, I would point out to my colleague, who said so previously, that there have been escapes from maximum security penitentiaries, so escapes from a medium security institution are a more likely thing.
In any case, I think those measures will contribute to tighten up security at the institution and will hopefully remedy the problems in my colleague's community.
Adjournment Debate


AIR CANADA-REQUEST RETIREMENT AGE OF PILOTS BE EXTENDED
Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I rise to share with you on this occasion a matter of deep and troubling concern that Canadians are and will be experiencing at least once in their lifetime. This concern grows out of a question I posed in this House to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) on May 23 regarding the forced retirement of Air Canada pilots at age 60.
During the last two decades we have witnessed the development and establishment of various rights for cultural minorities, rights for men and women, rights for the handicapped, and even rights for gays, to name but a few. It is on this note of human rights that I ask you to focus your attention on the rights of men and women who are forced into retirement by mandatory, bureaucratic policies. As the member for Parkdale-High Park, some of my constituents are turning to me for assistance on this issue, stating that these mandatory retirement policies are not only discriminatory and unjust but are robbing them of meaningful employment and activity.
I bring to your attention, for example, the case of one of my constituents who is a 59-year old Air Canada pilot. He will be forced out of a job soon, simply because he will turn 60 years of age. This constituent, a healthy and alert individual says, simply, "I have worked almost all my life. It has been a real joy and pleasure." In his case this is grossly unjust, especially when one considers that other airlines are permitting their pilots to fly until age 65.
Another constituent of mine who works with the RCMP at Toronto International Airport is being forced to retire this year at age 55. He started working for the RCMP late in life and so, after eight years of work for the RCMP cannot retire with a very large pension. He will have difficulty finding new employment.
These are just two cases from thousands of our Canadian workers who, whether they like it or not, are being put on the shelf. Some have argued and some will argue, that persons should retire because individuals are more prone to heart attacks, strokes and other illnesses after age 60. However, as is pointed out in the report of the Special Senate Committee on Retirement Age Policy entitled "Retirement without Tears", under the chairmanship of Senator David Croll, a gentleman for whom I hold a very high regard:
Compulsory retirement at age 65 could not be justified on medical grounds as a general rule, and for those who did not have enough income, such a compulsory system could sentence them to a life of poverty in their old age-
This has become a real danger, especially during these unstable economic times where inflation threatens pensioners.
One of the government's biggest worries for the future is that a smaller and smaller working population will have to support a larger and larger retired group. As the postwar baby boom generation reaches old age, the figures will zoom, reaching between six and eight million by the year 2031. This

May 29, 1980
Adjournment Debate
problem situation will only be compounded if we continue to permit these mandatory retirement policies to be enforced. To alleviate this most undesirable situation, Mr. Speaker, I propose that this government dedicate itself to implementing the following provisions, outlined by Senator David Croll and his committee.
First, there should be amendments to the rules governing public servants and employees of companies under federal jurisdiction, as well as provincial and municipal public servants.
Second, there should be an increase in the mandatory age of retirement of one year at a time for five years, by amending pension plans or retirement rules and conventions. At the end of five years, the concept of compulsory retirement at a particular age would be dropped.
Third, there should be a review of all human rights legislation to eliminate loopholes which permit age discrimination because of employee benefits and similar plans.
Fourth, there should be created a policy of flexible retirement as the standard for both public and private enterprises.
Mr. Speaker, it is only through the elimination of these and similar discriminatory policies that Canadians will be able to make claim to their "just society". After all, if an individual wants to and is able to work, giving himself a worth-while place in society, then this government should do all in its power to preserve the healthy self-image that many receive from being actively involved in the work force of this great and mighty nation.


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to replace the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bockstael), and attempt to answer the question of the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis).
[ English]
Transport Canada, contrary to the hon. member's pretension, has no retirement age for pilots. The only age requirements is that the applicant must be not less than 21 years of age at the time the licence is issued. This licence must be an airline transport pilot licence, which is a licence required to captain the type of aircraft presently in use by all major airlines' aircraft over 44,000 pounds gross allowable weight for takeoff.
Once the pilot has been issued the licence he can continue to hold it and exercise the privilege of the licence provided that he can continue to meet the medical standards based on those set by ICAO, and pass periodic flight testing to demonstrate his competency. Such testing is done by both the airline company and Transport Canada at least once a year.
At one time the International Civil Aviation Organization on which the Canadian standards are based specified that
pilots who had reached the age of 60 should not be permitted to engage in scheduled or unscheduled international flights. Canada filed a difference with the ICAO and did not adopt this standard since it was considered impracticable and unreasonable.
The latest proposed revision to the international standards, circulated for comment to different organizations, no longer includes such a requirement. Medical and licensing standards are continually under review by Transport Canada and ICAO. The matter of age is always the subject of consideration.
Air Canada, like any other airline or employer, for that matter, sets its own conditions of employment which, of course, include the retirement age for its pilots. Transport Canada has no jurisdiction in such matters. It was impossible therefore for the minister to answer to the satisfaction of the hon. member.
Our responsibility is to ensure that crews are properly licensed and meet the required Transport Canada standards based on those set down by the International Civil Aviation Organization.
The hon. member referred to the special report of the Standing Committee of the Senate entitled "Retirement without Tears."
[ Translation]
Retirement without tears. Well, it may be that he will find the answer to his question in that report and that, eventually, provincial laws and service acts can meet his request but, for the time being, nothing can be done in the Department of Transport.


