1980-06-03

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the statement by Michael Smith, a Canadian who is an official delegate of the Canada Party of Labour to the International Conference on the Alleged Crimes of the United States in Iran, that the action taken by the Canadian government and Ambassador Kenneth Taylor in rescuing several Americans from certain illegal and cruel detention by Iran is "a disgrace to Canada", I move, seconded by the hon. member for Wetas-kiwin (Mr. Schellenberger):
That Canada and its people through unanimous consent of this House of Commons totally and irrevocably dissociate themselves from any statements of Mr. Smith's ensuing from this shameful performance the world has now witnessed from one who has, by his irresponsible and ignorant action, himself become a disgrace to Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Under the terms of Standing Order 43, unanimous consent is required before the motion can be put. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an important matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Yesterday the president of Masonite Canada Ltd. of Gatineau announced the gradual lay-off of 109 employees between now and August 1. A sharp drop in construction as well as a very limited demand for wood fibres used by that plant to make insulating material have led the president to take that decision. Considering the social impact of that massive lay-off under current economic circumstances, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That at his earliest convenience the Minister of Employment and Immigration meet the president of the union at the plant to consider with him the possibility of rehiring the dismissed employees elsewhere on the labour market and to provide them, if necessary, with some retraining.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


UNITED NATIONS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43 on a subject on which there has been some consultation with both sides of the House. In view of the fact that the United Nations human rights committee has received communications made on behalf of a number of inmates that Canada has breached article 15 of the United Nations covenant on civil and political rights, to which Canada is a signatory, in denying early release to prisoners and parolees with street time served on parole prior to October 15, 1977, and in view of the fact that the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) has stated that "should any member of Parliament be ready to raise the question in the House under Standing Order 43, the government would have no objection to debating the issue", I move, seconded by the hon. member for Northumberland-Dur-ham (Mr. Lawrence):
That the subject matter of the communications pending before the United Nations human rights committee be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for a recommendation as to the appropriate response to these communications.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 3, 1980


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No!


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. David Smith (Don Valley East):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that Canadian equestrian competitor, Cindy Neale, of King city, Ontario, has declined an invitation from the Soviet Union to participate in the Olympic Games at the expense of the Soviet Union, and that this action by the Soviets demonstrates that the Olympics in Moscow are in danger of failure in that the Soviet Union must attempt to bribe athletes in order to entice them to participate, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson):
That this House congratulate Cindy Neale for supporting the Canadian government's decision to boycott the Moscow Olympics in light of that country's barbaric invasion of Afghanistan.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House before it can be put. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LIONS INTERNATIONAL
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion which 1 believe will have the unanimous consent of hon. members on both sides of the House. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson):
That this House welcomes the members of Lions International Multiple District "A" to Canada's capital, on the occasion of their sixtieth annual convention, which is their diamond jubilee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, in view of the assurance of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in his throne speech that, and I quote, "amendments will be introduced to ensure that major acquisition proposals by foreign companies will be publicized prior to a government decision on their acceptability," I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that Canadian General Electric in Peterborough will be phasing out its power cable and building wire operations at the Peterborough plant, a move which would result in the lay-off of approximately 200 employees with another 100 affected in support industries, because an application is presently before the Foreign Investment Review Agency, known as FIRA, requesting permission for CGE to sell this wire and cable operation to a Swiss-controlled company known as Pirelli Cables Limited, and due to the detrimental impact this application would have on the area of Peterborough, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott):
That this government urge the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to intercede in an effort to safeguard these 200-plus vital jobs in the Peterborough area and that CGE be advised by FIRA that these 200 jobs at the Peterborough plant must be safeguarded.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The government has entered into an advertising campaign concerning the acquisition of the CF-18 fighter aircraft, with the self-congratulatory theme of "A good choice and a good deal for all Canadians", at a cost of at least $260,000.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Is it more than $260,000, Madam Speaker?
June 3, 1980

In order that the poor, unsuspecting taxpayer of Canada might obtain clarification as to whether or not this advertising constitutes crass political advertising at public expense, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty):
OraI Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


[Stage Direction]
That this House direct that the Minister of State (Multiculturalism), who is responsible for government advertising and external political communications, make a statement to this House explaining, first, the rationale of the advertising program respecting the acquisition of the CF-18 fighter aircraft, which is a fait accompli; second, the cost of the program; and third, the reason why the advertising differs in each region of the country.
Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the Toronto labour council and the Dovercourt NDP community action centre have requested the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) to staff employment centres and UIC offices with interpreters to assist non-English and non-French speaking claimants, and in view of the fact that the minister has not done so, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That the Minister of Employment and Immigration provide appropriate interpreters in Canada Employment Centres and UIC offices to ensure that clients whose language is neither English nor French will no longer be denied legitimate services which are provided to other Canadians and that this be done by hiring additional staff for that purpose.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INCREASE IN DEFICIT-INQUIRY AS TO GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. On April 24, just after the April 21 financial statement when the Minister of Finance indicated there will be a deficit this year of $14.1 billion, $3.7 billion more than had been contemplated on December 11, the Prime Minister said:
We are not obsessed by the deficit in the same way as the Clark government was.
Since the Prime Minister's statement there have been two other statements. One was by the President of the Treasury Board, who said:
We want to reduce the deficit-
This statement was made on May 27 before the CMA.
-because we realize that the costs of such deficits result in an unacceptable burden. Deficits tend to erode investor confidence.
The deputy minister of finance said to the Senate committee on May 27:
You all recognize the federal government is in a deep budget deficit...
Indeed, the deficit problem is going to have to be solved by generalized tax increases ultimately across the board.
My question to the Prime Minister-


An hon. Member:: At last!


