1980-11-05

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

['No.']
Madam Speaker:: For presentation, such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
[ English 1



Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In light of the fact that Statistics Canada yesterday reported that the number of people filing unemployment insurance claims was up 10 per cent over a year ago and that benefits paid were 12 per cent higher than a year ago, and in light of the budget's almost total lack of action to stimulate activity in the labour-intensive Canadian-owned housing sector, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn):
That the government immediately bring in measures to enable more affordable family housing units to be built to fill the estimated required 47,000 units over 1980-81, thus simultaneously meeting both social and economic needs.


CALL FOR PROGRAM TO ALLEVIATE MORTGAGE INTEREST COSTS-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent necessity. As a result of the inept fiscal policies of this government bidding out other borrowers in the financial markets, interest rates have started to rise dramatically. Increased interest costs are particularly damaging to young people and people with low and moderate incomes trying to pay for a home. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie):
That this House direct the Minister of Finance to produce forthwith a program to alleviate mortgage interest costs in excess of 12 per cent, payable by people with low and moderate incomes.


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


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the


Some hon. Members:: Agreed, unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXEMPTION OF CHIP GRANTS FROM TAXATION-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the authority of Standing Order 43 to present a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas the homes of thousands of low and middle-income families require insulation to keep out the cold and to conserve energy, whereas the price of home insulating materials continues to increase while the grants remain constant, and whereas the government makes a good fellow of itself by providing funds to insulate such homes and then takes back a chunk of the money by making the said grants taxable, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga):
That the members of this House request the government to desist from this hyprocrisy and exempt the funds from income tax provisions.


LABOUR DISPUTES
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Given the fact that journalists of Radio-Canada are now on strike, and given the fact that this strike has deprived Francophones across Canada of national news for more than a week, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the Secretary of State use his good offices to urge the board of directors of Radio-Canada to bargain in good faith with the union of journalists.


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

November 5, 1980


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HOUSING
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. This nation is facing a serious supply and affordability housing crisis, particularly in western Canada, as a result of the national government's devastating industrial, energy, fiscal and budgetary policies. Reinitiation of the MURB program is hardly sufficient to deal with the developing housing problems. Therefore 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson):
That the government initiate a national housing task force which, working in co-operation with the provinces, will evolve appropriate and needed housing policies to meet the needs and demands of the next decade.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ENERGY TAX CREDIT
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Given the fact that the Liberals stated in the last election that they would provide cheap gas for Canadians but this has not materialized because the cost of gas at the pumps has increased as much as 40 cents a gallon since December, 1979, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson):
That this House instruct the Minister of Finance to bring in a lax credit plan needed to offset these increases which would place an unnecessary burden on farmers, fishermen, commuters and low income groups.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INCREASED OIL PRICES FOR NORTHERN RESIDENTS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. On October 18 the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) gave assurances to the Western Arctic Liberal Association that he would safeguard energy supplies in the north. Just a few days later in his budget, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) announced heating oil price increases which could see residents of the Yukon and Northwest Territories, where there is no alternative source of domestic heating fuel, paying in excess of $2 per gallon in the near future. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle):
That this House demands that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development apologize for misleading those few poor credulous souls in the Western Arctic Liberal Association who might have made the mistake of actually believing what the minister had to say.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HOUSING
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to propose a motion regarding the fact that it is now virtually impossible for the poorest of the poor in Canada who live in rural, remote and northern areas of the country to afford even the most minimum standard home. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson):
That this House requires the government to arrange immediately its spending priorities to accommodate a program for housing designed to serve the chronic and now crucial needs of Canadians who live in rural and northern areas of our country, and that such a program include a measure whereby the heavy penalties imposed on the poor and northern Canadians by the recent budget be offset through a subsidy of a blended payment, which includes the cost of heating and other utilities and is limited to a percentage of income.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
November 5, 1980


YEAR OF THE DISABLED
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of great urgency under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that 1981, the Year of the Disabled, is fast approaching and the Government of Canada is delaying in getting its programs for the disabled under way, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday):
That the Minister of Transport act immediately on the program of transportation for the disabled which has been awaiting his decision since July, and that the Minister of Public Works responsible for housing proceed to amend regulations under the National Housing Act making it possible for non-government organizations to provide group homes and special housing for the physically and mentally disabled as a vital part of the movement toward independent living.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett):
That the government be condemned for a grotesque double standard in its handling of the problem of lay-offs and economic insecurity, in that as a result of the politicization of the federal service, Michael Pitfield was laid off with severance pay of over $100,000 on which he has, on his rehiring, paid back less than $10,000, at the same time as hundreds of thousands of Canadians, including many federal employees, have been fired or laid off without their security rights being recognized in law or compensated by either their employers or the federal government.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Oral Questions
The minister will know that on Monday of this week the Canadian Council on Social Development indicated that "the budget can only have a devastating impact on the standard of living of millions of disadvantaged Canadians". Also he will know that this morning, Leonard Shifrin, a social policy analyst in Ottawa, said that this budget is "socking it to the little guy". Finally, the minister will know that the root of the growing discontent with this budget lies in the fact that it is a projection for one million Canadians to be unemployed. I would like to ask the minister how he can justify an increase in the unemployment rolls next year of 150,000 Canadians, and what does he intend to do about it?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, no one is justifying additions to the unemployment rolls. As the hon. member well knows, the question of unemployment in this country is a product of a number of factors, many of which are beyond our control. Certainly developments in the international economy and the basic questions of oil prices are significant problems. I would draw to the attention of the hon. member that, contrary to the position taken by his government, which was to introduce severe cutbacks and restraints in government spending that would create further recession and more unemployment- higher than was predicted in our budget-we maintained a balance of our deficit and provided a high degree of economic stimulation through the incentives to the oil and gas industry.


David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, I think people are going to get very tired of hearing the government blame other people. I think what Canadians are looking for are some answers. In the past the minister has indicated that a program which involves $350 million will solve the problems. He neatly forgets that that program, which he has touted as being able to solve the problems, amounts to about 12,000 person-years of employment. That is about 1 per cent of the projected unemployment rate. What I want to know is what new programs the minister has to offer to the other 99 per cent of Canadians who are going to be unemployed as a consequence of his colleague's budget.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, nobody has ever claimed that that particular program will solve the problem. It is simply a response to the problem. There is a great difference between the two. The hon. member might do well to recognize that it is not the only measure that has been taken to respond to the problem of unemployment. For example, when I took over this ministry I was required to reintroduce a number of direct job creation programs, which the hon. member, as a member of the previous government, had cancelled. In fact, those programs were the ones which hit most heavily in the areas of highest unemployment. We had to put people back to work as a result of the cancellation of those programs, which cancellation took work away from them.
4450

November 5, 1980
Oral Questions


David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, the problem of one million unemployed in this country is not to be dealt with in such a light fashion. I would like to ask the minister another question. If he has also read the report of the council, he will know they say that "the budget is antagonistic towards the unemployed, most of whom are women, youth and the handicapped". I would like to know, as would the people, what the minister intends to do with those groups now and in the future. When will he quit trying to blame other people for his failure to meet his responsibilities?


Lloyd Axworthy: As the hon. member well knows, in the job creation programs which we introduced this summer to replace the ones the previous government had cancelled-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: -we put the priority on the hiring of women. We established the affirmative action principle so that priority would be given to the hiring of women, young people and minority groups.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. 1 do not know what the minister knows about the fiscal management of families, but most members in this House know that a family's fiscal and financial management shows up at the check-out counter of the grocery store. The minister projected food prices to rise 12 per cent next year. With the depreciation in the current value of our dollar from the minister's projections, and bearing in mind that food prices are really affected by exchange rates, will the minister confirm that on the basis of the depreciation of the dollar the increase in food prices next year is likely to be more like 15 per cent or 16 per cent?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: No, Madam Speaker.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, the minister made all sorts of other projections. He projected that the exchange value of the dollar would be 86 cents this year and 87l/2 cents next year. My supplementary question is in connection with fuel oil. The minister knows, as a result of his inept budget, that he will have to pay more for imported oil next year than he anticipated. Would the minister tell the House how much more it will cost people to purchase heating oil as a result of depreciation in the value of the dollar? 1 would remind him that he has already spent-


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: -over $250 million to prop up the dollar.


Madam Speaker:: Order. The question has been asked.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I would like to hear the question, if I may.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, due to the depreciation of our dollar we will have to pay more for foreign oil. Will the cost of that foreign oil be reflected in the price people will have to pay for heating oil, and so on, as a result of this problem?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows that a large number of projections were made in the budget, and especially in the budget papers extending over a period of four years. He knows as well as I that it is very risky business indeed to make projections for six months in an uncertain economy and an uncertain world, let alone for four years. I put forward those projections in order to give the fullest possible information to the Canadian public and in accordance with the useful precedent established by my predecessor. But I believe that at this stage to regard the projections as hard reality is a bit risky. For that reason I do not intend to be drawn into making long-term cost estimates on the basis of long-term projections except where necessary.


Mr. Paproski:: Why don't you just say 36 cents a gallon?


NORTHERN PIPELINES
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Last week the minister expressed his serious concern that the $23 billion Alaska highway natural gas pipeline might not be completed. He at last recognized that reality. He said that "activity must be increased. There has already been too much delay."
Since President Carter failed to obtain from Congress any financial guarantees for the northern pipeline and provided instead simply a personal letter of endorsation to the Government of Canada at the last minute-which certainly is quite worthless now-will the minister ensure that representatives of the Canadian government contact president-elect Reagan early (a) to obtain his personal commitment to this project, and (b), more importantly, to obtain his assurance that he will request the newly-elected Congress to provide the iron-clad financial guarantees which the minister himself said were so essential to this project?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, contrary to what the Leader of the New Democratic Party has just said, 1 have not raised doubts as to the construction of the pipeline. I indicated quite clearly in a speech which I made in Vancouver that there was no justification or reason for doubting that Congress and the President would continue to be completely committed to the construction of that pipeline. However, I said that since the signing of the treaty several years ago there has been too much
November 5, 1980

delay, and that we were following developments very closely. In the last few weeks developments have been very encouraging in terms of commitments from firms and new participants in the project.
1 would remind the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party that not only President Carter but Congress unanimously indicated that the Alaska gas pipeline was of the highest priority to the United States. Therefore, there is no reason to doubt that the new Congress or that the new President would put in jeopardy this strong commitment. I can assure the hon. member that as soon as the new administration takes office in January, we will be in touch with it in order to ensure that the commitment will continue to be as firm as it ever was.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Madam Speaker. First, the minister himself said last week that there has been, and I quote, "too much delay already"-referring to the present activity. Second, the minister knows that the pious wish expressed by the U.S. Congress was precisely that-a pious wish that contained no guarantees.
Finally, since president-elect Reagan is already on record as favouring a continental energy policy, which is a marked shift from the Carter administration, 1 should like to ask the minister why he is expressing no concern at all about Canadian interests in this vital matter.


Marc Lalonde: On the contrary, Madam Speaker, this government and myself have the interests of Canada very much at heart in all these developments. I should like to remind the hon. member again that he has not reported accurately what I said. The best example is that he said I said this last week, when actually I said it two weeks ago in Vancouver. I could go on to the other aspects which are all on the record. There is a speech on the record and I would recommend that the hon. member refer to it.
As far as the supposed commitment of Governor Reagan to a continental energy policy, 1 have found in many discussions with United States elected officials that they have a very different concept of the phrase "continental energy" as they use it and as we perceive it. We have indicated repeatedly to them-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Marc Lalonde: -that there is no question about our support for an integrated continental policy.


An hon. Member:: Speech.


Marc Lalonde: There is no question about that at all; this government does not favour that.


John Edward Broadbent: A further supplementary question, Madam Speaker. We are witnessing the same, typical lack of concern from the government which will last until we are faced with a disaster coming from the United States.


An hon. Member:: Get up in caucus, Ed.
Ora! Questions


An hon. Member:: Question.


John Edward Broadbent: Considering that the president-elect has expressed different views on controlling the environment, on the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement and on fisheries treaties, to name just a few-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John Edward Broadbent: -from the President who now holds office, is the minister telling the House that his government is not concerned at all that there is going to be any departure in American policy as it affects Canadians?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Say yes, Marc.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I do not know how much I can repeat the same answer for the hon. member.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Don't bother. It is too long.


Marc Lalonde: This government is indeed very concerned about ensuring that Canadian interests come first and are protected under this government. This is what we have been elected to do and this is what we will continue to do. At the same time we have to wait for the president-elect to come into office. Contrary again to what the hon. member said, he is not in office yet, he will be in office only in January.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Marc Lalonde: We will certainly make sure that the views of the Canadian government are well known to the new government of the United States when it comes into office.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SPEAKER OF LEGISLATURE OF MANITOBA
Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of a colleague, the hon. Harry Graham, Speaker of the legislature of Manitoba.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SOCIAL SECURITY
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, yesterday the Minister of National Health and Welfare accused me of misleading the House and presenting wrong facts in terms of the comments made by the Canadian Council on Social Development. Yet according to Statistics Canada, those who were forced to live on old age pensions and the guaranteed income supplement have, in fact, fallen behind.

November 5, 1980
Oral Questions
For example, in 1971, they were 22.75 per cent below the poverty line, yet for 1980 they were 21.32 per cent below the poverty line, in a period when indexing was in place. Given the budget which calls for a 22 per cent increase in energy pricess, which includes fuel oil, and for a 12 per cent increase in food prices, it is obvious that indexing will not even bring the poor and elderly of this country up to the poverty level.
My question to the minister is this. In face of the budget presented by her colleague, what does she propose to do, given her statutory responsibility, to protect the poor and elderly of this country?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member just played a dangerous game by again quoting statistics absolutely out of context and without any particular reference, thus not permitting me to understand exactly what he is talking about. 1 repeat that the first responsibility for a minister in charge of social security and social affairs is to make sure that we are fighting poverty and getting people out of it altogether. The best mechanism of protection-and we reassessed it in the discussions that led to this budget-is to keep the full indexation to the cost of living the way we have it in Canada.
I resented what the hon. member said yesterday because it does create panic among people who do not have access to a copy of this budget. The hon. member quoted from the top of page 2 of the CCSD document, which says that no program exists to counter-attack the increased cost of living. There is such a program; it is the GIS. I have the statistics here from Statistics Canada. I said that 20 per cent of Canadians were living in poverty and that percentage had dropped to 12 per cent. The figure was 11.2 per cent in 1978, and that figure will continue to decrease.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, it is the minister who is playing games by shamefully misleading this House and the Canadian public. 1 would say that that is not in keeping with the social responsibilities of the minister's portfolio. I have demonstrated, and 1 stand by my facts, that the elderly of this country who are forced to live on the old age pension and the guaranteed income supplement have consistently fallen behind since 1971, indexing notwithstanding. Now we are facing energy increases which will increase the price of fuel oil by at least 75 cents a gallon. We know the price of food will go up yet the minister has the gall to stand in her place and say I am playing games. What is she going to do about it?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, 1 am very pleased that we did not live through a full mandate of a Conservative government and its social policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Monique Bégin: 1 wish we knew what the former minister responsible for pensions meant in September a year ago when he announced in Montreal that old age pensions would be changed and the GIS might be changed as well. That is what 1
call a destabilizing factor for the elderly. The CCSD report says that as a result of the budget many seniors may be forced to move into high-cost public and private institutions. This is false. It is not true that people-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Monique Bégin: I am sorry, but hon. members must listen to facts if they want to help those most in need.


Mr. Clark:: Do you believe anyone but yourself?


Monique Bégin: It is true that if we keep indexation to the exact cost of living, inclusive of the energy factor, as we do in Canada, the help people receive will reflect the cost of living and that will permit people to stay in their own homes.


HOUSING
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, I would like to remind that minister that had we still been in office, the people of Canada would be getting an energy tax allowance.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Hon. members opposite hate to hear the truth.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: My question is for the minister of uneasy projections, the Minister of Finance. The minister will be aware that the Bank of Canada rate went up .40 per cent; the prime bank rate is up .5 per cent to 13.25 per cent and now the bank mortgage rates are ranging from 14.75 per cent to 15.25 per cent. This is a very heavy expense for home owners and those who want to buy homes in this country.
Will the minister tell the House what programs he will introduce to help these home owners or would-be home owners meet these high interest costs, which are forecast, I might remind him, to go up in excess of 18 per cent during the coming year?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I think I dealt with that question yesterday when I advised the hon. member that it was not my intention to renew or bring in the mortgage deductibility program which he had brought forward. One of the reasons which led me to reach that conclusion is that his program, as it was designed, would have benefited only 10 per cent of the low-income families, which he and his party have suddenly discovered but forgot about when they designed this program last year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
November 5, 1980


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I never asked the minister whether he was going to bring in my programs. He has brought in most of them already, but this one he will not bring in.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Might I remind the minister that the refundable energy tax credit has been found to be a very progressive measure that would help the lower income people in this country and no one but the lower income people. So 1 want to remind him of that.


ENERGY TAX CREDIT
John Carnell Crosbie: My supplementary question to the minister is this: Dian Cohen and other observers have pointed out that home heating oil costs are going to increase something like $8 a month as a result of the minister's budget, unemployment insurance contributions $7 a month and the average driver will have to face an increase of $7 a month. Miss Cohen estimates the tax bite at around $300 a year for the average taxpayer and home owner. Could 1 also remind the minister that more and more families are going to run into credit difficulties in this period of high interest rates.
In view of these facts, will the minister forget the mortgage interest and property tax program-he is not going to help home owners-and will he bring in an energy tax credit, similar to the one we proposed last year to help the low and middle income people of this country, 70 per cent of which would go to people who earn under $20,000 a year. Will the minister do that? Can the minister bring himself to do that and help these people upon whom he has imposed high taxes?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, it is obviously worth repeating what I have stated on earlier occasions, namely, that it is not my intention to bring in an energy tax credit.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is not because the government did not consider the impact of increased energy prices on all groups in the country.


James Aloysius McGrath: That is to your discredit, Allan.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We decided not to bring it in because over the four-year period the burden of increased energy prices put forward in the budget will be about $1,200 less per family than was the case in the Tory budget, including the energy tax credit.


An hon. Member:: That is a lie.
Oral Questions


An hon. Member:: Treat us seriously, Allan.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: They will be better off by $1,200 over the next period of time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is my belief and that is why 1 did not bring in an energy tax credit. If hon. members want to attack those statistics and prove them wrong, then, of course, they are free to do so. But it is on the basis of those facts that the energy tax credit was not brought in.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that White Motor Company in the United States is about to close out its Canadian subsidiary, White Farm Equipment of Brantford, Ontario, throwing 1,200 employees out of work, in view of the fact that this will cause grave financial and psychological strain on the workers and their families in an already depressed community, and in view of the further fact that the employees and retirees may lose all or part of their pension benefits, what specifically, and in concrete terms, is the federal government going to do to save this very viable farm implement company which is yet another victim of a foreign-owned multinational?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, we are keeping in very close touch with developments connected with the White Motor Company.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: We are very much aware of the importance of the company in terms of the over-all viability of the farm machinery sector. We certainly want to see what can be done to ensure the viability of the sector as a whole, including the White Motor component.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Madam Speaker, I am getting rather tired of these answers from the minister which mean absolutely nothing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Bring it up in caucus.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: My supplementary question is directed to the same minister. Given that White Farm Equipment already owes Massey-Ferguson about $2 million, and in view of the fact that White Farm has developed and produced the 9700 combine, largely at public expense through research and development grants from the federal government, which could greatly assist Massey-Ferguson in its own recovery, would the

November 5, 1980
Oral Questions
minister assist in the present discussions between Massey-Fer-guson and White Farm Equipment with a view to having Massey-Ferguson take over the White Farm operation in Brantford to rationalize the two industries and save 1,200 Canadian jobs?