SMALL BUSINESS-PLANS TO ASSIST BUSINESSMEN
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I rise this late evening hour on a question that I posed to the Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Lapointe) on April 21, that same fateful evening when a mini-budget or financial statement was introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). At that time I asked the Minister of State for Small Businesses whether or not he cared about small businesses in Canada, whether or not he had specific plans for the small business community, whether he was planning to take action, and if so, what specific action he was planning to launch.
To date we have heard a number of reports in committees about the small business community and some of its concerns, and the programs being proposed have been examined. I can say with a great deal of regret and some hesitation that what I recognize so far are simply extensions of the past. These programs that are being brought forward are nothing more than programs which have been in existence for many, many years. There have been some minor alterations of what can only be considered as totally and completely inadequate. The minister is not addressing the problems of the future, the problems that face Canadian small businesses today and what
May 29, 1980

they will be facing in the years to come. At best one can say that the minister is addressing the problems of small businesses that have existed for the last few decades.
The minister will be the first to say there is legislation now that is of assistance to small businessmen such as the Small Businesses Loans Act. 1 would like to propose that that legislation is completely inadequate. I want to use an example of some persons here in our capital city of Ottawa who put their heads together. They had a fine proposal, a proposal with sound projections and sound cash flows. Four local entrepreneurs were prepared to invest their savings. They were prepared to work toward seeing their dream of a small business established in our capital city. Elowever, to do that they needed $30,000 above their own savings. They were able to pull together $12,000 on their own. They required yet another $30,000, for most enterprises certainly a very small amount of money. They were prepared to put up for collateral, in order to go to the bank, two homes, each worth in excess of $45,000. One individual had silver bars worth at that time $15,000. Together the collateral they were prepared to put forward in order to achieve a $30,000 loan amounted to $105,000, plus a considerable amount of their own money.
First they approached two small branches of the chartered banks. They were rejected outright. They reminded the bankers that there was this Small Businesses Loans Act under which they should be able to purchase the $30,000 loan at prime plus 1 per cent. However, the banker felt they did not have enough collateral.
They then went to two of the downtown main bank branches in this capital city, again interested in applying for a small business loan under the act that should guarantee them a loan at prime plus 1 per cent. The banks said they were not particularly interested in small business at these main branches. They were not particularly interested in encouraging and supporting the small business sector of the community. Furthermore, they said they had some concern that the government was not necessarily a good guarantor and that their experience in the past indicated that the government could not necessarily be relied upon to back up these guarantees.
They had no success with our Canadian chartered banks to arrive at a $30,000 loan with a considerable amount of collateral. Then off they went to the Federal Business Development Bank. 1 am pleased to say that after a considerable amount of time, energy, certainly a great deal of concern, that at this place of last resort for lenders in Canada they were able to achieve a loan. The loan was at an interest rate of 18 per cent and fixed for at least a five-year period.
This is not a typical situation, but in fact the kind of story that small entrepreneurs across our country are continually bringing to Parliament. They remind us of the difficulties they have going into a bank expecting to have access to the small business loans guaranteed by the federal government. There is no risk to the bank, but the one problem, of course, is that it is
Adjournment Debate
only the prime rate plus 1 per cent and the bankers do not know about this act-which has been in existence now, I believe, for 19 years-and are hesitant to bring forward that money.
1 suggest then, as a result of this experience, that the small business entrepreneur in Canada has an unbelievable challenge, and 1 think it was a fair question which 1 asked, whether the Government of Canada really cares about the small businessman in Canada.


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his remarks related to his question asked on April 21.1 will try to answer it to the best of my knowledge. It might not be to his satisfaction, but at least he will have had the opportunity to make his point to the House and to other colleagues.
[Translationj
Mr. Speaker, in the last few months some sectors of society, including small businesses, have shown a lot of concern over rising interest rates. 1 think that the hon. member's question reflected this difficulty. The government recognizes that these high interest rates are a heavy burden for the citizens and businesses of Canada, but the country is also faced with serious inflation problems and controlling them is one of the government's main objective. The current level of interest rates could seriously jeopardize small businesses, but so can inflation.
1 am not an economist but I know that interest rates help control inflation and maintain the value of the dollar. This may be a simplification but it is widely recognized. In the Speech from the Throne, on April 14 last, the government committed itself to help those Canadians most affected by rising interest rates including small businessmen. Two bills have already passed second reading and have been referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. Bill C-17, to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act, raises the maximum loan from $75,000 to $100,000 and provides for loans totalling $850 million which will be granted over the next two years. Also, Bill C-20 makes it possible for the Federal Development Bank to offer more financial aid to small businesses. Or again, in the more general sector, through the Income Tax Act, the government provides new fiscal measures concerning bonds for the development of small businesses and the transfer of deductions between spouses. Finally, for a longer term, the Economic Council of Canada is currently studying matters concerning small business and another study has been undertaken jointly by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Canadian Banks Association.
Since his appointment, the Minister of State for Small Businesses has consulted with all the important associations of small businesses in Canada and he has met with a large

May 29, 1980
Adjournment Debate
number of independent businessmen. It has not taken him a very long time to understand that the small business would in fact encounter difficulties in the period we are currently going through.

In short, Mr. Speaker, this government is addressing economic issues faced by this country, head on. It is committed to fighting inflation and it is committed to the Canadian small business community. It is committed to the short-term and the long-term solution.
I can assure the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) that not all small businesses are going bankrupt. Very
few, less than 1 per cent, are going bankrupt, which is a standard and recognized historical figure.
We remain very positive with respect to the opportunities which small businesses will be faced with in the months to come. We are also positive toward the government's commitment to the Canadian small business community.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Friday, May 30, 1980