John Carnell Crosbie: A little patience, please. My question to the Prime Minister is this. Who speaks for this government on the matter of the deficit? Is it the Prime Minister, who does not care what the deficit becomes, or is it the President of the Treasury Board or the deputy minister of finance? If it is the Prime Minister, is it the case that all of the agitation about the increased taxes, doing away with the indexation of the income tax, a refinery products tax, is the result of his not caring about the deficit? Is he giving the policy on this or is he surrendering to the other?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member would read the statement carefully, he would conclude that the statements speak for themselves.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I know the Prime Minister is not in his field, the financial and economic field.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Let me try this on the Prime Minister, who is in a financial bog. The Prime Minister said on April 24:
We will not reduce the deficit at the expense of creating more unemployment.

June 3, 1980
Oral Questions
The deputy minister of finance, on Tuesday of last week before the Senate committee, pointed out to the committee that the forecast made last December 11 of unemployment during 1980 rising to 8.3 per cent from 7.5 per cent in 1979 was already too low. He also forecast that the unemployment rate was going to rise and would increase during the 1980s. In view of these statements by the deputy minister of finance, what will the Prime Minister now instruct his Minister of Finance to do with the deficit? Will it be reduced or will he instruct the minister to increase the deficit to carry out the statements he made on April 24?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, as the former minister of finance, I think the hon. member would realize that the answer to these particular questions will come in a full and complete way when the Minister of Finance brings down his budget.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, perhaps the Prime Minister does not realize that there are some people in this country who still listen to what he says. They do not wait for a budget; they listen to the Prime Minister because they think he expresses the policy of the government.
Would the Prime Minister answer the question: Will his policy be to allow the deficit of $14.1 billion to increase and to cover his aim of combatting unemployment; will the policy be that of the President of the Treasury Board, to reduce it; or will it be the policy of the deputy minister of finance that it is essential to Canada that the deficit be reduced? Please give a lead to the investors, the people of Canada and the taxpayers. Which is it going to be? We cannot afford to wait for the waltzing Matilda who does not want to bring down the budget.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it would seem to me that the former minister of finance is in a curious position to make that argument when he himself took so long to bring down a budget.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: We are not there now. You are there now.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The former minister of finance points out he is not the government now. That is a fact, but it is perhaps because of his misunderstanding of these questions that he is now sitting on that side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


STATEMENT OF DEPUTY MINISTER ON GENERALIZED TAX INCREASES
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the right hon. Prime Minister, following on the questions of my colleague and referring to Dr. Stewart's statement, which presumably the Prime Minister has read thoroughly. I am referring to Dr. Stewart's statement before the Senate committee
Indeed the deficit problem is going to have to be solved by generalized tax increases ultimately across the board.
I do not believe it would be fair to suggest that the deficit problem is going to be solved by major reductions in federal expenditures-
Would the Prime Minister say that he generally agrees with that observation of the deputy minister of finance?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it seems to me that the result of an analysis made by the deputy minister of finance would stand for itself. It seems to me to be a perfectly valid statement. We cannot cut expenses to the tune of some $14 billion. Therefore, if we want to reduce the deficit, at some point there will have to be an increase in taxes. But the hon. member, like his seatmate, is trying to argue that one can have in advance all the answers to these questions.


John Carnell Crosbie: You had them last fall.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Surely the questions themselves are rhetorical in nature. Hon. members opposite are experienced enough to know that the business of drawing up a budget is a matter of trying to counterbalance at the same time the measures which would increase inflation and those which would increase unemployment. The position that this government takes now and took when we were in the opposition is that, contrary to the Conservative party, we think that rather than have a fetish on reducing budgets, we must try to ensure that jobs are created and that unemployment is reduced over the long haul. That has been our position. It remains our position, the way it will be attacked-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Clark:: So much for Ian Stewart.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I should like again to put a question to the Prime Minister who appears to be simply saying, "Ask us not how we will cut our expenditures, but we will tell you how we intend to tax you to pay for them".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In the Prime Minister's general approach to the budget, which will hopefully come down in due course, has he given up the five-year overview set out in the budget of last December in which my hon. colleague was able to show a picture of reducing the budgetary deficit by half, seven-ninths of that reduction coming from expenditure restraint and cutbacks and only two-ninths coming from revenue increases?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I must disagree with the summation of my answer made by the hon. member. I did not say that the government was not attempting to cut expenditures. I was saying that we could not expect to raise the deficit by cutting expenditures in one year to the extent of some $14 billion. That is what I said.


Charles Joseph Clark: Oh!

;
June 3, 1980


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Even the Leader of the Opposition is guffawing at that.


Mr. Andre:: Guffawing at that!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think his seatmate should try to understand what we are saying. As to the substance of the question, I think the hon. Minister of Finance has dealt with it before. He will be happy to deal with it again when he returns.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, may I put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the publication of a report by the Canadian Council on Social Development which shows that more than three million Canadians are still below the poverty line, with the bottom 20 per cent of Canadian families still getting only 4 per cent of the total income while the top 20 per cent get more than 40 per cent of the total income, and in view of the commitment of the Prime Minister when he first came to office to a just society, to ending great disparities in income, will he with his government now lead this House in a determined effort in the next few years to end this disparity and to bring in a state in Canada where there no longer will be these millions of people below the poverty line?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, 1 have not had an opportunity to read this particular report. 1 am sure it will be referred to me and it will be studied, particularly by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. However, I remind the hon. member that the last time we looked at the figures the percentage of Canadians below the poverty line had been considerably reduced between 1970 and 1978 or 1979. I do not know if these particular figures contradict or support that assertion, but I would be surprised if they contradicted it. That does not mean that there is not stijl a large gap, but it does mean that the percentage of Canadians below the poverty line has been reduced under the period of a Liberal government.
As to the suggestion by the hon. member, he was not only in the House but an active participant in the debate which precisely attempted to alleviate this discrepancy between the rich and poor in Canada by helping us adopt in this House last week the increase in the guaranteed income supplement.
Oral Questions VETERANS AFFAIRS