An hon. Member:: Wall to wall socialism.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, we are very much aware of the possibilities connected with White Motor and White Farm Equipment. This is certainly something which can be looked at in terms of a potential over-all solution.


An hon. Member:: What about Petro-Canada?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I want to say to my hon. friends that if my answers had meant nothing, there would be no possibility today for the survival of Massey-Ferguson and the 6,000 jobs there, and no possibility in turn for any assistance for White Motor.
Fortunately for my hon. friend, my answer and those of the government with respect to the farm machinery industry have meant a lot more than nothing. They have meant the potential for the survival of jobs in this important industry in the interests of the entire Canadian economy.


COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT
Mr. Peter Lang (Kitchener):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Could the minister inform the House whether there are any proposed measures to strengthen anti-combines legislation and, in particular, whether freedom of the press can be protected from monopolistic takeovers?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Yes, Madam Speaker. Indeed, the amendments to the Combines Investigation Act are long overdue. I hope to be in a position to bring forward appropriate legislation early next year.


THE BUDGET
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. We all know that his budget did not help the low and middle-income Canadian, and believe it or not there are low and middle-income Canadians under the age of 65 who are not provided for by the $35 a month increase that this government likes to pretend is the panacea to all the problems of low and middle-income Canadians. 1 want to ask the minister why he did not
listen to the pleas and representations made to him by students, young people from low and moderate income families, who need help to continue their education or retraining. Why did he turn a deaf ear to them and provide nothing in this budget that would help?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In direct reply to the question, Madam Speaker, I have listened to all the representations and have attempted to put together a budget that is in the interests of the broad community, including all sectors in Canada.


John Horton McDermid: The minister stated in his budget that significant savings will be achieved when the transfer agreements come up for renewal with the provinces, which I believe is in 1982. Will the minister assure this House and the young people of Canada that any action the government takes in this area will not place additional burdens on the youth of Canada by causing drastic increases in tuition fees by cutbacks of moneys for post-secondary education?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: What I provided in the budget, Madam Speaker, was that before the agreements with the provinces expire we would, as is customary, enter into negotiations with the provinces, and that it was my intention to secure savings in the renegotiation of these broad transfers to the provinces. That is a declaration of intent and that is my purpose. Until the negotiations begin and until some results are achieved, it will not be my intention to indicate in advance the results of those negotiations, except to say that I intend to be very respectful of the progress that has been made in this country as a result of very substantial federal support to a variety of programs supported through transfers. Having said that, 1 do not intend to deal specifically with, and forecast an attitude on, every item that might come up in the negotiations.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SPEAKER AND DEPUTY SPEAKER OF BELIZE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Madam Speaker:: I am sure the House would like to recognize in our gallery the Hon. Charles Hyde, Speaker of the House of Representatives of Belize, accompanied by the Deputy Speaker, the Hon. V. Castillo.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


HOUSING
Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister of housing. It is with regard to a program which the government implemented in
November 5, 1980

1974 to deliver 50,000 homes to the poorest of poor in Canada who live away from the conventional delivery systems of fuel and home heating oils in remote and northern areas of the country. It was known as the native and rural housing program and when it expired in 1979, it had delivered less than 3,000 homes instead of the 50,000. It failed miserably. In addition, many families in the north are having to leave their homes because they cannot cope with the incredibly high fuel costs which are not included in the blended payment that is being charged and which is indexed to their income.
What does the minister intend to do with this program? Is he going to revive it? Is he going to pay any attention to the poor people in the north and remote areas, or is he, like the Minister of National Health and Welfare, going to say that there really is not a housing crisis in this country, that it is just a rumour started by people who do not have a place to live?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, with regard to the people the hon. member is concerned about, I would advise that yes, the program will continue. The program is being reviewed with a view to improving and increasing the amount of funds that are available to this particular segment. One of the objectives of the program and a very important aspect of it was to involve people in native and rural areas in the actual production of that type of housing. That has not been an easy task. The people who are involved in this delivery program are meeting with our officials, CMHC officials, and with officials of the ministry of Indian affairs. We are actively reviewing the program, which continues to have a high priority, indeed a higher priority with this government.


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, in light of the death blow which has been dealt this program as a result of the budget, putting an extraordinary burden on people in northern areas who need more fuel and have no alternative but to drive their cars, will the minister give serious consideration to including in the blended payment figure, which is interest and all the other components of a house payment, a component for energy and other utilities? That is the only way these people will ever be able to live in a house. Also, will he undertake to negotiate with the provinces and territorial governments to improve on the delivery system, which has failed so miserably over the last five years?


Paul James Cosgrove: Those are two questions, Madam Speaker. 1 think I have already touched upon the question of delivery. We hope that through engaging these people in the actual production and delivery, and in education, in conjunction with the minister of manpower, that program will be improved. In so far as the allowance and how we calculate what benefits are available to people who fall under the native and rural program, I would first of all point out that in the budget provisions with regard to energy, there is already an $800 credit for conversion. Those benefits are directed to areas which will
Oral Questions
specifically impact on the group we are talking about. Secondly, yes, the program is under review.


CANCELLATION OF PROGRAMS
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker my question is directed to the minister responsible for the status of women. It relates to the expectations which were raised in the throne speech in relation to women's programs and the statements made by the minister in this House and before women's groups. I draw the minister's attention to the fact that funding for 1980-81 for all women's programs through the Department of Secretary of State amounted to only $700,000, compared to $2.5 million in 1975. By comparison, I draw his attention to the fact that native peoples are funded to a level of $25 million, multiculturalism $6 million and bilingualism $11 million. This lack of support for women has resulted in the cancelling of many programs.
In light of this devastating budget and its impact on women, why is the minister not putting money where his mouth has been?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I would like to correct some of the statements the hon. member has made. We in fact have been putting a large amount of money into new women's programs. We have just introduced a new program for the training of women in non-traditional work, which is becoming highly successful in providing major opportunities for women, and in developing employment opportunities in new areas. We took a very major step this summer when we introduced affirmative action principles into the federal public service. This is a major step in removing the barriers of discrimination, and we have put substantial resources of the government toward implementing that kind of program.
Furthermore, the hon. member was wrong in saying that there have been no increases. We have increased the amount of money going into the Outreach programs for women's employment, and additional resources have gone to the Department of the Secretary of State. I suggest that before the hon. member asks a question it would be helpful if he got the right facts.


Walter Franklin McLean: Madam Speaker, the minister should communicate the facts to groups such as the National Action Committee, because we are talking about funds directed to women's groups across Canada and not about the other support mechanisms which are not in dispute. This minister is supposedly the champion of women's rights in terms of funding, and he cannot deliver in that regard. The minister has not been able to deliver in terms of the human rights package in the proposed constitution.

November 5, 1980
Oral Questions
Will the minister now use his good offices to ensure that the joint constitutional committee is covered by television so that women, who are most affected and least able to travel to the committee, are able to see and hear those proceedings?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I point out to the hon. member that the entrenchment of non-discriminatory rights in the constitution is one of the most significant and important steps toward the advancement of women's rights in this country.


Miss Jewett:: Garbage.


James Aloysius McGrath: Tell that to Indian women.


Lloyd Axworthy: The fact that there will be entrenched non-discriminatory and guaranteed rights for all women across the country will mean that every provincial government and the federal government will be required to eliminate from their statutes all known discriminatory aspects. These provisions will also give women a much better opportunity to go to the courts and test their rights. 1 do not think women in this country need television in the committee. 1 think they are fully informed and well aware of what an important step forward that really is.


STEPS TO INCREASE EMPLOYMENT TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. As a result of the government's budget, it is estimated that the yearly unemployment average for 1981 will be the highest since the depression years. Given that fact and the fact that increasing numbers of women will be working in order to keep their families above the poverty line, what is the minister doing to increase employment training opportunities for women besides the cosmetic amount he allocated earlier this year?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, as I pointed out in an answer to a previous question, we have taken a very important step forward in the development of affirmative action programs.


An hon. Member:: Studies.


Lloyd Axworthy: They are designed to eliminate barriers of discrimination in the workplace. Over many generations we have allowed a number of barriers to develop which have prevented women from getting access to normal or non-traditional work. We in the government have taken the step we said in the throne speech we would take to eliminate those barriers, and we took the first important step this summer in introducing it into our own public service.
Beyond that we are offering a number of incentives in our job creation programs and in our training programs and well over 40 per cent of the enrollees in our training programs are women. We have taken a special measure to provide an incentive to private employers by giving them 75 per cent of all training allowances to bring women into non-traditional areas of employment.
I will say finally that we are also awaiting with a great deal of interest the discussions of the parliamentary committee chaired by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace which will give us further recommendations as to steps we can take to improve the employability of women in this country. In the last seven months I think we have taken a number of important steps, and we will see the results of those steps.


Neil Young: Madam Speaker, I hear the minister talk about steps, but what women in this country want to hear more about is commitment from the minister.
In a recent speech the minister announced that employment growth areas in the future will be in business services, manufacturing and construction, all of which are traditionally male-dominated industries. He also announced that he will encourage skilled workers from other countries to take these jobs. Why does the minister not increase funding for programs which would allow women to take these jobs?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I tried to point out in the previous answer that this government presently spends $800 million on training programs right across Canada. In addition to that, we have added special programs like the Outreach programs to provide special recruitment and placement services for women, for minorities and for disadvantaged groups. We have offered a special program to provide an incentive for employers to provide on the job industrial training for women in non-traditional work.
If that program is taken up by the private sector and succeeds, we will add to it next year, but we must first see how it works and whether the private sector will co-operate. We must also get the co-operation of the provinces, which have on their books a number of regulations preventing the advancement of women because they do not agree with the affirmative action principles we have established.


OIL GENERATED ELECTRICITY-PROTECTION OF NORTHERN CONSUMERS FROM PRICE INCREASES
Dave Nickerson: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. My question concerns the Crown Corporation NCPC, which has a virtual monopoly on the generation of electricity in the Yukon and Northwest Territories and which has the already doubtful distinction of charging its customers probably the highest rates in the whole world. How does the minister propose to prevent additional horrendous burdens on northern consumers in areas which are dependent on electricity generated from oil resulting from the extremely high increases in oil prices caused by the Liberal budget?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, I met with Mr. Smith, the chairman of the NCPC, yesterday. One of the areas we covered was this very subject matter of what the
November 5, 1980

future plans would be with respect to energy costs in the Yukon and Northwest Territories. We are going to have further discussions on this within the next ten days. Hopefully 1 will be able after those meetings are over to give some indication which might alleviate the hon. member's concern.


Dave Nickerson: Madam Speaker, that is what I would call a non-answer. Just before the budget came down the minister's own office put out a press release. When he was asked by northerners about what they suspected might well be in the budget, increases in the prices of heating oil and oil used for the generation of electricity, he said that he was going to talk to his colleague the Minister of Finance about it. I would like to know whether he neglected to speak to his colleague the Minister of Finance, or was it just that when he did he was ignored by that gentleman?


John Carr Munro: No, Madam Speaker, I was not ignored. 1 had discussions not only with the Minister of Finance but also with the Minister of National Revenue. The hon. member may have noticed that there was a decision to extend the moratorium for a further year in terms of taxation of certain benefits. I believe that was designed to alleviate the type of condition the hon. member is talking about. Might I say that it received a good deal of approbation from residents in the north.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, my question is a follow-up from yesterday, and it is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. By now he should be aware of the fact that Amoco Corporation and other companies are cancelling their entire campus recruiting programs as a consequence of the devastating budget. The job situation for university students and graduates will be very bad next year.
Can the minister tell us what programs he will have in place by April and May which will encourage industries to hire the graduates of our technical institutes, community colleges and universities?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I will begin by saying that I hope the hon. member will use his good offices with the Premier of Alberta to ask him to withdraw his decision to freeze the development of tar sands projects. It was not this government which froze those projects but the Premier of Alberta. I suggest that the hon. member would be using his time much more fruitfully if he encouraged a much greater degree of openness in negotiations on the part of his friends in the province of Alberta instead of worrying about this government.
Point of Order-Mr. Clark


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I repeat what I said yesterday. Unemployment is a serious situation. The minister indicated in the House yesterday that he recently returned from the west and that he was told by oil industry people that there was a shortage of trained workers. I suspect that either he is dead wrong, he cannot listen, or his information is out of date. A week ago the budget changed the situation from a shortage of skilled workers to a surplus of skilled workers. Can the minister tell us to whom he has talked this week in western Canada who would give him information on the effect that this budget has had on the economy of Canada?


An hon. Member:: He has not been out there for months.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, unlike the hon. member, I try to talk to a wide variety of people, not simply to people within one company in the oil and gas industry.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member has finished his cheer-leading practice, we can get on with the answer to the question. The fact of the matter is that within that budget there is well over $1 billion of grants and incentives to the Canadian-owned oil and gas industry to provide major new developments for exploration and development in that province alone. It is one of the most important incentives offered for the development and expansion of the Canadian-owned oil and gas industry in western Canada.


POINTS OF ORDER
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order having to do with the business of the House and the committees of the House. The government House leader will know that fully two nights ago the other place agreed to refer the constitutional resolution to a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons. There has been some difficulty in the government party in finding senators who would serve as its representatives on the committee, and I wonder if the government House leader could tell us which senators will be representing the government party on the joint committee and when that joint committee will begin its sessions. I ask that because not long ago the government was arguing that this matter was so urgent that it had to use closure to cut off debate in the House of Commons. Could the government House leader answer that question about House business?

November 5, 1980
Point of Order-Mr. Clark
[ Translation]


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, this enables me to remind the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) that we have shown every regard for Parliament because we could have introduced a resolution before the House without the committee stage. Instead we gave the House of Commons an opportunity to debate a preliminary formal motion aimed at referring the proposed resolution to a committee. We spent three weeks of the House's time on the formal debate. The committee is now being struck and we do not want to get involved in the business of the Senate. Here in the House of Commons we have selected our own members to sit on that committee. The Senate is doing the same thing. I presume that the final make-up of the joint committee will be known shortly later today or tomorrow morning. But I think the committee has enough maturity and is fully cognizant of parliamentary practices to realize that it is up to the members to set their rules, schedule their hours and sittings, and I have every confidence in hon. members on both sides of the House who sit on the committee as well as in the senators who will be designated, if that has not already been done earlier today. I am sure they will dutifully carry out the work of the committee. Now then, as the Leader of the Official Opposition knows, between now and December 9 the committee's task will be to scrutinize the technical aspects of the bill, hear a few witnesses and consider any serious amendments.
Madam Speaker, the government has indicated its willingness to entertain constructive amendments and once the committee reports on December 9 there will be a third stage, and this shows just how courteous we are, and Parliament will have every opportunity to launch a serious but non-dilatory debate on the report drafted by the committee. Again today we have extended every courtesy by replying to a question of the Leader of the Official Opposition, a query which he could have raised during question period but which cannot in any way be regarded as a point of order.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I rise again further to my point of order having to do with the business of the House.


An hon. Member:: That is no point of order.


Charles Joseph Clark: I notice, and this is a matter of great concern to all members of the House who are interested in a genuine debate on the constitutional question, that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy), presuming to speak for women in the country, said that women do not want television in the committee hearings. I wonder if the minister was also speaking for the government and whether the government has taken a decision to instruct its members-once it can find some members in the Senate to participate in the joint committee-not to support the televising and live radio broadcasting of the sessions.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, not so long ago, I had occasion to explain to the Leader of the Opposition our attitude and the procedure with regard to the televising of the sittings of committees. I did so, and can do so again: we leave it to that committee to make recommendations to us. We have no instructions to give to it on whether or not its debates should be televised or not. The members of the committee-and again, we cannot speak on behalf of the Senate-will decide whether or not it must be done. I say this: they now have the power to so decide under the terms of the decision reached by this House in January of 1977, subject, of course, to the agreement of the Senate, on the one hand, and that of the Speaker and the commissioners of internal economy with regard to costs, on the other. I can assure the House that I, for one, will not oppose televising the debates just because of the cost involved.
Now, 1 do not want to anticipate the decision of the committee in that regard. It is entirely free to consider whether, first, it can do so while respecting the concept of the electronic Hansard; second, it is desirable, under the circumstances; and, third, it wants, without being influenced by anyone, to televise its sittings. Madam Speaker, in reply to the questions of the Leader of the Opposition, I have no intention, as government House leader, to tell the committee what to do in the matter of televising its hearings. The committee has enough experience to make its own decisions on any procedure, including that of televising its debates, if it so decides.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order concerning the timing of the committee's activities and the House business. The government House leader has referred to the December 9 deadline and the fact that there will be a few witnesses called before that committee. I should like to ask him whether or not he would consider extending the deadline of that committee now because of what has happened in the other place, given the fact that we have many dozens of witnesses who want to appear, many dozens of groups which want to appear before that committee, and especially in light of his statement that the committee should determine its own timetable in terms of broadcasting. Would he also give the same undertaking to us that the committee can determine its own timetable as to when we will hear witnesses and when we will complete the report? We have allowed here in the House some four years for the public to make representations on the Bank Act. Surely to goodness we must allow more than one month for the public to make representations on the constitution of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: 1 wonder whether or not the minister can give us a positive response to this. He said the committee should control its own rules so far as broadcasting of its deliberations by radio and television is concerned. Will he not exhibit the
November 5, 1980

same generosity and let the committee determine the pace at which we want to hear witnesses and the amount of time we need to present a proper resolution to the House of Commons?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the NDP member has repeated the answer 1 just gave to the Progressive Conservative leader. The committee is master of its own procedure, but it must act within the confines of the mandate given to it by the House. It is not my intention to go against the decision taken by the House to ask a joint committee to consider the proposed resolution and to report back by December 9. I certainly do not intend to ask the committee to disregard the wishes expressed by the House and also by the Senate. In the meantime, that is until December 9, the committee is free to set the dates at which it will hear witnesses. The hon. member is well aware of the parliamentary procedure and practice as well as of the terms of reference given to the committee and under which it can create subcommittees with various duties. Indeed, under the circumstances, it might not be a bad idea for the committee to divide itself into subcommittees to hear various groups of witnesses.
But I also remind him, in that respect, that in the last few years, there have been other commissions which travelled across the country. The constitutional issue has been discussed across Canada during commission hearings as well as by members of the House during election campaigns and the recent referendum campaign in Quebec. Therefore, this is not a new issue which the committee will consider. It is a national concern, an issue which has been the subject of in-depth study and on which several witnesses have been heard in the past.
The specific task of the committee will mainly be to discuss the amendements to the bill, to refine it in a technical sense and to hear some witnesses. In answer to the NDP member, I want to make it clear that we have no intention of going against the decision made by the House of Commons and by the Senate asking that the committee consider the matter as quickly as possible and report back by December 9. Moreover, it is not our intention to meddle in the affairs of the committee. According to parliamentary practice, we will leave it free to decide its procedure.