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE THAT WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCE WILL NOT BE CUT BACK
Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, 1 trust the Prime Minister realizes that whatever the percentage figure may be, for the three million Canadians who are below the poverty line it is a disastrous situation, bearing in mind that the Prime Minister said when he began his term of office as Prime Minister that "we can improve the quality of life, we can catch up to the rising expectations."
However, in view of the reference that the Prime Minister has made to the $35 increase in the guaranteed income supplement which this House passed last week, 1 wonder if I may put my supplementary question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
In view of the fact that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has made a strong emotional appeal to the provinces not to cut back any of their supplements but to make sure that every guaranteed income supplement recipient will receive an increase in his income of $35 a month, will the Minister of Veterans Affairs make sure that the recipients of war veterans allowance do not have their allowance cut back because of an increase in the guaranteed income supplement?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Madam Speaker, in answer to the hon. gentleman's question, this is now under review by our department-


An hon. Member:: Can't you give a better answer than that?


An hon. Member:: How can it be under review?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Hold your horses!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Show a little respect for the minister.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Those who are entitled to the $35, Madam Speaker, will be receiving it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, does the statement just made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs mean that the $35 increase in the guaranteed income supplement will be treated as exempt income under the War Veterans Allowance Act so that the recipients of war veterans allowance will not have their allowance cut back by virtue of the $35 increase?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: That is what I was indicating, Madam Speaker.

June 3, 1980
Oral Questions ENERGY


INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY MEETINGS-INQUIRY AS TO CANADIAN COMMITMENTS
[Stage Direction]
Mf. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In testimony before the national finance committee of the other place, the deputy minister of finance predicted sharp gaps in the availability of adequate oil supplies by 1985 and described this as the greatest threat to the economy of the world and to Canada. Given that Canada has now passed the United States as the world's largest user of oil on a per capita basis, and given that our partners in the OECD and IEA have recently criticized Canada for that fact, will the minister tell the House what commitments he made on behalf of Canada at the recent Paris meetings of the International Energy Agency, and did he at least confirm the commitments Canada made at the Tokyo Summit last June, which, incidentally, his leader roundly criticized at the time as being too hard on Canada?
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to advise the hon. member that there was no criticism of Canadian policy at the recent International Energy Agency meetings. Secondly, with regard to the content of the understanding between the various countries, they are all part of the communique which has been made public. If the hon. member bothers to read it, he will find that no additional commitments were required from Canada.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, the deputy minister of finance at the same Senate committee meeting previously referred to stated only what every other rational observer has also noted, and indicated in essence that only the achievement of self-sufficiency in oil can give us the capacity to manage the economy in the 1980s. Does the minister reject that position and, if not, will he indicate to the House when he expects to reach that target or, in other words, when he expects to reduce our net reliance on offshore oil supplies to zero.
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, it is very difficult to give a exact date or year in reply to that question. As the hon. member said, if, on the one hand, there are some commercially viable finds off Newfoundland and in the Beaufort Sea, Canada could become self-sufficient very shortly. If, on the other hand, our explorations are not as successful, we will obviously have to postpone our target date for self-sufficiency. However, we hope that with the co-operation of industry and a bit of luck we will quickly become self-sufficient before the end of this decade. But no one can hazard a precise date. It would be misleading the people to say, as the previous government did, that by a certain date Canada could become self-sufficient.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, I might remark that it is difficult to achieve self-sufficiency when government policy chases employees and capital out of the country.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: My question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Yesterday, the minister announced in the House:
The employment development measures outlined today will themselves have a considerable impact on the employment of women.
Page 15 of the background paper which the minister presented at the same time states:
The new employment programs and budget increases for training will provide employment and training to about 12,200 women in 1980-81.
Given the fact that the minister claims he created 81,000 jobs, of which 12,000 are for women, which amounts to 15 per cent of the jobs created, could the minister-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is repeating the speech which he made yesterday. Would he please ask his question.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I had a little more time to think about it!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Will the minister please explain to the House how the creation of 12,200 jobs will have "considerable impact on the employment of women", considering that there are almost 400,000 women in this country and that the minister's program will help only 15 per cent of the 45 per cent who are unemployed?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I am certainly pleased that the hon. member took some time to think about his question. I would simply point out that, as he was somewhat guilty of misusing his figures yesterday, he has not changed today. What 1 indicated yesterday was that close to 40 per cent of the benefits that we announced in the employment program yesterday would be applicable to women.
More important is the direction and the approach of the programs. We introduced some innovative programs to provide incentives to private employers and to bring women into non-traditional areas. We introduced an employment program to provide for additional social services to enable women to come into the work force. These are all important steps to provide the basic framework which will allow more women to
June 3, 1980

participate. It will also give us an opportunity to evaluate those programs and, if they are successful, to expand them substantially in future years.


REINSTATEMENT OF OUTREACH PROGRAM-RESTORATION OF FUNDS FOR 12 PROJECTS
[Stage Direction]
Mliss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):
Madam Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. 1 read with great interest the minister's comments in the House yesterday, particularly those at page 1642 in Hansard:
-that the funds to Outreach have already been restored-
There were originally 22 Outreach projects. There are now ten. When the minister says that the funds to Outreach have been restored, does he mean, and I trust that he does, that the 12 Outreach projects which were cut by the previous Liberal government are now being reinstated and that their funds are being restored?
Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, that is exactly what 1 meant, that the present level of spending in the estimates for the Outreach program is $9.7 million, which is a restoration to its original level.


Miss Jewett:: Madam Speaker, the minister has not replied to my question. 1 wonder whether he would tell me specifically if the 12 projects that were cut have been restored. Would he also be good enough to tell his director of employment and immigration in Manitoba not to discontinue the funding of a very major women's Outreach program in his own city of Winnipeg, the affirmative action program? One week ago today that program was told not to expect any continued funding and, indeed, even not to apply for further funding. Would the minister tell the House, not only whether the 12 Outreach projects which were cut under the previous Liberal government will be restored, but whether the ten that are still remaining, including the affirmative action program in Winnipeg, will be continued?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, as I have discovered over the last few months, there are certain officials in the employment office in Winnipeg who say things about which I have no knowledge. I will be very glad to take the information provided by the hon. member. I have no knowledge of the particular project which she has mentioned. 1 would indicate to her that the application for renewals of Outreach programs are presently being submitted and evaluated. I am personally responsible for agreeing to approve or not to approve the applications, and I will make enquiries about that particular project.


HIRING OF NATIVE PEOPLE
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Employment and immigration. Because the situation of hiring native people in Canada is deplorable, and since the program which the
Oral Questions
minister announced yesterday will assist only about 2 per cent of those status Indians unemployed-and that statistic does not include non-status Indians or Metis people-how can the minister think that this aid will begin to satisfy the magnitude of this problem? Can he also assure the House that this money which has been set aside is not really just window dressing in this area?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, the programs which were
announced yesterday, particularly the additional $10 million for native training, are designed for a specific purpose. The native training program is designed to allow native people in areas where major resource projects are beginning to take place to acquire the skills and training which will allow them to become part of those projects. By no means is it the exclusive amount allocated to help the native people gain employment. In fact, under our present budget estimates we have $72 million in the LEAP program which provides a substantial number of work programs right across Canada. These programs are used substantially by native groups, and they are proving to be very successful.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Madam Speaker, 1 gather from the minister's comments that there is no money to zero in on programs for the native unemployed, particularly for native women who are unemployed in urban areas. Would the minister state that in fact there is no money to zero in on such areas where unemployment is drastic and in need of improvement immediately?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, perhaps the hon. member was not in the House yesterday during the question and answer period following my statement. What I indicated very clearly is that under the community development program which we announced there will be an allocation to every constituency and every region in Canada. Those allocations will be based upon a design which will suit the needs and demands of local employment problems in those areas.
One of the criteria which will be used in determining the allocation is the ratio of native unemployment. Where there is a high incidence of native unemployment, the allocation will be substantially increased. This proposal contrasts substantially with the decision taken by the hon. member's government, which totally eliminated any Canada Works projects in western Canada in which most native people are employed.


PUBLIC WORKS
Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works and concerns some-
1686

June 3, 1980
Oral Questions
thing that dates back quite a while, namely the Place Guy-Favreau project. Can the minister tell us, in light of his colleagues' statements to the effect that the government will finally go ahead with this project, whether there will be substantial changes made to the original project and what the Place Guy-Favreau complex will cost?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, as I indicated in Montreal some weeks ago, the project is under review in terms of modification of land use; that is, the residential component is being restudied inasmuch as changes in the environment around the Guy-Favreau project have been changed and because of the introduction of plans by the provincial government. It may be that a residential component in association with other residential components is no longer viable.
The ministry is presently considering alternatives to that by way of commercial office space or possibly some specialized residential use. The estimates in the blue book tabled in Parliament reflect the commitment of the government of approximately $100 million to complete the project as planned recently.
[ Translation]


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
I just want to ask the minister if, considering those studies that are being made, he can say approximately when tenders will be called and when it will be possible to carry out this interesting project for Montreal's economic situation.


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, bids are either being called for at this time or will be within the next few weeks for the beginning of work at the understructure level. That work should be imminent. We are held up because there was no activity owing to a construction strike in Montreal, but that initial work is imminent.


FINANCE
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Last evening the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance indicated that the Bank of Canada has significantly reduced its holdings of government securities. The effect of this reduction is to increase interest rates above what is normal. Is the government's policy at the present time to keep interest rates higher than the market forces would normally indicate?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance or the parliamentary secretary answered this question a week or two ago. I recall distinctly what the answer was; it was that the policy of the government was to try and even out abrupt movements but not to act in any way which was contrary to market forces over the long term.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: A supplementary question on an interest rate related matter, Madam Speaker. Throughout last spring, last fall and last winter, as interest rates went up and as the Bank of Canada rate went up with market forces, the chartered banks' rate went up and stayed approximately 100 index points ahead of the Bank of Canada. Interest rates have started falling now but the chartered banks are out of step. What action has the government taken to get the chartered banks back in line with the Bank of Canada rate so that business is not paying 182 index points more in interest than it should?


Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the fact is that there is no fixed relationship between the interest rate that is quoted by the Bank of Canada as being the bank rate and the rate charged for prime business loans by the chartered banks. That relationship fluctuates over time. It has fluctuated between the time that rates were going up and the time, now, that rates are coming down.


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. More than a month ago the three national associations for native peoples-the National Indian Brotherhood, the Inuit Tapirisat and the Native Council of Canada-were promised government funds to help prepare their constitutional positions. Since the first constitutional conference will take place next week and the process will proceed quickly, will the minister explain why his department has not yet paid these moneys to the native associations and can he say that this will be done soon?