Madam Speaker:: Quite obviously this is not a point of order. It is an extension of the question period.


Charles Joseph Clark: Not at all.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Point of Order-Mr. Clark


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. In the beginning a question was asked about the business of the House. I can allow questions on the business of the House, and if hon. members who are now seeking the floor want to ask questions about the business of the House, I can allow that.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, arising from comments made by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard)-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I just said that I did not feel this was a point of order. If the hon. member has a question on the business of the House, I can allow that.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Well, on the business of the House, Madam Speaker, the President of the Privy Council indicated in his remarks that the government would hear "a few witnesses".


Mr. Chretien:: No, he never said that.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That is what he said.


Yvon Pinard: No.


Some hon. Members:: He said that.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: "Many".


Charles Joseph Clark: Perhaps he meants "plusieurs".


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: We have had assurances in this House, and hon. senators in the other place have had assurances from the Senate leader over there, that in fact witnesses would be heard. Surely it is a point which must be clarified now, whether instructions were given to the members of the committee on the government side. Not only was the House stopped from speaking through closure, but now Canadians who want to appear as witnesses will not have that opportunity. In fact they are to be stifled even before they have a chance to appear.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That is the point. Also on this point of business I want to ask the President of the Privy Council a question. He said that this question has been asked before and that there have been joint committees and royal commissions travelling across the country. The point of the matter is that on this proposed resolution that has not taken place.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That is not what he said.


Charles Joseph Clark: Read the record.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That is not what has taken place, and this has not been before the Canadian people. So, it needs clarification before the committee sits, whether the President of the Privy Council in fact has now instructed that there will be only a limited number of witnesses heard, and also that he has no intention to follow up what was said in the other place by the Senate leader there that in fact consideration would be given to the extension of the time of the committee.

November 5, 1980
Point of Order-Mr. Hnatyshyn


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I have not given any instruction to the committee, I trust it entirely.


MR. HNATYSHYN-COMPOSITION OF SPECIAL JOINT COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTION
Madam Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) rising on a point of order?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, It is on a point of order with respect to business of the House and a matter directly under the jurisdiction of the government House leader. There has developed, in the course of the selection process in terms of this particular joint committee, a precedent which the government House leader has direct authority to curtail. It is contrary to every principle of parliamentary tradition which we have in the country. It is the nomination of a member of cabinet as a member of this committee. I refer to Senator Argue being promoted by the other place to be a member of this committee.
We have a number of other senators from Saskatchewan, Senator Balfour, Senator Buckwold, and Senator Steuart, who are all known and can participate in a meaningful way on this particular committee.
In terms of the membership of this committee and in accordance with our parliamentary traditions, will the government House leader undertake not to introduce and allow the introduction of a colleague of his as a member of this committee, so that the average rank and file member of the House of Commons in fact can participate in that committee without direct government intervention?


Madam Speaker:: It seems to me 1 cannot allow the hon. member to raise a point of order on something which is taking place in the other chamber.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: It is on the joint committee.


Madam Speaker:: Probably the minister cannot answer about what is going on in the other chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Yes he can.


Madam Speaker:: At any rate, I have given him the floor so that he might answer, but 1 just warn hon. members that questions about what is going on in the Senate should be asked in the Senate.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I did not give any instruction to the senators about the election of the members of the committee and 1 do not intend to do so. The comments of the hon. member does not affect me at all because once again I do not intend to intervene in the selection of the members of the committee, especially those appointed by the Senate. I have not been
involved in any manner whatever in the appointment of the members of the committee and I do not intend to be.


Madam Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Wellington-Duff-erin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) seeking the floor on a point of order?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, it is on a question of House business. The business of the House is very directly affected by the date of reporting of that committee, in that the report will have to be considered by the House. Was Senator Perrault, the government House leader in the Senate, speaking on behalf of the government when he indicated on Monday night in the Senate-


Monique Bégin: Ask him.


Henry Perrin Beatty: -that the government would entertain seriously an interim report by the committee asking for an extension of the December 9 deadline?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the question could perhaps be put in the Senate but I do not know how I could comment on Senator Perrault's reply with which I am not acquainted. Anyhow I do not intend to comment on what Senator Perrault said in the other place. If he has a question to put in the Senate, he has colleagues there who could do it.


Madam Speaker:: The right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark).


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


MR. CLARK-STATEMENTS MADE IN SENATE BY GOVERNMENT MINISTERS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, this raises an entirely new question of order and entirely new question of the practices of the House of Commons. We have now, as we had in the last Parliament, a situation where, as a result of electoral return, it was necessary for the Government of Canada to reach beyond this House for ministers and to have senators sit as full ministers, carrying full ministerial responsibility and carrying the limitations of ministers as members of the cabinet of Canada. That is the situation in the House.
As was stated frequently last year, it raises some difficulties and perhaps infringes on our privileges. At least it raises some difficulties for members of the House of Commons who might want to put questions directly to cabinet ministers who do not sit here in the House of Commons.
We all regret the electoral situation which causes cabinet ministers to be drawn from the other place. All of us would prefer to have cabinet ministers directly elected and reporting here in the House of Commons. But what has happened here is

November 5, 1980

that we have a situation where a minister of the Crown has been nominated by the government party to serve on a parliamentary joint committee. This is a breach of all traditions and practices of the House of Commons because that minister, by virtue of his oath and by virtue of being a member of the cabinet of Canada, is not able to participate in that committee discussion with the same freedom of action as other members of the House of Commons or of the Senate who are members of that committee. There is a clear change in the practice of the House.
Obviously it must have been taken with the knowledge of the government House leader who is a member of cabinet and is a colleague of not only the minister who was named but of the other ministers in that place who, presumably, took part in that decision. What troubles me and causes me to rise at this time is that this marks at least the second time in, 1 think, ten days where the minister responsible to the House of Commons on government business has declined to accept responsibility for statements of a ministerial colleague in the House of Commons or has declined to tell the House of Commons whether a statement made in the other place in fact represents the position of the Government of Canada. Why has he declined that? It is because the other minister is not here. That is simply not acceptable to the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Right on.


Charles Joseph Clark: It is simply not acceptable that we are denied an indication or a statement from the mouth of the government House leader here in the House of Commons as to what is the position of the Government of Canada when a position has been stated by a cabinet colleague in the other place, and it is neither confirmed nor denied by the government House leader here. There is a dangerous new practice which is developing here. First of all, it is dangerous in its attempt to smuggle a person to a joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate, who is not free to act independently in the way other members are. Secondly, it is a dangerous practice in that the repeated refusals of this government House leader to accept the principle of government solidarity, to accept the principle of cabinet solidarity, and to accept that ministerial responsibility means that a statement made by one of his colleagues must bind the government, or, if it does not, it must be specifically rejected and disclaimed by the responsible government House leader here in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Before recognizing another member, I should remind those who have risen on this point of order that I find myself in an absolutely impossible situation because I cannot rule on this matter since I am bound only by the rules of this House. What goes on in the Senate is therefore the affair of the Speaker of that assembly.
Point of Order-Mr. Clark
The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has initiated a discussion because he has not had an answer from the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) about something which was discussed in the Senate. He may quite legitimately try to obtain an answer to his question, but this is a debate and we are in fact having a debate. This is not a point of order. Therefore, since it is not a point of order, I admit that there can be a debate, but there are other occasions when we have such debates in the House of Commons and I am certain that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition will take the first opportunity to have one. I shall now recognize the President of the Privy Council as he has been asked a direct question, but I cannot recognize other members on this point of order.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, there is no reason for the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition to panic. In fact, I do not know whether there will be a minister among the members of the joint committee, but it would not be the first time that this has happened. I can give him a list of members of a committee and even of chairmen of committees who were ministers at the time. Not so long ago, in 1976-77, Madam Speaker, Mr. Sharp was the chairman of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. The present Minister of Finance has served as chairman of a committee, as did Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Sir John A. Macdonald.
I therefore do not see why the right hon. member should be shocked by what happened in the Senate yesterday or by the attempt to have a minister appointed to a joint committee. I do not see how this can go against all the precedents. I believe that the right hon. member should check on his facts and perhaps learn a bit more about parliamentary procedure and the practices of this House and of this noble institiution for which we all have the highest respect. Therefore, there is no reason to panic. If it did happen, it would not be the first time. That would not be a precedent because it has happened before that a minister has been appointed to sit on a committee. I am not saying that one would be appointed again this time, for 1 do not intend to interfere with the senators' choice. I leave them entirely free to appoint whomever they please to sit on this joint committee. I repeat, Madam Speaker, on what senators may say in the other place, I assume that there are Progressive Conservative senators there to ask relevant questions.
As far as our position is concerned-I can repeat to the Leader of the Opposition what I said earlier to the NDP member-it is clearly that we want to honour the decision which has been reached by both the House of Commons and the Senate concerning the mandate entrusted to the Joint Committee: first, to consider the joint resolution, and second, to submit its report not later than December 9. I suggest that things could not be clearer, and if the Leader of the Opposition does not understand, I am sorry, but there is nothing I can add. I repeat, therefore, what I have just said, Madam Speak-

November 5, 1980
Point of Order-Mr. Clark
er, namely, that the effect of the resolution which has been accepted by both the House of Commons and the Senate is to compel the committee to submit its report not later than December 9, 1980, and as far as 1 am concerned, such is the position of the government at this time, and we have no intention of changing it.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, if 1 remember correctly, in your remarks you indicated there was a dilemma for the Chair in that you do not have the power to decide on a matter that was raised in the other place, the Senate. That other place is now occupied by three ministers of the Crown who are making statements of government policy on which they cannot be questioned here, and on which government ministers opposite will not provide either response or clarification. You have indicated there is a dilemma.
I am rising at this time simply to reserve my right tomorrow, or at some later time, to file and raise a question of privilege relating to the limitation upon the privileges of members of the House of Commons to obtain information relating to the business of the Government of Canada confirmed by ministers of the Crown who are members of this House. I think this is a very real question which I have raised with respect to our ability to deal with answers which are given in another chamber by responsible ministers-ministers who are not accountable in any way to us. That breach of our privilege, or the potential breach of it, is further aggravated by the persistent reaction and response of the government House leader, who says he does not know what his cabinet colleague has been saying, and his persistent refusal to respond to questions in this House. So, I simply rise at this time to reserve my right to raise a question of privilege at a later time.


Madam Speaker:: 1 only wish to remind the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition that 1 did not mention a dilemma. 1 categorically stated that 1 was not in a position to rule on anything going on in the Senate, as the Standing Orders only give me the authority to make rulings pertaining to procedure in the House of Commons.


Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, with respect to this issue it seems to me it has been made unnecessarily complicated by dragging in the Senate. Let us forget about the Senate altogether. The fact is that a minister of the government, whose name is Hon. Raymond Perrault, has made a statement somewhere other than in this House. It does not matter where he made it. Traditionally we have the right in this House to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) if a statement made by a minister represents government policy. Therefore in the absence of the Prime Minister I submit that we have the right to ask the government House leader whether the Hon. Raymond Perrault, who is a member of the cabinet and a minister of the Crown, was uttering government policy when he said that the government would
entertain the idea of a change in the final date assigned to the committee.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: There are two things, Madam Speaker. First, a question of that nature should be asked during the oral question period and not through a point of order. Second, in answer to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) I said earlier, responding to a question put by the Progressive Conservative Party that I was not aware of the remark that Senator Perrault was alleged to have made. And 1 do not know any more now than I did five minutes ago. Hence I cannot make any comment. All I can say is that government policy is in keeping with the answer that I gave earlier to the hon. member from his party and to the Leader of the Opposition. Consequently, Madam Speaker, I do not think I could have a more open or frank attitude.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam Speaker, I would like to add something to this point of order which has come up.


Madam Speaker:: No, I am sorry, it is not a point of order. I have said I would not recognize any more speakers on this subject, which is not a point of order. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) has spoken but he had another purpose in rising and taking the floor.


David Kilgour: It is not a point of order, Madam Speaker, it is with respect to the business of the House. It is my understanding of Parliament that traditionally the only member of the government in the Senate is the government leader there. We now have a situation where Canada has gone beyond that. I admit that our government went beyond that last year for electoral reasons as well. I submit it is a convention of this House that matters concerning government ministers which are raised in that House are replied to by the President of the Privy Council. Therefore, the very fundamental question which Your Honour has to answer is whether or not the government House leader can decide whether he will tell us if an answer made in the other place is valid here. That was pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
I submit that unless our system of parliamentary government is to be changed fundamentally-in which case we might have ten cabinet ministers appointed in the other place who do not have to answer any questions in this House-the Chair should decide what will be the future convention on this point in this House.


Madam Speaker:: Ministers are free to answer in any way they wish, and the Chair has no authority to force them to answer questions or to tell them in what way they should answer questions. My feeling today is that the minister did answer the question. The hon. member is not satisfied with the answer and does not like it, but that is not for me to decide.
November 5, 1980


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) concerning the business of the House, if 1 may have his attention for just a moment. It concerns an important piece of legislation, Bill C-43, the Freedom of Information Act. Would the government House leader give some indication of when this important piece of legislation will be brought before the House for second reading? He is aware of the fact that my party has indicated its desire to have the legislation expedited at second reading. We are prepared to co-operate as we did on the previous bill to see this legislation get into committee quickly for a full and comprehensive study. It is an important bill. Would the government House leader indicate when the freedom of information legislation will be brought forward for second reading?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I welcome very much the offer of co-operation from the hon. member on this particular bill. I can assure him that at the first opportunity I will make [DOT] sure that this bill is brought forward for discussion at second reading. The hon. member knows that during the coming days we must deal with the Bank Act before November 30. In order to cope with the parliamentary calendar for this month, 1 held a House leaders' meeting last night, and I will hold a meeting tonight. I indicated to the House leaders last night that it would be possible, if we have collaboration from both opposition parties, to be in a position to deal with the second reading stage of both the legislation on the access to information and on the Post Office. However, there will be further consultation and discussion with the House leaders. In so far as we are concerned, we are very keen to deal with this bill and to send it to committee. But it all depends on the co-operation we receive from the party of the hon. member and from the Conservative party.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence-Mr. Prud'homme.

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of Standing Committee on Agriculture-Mr. Bossy.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
Estimates

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting Supplementary Estimates (B) for the financial year ending March 31, 1981, was presented by Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board) and read by Madam Speaker to the House.
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, by leave, I should like to table a copy of Supplementary Estimates (B) for the financial year ending March 31, 1981.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I wish to move the following motion pursuant to Standing Order 59:
That the Supplementary Estimates (B), 1980-81, tabled this day, be referred to the several standing committees of the House as follows:
Because the list is rather long, and there is detailed allocation of the estimates to the committees, if it is agreeable with the House, Madam Speaker, I ask that the list be printed in Hansard as if it had been read.
[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion of the President of the Privy Council. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

[Editor's Note: The list is as follows:]
To the Standing Committee on Agriculture:
Agriculture Votes 5b, 20b, 30b, 35b and 40b To the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture:
Communications Votes lb, 5b, 10b and 15b Secretary of State Votes lb, 15b, 20b, 30b, 40b, 45b, 50b and 55b To the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence:
External Affairs Votes lb, 10b, LI3b, LI4b, 21b, 25b and L35b National Defence Votes lb, 5b and 10b To the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs:
Finance Votes 16b, LI8b and 30b
Industry, Trade and Commerce Votes 10b, 25b, L30b, L46b, L47b, 56b and 65b
National Revenue Votes lb and 5b To the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry:
Environment Votes 5b. 10b, 15b, 20b and 30b Fisheries and Oceans Votes lb and 5b To the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs:
National Health and Welfare Votes 10b and 40b To the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development: Indian Affairs and Northern Development Votes 5b, 15b, 20b, 30b and 45b To the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs:
Justice Votes lb, 5b and 10b Solicitor General Votes 5b, 15b and 20b To the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration:

November 5, 1980
Order Paper Questions
Employment and Immigration Votes 5b, 10b, 15b, 20b, 25b and 30b
Labour Vote 1 b
Secretary of State Vote 130b
To the Standing Committee on Management and Members Services:
Parliament Vote 5b
To the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates:
Privy Council Votes lb and 15b
Science and Technology Votes lb, 10b, 15b and 35b
Treasury Board Votes lb and 35b
To the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works:
Energy. Mines and Resources Votes lb, 5b, 15b, 16b, 45b and 50b Public Works Votes 5b, 20b, 40b and 45b To the Standing Committee on Regional Development:
Regional Economic Expansion Votes lb, 10b, LI6b, 25b, 30b, 31 band 46b To the Standing Committee on Transport:
Transport Votes 10b, 16b, 17b, L40b, 55b, 65b, 75b, 90b, 91b and 110b To the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs:
Veterans Affairs Votes lb, 5b and 20b


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I would like to move the following motion:
That, when the House adjourns on Friday, November 7, 1980, it shall stand adjourned until Wednesday, November 12, 1980; and
On Thursday, November 13, 1980 and Tuesday, November 18, 1980, the House shall sit from 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. for the consideration of Bill C-6.
That is the Bank Act.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 725, 1,045, 1,321, 1,562 and 1,569.
I ask. Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
[ Text]


Mr. Greenaway: 1.	Did the government or any of its departments or agencies undertake cost analysis studies to determine the viability of "gasohol" as a substitute for gasoline in the (a) short (b) long term and, if so, what were the results?
2.	Did the government or any of its departments or agencies investigate and/or consider (a) exemption of excise tax on gasohol (b) financial assistance of any kind to encourage research and/or development of gasohol (c) benefits which may accrue to the agriculture industry and/or other industries arising from the manufacture of gasohol (d) benefits to the Canadian consumer arising from the development of gasohol and, if so, what (i) was the nature of such investigations or considerations (ii) were the results and/or decisions taken (iii) were the names of any companies and/or agencies which have been involved?
3.	If the government or any of its departments or agencies did not undertake such studies or investigations, what is the reason?