Hon. Francis Fox (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I should like to point out to the hon. member that these moneys are in the form of contributions which are administered by my department and not in the form of grants. I have instructed my officials to process the agreement as soon as possible. At the moment officials of the native citizens directorate in my department are developing supplementary contribution agreements which we hope to discuss with each of the three organizations in the very near future. It is our expectation that this process will be completed at the end of this month at the very latest.
June 3, 1980


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a very important question that I should like to address to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister aware that the province of British Columbia has just announced an increase of approximately 15 per cent in medicare premiums and, further, 20 to 40 per cent in daily charges to patients for hospital visits? If so, will she get in touch with the government of British Columbia and tell that government that these regressive, reactionary increases are unacceptable to the federal government under both the medicare and hospital legislation?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, that information has not been confirmed officially to me yet. I have a meeting tonight on that question, at my request.


Mark Willson Rose: A supplementary question, Madam Speaker. Once the information is confirmed, since the government has tied further increases in health care fees to the cost of living and since these increases are irresponsible, shocking and pick the pockets of the poor and the old, would the minister be prepared to take immediate action along the lines that she proposed when she was in opposition-that is, give notice to B.C. that she intends to cut off federal funding unless and until the medicare guidelines of universality and comprehensiveness are reinstated?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, not until the report of Mr. Justice Hall has been presented. 1 am sorry to be late for the question period this afternoon but 1 was finishing a meeting with Mr. Justice Hall where we discussed these problems.
My objective and that of the government is not to enter into confrontation with B.C. for the fun of it; the problem is far deeper. 1 think the hon. member knows that it is far deeper than just these signs we have seen in some provinces which, by the way, are being corrected.
I want to remind the hon. member of the beautiful job the population-and, of course, the Liberal opposition-did in New Brunswick in correcting that situation. I think it is proper that we talk of it right now in this public forum of the House, but we are not ready to withhold payments at this point in time. The Hall commission's work is to advise us on this very subject.


COMMUNICATIONS
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Communications. On Friday the minister threatened to lay charges against
Oral Questions
the owners and operators of unlicensed earth stations. On Monday the B.C. government put up an earth station on the grounds of the legislature in Victoria. When the minister makes these threats about prosecutions of owners and operators of unlicensed earth stations, does that include the earth station on the lawns of the B.C. legislature?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, there seems to be a lot of confusion about the installation of the earth satellite station at the B.C. legislature. For instance, it was reported on the national news last night that all such earth stations are illegal. As you know full well. Madam Speaker, they are not. As long as an earth station is licensed it is, indeed, a legal earth station.
In answer to the hon. member's question, I should like to tell him that the British Columbia government made an application for a licence some time ago and that this licence was issued in due course.


Henry Perrin Beatty: A supplementary question, Madam Speaker. We learn from the Minister of Communications that he does not intend to lay charges against the B.C. government. That leaves several thousand Canadians in rural and remote areas, particularly in northern Canada, to be considered. In view of the fact that the reason people in so many northern and remote areas are putting up unlicensed earth stations is that they want to receive the same variety of signals as are available to people in southern and urban areas, may I ask if the minister is prepared today to order a stay of prosecution against people living in such communities until such time as Canadian signals are available to provide the same variety of programming to them that is available to people in southern Canada? Will he put an end to the sort of discrimination which takes place when the government allows such signals into southern Canada but forbids rural and northern Canadians from receiving a variety of signals?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to hear "hear, hear" coming from across the floor, because the policy we are pursuing at present is the policy that was pursued by the Leader of the Opposition's government and by my immediate predecessor in this portfolio.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Francis Fox: There were no prosecutions at that stage.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is right. That is the point.


Francis Fox: It was a question of tolerance, not a question of issuing licences.
I should like to get back to the answer I gave last week to members of this House. On this side of the House we are interested in getting to the root of the problem. That is why we are hoping that the CRTC, through its present hearings on the problem of extension of TV services to northern communities

June 3, 1980
Oral Questions
in Canada, will come up with a set of recommendations which would then lead to the licensing process some time this fall. We would like to get to the bottom of the problem, which is really one of extending services to the north in a legal manner. In the meantime, we indicated, and the CRTC indicated, that we would have a look on an ad hoc basis, on a case by case basis, at the operation of unlicensed satellite stations in Canada, particularly in areas where these unlicensed stations were interfering with the activities of licensed cable operators in this country.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Garnet M. Bloomfield (London-Middlesex):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Solicitor General. Will charges be laid with regard to the RCMP seizing the drugs on board a ship off the coast of Nova Scotia last weekend?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, that was a successful operation by the RCMP. The smugglers, from our intelligence, were trying to land in Connecticut and were chased by the American coast guard north into Canadian waters, or close to Canadian waters. They never intended to land in Canada. They never came to Canadian territorial waters. Therefore, in the intermediate zone where they were seized-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I am coming to the answer. In the intermediate zone where they were seized-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order. The Chair is having difficulty following what is going on in the House. Those who are having conversations with their seatmates will please do so in a lower voice.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Thank you, Madam Speaker. In the intermediate zone where the seizure took place, international convention does not permit a coastal state to lay charges, but the coastal state is entitled-and the RCMP did-to seize the ship, to seize the cargo, and of course they will be confiscated.



PENSIONS


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, I have a very important question for the Minister of State (Finance). I gave him notice of the question in the form of a 43 a couple of weeks ago.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frank Oberle: It relates to the rather discriminatory practice of double taxation of Canadian citizens who have earned certain pension rights in the Federal Republic of West Germany. It is my understanding that there is an agreement about to be signed. Can the minister inform the House today whether we have responded to the request of the Federal Republic to enter into this agreement, and does he have the legislation prepared to facilitate such a request?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State, Finance):: Madam Speaker, I recall the notice the hon. member gave me about the taxation agreement. As the hon. member knows very well, we are negotiating such agreements with several countries. There have been some references to several of those agreements in the House. Many of those agreements are ready to be signed. Some have already been signed and legislation in that regard is being drafted. If we made good progress in the business of the House, we could soon proceed with consideration of a bill concerning those taxation agreements.