David Michael Collenette: I am informed by the Departments of Agriculture, Energy, Mines and Resources and Finance as follows: 1. The government has undertaken several studies during the last three years regarding the economic viability of gasohol in Canada. The findings of these investigations suggest that we can make very limited quantities of alcohol suitable for gasohol blends at costs approximately those of equivalent imported oil. The sources of such alcohol would be the waste streams of certain plants and substandard crops. Larger quantities of fermentation alcohol can be made from grains at substantially higher costs.
2. (a) The Minister of Finance in his April 21, 1980, economic statement announced amendments to the Excise Act to permit easing of licensing requirements for researchers who wish to manufacture denatured spirits for use in experimentation and development of fuels. Among other changes the bonding requirement will be reduced to $10,000. Persons holding this license are also made exempt from the excise duties levied on spirits. There are no provisions currently in the Excise Tax Act which would impose a special excise tax on gasohol analogous to the excise tax currently levied on gasoline. A decision pertaining to the tax treatment of gasohol will be made in the event that gasohol becomes available for sale in commercial quantities.
2. (b), (c) and (d) The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, in co-operation with other government departments, is reviewing the alcohol fuels issues facing Canada. This review is well advanced and input from the provinces will be sought in the next few weeks. In addition to fermentation type alcohol (ethanol), Canada has the potential to produce large quantities of methanol (wood alcohol) from natural gas, coal and biomass. The issues involved relate to both production of use of alcohols. When the analysis and consultations are completed, the Minister of Energy,
November 5, 1980

Mines and Resources will announce the government decisions in the House of Commons.
2. (c) The Canadian Dairy Commission financed two research projects in this area. The benefits that may accrue to the agricultural industry are:
(1)	Positive use of a product considered to be a waste and environmental problem.
(2)	Production of energy, and considerations regarding improved use.
(i)	These projects consisted in studying:
(1)	The fermentation of whey for the manufacture of alcohol.
(2)	The fermentation of whey for the manufacture of gas.
(ii)	Conclusion of research by ACP Marketing and Sodispro:
(1)	Technically, there is no particular problem in obtaining alcohol through the fermentation of lactose (sugar in dairy products).
(2)	Alcohol obtained from whey is suitable for use in alcoholic beverages and in mixtures of 10 per cent alcohol to gasoline.
(3)	Present distillers are not very interested in stocking up with whey because of market uncertainties.
(4)	Alcohol manufacture is attractive at first sight in that it offers interesting profits.
(5)	The authors make a comparison between lactose and alcohol manufacture.
(6)	The production of alcohol through the fermentation of whey would be profitable only if co-operation is obtained from Canada's various liquor boards.
(7)	For the following reasons, it was recommended (1978) that attempts not be made to use whey as a source of alcohol for the beverage market:
7.1	The market is highly controlled and the rules of the game are often changed very quickly.
7.2	The potential production of a plant like Sodispro represents 20 per cent of the present Canadian market.
7.3	Possible consumer reactions.
7.4	Uncertainty of the market and uneconomical returns at current prices.
7.5	A decision of this nature could cause an increase in the price of powdered whey.
(8)	The production of alcohol from whey was considered possible but not very profitable under existing economic conditions (1977).
Order Paper Questions
(9)	This report includes an analysis of the possibility of fermenting the ultrafiltrate of concentrated whey (through ultrafiltration) and the ultrafiltrate of skim milk, and an analysis of the effect of temperature on the rate of fermentation of the ultrafiltrate. Certain parameters (pH, temperature, total solids) are also determined.
(iii)	This research was carried out by:
(1)	ACP Marketing, Montreal.
(2)	Sodispro, Saint-Hyacinthe.
3. Not applicable.


SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-TRAVEL
Miss MacDonald: 1.	When and for what occasions has the present Secretary of State for External Affairs used (a) commercial transportation (b) ministerial aircraft?
2.	For each occasion, who accompanied the minister from his (a) non-departmental (b) departmental staff and what was the cost?
3.	Did the minister use regularly scheduled DND flights, and, if so (a) on what dates (b) for what reason or occasion (c) was the regular schedule altered (d) were any DND personnel bumped by the minister or his staff?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: In so far as the Department of External Affairs is concerned the reply is as follows: the answers to the first two questions and to parts (a) and (b) of the third question are attached. Regarding parts (c) and (d) of the third question, the minister travelled aboard a DND flight to attend the NATO ministerial meeting in Brussels on May 11, and returned on a DND flight May 14. The schedule was altered for the Minister and the Deputy Minister of National Defence to allow them to land directly in Brussels, the site of the NATO Conference. No DND personnel were bumped. The above answer does not include information about regular trips to and from the minister's constituency on the House of Commons account.
Date	March
10	Event:	Dinner for Paul Martin
given by province of Ontario
Ottawa/Windsor/Ottawa Passengers: SSEA
11/12	Event:	Funeral/Father McCorkell, Toronto Ottawa/Toronto/Windsor/Ottawa
(No commercial flights available to meet timetable)
Passengers: SSEA, C. Momotiuk (non-departmental staff)
24	Event:	ACCT meeting, Paris
Ottawa/Mirabel
Mirabel/Paris	256	MOT28	Paris/New York	6,932	COMMNew York/Windsor	792	COMM
Passengers: SSEA, C. Anderson (non-departmental staff)
V. Turner, A. Simard (departmental staff)
Cost	TPT
492	MOT
610	MOT

November 5, 1980
Order Paper Questions
Date 30	March Event: Official business	Cost	TPTWindsor/Ottawa	492	MOT-appointment in Ottawa -no commercial flight available	Passengers: SSEA	Date	April	Cost	TPT6	Event: Official visit to Mexico city	Windsor/Mexico City	1,738	MOTPassengers: SSEA, C. Momotiuk, A. Thornton-Hill (non-departmental staff) A. Simard, J. Gignac (departmental staff)	13	Event: Return from official visit to Mexico city	Mexico City/Dallas/ Detroit 1,177.50	COMMPassengers: SSEA, C. Momotiuk A. Thornton-Hill (non-departmental staff)	Event: Zimbabwe Independence, Salisbury	15 16 19 20	Ottawa/Toronto 376 Toronto/London London/Salisbury Salisbury/London London/New York 14,959 New York/Ottawa 444	MOT COMM MOTPassengers: SSEA, J. Thordarson (non-departmental staff) A. Sullivan, R. McLaren (departmental)	Date	May	Cost	TPT4	Event: Official guest "Battle of the Atlantic" Ceremony, Windsor	5	Ottawa/Windsor Windsor/Ottawa	492	MOTPassengers: SSEA	6	Event: Meeting with Japanese prime minister and foreign minister	Ottawa/Vancouver	0	MOTPassengers: SSEA, M. St.-Louis, Irene Kushnir Derek McLean (non-departmental staff)	7	Event: Return from meeting with Japaneese prime minister and foreign minister	Vancouver/Ottawa	0	MOTPassengers: SSEA, M. St.-Louis, Irene Kushnir Derek McLean (non-departmental staff)	II	Event: NATO ministerial meeting, Brussels	Ottawa/Brussels	0	DND
Passengers: SSEA, M. St.-Louis (non-departmental staff)
Event: Return from NATO ministerial meeting		
Brussels/Ottawa	0	DND
Passengers: SSEA, M. St.-Louis (non-departmental staff)		
June	Cost	TPT
Event: OECD meeting, Paris		
Windsor/Mirabel	650	MOT
Passengers: SSEA		
Mirabel/Paris	3,059	COMM
Passengers: SSEA, C. Anderson, D. ctafn	McLean (non-departmental	
staff)
A. Sullivan, A. Simard (departmental)


Mr. Friesen: 1.	(a) In 1980, what percentage of the total budget of the Company Film Accord is being financed by CFDC (b) what amount is involved (c) what are the projected costs for 1981?
2.	In what locations are Film Accord's offices to be located?


Mr. Peter Stollery (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: I am informed by the Canadian Film Development Corporation as follows: 1. The corporation does not make this type of information available in keeping with established procedures of confidentiality with its clients.
2. Address: Film Accord Inc.
1110 Sherbrooke St. West Suite 510 Montreal, Que.


CFB-GAGETOWN
Mr. Howie: Are any permanent civilian positions at CFB Gagetown being (a) deleted from (b) added to the plan or organization within the current year and, if so, how many in each case?


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: (a) Yes. 25; (b) Yes. 48.


CIDA-TRAVEL AGENTS
Mr. Lewis: During the year (a) 1979 (b) 1980 to date, how many different travel agents did CIDA utilize for the purpose of airline tickets and (i) what were their names (ii) in which city and province were they located (iii) what was the amount spent with each agent?


Mark R. MacGuigan: None.


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


Some hon. Members:: Stand.
November 5, 1980


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, I have two questions, No. 810 and No. 811, which have been on the order paper now for six months. In view of the fact that they deal with the expenditures of the Metric Commission 1 was wondering if the parliamentary secretary would see fit to have these questions answered as soon as possible.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I have made a note of the two questions. I should say that we have answered 1,165 questions of the approximately 1,600 questions on the order paper, which is not a bad performance.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Madam Speaker:: May 1 add that all notices of motion stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Nielsen:: Madam Speaker, as soon as I can catch the attention of the government House leader, I believe that there is a disposition to carry on the budget debate today with the regular length of speeches, and that tomorrow the time for speeches will be limited for all members of the House to 20 minutes. If this is the disposition, we are prepared to agree to that arrangement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, the remark just made by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) does represent the discussions which have been held. We would be willing to agree that all speeches tomorrow be limited to 20 minutes.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, we agree.


Erik Nielsen: Perhaps that can be made an order of the House today.


Madam Speaker:: Is it agreed and so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
The Budget-Mr. Deniger



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, November 4, 1980, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.
Mr. Pierre Deniger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Madam Speaker, I am indeed enormously proud of and grateful for the continued support of the voters in the Laprairie riding, which is made up of the cities of Saint-Lambert, LeMoyne, Greenfield Park, Brossard, Laprairie and Candiac, as I rise this afternoon to take part in this most important debate on the budget which was presented last week by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen).
Madam Speaker, I should like to mention first of all how difficult it is to govern in 1980 at whatever level in such an immense territory as the northern hemisphere. In my opinion, regionalism has never been promoted so'intensely in Canada, thereby limiting a Canadian dimension which is nevertheless so necessary for a proper analysis of the national budget.
In a budget for all Canadians, is it possible to please the ten provincial leaders? I do not think so. However, I think you can please all the Canadians. They have in fact a reason to be proud of their Minister of Finance and of their Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), because this fiscal policy accompanied by a national energy policy based on security, sharing and fairness will benefit them, Madam Speaker. Let us be realistic. Canada has a deficit of $14 billion.
With all its national responsibilities, the government will simply no longer have the means to continue the implementation of its various programs such as unemployment insurance, family allowances, old age security pensions, equalization payments and various tranfers of funds from the federal to provincial governments while still subsidizing oil imports in the east, if we do not increase income or reduce expenditures. Obviously, Madam Speaker, oil imports, or rather the funds we give to subsidize oil imports in the east are draining our economy. We must take the bull by the horns without delay and face the music, Madam Speaker, and that is what is proposed in this budget. Rising prices of oil and natural gas are beefing up provincial treasuries. And in order to ensure uniform energy prices throughout Canada, the government had to compensate eastern Canada consumers.
In my view, it would have been quite immoral to penalize the eastern provinces by preventing them benefiting from a resource which, for the time being, seems to be vested in the

November 5, 1980
The Budget-Mr. Deniger
west. Obviously, this new source of income has had the effect of widening the gap between rich provinces and less fortunate ones, resulting in a 50 per cent raise in the federal equalization payments between 1977 and 1980. Moreover, the existing equalization formula had to be changed since Ontario was now eligible by virtue of this formula, based on 29 sources of income, including oil and gas. It would have been rather difficult to explain to the maritime provinces that from now on Ontario would be eligible for these payments. So the formula was changed with the agreement of this province. Before the 1979 election, the Progressive Conservative caucus was divided on the keystone of any energy policy, that is the price.
The Ontario Conservative members wanted to keep the price as low as possible and, of course, the members from Alberta wanted it the other way around. And yet, Mr. Speaker, the former prime minister was congratulating himself for his alleged success during a conference in Kingston where, closeted with a few premiers, he ratified a certain protocol of agreement. But the former prime minister, now Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), realized quickly enough that once in power he was caught indeed between two Conservative premiers, Mr. Davis and Mr. Lougheed, that the Kingston conference automatically amounted to a series of pious wishes and that the premiers could not see much further than their noses when the interests of their province were at stake.
That is not a rebuke, far from it, Mr. Speaker, but I can only describe reality as I see it. Besides, even Liberal members recall the conflicts between Mr. Lesage and Mr. Pearson or Mr. Hepburn and Mr. King, and realize that unfortunately that is the nature of federal-provincial relations. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the Conservative leader ought to get Kingston off his mind, or has he already forgotten that he himself was prime minister once and that he failed to achieve unanimity when more than one province was involved?
Canada's energy shortage is very simple. Canada right now is suffering from a shortage of petroleum and, in my opinion, it is not an incurable illness since our country produces more energy than it consumes. Canada will therefore have to bank on its surpluses of electricity, natural gas and any other fuel to alleviate this oil shortage. Petroleum imports are rising rapidly at a time when Canadian supplies are shrinking, and the gap between the world price and the Canadian price, which was only S3 in 1977-78, has now widened to nearly $17.
There is very little that can be done quickly to increase our Canadian supplies. There are huge quantities of oil in the tar sands of Alberta, in the Beaufort Sea and perhaps even in the Atlantic ocean. But it will take a very long while before we can make full use of these Canadian resources. At the present time, even our foreign supplies are threatened as a result of the unstable situation in the Middle East. What is the solution? There are only two possible solutions, either a firm commitment to reduce the demand through conservation and substitution of other forms of energy combined with periodic increases spread over a four-year period according to the studies which have been made, or a drastic increase in the Canadian price of oil to match the world price.
Mr. Speaker, as far as the oil companies are concerned, those multinational corporations whose interests are well looked after in this House by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), their position is quite clear: They tell us: give us enough money and enough tax benefits and we will find all your oil.
To accept such a proposal would be to refuse to recognize all the ancillary aspects of a national energy policy, that is to say the distribution of income among governments and companies, the impact and the already exorbitant profits of these oil companies. On this subject I should like to refer to a press release which Premier Davis of Ontario communicated to the legislature on November 12, 1979, following the Provincial Premiers' Conference on Energy. And I quote:

No appreciation on our part of the desire of the federal government to share its intentions on national energy policy can constrain our intense frustration and alarm about what appears to be a seemingly unrelenting commitment to chase an artificial, erratic and soaring world price-a price set by interests and circumstances foreign to Canada and our economic realities. I must also say, in frankness, that the oil pricing proposal which is being negotiated between Clark's government and the province of Alberta appears, from what we now know, to be an excessive and imprudent response to the claims of the producing provinces and the petroleum industry.

Therefore there never was an agreement between the Conservatives on a national energy policy although the former prime minister has tried to make us believe that. Besides, the comments of Alberta legislature Conservative member, Mr. Thomas Sindlinger, would seem to confirm that there never was an agreement between the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party and Mr. Lougheed.
Mr. Speaker we have rather chosen a step by step solution, if you will pardon me the expression, which would hold as ultimate goal an assured prosperity as well as the certainty for all Canadians of the following points; first, secure supplies and ultimately energy self-sufficiency of Canada. Second, the access of Canadians to an increased participation in the energy industries and particularly in those of oil and gas resources and, third, fair prices and a fair sharing of the revenues between the governments and the industry.

We must look at the price increases in the context of the government's overriding concern to achieve energy security, through encouraging, first, the development of new supplies, and, second, conservation of oil.
This is a policy which, by the way, will enhance Alberta's long-term prospects for prosperity through its effect in curbing the rate of depletion of this most valuable resource. Why should the federal government rely solely on sudden, unpredictable price increases in achieving its energy security
November 5, 1980

goals, and, in particular, in encouraging conservation? Would the shock, the burden, that such a move entails, be fair to Canadian consumers all across the nation, particularly to those low-income Canadians for whom my Tory friends are expressing such concern?
Is it not much more reasonable to launch a wide variety of new initiatives, and couple these initiatives with a steady, gradual, predictable increase in the price of oil in the years to come? These are measures which will not only encourage the development of new supplies, but will, in addition, make conversion to other energy sources both feasible and economically attractive.
We have been accused in this Elouse of ignoring the west, of tossing it aside, in our refusal to link Canadian oil prices to international levels. But what of other, less prosperous provinces and regions in this country-provinces and regions which will be subject to an alarming increase in income disparities in the event prices rise to world levels? Albertans are the first to admit they are Canadians. 1 ask, not in a belligerent manner, but because I am truly puzzled, how can their position on oil prices be reconciled with their deep commitment to the principles of equity and parity? Why, one must ask, should we continue to play into the hands of the petroleum industry, at present consisting primarily of foreign-owned multinational corporations which earn excessive profits as it is?
It has been said by industry spokesmen, by Premier Lough-eed and by others, that the impact on industry of our scheduled price increases and new energy taxes will be to reduce the cash flows needed for further exploration of new supplies. The government has been fully aware of the billions the industry needs for exploration and development. I believe it has taken great pains to ensure that its proposals in no way impoverish our oil giants. First, under the new pricing schedule, a fourfold increase will accrue by the end of the decade in producer netbacks per barrel of conventional oil. Surely such an increase provides generous incentives to develop and invest in new oil and gas supplies.
Second, we are convinced that company profits are sufficiently high to warrant subtantial, albeit gradual as opposed to excessive, increases in domestic oil prices. For example, in a survey carried out by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, it was found that the internal cash flow generated by the petroleum industry exceeded $7.1 billion last year, an increase of 44 per cent from 1978. In 1979 profits were $4.7 billion, up 54 per cent.
Given these figures, surely it is evident that a rapid increase in domestic crude prices will merely serve to fuel further increases in the windfdall profits enjoyed by the petroleum industry, to say nothing of increasing the over-all inflationary pressures in our economy. I might add this is a move which would be in direct contradiction of this government's commitment, in co-operation with the Bank of Canada, to curb inflation by appropriate monetary and fiscal policy.
The Budget-Mr. Deniger
1 fully appreciate and sympathize with Premier Lougheed's concern that Alberta is being forced to sell its rapidly depleting oil resources at less than half their world value, resources which have been developed and tended only, in the words of Premier Lougheed "because of the efforts and the imaginations of Albertans". To this very legitimate concern, I would like to respond in two ways.
First, I do not for a moment doubt that Albertans have worked very hard to develop this resource for all of Canada. But 1 doubt in all fairness whether this development and exploration carried out over the past number of years, development and exploration which has enabled the people of Alberta to grow, to prosper and to improve their standard of living would have reached such an enviable plateau in the absence of the contributions made by our federal government. These amounted to 63 per cent of every exploration dollar in the oil and gas industry by means of tax incentives compared with 35 cents contributed by the province of Alberta. The point I am trying to make is that it has not, in the final analysis, been a one-way street. Alberta has had its "ups and downs", to use the words of its premier, as have all the provinces of this nation. All 1 ask is that Alberta not, in its good times, overlook the help it has had in its bad times.
Second, I must plead with Albertans to understand that the federal government's energy proposals, including the scheduling of price increases, in no way denies the producing provinces the opportunity-the financial wherewithal, if you like- to reap the benefits of what is indeed a depleting, non-renewable resource.
If one wishes to make comparisons among the provinces, and Premier Lougheed seems to be so inclined, clearly it is Alberta which stands to gain the most from the new energy proposals. Indeed, it is somewhat ironic in light of Premier Lougheed's statements that it is the province of Ontario which will be adversely affected by last week's federal budget. As the provincial treasurer of Ontario has painstakingly pointed out, higher energy prices will "cost Ontario residents an additional $2 billion next year", a figure which will increase to $5 billion by 1983-1984.
Every $1 a barrel increase in oil will cost Ontario about $300 million, says Frank Miller. Strangely enough, Ontario, the ostensibly favoured province, will get in return only $1 billion in new federal initiatives, while the west will receive development funds to the tune of $4 billion. It is all a very sad, if somewhat amusing, scenario when Premier Lougheed charges he is not receiving a fair deal, while Ontario cries that the western development fund ignores similar eastern priorities. But perhaps Albertans may say-indeed their premier has hinted as much-we understand the price increases, revenue-sharing formula, and so on are fair to Alberta; the proposals do not deny us the means to ensure in terms of financial flows that the basis for an enduring prosperity is protected and maintained. What is at issue is something which is essentially non-negotiable, namely, differing visions of Canada as a federal state and, consequently, differences of opinion regarding the respective "weight" jurisdictional claims should have, for