Frank Oberle: Can the minister tell me whether the particular agreement with the Federal Republic of West Germany has been signed and, if so, would it have to await the signing of a number of other agreements before legislation would be introduced to approach the problem in a global sense?
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I do not remember whether the agreement with the Federal Republic of Germany has been signed. I shall inquire and give the reply to the hon. member. We would rather wait and conclude as many agreements as possible before incorporating them into a bill.



COMMITTEE STUDY OF TERMS OF REFERENCE OF PROPOSED NATIONAL TRADING COMPANY

Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, can the Prime Minister tell the House when we can expect to receive the terms of reference for a study by a committee of this House of a national trading company?
June 3, 1980


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, with regard to that parliamentary task force, according to the discussions 1 had with my colleagues of the other two parties, I was to consult the minister who was absent, so that we reached an agreement on setting up five parliamentary task forces. As for the sixth, I must say it was only agreed that if it must exist-
My colleagues are pointing out to me that the minister is present. I was about to say that I was aware of his presence in the House.
We decided to pursue our consultations. If we go ahead with setting up a task force, we will respect the principle of the agreement, that is that the task force will report to Parliament, and will be made up of a limited number of hon. members from both sides of the House who will be asked to report within a certain period, that is before December 19. If, on the other hand, we decide not to set up a task force to deal with that subject, obviously the problem will resolve itself automatically. We also agreed that if we do create a task force to deal with the topic, it will be similar to the five that have already been set up.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Prime Minister's announcement made it very clear that there was going to be a study of a national trading company along the same lines as the other subjects established for task forces. Will the President of the Privy Council or the Prime Minister explain why this House of Commons is being denied the right to consider the question of a national trading company in the same way that we are considering other questions that have been proposed by the government? What is so special about a national trading company that the government is not prepared right now to let that question be considered by a committee of the Parliament of Canada with the same rules that apply to other subjects originally forecast for task force study?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, if there was what my colleague calls a violation of the rules, which I cannot admit, it is simply because the Prime Minister has indicated clearly to the House, in answer to the Leader of the Opposition, that he had asked me to negotiate with the leaders of the other two parties a formula for the establishment of these task forces. We had to decide whether these task forces were to report directly to the minister or to the House of Commons. Following negotiations and consultations held in accordance with the spirit of Parliament, we succeeded in meeting the goal set out by the right hon. Prime Minister, that is to set up action groups acting rapidly and without partisan lines on matters of public interest and reporting after a short delay. We achieved such an agreement, thus avoiding what the Leader of the Opposition did when he was prime minister, namely task forces which did not report to Parliament but rather to ministers. We, on the
Oral Questions
other hand, have simply followed the wish expressed by the Prime Minister: after having consulted with my colleagues, we have established task forces which will report to Parliament.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the minister has answered a question that was not put. I asked why is the Prime Minister not prepared to extend to the matter of a national trading company the same parliamentary treatment given to others subject matters referred to task forces. Why the difference, and can the minister assure the House today, before he leaves again for Mexico, that this matter will receive the same treatment that is given to other matters?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the subject matter raised by the Prime Minister when he made his announcement covered one element. The other elements were the participation of members of Parliament on both sides. Also, it was the small task forces that we wanted to act quickly and to report. The question raised was whether it was to report to the minister or to Parliament. All those elements were discussed among House leaders. We came to some agreement. We made some concessions and they made some. In the end, we have five parliamentary task forces that will report to Parliament and will have the participation of members from both sides of the House, especially members from western Canada.
The Leader of the Opposition would like us to make concessions on all the elements. This sixth item, the task force on trade, is actually under consideration. We might come forward with an additional offer to create more task forces in the future on any subject that is of national interest. However, at this time we are experimenting. We succeeded in concluding an agreement on five task forces. We might agree on a sixth one shortly, and if not there might be many other task forces in the future.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Bruce Lonsdale (Timiskaming):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs perhaps I could direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that one of the Canadian delegates to a so-called conference on alleged crimes of the United States in Iran called the action taken by the Canadian ambassador, Ken Taylor, in helping six U.S. diplomats to escape from Iran "a disgrace to Canada", would the Prime Minister advise the House whether the three delegates who attended this conference were officially sanctioned by the government and whether they, and the organization they represent, are receiving any

June 3, 1980
Point of Order-Mr. Stevens
assistance from the federal government in attending this so-called conference?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, as to the first part of the question, the answer is emphatically no. As to the second part concerning assistance, I would have to inquire and ensure that the hon. member gets an answer.



PRIVILEGE


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege following a statement made by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) in response to questions from the opposition. I want to give you notice of my intention; I should like to look at the blues. As I recall the minister's words, he made the allegation that certain officials in his department were releasing information contrary to the rules, and taking actions with respect to his activities contrary to his wishes or instructions. Since, as you know, there is a question of privilege which has been referred at the minister's request to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections with respect to certain of his activities, I should like to have the opportunity of looking at the minister's statement to determine the nature of those allegations so that 1 might have the opportunity of raising the matter before you, Madam Speaker, at a later date.



MR. EPP-HANSARD REPORT OF REPLY GIVEN BY MINISTER OF TRANSPORT

Hon. Jake Epp (Proveneher):: Madam Speaker, in regard to the question ! asked of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) yesterday regarding the program of rail relocation or the Sherbrook Street overpass in Winnipeg, there is a difference between what appears on the blues and what appears in Hansard at page 1631. 1 wish to reserve my right to raise the matter as a question of privilege when the minister returns to the House.
indicated, and on May 28, the hon. gentleman said, "1 will check the point and if there is any misunderstanding I will ensure that it is cleared up." My point of order is this: I would appreciate it if you could give the President of the Treasury Board an opportunity, now, to clear the record.


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Thank you, Madam Speaker. 1 have written to the hon. member clearing up the item in question. Specifically, the difference arises from the fact that the documents which I filed in the Committee of the Whole had cost overruns valued as of September, as 1 recall, in 1979. I indicated that the amount of cost overruns was, in fact, $1,062 million which varied from the amount which was enclosed in the document, that being the result of a subsequent evaluation which went back to the original budgeted cost figures.
The $1,062 million to which I made reference, also included the 22 projects which were included in the computer print-out which I filed in Committee of the Whole, but there were no numbers given opposite the project titles because that information was apparently not complete or not available at the time that particular print-out was prepared. However, as I have indicated, the difference between those two figures of which the hon. member made mention is composed of the evaluation going back to the original budgeted cost of the projects plus the cost overruns with respect to the 22 projects in question.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Transport-Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi).
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

*
* *


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, on May 28, as shown in Hansard at page 1496, I raised the question of an apparent oversight on the part of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) in filing a record of 497 projects which had overruns of $1,062 million. Unfortunately, as you will recall, Madam Speaker, the actual figures which were tabled came to only $820 million and there were about 20 fewer projects than the President of the Treasury Board had


MAINTENANCE OF IMPERIAL MEASUREMENT SYSTEM
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, 1 have the honour to present to the House of Commons in Parliament assembled a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 67 which, in brief, prays that the system of weights and measures known as the Imperial system shall always be legal and acceptable in Canada regardless of any other system which may happen to be used.
The petition attached bears the signatures of 2,111 electors and was sent to me in my capacity as member of Parliament for Red Deer for transmission to the House of Commons in
June 3, 1980

Parliament assembled. If the petition is found to be in order, I pray it may be referred to an appropriate committee of the House of Commons.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mir. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council): Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 96, 182, 204, 287, 288, 563, 602, 631, 719 and 958.
Madam Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

Mr. Cossitt: What is the total dollar amount of ticket sales made at the Brockville, Ontario Railway Station in each of the past three years and what is the total for the three years combined?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The Canadian Transport Commission advises that the dollar amount of ticket sales, rounded to the nearest thousand, at Brockville, Ontario, Railway Station for the years 1977 through 1979 are as follows:
1977	$ 370,000
1978	$ 414,000
1979	$ 430,000
Total	$1,214,000


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


Mr. Peter Stollery (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: I am informed by Teleglobe Canada that the reply to the above question is as follows:
1.	'000s	'000s
(a) 1977	(b) 1978
Total Revenues	$ 77,493	$ 72,844Net Earnings	14,877	14,484
Order Paper Questions


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


Robert Theodore Bockstael: The Seaway International Bridge Corporation Ltd., a subsidiary of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority advises as follows:
1. (a) Total revenue-$909,094.42 Net earnings-	0
Net deficits-	0
(b) Total revenue-$956,777.44 Net earnings-	0
Net deficits-	0
2. None.


GRIMSHAW TRUCKING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD.
Mr. Herbert: 1.	For the fiscal year (a) 1977 (b) 1978, what was the total revenue and net earnings or deficits of Grimshaw Trucking and Distribution Ltd?
2.	For each year, what was the total (a) of direct or indirect subsidies or other benefits conferred by the government on Grimshaw (b) of loans, advances or guarantees extended by the government to Grimshaw (c) investment by the government in Grimshaw both before and after any write-off?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: The Northern Transportation Company Limited advises as follows:
1.	Northern Transportation Company Limited reports on a consolidated basis and the financial results relating to subsidiary companies is considered proprietary information.
2.	None.


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


Marc Lalonde: Eldorado Nuclear Limited reports as follows:
It is assumed question concerns Eldor Resources Limited formed in April, 1978.
2. None.

June 3, 1980
Order Paper Questions
1.	Eldor Resources Limited
(a)	1977-none
(b)	1978-none
2.	Eldor Resources Limited
(a)	1977- none 1978- none
(b)	1977- none
1978- Uranium Canada Limited provided a loan of two million pounds of uranium concentrates.
(c)	1977- none 1978- none


HUNGARIAN REPUBLIC-ACCREDITED DIPLOMATS
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What are the names, job designations and dates of arrival in Canada of all persons who are accredited diplomats from Hungary?
2.	What are the names, job designations and dates of arrival in Canada of all persons serving the Hungarian diplomatic service who arc cither non-Canadians or Hungarian Nationals?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Accredited Diplomats from the Hungarian People's Republic
Name	Title	Date of ArrivalDr. Jozsef Nemeth	Ambassador	September 15, 1976Mihaly Kolipka	Counsellor	August 3, 1977Dr. Janos Gorog	First Secretary	October 2, 1978Gyula Szombathelyi	First Secretary	August 19, 1976Sandor Papp	Second Secretary	October 29, 1979Ede Sziklai	Trade Commissioner	July 25, 1978Zoltan Szabo	Assistant Trade Commissioner	July 11, 1975Istvan Kiska	Assistant Trade Commissioner	September 12, 1974Laszlo Deme	Assistant Trade Commissioner	July 15, 1977Dr. Andras Ferenczi	Assistant Trade Commissioner	October 30, 1979Lajos Schrok	Deputy Trade Commissioner	August 5, 1978Imre Veres	Assistant Trade Commissioner	August 27, 1979Jozsef Nemeth	Assistant Trade Commissioner	December 11, 1979Marta Molnar	Members of the Staff-Hungarian Nationals October 11, 1976Ilona Rieder	September 23, 1978Ede Csutor	June 20, 1978Bela Bodnar	January 14, 1977Istvan Varga	July 27, 1977Anna Poor	September 23, 1978Ildiko Dely	March 5, 1977Andrea Torok	August 15, 1978Magda Csapo	September 12, 1977


DEPARTMENT OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT-LAWYERS ON STAFF
Mr. Howie: How many lawyers are employed on staff in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Nine lawyers are assigned to the department from the Department of Justice.