November 5, 1980
The Budget-Mr. Deniger
example, between provincial ownership of resources on the one hand and federal paramountcy in interprovincial and international trade on the other.
It is perhaps sad that it is divergent visions of federalism which provide the foundation, if you like, upon which our current disputes are based. In the final analysis, there is no right or wrong vision of Canada. There is no set of absolute criteria with which we can say, "No, Alberta, you are wrong in believing what you believe, or in feeling what you feel, that, in the words of your premier, 'What we are facing here is a situation where more and more decision-making, more and more control, will be in the hands of decision-makers in Ottawa and your provincial government will become less and less able to influence your future." Personally, I do not agree with that vision of Canada, perhaps because I do not believe that a strong central government entails a priorily weak provincial counterparts. I cannot say that vision is wrong, but 1 can say 1 do not think it is the vision best suited to our current economic and political situation, both domestically and internationally.
I suppose for me the key words in this debate over powers, for that is what the budget debate is fundamentally all about, are balance and equity. Resource taxes, to cite one case in point, are merely one of the tools our national government is utilizing in its attempt to restore balance and equity to our political system, to correct the fiscal imbalance currently in effect between our central government and our provinces, simultaneously enabling Ottawa to carry out its responsibilities in redistributing Canada's wealth equitably among all Canadians.
Do not get me wrong. 1 am not accusing Albertans of being greedy and selfish. As their premier has pointed out, they have paid their price in confederation, whether it be through tariffs, freight rates, or equalization payments. This is as it should be, and, more importrant, as Alberta wishes it to be. But we must ask ourselves the following question: Does Alberta wish for a Canada which confers upon the remaining "have-nots" that very position of inferiority Albertans themselves found so humiliating and so inequitable? I personally do not think the west wants such a Canada. Yet this is precisely where its utilitarian ethics lead it, consciously or not.
It is one thing to feel, deep in your heart, that you, or your province working through you, are the best guardian of your own, very specific, very regionally unique interests. But it is quite another thing to assume that this pursuit of ones own interests somehow results in the greatest good for the greatest number or, in practical terms, results in what is best for Canada as a whole.
Mr. Speaker, during a public affairs program last weekend, the interviewer tried two or three times to bring his guest, the President of the National Bank, to say that the budget did nothing for Quebec. Mr. Belanger then explained very carefully to the interviewer that a budget must be analysed as a whole and that, in his opinion, we were all treated equally. However, in view of the insistence of this interviewer, Mr. Speaker, I feel that I should make a few comments about the impact of the Canadian energy program on Quebec.
Under the national energy program developed by our government, consumer oil prices will be much lower than those set by the previous government which involved a relationship between domestic and international prices. Because of our program, Mr. Speaker, Quebec, like other areas in the country, will pay much less for its oil since our policy is aimed at minimizing the unfavourable impact of price increases on the economic growth of these areas and reducing at the same time inflationary pressures. As for the price of gas, Mr. Speaker, the yearly increase of 45 cents per thousand cubic feet over a period of three years will cause a slower increase for consumer gas prices than for heating oil prices. Under this program, our government also wants to take new energy initiatives in Quebec by stimulating certain areas, including research. These initiatives will cost $1.8 million in the next four years, which is about $280 per capita.
In short, Mr. Speaker, if we look forward to 1984, we can see that, because of our program, the annual costs for the average family in Quebec will be clearly lower than what they would have been if the price of Canadian oil were related to world prices. Through its policy of establishing a better balance between the provinces, our government also intends to encourage Canadians to switch from oil to other energy sources wherever possible. In this optic, grants will be given to replace heating oil systems by systems using natural gas, electricity, solar energy and other more natural fuels in some areas. Assistance of up to 50 per cent of transformation costs up to a maximum of $800 will be given to any individual who wants to take advantage of our program. The national energy program therefore aims at following the trend already started in Quebec where 82 per cent of all new housing built uses electricity instead of oil for heating.
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, our program enables us to assist the taxpayer to improve his residence or its insulation. Logically, if our program replaces oil by other energy sources, it is necessary to provide for Quebec an effective supply of natural gas. This is why some proper and direct steps have been taken to ensure that the construction of a gas line is undertaken as soon as possible. In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind members that the national energy program advocated by our Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources fully respects the principle of equity and balance among the provinces. All recognize that our government should increase its revenues.
A corporate income tax on gas and petroleum has been levied rather than resorting to the deindexation of personal income tax. Instead of an excise tax between 18 to 25 cents a gallon on gas in addition to a 14-cent increase, the government
November 5, 1980

has chosen to increase the tax burden of refineries. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the government has decided to tax where the money is in order to distribute it among Canadians, as it had done previously when it levied more taxes in Ontario and Quebec and as it will surely do in the future, because Canadian federalism is based on one concept-sharing.


Hon. Elmer M. MiacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have some sympathy for my colleagues opposite, reading prepared speeches prepared for them by departmental officials. It is very difficult-


Pierre Deniger: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member for Central Nova will realize that my speech came from no one but me and my staff. It is quite unfair for him to imply that the words I uttered are words that I do not sincerely believe. Believe me, I am concerned about our future and the present situation. Not one word of my speech came from anyone outside of my office. I hope the hon. member has some respect for this institution and for me as an individual. I think he is a fine member of Parliament. I am sure he did not mean to imply I had a prepared speech. I worked very hard on my speech and firmly believe everything I said. He was being most unfair. It is not like him to imply that my speech could have been prepared by anyone except my staff and myself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the hon. member has such a fine opinion of his authorship. I do not wish to cast any aspersions on his speech. He did not let me finish. I was about to say that I felt rather sorry for members opposite who had to read from prepared texts, prepared by departmental officials, defending this budget. The last speaker indicated that is not the case. I am glad to hear that. I am glad to hear that by implication he would dissociate himself from those kinds of speeches prepared by departmental officials because if there were less of those and more speeches prepared-


Mr. Evans:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I object very strenuously to the words that have just been uttered by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay). I too have great respect for the member. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, I can tell him that the departmental officials, in conjunction with the minister, prepared the minister's speech and, in conjunction with the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres), also prepared his speech. They have not prepared any other speeches that have been given by any member on this side of the House during this budget debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: We are getting more information about some of these speeches at this point than we have been able to get all during the budget debate. I thank the hon. member for giving me that kind of assurance. It certainly helps.
The Budget-Mr. MacKay
At this point in our budget debate, I think it is interesting to note that we have just witnessed an historic election in the United States of America. I believe it would be worth while to refer to that election in passing. As all of us know, what happens in this House as the policies or lack of policies unfold which affect the budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) and so on, will be determined greatly by the success that president-elect Ronald Reagan and his new administration have in coping with the difficulties that face the free world and face their country.
I hope members of this House of Parliament will join with me in wishing president-elect Reagan and his new administration every success. Obviously there are many, many matters of common interest that we share with our neighbour to the south. I remember it being said in this House at one time, I believe by the then leader of the Social Credit party, that the United States was the best friend we had whether we liked it or not. 1 think he was being facetious. That is precisely what the United States is not. The Soviet Union may have that particular distinction when people talk about their captive satellites.
We in this country are very fortunate to share a common border with the United States of America. I believe that President Kennedy said-perhaps in this House of Commons, certainly in this country when he visited here-that geography has made us neighbours, history has made us friends, and economics have made us partners. 1 hope in the months ahead, as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources indicated, there will be immediate contact made with the new administration of the United States in order to address some of the very serious irritants and mutual matters of concern between ourselves and that country-a northern pipeline, the fisheries treaties which have not been ratified, and the "Buy America" program. There are many areas of concern. I only mention that today because we are given a fair amount of latitude. I believe hon. members would agree that it is very important we get off to a positive start in making initial approaches to the new administration of our good friends to the south, and 1 am depending upon hon. members, and members of the cabinet opposite, to do that very thing.

It is obvious that this budget debate has revealed a great many divisive and tense matters which are troubling our country. The last speaker referred to some of them. The positive aspects of this budget, which it would be intellectually dishonest to deny exist, have, I am sure to the disappointment of hon. members opposite and the Minister of Finance, not stilled the criticism which has come in unusual severity from columnists and, indeed, every part of this country.
The movement toward more emphasis on economic development, the movement to close some loopholes permitting foreign vehicles or foreign ships to come in and tank up with cheap Canadian fuel are along with the postponement of deindexing, positive aspects of the budget, but they have not to any

November 5, 1980
The Budget-Mr. MacKay
noticeable degree affected the blasts of criticism which have come from practically all quarters of this country.
Without going into too much detail one need only recall what was said by Terry Hunsley, the executive director of the Canadian Council of Social Development, when he expressed the view that this budget would have a devastating effect on low income Canadians.
Don McGillivray, a respected writer for Southam News called it a cheerless document and a gloomy and deceptive document forecasting a gloomy future for Canadians and doing nothing to change things.
Finally, on the distaff side, we hear from Dian Cohen. I see the hon. member for South West Nova (Miss Campbell) approves of Dian Cohen. She is a good economist, and I am sure the hon. member would agree.


Miss Campbell:: I do not approve of Southam.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Dian Cohen is a very perceptive economic analyst. She condemns the energy aspects and points out that this time next year both our balance of payments deficit and our budgetary deficit will be higher than they are today.
What can the government do about it? In fact, what can any of us do about it? 1 think we must first, as Confucius said, begin our longest journey with one small step. I think we as federal members of Parliament must try-and I ask the members of the government to try-to change the kind of attitude which has developed in this country during the past few years and, indeed, during the past few months. The federal government is the only body which has the responsibility and the capacity to mediate and to try to mitigate the differences, the rivalries and the suspicions which exist among different regions of this country and particularly between the federal government and different regions and provinces of this country.
We must replace confrontation with conciliation and induce the provinces to stop bickering over some of their parochial matters. By doing this they are hurting everyone in the country and especially themselves. If our Parliament and our government do not do this, we will continue to project to the international community the image of being on the way to becoming a second-class and unstable country. The only thing which is keeping this country right now from plunging toward the status of a Third World economy is the abundance of our natural resources and the ready market for them. Unfortunately, they are being exported, to too large an extent, in an unfinished state.


Mr. Waddell:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I hear some support coming from our friends in the New Democratic Party. I will come back to that party's role in recent months in Parliament later. Perhaps they will not be as willing to support me when they hear what 1 have to say.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: We are talking about resources.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: The hon. member says they are talking about resources, and I agree that to a large extent their policies on resources have some merit except when they try to undermine the status of the resources in the various provinces by trading the existing status under the BNA Act, that of ownership of those resources, and substituting something much less-management and control.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is not true.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: It is very difficult to manage and control something you do not own. It makes it very unstable.
In looking at what is happening to our country, we could do worse than examine what happened to the United States as the political and economic centre of gravity changed in that country. There was a time, in the lifetime of our parents particularly, when the northwestern part of the United States was the manufacturing centre. Gradually, a change came and the impetus moved into Ohio and to the west coast. Now it is moving down into the sun belt in the southwest United States. In its wake the economic and social disruptions do not appear to have caused the kind of agony, the kind of bickering and the lack of management to prevent the exodus of industry which has characterized conditions in our country.
I think we can learn something about that and from that. As the economic and political centre of gravity, which has long since left the east coast of our country-the east coast once was the linchpin of confederation and once provided the possibility and, indeed, the very raison d'etre for the nation as we now know it-left the maritimes and moved into Ontario and is now moving out to the west, the government has not come to grips with the proper economic measures to remedy the situation which this shift in economic movement has left behind.
Without going into the historical reasons for the union of this country, before confederation, when the province of Canada seemed bound for dissolution because both the English and French component in that province were dissatisfied, the Montreal traders feared western expansion, backed, as we know, by business interests in Toronto. Does that not sound familiar today? The gaps widened.
There was trouble out west with the Hudson's Bay Company. There were links developing between the Mississippi valley and the Red River valley. The Yankees were coming into the Fraser River valley for gold. All these things were threatening to disintegrate that part of British North America. This was complicated by the Fenian raids and the abrogation of the reciprocity treaty. All these things we remember, if we look at our history. However, the fact is that we did get a country together, and at that time it was a very sound country. It still is, despite the strains which have been caused in recent years by these economic shifts.
As far as the particular responsibilities I used to exercise in our government are concerned, l look across at my friends-I do not see them here at the moment-in economic development and housing, and I feel sorry for them because in the thrust of this budget, despite their undoubted good intentions,
November 5, 1980

they were not able to focus some of the resources of the budget on their departments, and on the areas of Canada which need them. I am particularly disappointed in the actions of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Harquail), but 1 will come back to that again in a few moments.
As far as the housing needs of this country are concerned, whether hon. members opposite agree or disagree, a large number of Canadians-over four million of them-would have benefited from the measures we intended to bring in to relieve property owners and taxpayers of this country who qualified for the mortgage interest and tax payment credits.
We also had every intention-and I was disappointed that we were not able to bring in a shelter allowance-to help those people who did not own homes but who were renting, and I am confident that this would have been done. This particular type of assistance, which would have brought relief to several million Canadians and which involved co-operation between our minister of finance and I, never occurred, and I was hoping very much, if hon. members opposite felt constrained about it because of the fact that this program of ours was a matter of controversy, that the housing minister would have had the clout and there would have been enough wisdom to have brought in a shelter allowance which would have done a great deal to help many Canadians. However, that was not done. Instead of that we get the MURBs.
The MURBs provisions are not entirely regressive. They are useful to people who want to invest money as a tax relief dodge. They are useful in an indirect way to stimulate some housing, but they are almost a pitiful gesture of any meaningful assistance with respect to housing problems.
Then we look at the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. There is not a more sincere or dedicated minister in the House than the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. De Bane). What does he get in this budget to help disadvantaged areas of Canada? He gets one positive measure. He gets the tax credit of 50 per cent for industries which meet certain criteria in parts of Canada which are particularly needy. That is better than nothing, there is no doubt about that, but again it is a far cry from taking into account the need to do something meaningful to make up for the kind of economic shift to which I referred earlier.
One of the reasons I am disappointed in the Deputy Prime Minister-and there are many reasons-is that when I hear him speak, I think that perhaps he has forgotten he comes from the maritimes. I think he speaks for the Quebec-Ontario axis of the Liberal party. He mentioned yesterday that he was down home travelling in the Atlantic region, as if that were a rare event. I hope it is not, because a member whom you and 1 know very well, Mr. Speaker, a former member of our party in Nova Scotia, Donald Maclnnis-"fighting Donnie" they used to call him-who used to fight very hard for his people, used to say, "Just because you get where you're going, you don't
The Budget-Mr. MacKay
forget where you're from." I think the Deputy Prime Minister should pay a little more attention to that kind of philosophy.
I have in my hand-I referred to it earlier in the House-a speech made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). The former premier of Nova Scotia who is now Minister of Labour (Mr. Regan) was with him. They entertained the Halifax board of trade on January 25, 1980, and on that occasion the Prime Minister made some very definite promises. One promise in particular will soon be a year old come January. These promises have been referred to often, and obfuscated. I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources about them a few months ago, and a few weeks ago and he said that nothing could be done because the NEB is holding things up. I am referring to the oft-promised natural gas pipeline in Nova Scotia. Here is what the Prime Minister said as it appears on page 10 of his speech, if any hon. members opposite want to refer to it. He was speaking about the virtues of switching to natural gas, an alternate energy source, and he said:
But in order to switch, people must have access to gas. Nowhere is access needed more than in eastern Canada. I am announcing today-
Remember, that was last January:
-as part of our program, that a Liberal government will take immediate action to ensure the full co-operation of all parties in the construction of a natural gas pipeline to Quebec City and the maritimes.
It was only a few days ago that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources gave the undertaking that, pursuant to this latest promise in the budget, he would, if necessary, bring in a bill to carry out that undertaking. So months and months have been wasted. The Prime Minister went on to say:
The pipeline will have reversible capacity so that maritimers will have the opportunity, both to use western natural gas now and to send offshore gas to central Canada later. Like the railroad in the 1880s, energy pipelines in the 1980s have the potential to be a steel link uniting the nation.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) is trying to close some of the railways in Nova Scotia that were built as fulfilment of a direct promise to induce Nova Scotia to come into confederation. We will go into that on another day.
Are we forgetting, because of the lack of clout or lack or attention of the Deputy Prime Minister-perhaps he is more concerned with aspiring to be the prime minister for a few months than he is in taking care of his own people-are we forgetting that we are going to be deprived of the opportunity to develop a petrochemical industry in Atlantic Canada-I hope in Nova Scotia, in the Strait of Canso area-if we do not do something soon to get that pipeline which has been promised so many times? Are we going to see the natural gas from the high Arctic and, the Sable Island shelf, and from Newfoundland, transported by ship up to central Canada? Are we going to be keepers of pipelines only? Will we not have an opportunity to use that feedstock in an LNG terminal, that natural gas we have, to develop a petrochemical industry and target it for export offshore? I see the hon. member for South West Nova is concerned, as she should be, because I know she wants to see Nova Scotia-


Coline M. Campbell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. All I was concerned about, as the hon. member should be, is that I do
4474

November 5, 1980
The Budget-Mr. Mac Kay
not see Premier Buchanan doing anything about commencing a petrochemical industry.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how a provincial premier can possibly do the kind of thing the hon. member for South West Nova is suggesting. What would she have him do? Would she have him start building a petrochemical complex when there is no source of gas and no way to transport it? Just imagine the ridicule the Premier of Nova Scotia would face.
That is not the only thing that concerns me about the attitude of the Deputy Prime Minister. Nowhere in Canada is there a greater need for housing than in Cape Breton because of the history of that part of the country. I remember when the former NDP member from that area, Father Hogan, was in the House. He was always after me, when I was minister of housing, to urge CMHC to do something. That is why I again take the opportunity to remind the House that I cannot understand the lack of concern for Nova Scotia that is being exhibited by this government, especially the lack of concern for housing for low income people.
I realize you cannot have it both ways and that there is only so much income available from which to do these socially necessary and responsible things. In this budget there is a proposed expenditure of $66.6 billion, and if there is not enough money to do some of these things, then I firmly believe in other measures than just socking it to the west to raise this money in its entirety. If the Minister of Finance wants to restore confidence in this country and if he wants to start reducing the deficit, as we were prepared to do, and if he wants to show the international community that the Canadian dollar can become more valuable in the future by reducing our deficit, why does he not put another surtax on top of the 5 per cent surtax which he extended on the corporate side? Or why does he not raise the corporation tax rate a little? Sure, big business will not like him, but, as Samuel Gompers used to say "you back the masses against the classes. " You know, Mr. Speaker, it is very easy to see from the answers given by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that he has considered raising corporate taxes.
When I was thinking about this problem, I happened to see in the Ottawa Citizen of October 29 of this year-not really a strong supporter of the Conservative party-an article which makes a lot of sense. It reads:
There are obviously several ways in which the deficit could be reduced. One is through a major revision of social spending-
I do not go for that. I do not think it is equitable under these circumstances. The editorial goes on to read:
Another is to reduce the level of corporate welfare in this country.
That might not be a bad idea in certain cases. Corporate taxes, which are nominally at 46 per cent in this country, in the last three years have been, on the average, about 18 per cent.
I would like to see, as a matter of policy, this government able to obtain more revenue from other tax sources, but I would not like to see this money wasted as it is being wasted by the Department of Employment and Immigration. Today
the minister bragged about the $800 million for training. I would like to see some of that money go to my friend, the Minister of DREE (Mr. De Bane), to create some real jobs and for development. The much touted $800 conversion is a sham because in the Atlantic region electricity, which is priced out of all reasonable proportion, is not an option and we do not have any natural gas either thanks to the procrastination of the Prime Minister and his government. I believe that up in the Yukon they cannot convert to natural gas either.


Erik Nielsen: Not unless you take the cabinet up there.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: That is about it. What should we put this money into? One of the basic responsibilities imposed on leaders, right since the time nation states were first created, was to protect the sovereignty of a nation and to keep its currency from being debased. As a start, looking at our sovereignty and the territory issues, we should put a little more money into our defence because we cannot even effectively patrol the greatest treasure house any nation in the world has, that is our north. Our militia is using equipment that is older than they are. There are more people in the Russian KGB alone than there are in our entire armed forces. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne) tries to do his best, but again he is the victim of lack of proper priorities and planning. Surely we can put a little more money into ensuring that we meet our NATO commitments because with the projected rate of inflation, using the figures of the Department of National Defence own model, there is no way in which we will be able to keep our promises to that organization. So, I would like to see another billion dollars or two raised by some increase in corporate taxes, supposing the Minister of Finance does it by way of a supplementary budget measure. Also I would like to see a portion of that money placed directly towards the reduction of our deficit, either the money we owe abroad or the budget on which we are overspending at home.
I know the corporate sector and Canadians who have to pay the tax would not be particularly happy to have to pay more taxes. But if they could see that their tax moneys were going to increase the stature of their country by reducing its deficit, by improving its stature in the international community, by increasing its respectability in the eyes of its allies by letting it meet its military commitments, then I do not think there would be any complaints if the Minister of Finance sought to raise a billion or two dollars by raising the rate of corporate tax, particularly if he showed a little ingenuity about doing it.
I have a particular interest down in the constituency of the Deputy Prime Minister-I do not want to pick on him today- but it used to trouble me when I was the minister responsible for Devco and was involved with some things concerning Sysco. Those of us who have been following this know the much touted business plan, which has been used as an excuse for not proceeding with the needed aid for Sysco, has been around in the hands of the department and available to the minister and his parliamentary secretary for weeks. All this three-phase plan does in its first phase is exactly what the plan
November 5, 1980

by R. B. Cameron did when he first began to rehabilitate this Crown corporation. It is designed to improve the basic operations, reduce its operational costs and improve its productivity.
It is disgraceful every time Massey-Ferguson hiccups or Chrysler needs help that something is done. Now we hear about the White Equipment company, and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) is most sympathetic; he is looking into it. But the "coal dust twins", the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Regan), had over ten years in office to do something about Sysco. At one time they talked about the Gabarouse project. They were going to build a whole new steel plant down there, a Greenfields project. In steel industry argot, they "ate off that" for a long time. I remember the then hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys, now Senator Muir, questioning the Deputy Prime Minister about it. It is almost criminal negligence that they have to reinvent the wheel after all this time and still there is nothing done. Despite that, thanks to the improved management and certain other factors-I like to think partly because of the aid they received last year to some extent-Sysco is making progress.
Now, what about Devco? It is a corporation which needs a little shaking up. It is not a bad corporation, but it has been a retreat operation for far too long. It is time that Devco began to fill its primary function-that is, to mine coal more efficiently-and concentrate less on collateral activities. One trivial example is the Holiday Inn down there. The building is owned by Devco. That inn could be expanded, I know it could. There could be more employment, more jobs, but they are not interested in it. Also, recently they hired a professor from York University to do corporate planning. Is there no one in Cape Breton who can do that?
I say the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion should look at Devco because it is something which can be used much more effectively than it is being used now to create the kind of economic assistance which is so appropriate in that part of Canada passed by temporarily by economic events and which has been so slow in recovering partly because the government has not taken any imaginative or meaningful steps to let it do what it does best.
The imprimatur of this budget must begin and end with the Prime Minister. He is the man who sets the priorities, and the Deputy Prime Minister helps. The attitude which has been created in the country puzzles me. I am not a student of political science, I do not have any great parliamentary or historical expertise, but I wondered why the Prime Minister in many cases seemed to take such a personal acerbic approach. Anyone who does not agree with him somehow is alienated- they are not Canadian or they are somehow against the national interest. That may not be true, but it is the way I perceive it. I wondered why. Then I began to remember some of the terrible things he said about the party he now leads. I do not know whether or not that gives one any insight into the attitude which seems to be causing trouble all over the country.
The Budget-Mr. Mac Kay
I have looked at some of his writings. I looked at sort of an anthology, it is interesting reading. It was published when he was minister of justice. It is entitled: "Federalism and the French Canadians". It is an interesting book, but I do not have time to read a lot of it into the record. One thing which has troubled me and many politicians in the country is polarization in Canada; far better that the Liberal party had some members in Alberta, far better that the Conservative party had some members in Quebec. However, the NDP do not have a hope of getting members anywhere. They will be like the Creditistes after the next election; they will be gone.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I will tell the House why they will be gone. Look at this country from coast to coast-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Tell us what great things you did for the maritimes.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: The member talks about the great things we did for the maritimes. For years the Conservative party was the poor man's socialist in Nova Scotia when Bob Stanfield was premier.
In his book the present Prime Minister talked about the history of the Liberal party in Quebec. This article was entitled: "Some Obstacles to Democracy in Quebec". Page 119 reads in part as follows:
But power entails responsibilities; and there is no doubt that the Liberals tragically failed to shoulder theirs. A party cannot have the approval of a majority of the electorate for well over half a century without accepting much of the blame for that electorate's political immaturity. If French Canadians even today have learnt so little about democracy, if they twist its rules so shockingly, if they are constantly tempted by authoritarianism, it is to a large degree because the Liberal party has been miserably remiss in its simple political duty. Instead of educating the French-speaking electorate to believe in democracy, the Liberals seem content to cultivate the ignorance and prejudice of the electorate.
I think that is shocking. I do not agree with it, but that is what he wrote. The book continues:
But the fact remains that throughout most of its existence the federal Liberal party was overwhelmingly an English-speaking party. And that majority in my view should bear the blame for serious faults of omission with respect to the backwardness of democracy in Quebec . .. the shameful incompetence of the average Liberal MP from Quebec was a welcome asset to a government that needed little more than a herd of-
I do not understand this, I cannot translate this word.
-anes savants to file in when the division bell rang. The party strategists had but to find an acceptable stable master-
And he called them "donkeys". If he would say that about the party he now leads, then it is more clear to me now why he takes that attitude toward some provincial governments which disagree with him.
My time is about up, but I should like to refer briefly to the constitutional debate which will be coming back into the House. I would like to emphasize that I hope the quality of the debate, which has been very high, will be allowed to continue in the House of Commons. I came across a piece of literature the other day by a writer, James Russell Lowell, which I hope

November 5, 1980
The Budget-Mr. Mac Kay
summed up the attitude of members of Parliament of all parties in responding to the needs of their constituents. He talked about the man who was willing to sink half his present repute for the freedom to think. There was more to the effect that this same man, be his cause strong or weak, would gladly risk the rest for the freedom to speak. That is exactly what members of Parliament want to do-have the freedom to speak-and if the government co-operates they will do that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I did not want to interrupt the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) when he was speaking because he is such a fine speaker. I have admired him for a long time, even before I came to Parliament. For one thing, he was always accurate with his information. I know the hon. member did not intend to mislead the House, but he and some of his colleagues, especially from British Columbia, have been misleading the House. He did so today by stating the New Democratic Party's position falsely with respect to a resource control amendment to the constitution. The hon. member must know that the position is quite clear-it adds to the ownership of provincial resources by dealing with interprovincial trade and other matters.
The hon. member must also know that it is just illogical for a party to advocate an amendment which is less than the existing situation. So he should not mislead the House by indicating that the New Democratic Party is pressing for an amendment which would result in less than the existing constitution allows the provinces. Indeed, it is more. I ask the hon. member not to mislead the House in that way.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I will recognize the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) because the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) has indicated to the Chair and to the House that this is a matter of privilege. The absence of a motion and of argument to that effect lead me to believe that we are into a matter of debate rather than of privilege. The Chair does not have the right to reach a conclusion before any input is made on the subject. My current inclination is to advise the hon. member that he does not appear to have a question of privilege. I will now hear the hon. member for Central Nova. I want to emphasize that what I have said to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway applies equally to the hon. member for Central Nova.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention made by the hon. member for the New Democratic Party. He is quite right. In some policy matters, such as the environment and civil rights, there is a certain amount of agreement between our parties although we have disagreed in other areas.
I welcome his assurance that he is saying now that what he really supports is ownership and he does not want to see the
resource base of the provinces undermined by the federal government. He does not want to see the provinces lose what they now have. I welcome his correction, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to misstate the NDP position but that was the way I understood it. I understood that having lost their chance of any leverage they now find themselves like a eunuch. They are a minority party in a majority parliament which they probably went too far and too fast trying to accommodate.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: We want something for our region.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I very much respect the NDP members who come and came from British Columbia, particularly my good friend Stuart Leggatt. I think it is terrible that with 40 per cent of their caucus from British Columbia, including the fine justice critic from Burnaby, they are not being given an opportunity to sit on the constitution committee.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be able to participate in this debate. First, I want to convey my congratulations to the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) on behalf of my constituents on the presentation of his first budget to the Parliament of Canada. The budget will clearly establish a sound basis for the economy over the long term by taking the necessary steps to deal with the problems in the area of energy. This includes Canada's reliance on oil imports, the deficit, productivity, employment, and inflation. Furthermore, the budget introduced and tabled by the Minister of Finance will continue to strengthen the stronger regions of the country, like Alberta, and assist those other regions which are somewhat less fortunate.
I also want to congratulate the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) for introducing a national energy program which allows Canadians throughout the country to participate in and benefit from this prudent and responsible national energy program.
I represent an area in this country which, over the years, has experienced more than its fair share of what I would deem to be economic casualties, these casualties being exceptionally high unemployment, slow economic growth, sky-rocketing energy costs and, yes, a high rate of migration of young people who have had to leave their communities in search of economic security and go elsewhere to pursue their careers. But despite these setbacks my constituents from the towns of New Waterford, Glace Bay, Dominion and the counties of Cape Breton and Richmond remain loyal to Canada. In remaining loyal to Canada I suggest they are good Canadians. In being good Canadians I believe they are excited about their future and they are very eager to play a meaningful part in realizing the potential of our region and, indeed, our country.
Notwithstanding this sense of optimism, we are aware of those problems. We are aware that the solutions to those problems will not be easy to find. This budget, unlike the previous one, attempts to address those issues in very specific ways. But before I go on to this particular budget I would like to review the previous budget introduced by the hon. member
November 5, 1980

for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). In introducing his budget he placed before the people of Canada an energy plan which, in my opinion, he did not really understand. He could not conclude an agreement with the producing provinces which prior to the election would have been very easy to accomplish. The energy tax proposed in that budget was not fully enumerated. The proposed national energy bank's objectives were vague at best.
Of course, when it came to research and development across this country we had the hon. member from St. John's West indicating that his plan of action was to engage in further studies of tax incentives. The Crosbie way-if I may call it that-to increase employment opportunities was to reduce the deficit or, better yet, to provide more incentives to the private sector and, particularly, to his good friends the multinationals. His best move, which every member of this House recalls very well, was the imposition of an 18-cent excise tax on gasoline. We know what the people of Canada thought about that.
The budget before us addresses these questions very clearly. On behalf of my constituents I would indicate what the differences are, particularly as they affect the farmers and fishermen in my constituency. For instance, under the Crosbie budget diesel fuel in 1981 would cost $1.19 per gallon, while under our budget it will cost $1.06 per gallon. In 1982 the cost under the Crosbie budget would have been $1.36 as compared to $1.23 under our budget. In 1983, the cost under the Crosbie budget would have been $1.88 as compared to $1.41 under our budget. In 1984 the price per gallon for diesel fuel under the Crosbie budget-


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I will permit a question at the end of my remarks, if there is time.
In 1984 the price per gallon of diesel fuel under the Crosbie budget would have been $2.27, and under our national energy program it will be $1.63. That is a difference of 64 cents.
With respect to gasoline, the price per gallon under the Crosbie budget, back in 1979, was $1.56, and under our program it will be $1.36 in 1981. The figures for 1982 are $1.75 under the Crosbie budget and $1.53 under ours, for 1983 under the Crosbie budget $2.32, and $1.71 under ours. For 1984, under the great paragon and defender of the little guy, the price was to be $2.63 as compared to our $1.95, a 68-cent difference.
The fiasco does not end there, it goes on to the price of natural gas at the Toronto city gate. Under the 1979 budget introduced by the hon. member for St. John's West, in 1980 the price would be $2.75 while our price is, unfortunately, $2.90. But when we come to 1981 the price under the Conservative budget would be $3.45 whereas our price will be
The Budget-Mr. Dingwall
$3.05. Then we go on to 1984 when the price under the Crosbie budget would be $7.90 while our price under the national energy program is $4.60. There is a difference of $3.30. Shame on the hon. member for St. John's West!


Mr. Siddon:: Full of deceit.


David Charles Dingwall: Of course this endless barrage on the Canadian public continues with crude oil prices. In 1981 the Conservatives proposed under their budget a price of $25.20 per barrel. Our price is $24.90. For 1983 their proposed price was $46.70, whereas our price is $34 per barrel, a substantial difference. Of course for 1984, the hon. member for St. John's West who talks about defending the little guy and who worries about the low-income Canadian, set the price of crude oil per barrel at $55.30. Under our proposal the price in 1984 will be $40.50 per barrel. There is a difference of $15.20.


Thomas Edward Siddon: You are misleading the public.


David Charles Dingwall: That is the price of the great defender of the little guy.


John Horton McDermid: That will be thrown back at you in the next election, my friend. Be very careful.


David Charles Dingwall: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, I have shaken a few nerves of members on the opposite side.
The national energy program is of particular importance to the economy of Nova Scotia. The Government of Canada will act to resolve regulatory issues so that the construction of the natural gas pipeline extension through Quebec into the mari-times may begin as soon as possible. The pipeline will be reversible. The government will involve itself in the construction of the main line if necessary. The Government of Canada has provided a sum of $500 million to be set aside for that particular purpose.
I was interested to hear the comments of the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) who has now left the chamber. However, he did not refer to the comments and the position taken by the Premier of New Brunswick on this particular pipeline. The hon. member talked about his own premier, John Buchanan, but he made no mention of the Premier of New Brunswick or of his comments on this particular pipeline.
Under the national energy program, grants will be provided for conversion or replacement of oil fired heating systems to enable home owners and businesses to use natural gas, propane, wood, solar or other regional appropriate fuels. At least initially conversions to electricity will not be eligible, since much of it is generated from oil.


John Horton McDermid: Not in Ontario.


David Charles Dingwall: The taxable grants will cover 50 per cent of conversion costs up to a maximum grant of $800. Some 200,000 homes in Nova Scotia are currently oil heated. The program target is the conversion of at least 171,000 homes by the year 1990. In the transportation sector grants of $400 per

November 5, 1980
The Budget-Mr. Dingwall
vehicle will be available to commercial fleet operators to assist in the conversion of motor vehicles from gasoline to propane fuel systems.
This budget, unlike the previous budget, has particular significance to the economy of industrial Cape Breton.


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes, it finishes it off. That is the end of it.


David Charles Dingwall: I was hoping that the hon. member for Central Nova would have remained in the chamber so that we could have an interchange of some of the facts which he so eloquently tried to put before the House. Nova Scotia will be eligible for $175 million in federal funds to help finance the conversion of oil fired electrical generating plants to coal. Coleson Cove in New Brunswick is one example, and Tufts Cove in Nova Scotia is another example. Nova Scotians will also be eligible for federal funds for the demonstration of advanced coal use technologies. This will include the development of fluidized-bed combustion at a utility-scale power plant in Cape Breton. The new technology allows the use of high-sulphur coals with minimal environmental impact.
When I heard the hon. member for Central Nova talk about the wonderful things that he and his party could do for this country, I wondered where he was as the junior minister of DREE for six months. Where was he?


John Carnell Crosbie: Where were you?


David Charles Dingwall: Did he provide any moneys for the Donkin Mines? Not one copper under the Tories! The federal government has provided $14 million for tunnelling at the Donkin Mine, while the Tories, the paragons and defenders of the little guy, have done nothing. This government has also provided $50 million for the period 1980-83, and another $100 million for the period 1984-85 for coal technologies.
Also, the coal testing institute will be established in Cape Breton with $4 million of federal funding for research to support development of regional coal reserves. We do not need to study any further tax incentives for research and development, because we do it.


John Horton McDermid: That is why R and D dropped down to below 1 per cent of the GNP.


David Charles Dingwall: These measures, when taken collectively, will enable many residents of industrial Cape Breton to participate in a real way in the expansion of the coal industry. It is my belief that employment will increase, and when one uses the multiplier effect, these measures will have a dramatic impact on our local economies.
The hon. member for Central Nova indicated in his remarks that the government was doing very little relative to the requests of Sydney Steel Corporation. I would remind him that this government has made a commitment of $50 million. When the same request was made of his government, it took absolutely no decision and made no decision whatsoever to provide that money.
The hon. member for Central Nova also suggested that there should be a major shake-up in the Cape Breton Development Corporation. We had a big shake-up in the Cape Breton Development Corporation by getting rid of that junior minister, whom they call, in the coal mines of my constituency, "Elmer Fub".
In relation to these particular projects in my area of Canada, conservation measures have also been introduced. While encouraging conversion from oil, the national energy program will give increased support for the upgrading of home insulation. Under the Canadian Home Insulation Program, approximately $61 million has been provided to about 156,000 households in Nova Scotia and, I would add, it is tax deductible. A $30 million industrial conservation program which is unique to the Atlantic provinces will fund up to 50 per cent of the cost of energy efficiency improvement in industry. This will reduce vulnerability to energy price increases and enhance its competitiveness in national and international markets.
In addition to these particular measures, my government has not increased personal income taxes. There is no de-indexing of pensions, a possibility suggested by members opposite. There has been an extension of the small business development bonds-


John Carnell Crosbie: Those are my bonds. Give me credit.


David Charles Dingwall: -for three months at a cost of $50 million. Petro-Canada's mandate will be expanded to play a bigger role in the oil and gas industry. And, of course, one of the major boosts to the economies of the Atlantic region is a special 50 per cent investment tax credit to promote industrial development in those parts of Canada most adversely affected by economic disparities. Most manufacturing and processing activities will qualify for this tax credit, which includes such things as buildings, machinery and equipment.
The Registered Retirement Savings Plan and the Registered Home Owners Savings Plan have been kept intact.
I have highlighted some of the major things which will take place in Atlantic Canada as a result of this very prudent and reasonable budget and far-reaching national energy program. But it does not stop in Atlantic Canada. It also helps western Canada. Under the national energy program the natural gas bank will bolster the cash flow and viability of the small Canadian natural gas producers. The national energy program will encourage diversification of the western economy, and hence ensure continued prosperity to this rich part of our country by supporting the establishment of a petrochemical industry based on natural gas rather than oil, which will serve to concentrate in Alberta, as it ought to.
The national energy program provides a new pricing formula for oil and gas that will stimulate oilsands and heavy oil development and expand domestic markets for Alberta natural gas producers by making natural gas a more attractive alternative to oil in Canada.
November 5, 1980

One of the most important measures announced in the national energy program is a $4 billion economic development fund for the west. The Government of Canada recognizes that all of Canada benefits when its regions prosper, and since the west has the resource base to support unprecedented prosperity, one objective of the national energy program is to help transform this potential into reality.
It is anticipated that this money will be used for a number of infrastructure improvements, in particular for the early upgrading of the railroad system and for the improvement of ports to enhance the access of western Canadian products to world markets. The details of these expenditures, Mr. Speaker, will be worked out by the federal government in consultation with the four western provinces in recognition of the need to foster a harmonious, co-operative relationship between all governments in Canada.
In conclusion, I should like to return to a comment I made earlier with respect to the people of Cape Breton. I said that they were good Canadians. What does that mean, Mr. Speaker? These are not words that I use lightly. Fundamental to the concept of being a good Canadian, I believe, is the idea of sharing. What, after all, has held this country together for the last 113 years, if not a generosity of spirit and a willingness to share? It has been said many times that Canada is composed of a diversity of peoples, with differing ideas, aspirations, and needs. Throughout our history we have witnessed the difficulty with which such a wonderful mixture becomes, and remains, one nation. It is testimony to the generosity of spirit and good will of Canadians, Mr. Speaker, that we have reached the state we enjoy today-one of undoubted prosperity and tremendous prospects for the future.
This is not to gloss over the strains that are evident in recent years in confederation; it is, however, to call attention to the positive side of being Canadian-that about which we can be very proud but that which is rarely mentioned nowadays-our national characteristic of sharing.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the strength of this budget is the fact that it embodies the concept of sharing. It is fitting that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance introduced this particular budget at this time in our history. It recognizes that Canada needs strong regions; therefore, policies directed toward those regions are designed to ensure that they remain strong. But it also recognizes, Mr. Speaker, that our ultimate goal and aim as Canadians are to have all regions strong. It therefore contains so many commendable policies- some of which I have outlined-that I urge all hon. members from all political parties to support this budget.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Huron-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am glad of the opportunity to participate in this budget debate, particularly since I was among those members denied an opportunity to speak when the constitution was being discussed. The budget brought down last Tuesday, like the constitutional measure debated the week before, is an enormous deception launched upon the public to the accompaniment of
The Budget-Mr. Cardiff
great advertising-paid for by the taxpayers who are being deceived, with their own money. It distorts the true nature and impact of both the constitutional plans and the budgetary plans of the government. I want to take the opportunity now, Mr. Speaker, to speak for the concerns of my own riding, and to register dismay at the measures this House is being asked to approve.
I would note at the outset that my riding rejected the campaign promises of the Liberal party last February, wisely, as it turns out, because almost every promise of substance has been betrayed in this House in the past two weeks. I do not suppose for a moment, Mr. Speaker, that the voters of my riding elected me solely on my own account. I campaigned on the Crosbie budget. The voters of Huron-Bruce knew it and voted for it. We do not like high energy prices, but we accepted that they were necessary and we understood that the Crosbie budget had faced necessity honestly and squarely.
Huron-Bruce, Mr. Speaker, is a largely rural constituency lying along the shores of Lake Huron in southwestern Ontario. At one time the finest wheat in the world was grown in this part of Ontario; it was the breadbasket of the British empire. We no longer grow wheat in such a significant way because the enormous plains of western Canada have opened up new and bountiful wheatlands which contribute to the wealth of all Canadians. But we have no resentment that the west is now Canada's leading wheat region, for we have adapted and moved with the times. We now produce other crops and we have, by and large, thrived.
Our largest single crop now is corn for livestock feed, because Bruce county is Ontario's largest producer of beef, and Huron county is second. These two counties also are the largest producers of barley in Ontario, and among the leading producers of mixed grains. Apart from producing our own calves, we also use our excellent grasslands to finish western cattle for market, producing the distinctive flavour in beef for which the grasslands of this part of Ontario are particularly suited, and supplying Canadian tables with the lowest priced beef in the world.
But our agricultural economy is very mixed. Over half a million hogs were marketed from this area last year, as well as some $20 million worth of poultry, and $40 million worth of dairy produce. We also have our specialty crops. This year, Huron county, which is Canada's largest grower of white beans, produced about $40 million worth of these beans, the vast majority of the crop being exported and thus contributing to Canada's balance of trade.
There are also many vigorous towns in Huron-Bruce: Hen-sall, in the south, with its large elevator complexes, is a shipping centre for produce of many sorts. Brussels, in the centre, is the home of stockyards which are among the liveliest in the province. In the northeast the village of Formosa, famous for a century as the home of the famous Formosa springs and still remembered in Ontario for the quality of the beer produced using its waters, is now home to a new trout farming industry which will serve the restaurant industry of Ontario and its homes.

November 5, 1980
The Budget-Mr. Cardiff
Just to the east of Formosa lie large gravel deposits that will in future make the village of Mildmay a major shipment centre and supplier of central Ontario's sand and gravel. In the northwest the riding rubs up against Kincardine and the Douglas Point nuclear power station. This area is now growing a new energy-efficient greenhousing industry, using the waste heat from the power plant, and in future the same location will attract other energy-consuming industries. In the southwest lies the Great Lakes port of Goderich, which not only ships grain to the world but is also a producer of widely exported road machinery, and is home to a mining operation that exports salt to the central markets of the United States through Chicago. This mine is now undergoing an expansion worth some $37 million, without a penny of federal assistance.
Elsewhere, in other small towns of the riding, small businesses struggle to survive or to become big businesses, producing farm equipment, auto parts, earthmoving machinery, textiles, and sailing craft. For these industries the federal government has done little. They survive, if they do, by the personal initiative of the people who work in them.
The federal government's most notable initiative since the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) took office was to close down the Clinton airbase, which had been of major importance to the local economy, leaving behind nothing but empty buildings which now house some of the small businesses that have sprung from the people of the district.
The point I am making, Mr. Speaker, is that although the economy of my riding has prospered on its agricultural base, we have paid a price. We have been unable to develop and maintain a level of industry which could keep all our sons and daughters employed, and over the years a great many of them have gone elsewhere seeking a livelihood. As one result we in Huron-Bruce have always had strong links of kinship with the west. There have been migrations from our area to the west since the 1880s, first to open up the farmlands, and more recently to work in the cities and in the oil and gas fields.
We still have a vigorous economy, but we have remained vigorous by adapting and by exporting our surplus population to the cities of Ontario and to the west. This is our history. This government has not made it easy for us to develop our own industrial base, but we have never expected to thrive because the federal government grabbed someone else's resources for us. It would be far better for us if this government concentrated on helping us develop what we have so we can continue to flourish.
A couple of weeks ago the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) stood in this House and told us about his own trip west long ago on the harvest excursion. That was a feature of life for which many of our farmers were grateful during the lean times. In cash-hungry times the west was a source of money by which many Ontario farming families survived. More recently, many of our sons and daughters have turned to the west and found a new home there without forgetting their old one. It is this kind of movement and link which helps
create Canada's identity and strength. The links between farmers in Ontario and the west are strong. In the beef industry they get progressively stronger. No farmer who has seen his sons grow up and set up on their own believes you can have a happy family by trying to run your sons' operations as if they were yours.
We recognize that the west has never seriously asked the rest of Canada to pay world prices for oil and gas, as our American customers do. What the west has asked for is serious negotiation of fair prices and a chance to promote its own development. Westerners do not want a federal fund for western development because it is just an attempt to use their own money to tell them how to run their own development.
I do not suggest for a moment that people in my riding, or anywhere else in Ontario, like large increases in oil and gas prices. But they accept increases as necessary to promote conservation, industrial efficiency, and further development of our own resources. What they do not like, and what I hope they will not accept, is a federal government grab for the resources of any province or combination of provinces, so that the federal government can save itself from its own spending disasters.
Let me be clear on this, Mr. Speaker. All Canadians know by now what the people of my riding knew when they voted to accept the program of the Crosbie budget, namely, that the price of our fuels must rise. I think the vast majority of Canadians agree on the principle that Canadians should not have to pay world prices. I believe the great majority of westerners agree with that principle. But before the federal government tries to grab the resources of any province, I think most Canadians would like to see the government get its own financial house in order, without dropping a billion dollars here, and adding $2.7 billion to the debt there, resulting in a national debt now totalling $107 billion, with this year's interest alone at $1,390 per taxpayer.
In this budget we are presented with the picture of a federal government which has shown no clear evidence that it intended to negotiate seriously with the producing provinces on energy pricing. Instead, it is attempting to take matters into its own hands, deepening the divisions within the country. After all its efforts, energy prices are higher than those contained in the Crosbie budget, which hon. members over there said were too high. For utter bungling, Mr. Speaker, the government's management of energy pricing is equalled only by the cynicism of the constitutional resolution it rammed through the House two weeks ago. That measure so angered the provinces that six of them are taking the government to court. So that the Canadian people would not find out how far the government's constitutional proposal differed from what they said it was, the government made sure the constitutional proposals could not be amended in this House. They invoked closure so that the elected representatives of the people were prevented from discussing it here in the Parliament of Canada, before the debate had scarcely begun. All of this was accompanied by a manipulative advertising campaign designed to make Canadians believe the government was bringing home our constitu-
November 5, 1980

tion, instead of this weird concoction of the Prime Minister's, which is not our constitution but a bundle of new principles that he wants the British Parliament to pass for us so Canadians will not get a clear sense of what is happening.
The same kind of thinking underlies this budget, Mr. Speaker. The government campaigned on a promise to keep energy costs lower than those in the Crosbie budget, and it has the gall to suggest that it has kept those promises. I would like to draw attention to certain aspects of the budget where the government has broken its promises and betrayed the faith of those who were asked to elect it.
There are many issues I would like to touch on in this budget but one area I do not want to neglect is agriculture. Agriculture should not be neglected by any government in Canada, considering that fully one-quarter of our jobs comes from the food production sector. Yet agriculture is neglected by this government and this budget. Even worse, the very promises upon which this government campaigned for the votes of farmers in Canada have been betrayed. Let me quote the words of the present Minister of Agriculture when he sat in opposition last year. He said, as reported in Hansard at page 238, for October 16, 1979, the following:
-I say that in any country you want to check in the world-
And the hon. member continued:
-those who neglect agriculture make the rest of society suffer for that.
These words are wise and true. Everyone eats, and pays increased prices when the cost of food production rises. Yet this government has neglected agriculture, that very sector which the minister said we should not neglect.
Farmers are not fools. They noted the Liberal campaign promise to exempt fuels used in food production from excise tax. They will also note that the main effect of that exemption will be not so much to protect them as to protect consumers from the increase in food costs that would have been passed on. When farmers look at what this budget means to their own pocketbooks, they will see that over the next three of four years farmers will be paying the same increases for fuels for their personal use that all other Canadians are paying. For reasons I shall come to, farmers may well find themselves at a disadvantage compared with urban Canadians because they live beyond the range of natural gas lines.
The Minister of Agriculture when he was in opposition, as reported in Hansard for October 16, 1979, said that the cost of land had risen by 14 per cent the previous year, and he added, referring to the Clark government:
This, in itself, underscores the tremendous need for increased funding of the Farm Credit Corporation. This government should practise what it preaches and put up the money for an industry which benefits all Canadians. It is ripe for expansion.
The minister is back in office, Mr. Speaker, and the industry is still ripe for expansion. The minister was right when he said that if agriculture is neglected the whole of society suffers. But the minister has apparently had no effect in trying to convince his cabinet colleagues not to neglect agriculture.
The Budget-Mr. Cardiff
Where is the extra money for the Farm Credit Corporation which the minister urged our government to find? The legislation to increase funding was ready two years ago when the minister was last in office. He helped defeat our government before we could bring it in, though he demanded it be brought in. Where is it now? Young farmers who would like to keep on farming are finding themselves unable to get credit to buy land. The minister takes pride in the favourable rates offered under the Farm Credit Act, but favourable rates mean nothing if the money is not there to lend.
This leads me to another point. In the Crosbie budget provision was made to allow small businesses to issue development bonds which would cut their cost of borrowing in half. Small business creates the vast majority of jobs in Canada. Both small business and the hundreds of thousands of Canadians unemployed need this provision. After defeating the Crosbie budget the present government reintroduced this provision in the April 21 mini-budget which was sneaked into the throne speech debate. This measure, after all, made sense, and was necessary if small business was to go on creating jobs. But legislation to give legal effect to this provision has never been introduced in this House. As a result, banks are unwilling to take up such bonds without a guarantee from the small business issuing them that they will pay the full commercial lending rates, or even more, if the government reneges on its commitment.
Therefore, small businesses are afraid to issue these bonds, for no business can afford to operate in that climate of risk under a government which has broken so many other promises. If the government were really serious about making this provision of the Crosbie budget available and usable, it would bring in the legislation giving it effect. Instead, it has announced a three-month extension of the period within which bonds can be issued. Thus a measure which is presently hampered by a lack of the confirming legislation is going to be hampered for a longer time than originally announced. The question is: when is it going to be made effective? This is the same kind of window-dressing and illusion as the Minister of Agriculture's farm credit, which is advertised at a favourable rate but is not available and usable.
Let me touch briefly on another aspect of the budget which will affect all Canadians when they buy their food, heat their own homes or rent heated homes, when they drive their cars, and when they take buses or trains. That is the aspect of fuel prices. Most Canadians accept the fact that fuel prices must rise. Of course, the price of everything dependent on fuel will rise too.
This budget does two things which will make it more difficult for a great many Canadians to cope with increased fuel costs than the Crosbie budget did. First of all, it eliminates the energy tax credit which would have amounted to $220 a year for the typical low or middle-income earner in my riding. Second, it builds in a number of incentives to encourage a switch from heating with oil to heating with natural gas, but it gives no help to those who cannot get access to that gas.
4482

November 5, 1980
The Budget-Mr. Cardiff
A strong penalty price is imposed on heating oil to make people want to switch away from it, and there are incentives to gas companies to extend their lines so that people can switch. But we have had natural gas for years in parts of my riding, and many small towns have wished the lines would be extended to them. Does the minister really believe that the small towns and farms of my riding, or for that matter, the small towns and farms of his own area in Cape Breton, will be served by gas in the near future? His attitude seems to be, "Let them chop wood", or in the case of his own riding, "Let them dig coal." While the lucky Canadians with gas wake up to warm houses, the unlucky in my riding and his will tumble out of bed shivering all winter to make their coal or wood fire. That seems to be the minister's attitude, for he has made oil prohibitively expensive and has given no tax credit to shield those who cannot get gas.
It would have been far better if the minister had phased in his penalty price for heating oil as and when gas became available, or had revived the Crosbie energy tax credit for those with no access to gas. But the minister has given us a budget that will raise heating oil by 77 cents a gallon by 1983, 16 cents a gallon more than the Crosbie budget, and with no tax relief.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me note how this budget has broken the government's promise to all Canadians that oil would rise this year less than $4 a barrel. The wellhead price of oil has risen by $3 a barrel this year, but in July the government added 75 cents a barrel at the refinery, and now in this budget another 80 cents a barrel, bringing the total price increase this year to $4.55 a barrel. That is not only greater than the $4 the Prime Minister promised to be below, but also greater than the increase announced in the Crosbie budget that the Prime Minister voted against. The Prime Minister's promise was not merely to keep the wellhead increase below $4 but to keep the total price increase below $4. My colleague, the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis), asked the Prime Minister this on May 1, and the Prime Minister repeated the member's question as he answered it. He said:
He wants to know, when we say our price will be less than $4 a barrel increase, if we will try and make up for that "less" by some other taxes elsewhere. The answer to that is "no".
Well, now the answer is yes, Mr. Speaker. Despite the Prime Minister's repeated commitment, a barrel of oil now costs $4.55 more than at the end of last year. Gasoline, of course, has risen even more.
To conclude then, Mr. Speaker, this government has broken its promise to Canadians on oil prices, it has made a mockery of the small business development bonds, and it has introduced natural gas incentives that leave many Canadians penalized because they cannot switch to gas and they cannot get an energy tax credit. The Canadian Council on Social Development has said that this budget will have a devastating effect on low-income Canadians. Its executive director said, and I quote:
Essentially they are having the same increase in energy costs, but they are not receiving the benefit of the energy tax rebate which was included in the previous budget, which would have off-set the energy cost by about $220 per year.
This council speaks from a position that cannot be accused of partisan bias, and it estimates that this budget will increase the cost burden on average Canadian families by $500 more a year than the Crosbie budget. In rural areas where gas is not available, the costs, I would add, may be even higher.
This is not what we were promised, Mr. Speaker, when this government sought election. It is a sad reminder of the many times in the past when Canadians have been deceived by this government, which seeks power at all costs, through manipulation of public opinion, and now through an undermining of Canada's provinces which stand out against this kind of manipulation.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, on a passing note before I start, I wonder if the hon. member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Cardiff) has explained to his farmers about whom he spoke so eloquently during the last few minutes, that a farmer using 6,000 gallons of diesel fuel a year over a four-year period would pay over $8,000 more for that diesel fuel under the Crosbie budget than he is going to pay under our budget. I wonder if he told his farmers that.
I rise today, not only to speak in support of this budget but to address myself to some of the more basic principles that have become part of this debate. This budget, and the accompanying national energy policy in particular, are much more than a mere accounting exercise or a simple statement of how government intends to raise money and how government intends to spend money. What we have before this House is a revolutionary gutsy plan of action to break the stranglehold that a small number of powerful foreign multinational oil companies have had on the collective throats of the Canadian people for too long.
Oil and gas energy is as fundamental and as basic to our individual existence or collective existence as is oxygen or water. Without an assured and a reasonably priced supply of energy, we as a society, whether it be as a farmer, fisherman in my riding, housewife or businessman, simply cannot function. Simply put, energy is too important a commodity to be placed today solely in the self-serving hands of foreign, powerful multinational oil and gas companies. The people of this country recognize that. They have known it for years. They have grown impatient waiting for the government to act.
In the last election my party promised to Canadianize to a substantial degree our oil and gas industry. We promised the taxpayers that they, through Petro-Canada, would have a substantially bigger share in this country's oil and gas reserves. We are delivering on those promises, not only because we gave our word but because to do anything less during these troubled times, these times of great turmoil in the Middle East, would be an historic and dramatic betrayal of the people of this country. We have it within our power today to be self-sufficient in energy if we plan now to be no longer at the mercy of the oil companies in the Middle East whose only concerns are profits.
November 5, 1980

There are a number of schools of thought on how Canada can obtain self-sufficiency. One line of thought proposed by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) and the Conservative party is that the Government of Canada should continue to give untold millions of dollars to foreign-owned and controlled oil and gas companies. We are told we should trust those foreigners to spend that money wisely to look for new supplies of oil and gas.
Better still, or worse still, however you look at it, we are told we should trust those foreign oil companies to charge Canadians a fair and just price for gasoline and home heating fuel. Frankly, I do not for one second trust those foreign oil and gas companies as far as I can throw them, and that is not very far.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: They have demonstrated time and time again that the concern of one lonely Canadian like myself is but water off their backs. I have two questions for the hon. member for St. John's West, for members opposite or anyone else in this House or in this land who would be naive enough to suggest that we, as Canadians, should leave our energy future in the hands of the multinationals. Whose interests will they serve in the crunch? Yours and mine, or the board of directors?
Second, where do Canadian consumers stand in their list of priorities? The answers are obvious, or should be obvious to all reasonable men, at least. Their priorities are profits, and when it comes to the crunch they will not be thinking about the people of Canada, those in Newfoundland, British Columbia or Alberta.
Here are just a few of the positive measures contained in the national energy program tabled in this House by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) on October 28. Our policy is based on three sound and fundamental principles. We will ensure security of supply and ultimately energy independence for this country. Our target date is 1990. We will provide the opportunity for Canadians to participate in energy industries, especially in the oil and gas sector, and we will ensure fairness in pricing and sharing of revenues not only among governments but also within the industry.
I will be specific about some of our goals. While we recognize that oil imports may rise somewhat for the next few years, our plan would see those imports of oil from the Middle East dramatically decrease, and by 1990 our imports would reach zero.


Mr. King:: Do you want to bet?


Brian Vincent Tobin: We would ensure Canadianization. That is the plan. Certainly no man is fool enough, as some would suggest, to try to know everything which can possibly happen in this world, but we are man enough and we care enough at least to have a plan, at least to try, and at least not to lie down and die nor to be the trained parrots of foreign multinationals. That we will not do. I can assure the hon. member of that.
The Budget-Mr. Tobin
Second, our goal is Canadianization of the petroleum industry which is now dominated by foreign interests, and that goal will be actively pursued through programs designed to achieve at least 50 per cent Canadian ownership by 1990. We will provide direct incentive payments for oil and gas exploration, and that development program will be structured to favour investment by Canadian companies and Canadians who live anywhere in this country.
A final and important aspect of our policy is that producing provinces will continue to have a share of oil and gas revenues.


Frederick John King: You are all heart.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Listen carefully. That share is higher than in any other state or province in any other petroleum-producing nation in this world. 1 will give one example. Under our formula the province of Alberta will have revenues of $100 billion between 1980 and 1990.


John Horton McDermid: It should; it owns the resources.


Brian Vincent Tobin: As a young lad from Newfoundland I cannot find any way to say that that is not reasonable nor fair. It appears perfectly reasonable to me. I think about our $2.5 billion debt, and this looks very reasonable. I do not begrudge Alberta that revenue. It is right and proper, and I certainly feel it is fair, and as a Newfoundlander I too look forward to the day when my province can maximize the benefits of offshore oil and gas.
As I said earlier, these measures are gutsy and revolutionary as far as the oil and gas industry in Canada is concerned. Because this government is in effect taking power out of the hands of the multinational oil and gas companies and giving that power back to the people of Canada, we expected a strong reaction from those powerful multinationals which would rather carry on as they always have, answerable and accountable to nobody but their shareholders and their boards of directors. Can it possibly be a surprise to anybody in this House that the big oil giants, whether they be Gulf, Shell, Imperial or Mobil, one after another have been muttering their displeasure at this government for our new initiatives on behalf of the people of Canada? Does it surprise anybody that these same companies could be brazen-faced enough, as we say in Newfoundland, to try to convince the people of Canada that it is not in Canada's best interests for Canadians to control Canadian oil and gas companies?
As incredible as that sounds, that is exactly what they are trying to convince the people of Canada. They are trying to convince us that it is not in our best interests to take control of our own oil and gas resources. We expected that kind of reaction, and I can assure hon. members that the people of Canada expected that kind of reaction, but what we did not expect was to witness the unholy spectacle of the hon. member for St. John's West standing in his place in this House-


John Horton McDermid: And being honest with the Canadian people.

November 5, 1980
The Budget-Mr. Tobin


Brian Vincent Tobin: -and spouting off the line, the arguments, the concerns and the fears of foreign oil and gas companies. Ele did so like a trained parrot. I have always felt that the mouth of the hon. member for St. John's West was somewhat like an unguided missile. Neither he nor anyone else in this House ever knows what he is going to say next. I suggest he is still shell-shocked by the bomb he dropped on December 13.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Because of the wit and unpredictability of the hon. member for St. John's West we have all enjoyed his humour on occasion in this House. He is a funny man, but this is no laughing matter. 1 want to tell hon. members that the hon. member for St. John's West said on October 29 in this House, and 1 quote from Hansard:
This is an interventionist budget on a massive scale. Now they are going to take power from the private sector. The oil and gas sector is no longer to be called private. If it is private, its privacy has been vastly interfered with.
I regret that the hon. member for St. John's West feels that the privacy of his powerful, foreign, bosom buddies may be interfered with, but we on this side of the House are more concerned about the privacy, the dignity and the way of life of the Canadian people than we are about maintaining the immoral profit levels of the foreign multinational oil and gas companies operating in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: In case there is any doubt left in the mind of the hon. member for St. John's West, let me confirm what he already suspects. This is indeed an interventionist budget. It is a budget which intervenes on behalf of and for the benefit of the people of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: It is a budget which tips the balance of power in favour of the people of this country. It is a budget and a national energy program which break the stranglehold which foreign multinationals have had on the throats of the people of this country. It is an energy policy made in Canada for Canadians by Canadians, and not dictated to us by some board room in the United States or Europe.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: In case hon. members opposite have not already figured it out, we on this side of the House are proud of that budget, and we are proud of that energy program.


John Horton McDermid: Talk about Norcen.


Brian Vincent Tobin: The hon. member for St. John's West, his colleague on the back bench who is hollering to himself, the Conservative party or its buddies in the oil industry would not understand that kind of pride. No, in their fanatic dedication to free enterprise, at any cost, hon. members opposite would sell this country's future down the river in order to ensure that some foreign company's books in the United States or Europe
or somewhere else in the world, balance at the end of the year. It was that same kind of fanaticism which led members of the Conservative party to the brilliant conclusion when they were in government that the right thing to do was not to increase Canadian ownership and control of our natural resources but to wipe out totally the little control and ownership we had. Yes, the hon. member for St. John's West and the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) were going to sell Petro-Canada and pass its assets over to their foreign bosom buddies.


John Horton McDermid: That is a lie.


Brian Vincent Tobin: However, we on this side of the House and, I am sure, the people of Canada, thank our lucky stars that their visit to this side of the House was so short that no serious damage was done.
What do the people of Canada think about Petro-Canada? A recent Gallup poll indicated that Canadian support of Petro-Canada is not only still very strong but also that that support is growing dramatically. Today more than 82 per cent of Canadians want Petro-Canada involved in exploration for oil and gas. That is up seven percentage points from last year. A solid majority of our people would like to see Petro-Canada continue buying oil and gas internationally. That percentage is 61 per cent today versus 57 per cent a year ago. And 62 per cent of the people of this country want to see Petro-Canada sell oil and gas at the retail level.
What does the Conservative party say about the feelings of the people of Canada? Hon. members opposite respond by putting forward trained parrots, one after another, who come to the defence not of the Canadian people but of the poor, helpless, foreign multinationals. The head trained parrot, the hon. member for St. John's West, predicted in his speech on October 29 that the people of Canada would, and I quote, "erect statues throughout Canada to Clark and Crosbie". Well, if there ever is a monument erected to "foot and mouth disease", 1 can assure the hon. member that statues will be erected, but not until somebody gets that bright idea! I hope someone in this vast country-I know many are listening to me now-will take up that suggestion. I will be the first to donate to that monument.
We have delivered, in our budget and in our energy program, what we promised in the election. It may bring some comfort to the hon. member for St. John's West in particular to know that it was not only the budget he produced that caused their defeat. No, it was the callous and cynical approach that hon. members opposite took with regard to the Canadian people that caused their downfall.
People's memories are not short, Mr. Speaker. Some people in the House, I am sure, particularly on that side, would like to believe that is so but people's memories are not short. They remember that it was the party opposite which promised decreased taxes, low unemployment, a stimulative deficit and
November 5, 1980

other goodies while in opposition, only to deliver just the opposite after they formed the government on May 22, 1979.
The party opposite is the party whose finance minister explained to the Canadian people that surely no one expected the PC party to live up to its election campaign promises. "Surely", explained the hon. member for St. John's West, once he had the heady taste of power-my God, 1 am beginning to sound like the Leader of the Opposition-"you did not honestly expect us to deliver on our promises and to keep our word." Well, hon. members opposite received the collective answer of the Canadian people on February 18. The people expected the Conservatives to keep their word. They trusted them once, but no more. The Canadian people made a wise choice on February 18, and the numbers show that.
Let us compare the so-called Crosbie budget to the Mac-Eachen budget with respect to gasoline prices. The prices vary, of course, from province to province in accordance with provincial sales taxes. However, for this comparison I will use the base rate. At the end of 1981 the people of Canada would have been paying $1.56 a gallon for gas under the Crosbie budget. Under the new budget they will only pay $1.36 a gallon That is a saving of 20 cents a gallon in the First year alone. In the second year, at the end of 1982, the Crosbie budget would have pushed the price up to $1.75 a gallon. Our projections now show that price at only $1.53 a gallon That is a saving of 22 cents a gallon. But in 1983 the savings become even more dramatic. By the end of 1983 the Crosbie price for a gallon of gas would have risen to $2.32 a gallon, and our projected price shows the price to be only $1.71, that is, our price will save the people of Canada 61 cents a gallon. By the end of 1984 the Canadian people will be paying 68 cents less per gallon because of the MacEachen budget.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Under your budget we will be walking.


Brian Vincent Tobin: My, oh my! Somebody throw some peanuts, please. I would much appreciate it because it would occupy the monkeys on the other side.
There will also be dramatic savings for the people of Canada in home heating oil prices. The projected base price for the consumer, under the Crosbie budget in 1984, would have been $1.96 a gallon. Our proposal will see home heating oil cost at a maximum of $1.51 a gallon, or a saving of 45 cents per gallon for the people of this country.
Under our budget and the national energy program, several programs and initiatives are introduced which will greatly benefit the people in my constituency, the people of Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe, and the people of Newfoundland in general. In terms of their personal taxes, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador welcome the announcement of the Minister of Finance of full indexing on their 1981 income tax. This indexing of 9.8 per cent on the personal exemptions and tax bracket limits will ensure that lower and middle-income families will not be forced into higher tax brackets. This measure will provide substantial savings to all Canadian tax-
The Budget-Mr. Tobin
payers and will allow them to keep pace with the rise in the cost of living.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the full indexing will mean that in 1981 the basic personal exemption will increase by an additional $280 to $3,170, and the allowable exemptions for a typical family of four with two children under 18 will rise by $630 to $7,130. For example, a married person with two dependants under 18, with an income of $11,000 in 1981, will save approximately $179 because of full indexing, as opposed to an unindexed income.
I notice that hon. members opposite have become quiet. I can only assume that for the first time they cut out the rhetoric and are learning something. Perhaps they have acquired some appreciation of this budget which does as we promised. It helps those first who need help most.
In 1981 as well, Mr. Speaker, the child tax credit will provide even greater savings for Newfoundlanders. It will rise from $238 per child in 1980 to $261 per child in 1981. And, good news for all, the income threshold above which the child tax credit benefits are reduced also will rise from $21,380 to $23,470.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: This increase will ensure that a greater number of families in Newfoundland and elsewhere who need the tax credit most will continue to benefit. In Newfoundland, in 1978 for example, there were 81,113 claims for the child tax credit and the average claim was approximately $433. In 1981, with the increases provided in our budget, the average claim in Newfoundland will rise to over $500.
The national energy program introduced by our government will benefit Canadians right across the country, but it provides some special initiatives for the people in Newfoundland. Recognizing my province's dependence on oil, the government is attempting to lower consumption in the province by ensuring that oil is used in the most efficient way. Newfoundlanders will be eligible to apply for grants under the new super-retrofit program. By providing grants up to a maximum of $800 to cover 50 per cent of the eligible costs, the government is urging Newfoundlanders to ensure that their homes are energy efficient. The moneys from this grant can be used to retrofit oil furnaces with devices which will mean lower consumption, and encourage further conservation with the use of additional insulation. In fact simply by retrofitting their oil furnaces with nozzles, retention heads and solenoid valves, the people of Newfoundland will be able to achieve 20 per cent savings in fuel.
On top of this Newfoundlanders will also be eligible for further grants under CHIP, providing them with grants of up to $500 to assist them in insulating their homes. This government has ensured that more Canadians will benefit from CHIP by increasing the budget for the program from $80 million annually to $265 million annually.
As you can see, contrary to what hon. members opposite would like the people of Canada to believe, our budget does

November 5, 1980
The Budget-Mr. Tobin
help first those who need most. Our gas prices will be lower than those proposed by the hon. member for St. John's West, and so will home heating costs. Further savings in home heating costs will be experienced by those who take advantage of the government's grants under both the super-retrofit program and CHIP. As well, Canadians will be able to keep pace with inflation because of full indexing. We have stuck to our commitments.
I should like to add as well that we have introduced a measure in particular for my part of the world, and for all parts of Canada where unemployment is high. It will create jobs in this country. Our budget introduces the 50 per cent investment tax credit for selected capital projects in areas of high unemployment. This is a dramatic step taken by the government to provide more jobs in those areas most in need. The program has been highly praised, for example, by Mr. Harvey Webber, president of the Atlantic Canada Plus Association. He views the tax credit as:
An important step to self-reliance and a chance in a lifetime to expand our manufacturing and processing industries.
I am happy to say that, from all indications, practically my whole riding will be eligible for this 50 per cent tax investment credit.
As well, the government is providing-and this is an important measure for Newfoundland-an equity contribution of up to $200 million to support hydro development on the lower Churchill River in Labrador. As well, the government will provide credit support to ensure that debt financing for the development can be obtained at acceptable rates. The hydro development in Labrador means a great deal to the people of my riding, the people of Newfoundland, and particularly the people of Labrador.
At the present time 40 per cent of Newfoundland's electric power comes from expensive oil-fired electricity plants. Oil consumption by the Holyrood power plant near St. John's will cost the people of Newfoundland $50 million this year at the subsidized rate. When the lower Churchill hydro development comes on stream, Newfoundland will immediately be able to shut down the oil-fired plant and will no longer be dependent upon costly oil for the generation of electricity. That power is brought down to help, first, the people of Newfoundland. Also Newfoundland will benefit financially from the exporting of some of the power generated from the lower Churchill development. But I say again that the power should be developed first for the benefit of Labradorians and Newfoundlanders. I realize the details will have to be worked out by the premier of our province, Premier Peckford, in consultation with the federal government.
Following on that line of thought there is another matter on which I want to set the record straight before taking my seat. The government and the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) have said time and time again that the Government of Canada will take whatever measures are necessary to ensure that when new Labrador hydro power comes on stream, my
province will be able to move that power across the province of Quebec to our markets. Despite what some provincial politicians are saying, that is the commitment of the government, the commitment of the Prime Minister of Canada, and the commitment I give to my constituents in Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe. The ball is now in Premier Peckford's court. It is up the Premier of Newfoundland and his government, with the financial assistance of the federal government, to find markets for Labrador power in our own province and elsewhere, and to bring a solid proposal to the Government of Canada. The people of Newfoundland have had enough words and constant partisan political bickering. I say in good conscience to Premier Peckford, it is time to show some good will; let us cut out the rhetoric and get on with the job together.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, listening to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat reminded me of the preacher who happened to leave his notes on the pulpit after the service was over. Someone glanced at them and saw the words, "argument weak, yell loudly". That is what came to my mind when I listened to the hon. member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin). Apparently he believes what he said because he endeavoured in the best way possible to substantiate his arguments, but in actual fact I think they leave a great deal to be desired.
In preparing for participation in this debate I was reminded of the opening words of a delgate from Samoa to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference in Jamaica some years ago. He opened his speech with these words:
Following the custom in my country, I would first want to thank our heavenly Father for His goodness.
Perhaps it would be well for us to realize and acknowledge that, in comparison to the needs of many, many people around the world, Canada has been signally blessed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alexander Bell Patterson: I am sure many people who have come to us from other parts of the world would give witness to that fact as well.
Just a few days ago I noticed on the front page of the Ottawa Citizen a reference to one of the families brought into this country because of the serious problems in southeast Asia. This family was hardly able to grasp the fact that there could be so much to enjoy in a country. They could hardly believe the goods available as they walked up and down the streets. The friendliness of the people was such that it caused them to stand in amazement and wonderment that there was a place in the world as good as Canada.
The fact we are now discussing serious and urgent problems cannot be blamed upon an unkind providence. But I believe they are the result of our inability to devise a system which would enable society to develop and utilize our abundance for the common good. Canada is uniquely blessed and endowed with vast reservoirs of natural resources, manpower which is
November 5, 1980

critically underutilized, and the energies, skills, will and enterprise to transform those resources into needed and desired products for the benefit of Canadians, and also a significant surplus to assist in meeting the requirements of others around the world.
We all remember the spirit of 1967 when Canadians were urged to let down their hair and celebrate 100 years of history. As we remember, the result was a great program all across the country, a promotional program which resulted in demonstrations, building projects, excitement, concerts, and a new awareness of what Canada was all about. At that time the satisfaction was real; the expectations were high as we faced the second century. But the question now is; what has happened? Instead of a buoyant and vibrant economy and happy, optimistic and enthusiastic people, we have a no-growth econo-
The Budget-Mr. Patterson
my and a population which is uncertain, apprehensive and disturbed.
In addition, instead of having a spirit of unity and harmony in this nation from sea to sea, the country is divided and struggling to maintain its equilibrium. What has happened over those few years?
Perhaps when 1 resume the debate tomorrow we will be able to consider this further.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being six o'clock, the House will now adjourn until tomorrow at 2 p.m. in accordance with Standing Order 2(1).
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, November 6, 1980