DEPARTMENT OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT-NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES IN PUBLIC RELATIONS
Mr. Howie: How many persons engaged in public relations, publicity or media relations, are employed on staff in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?


John Carr Munro: The Department of Indian and Northern Affairs has a total of 42 employees engaged in public relations, publicity or media relations.


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE-UNINSURED LOSS OF ROOF SHINGLES
Mr. Clarke: 1.	With reference to the uninsured losses of more than $1,000 to miscellaneous items recorded by the Department of National Defence in footnote number 9 at page 12.62, volume I of the 1978-79 Public Accounts of Canada (a) did the department undertake steps to determine the whereabouts of the roof shingles and. if so, what were they (b) was the thief apprehended (c) in what location did the loss occur?
2.	Did the department undertake steps to ensure that such a loss docs not recur and, if so, what were they?


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1. (a) Yes. A thorough investigation into the circumstances surrounding the loss was conducted.
(b)	No.
(c)	Canadian Forces Base Gagetown, N.B.
2. Yes. Greater security of the storage building including a limited and controlled access to the building.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES-PROJECTS IN THE CONSTITUENCY OF PEMBINA
Mr. Elzinga: 1.	Since 1974, did the Department of Supply and Services finance projects in the constituency of Pembina and. if so, in each case, what was the (a) name of the project (b) total cost (c) total contribution by the government?
2.	Is the department planning projects in the near future and, if so, in each case, what is the (a) nature of the project (b) estimated amount to be spent by the government?
June 3, 1980


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: The
department does not have a mandate to finance projects.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. McKenzie:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary what is causing the delay with starred question 876. It is with regard to funding for either railroad relocation or building overpasses in Winnipeg. The funding is causing considerable confusion in the province and in the House here. In particular we want to know where the funding is going to be coming from. It was announced last Friday, and there have been statements, that the funding will come out of DREE programs. All members of the House are very anxious to find out which DREE programs the funding will be obtained from, for the rail relocation and the building of the overpass in Winnipeg, so I would appreciate if the parliamentary secretary would make some inquiries with regard to starred question 876.


Mr. Collenette:: I shall, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, June 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen that Bill C-30, to provide supplementary borrowing authority for the fiscal year 198081, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, when the House adjourned last evening I was addressing some remarks to the parliamentary secretary, who had responded in a commendably detailed fashion to some requests for information emanating from this side of the House. I was at that time suggesting to hon. members opposite that, regardless of the amount of money that ultimately this House of Commons decided to allow the government to have in this or subsequent appropriation bills, it was time for a reappraisal of the priorities which would be given to these large amounts of money. I
Borrowing Authority Act
believe I said that two of the priorities which I was urging upon this House were a greater emphasis on defence and a greater defence on economic development.
It seems to me that 1 also said at that point in my speech that there was no greater tribute to vulgar cost overruns and edifice complexes than the Bank of Canada building which is so near Parliament Hill and stands conspicuously among many of the other edifice complexes which have been built around the country, which may provide some satisfaction for the egos of the inmates, but does not do very much to assure the economic development of our country.
When one looks at the priorities and at the opportunities available to Canada, one sees very quickly how our rather precarious financial position reflects on our economic opportunities. I believe, although I am not certain, that a good example of this was illustrated recently when the President of Mexico came here and departed without leaving very much assurance that our country would be able to benefit very much from the Mexican oil that we had once hoped to get in larger amounts. I recall reading shortly thereafter that Japan was able to make a far more advantageous arrangement simply because there were funds available from that country, which is in far better shape economically, to invest in Mexico, and presumably they were able not only to improve their export position but also to get badly needed petroleum, something which we cannot do.
I suggest to hon. members of this House that federal priorities must change, regardless of the amount of money this House allocates to the government. Some departments are not paying enough attention to regional matters in their operations, and it is on this aspect of my speech that 1 would like to spend the last few moments available to me.
Some departments are not paying enough attention to regional matters. Some departments are almost anti-development, and I suggest that the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is perhaps the worst of these. If I had more time I could deal with others such as the Department of Supply and Services. The anti-development departments, as I call them, have almost become DREEs in reverse. Some of the departments and agencies of our national government actually discriminate against the less developed parts of the country. This "kick them when they are down" mentality has created patterns in government purchasing, industrial development incentives, and export financing which discriminate in favour of the developed. At present DREE receives little more than 1 per cent of the federal budget.
Other federal departments and agencies control substantive funds which could be well used in a manner more consistent with regional development priorities. The present Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. De Bane) is well aware of this, and when he was minister of supply and services for a few months, as he pointed out recently, he did his best to try to correct the situation, and I trust that some of his cabinet colleagues will continue to work with him in this new administration to change what has been an impossible situation for DREE simply because that department does not have enough
1694

June 3, 1980
Borrowing Authority Act
money to do what it is expected to do because other line departments which have not been paying enough attention to their regional responsibilities are not co-operating.
In 1979 the Economic Council released an investigation of regional underdevelopment entitled "Regional Disparities and Growth in Canada". It found an important ingredient of Canadian regional disparity to be in the adoption of new technology. In the same year the C. D. Howe Research Institute reported that the output per capita in the Atlantic region since 1970 has declined when measured as a percentage of the national output.
At a time when industrial output is declining, the region requires strong and effective action, but rather than attempt to resuscitate the patient when things are tough, this particular administration appears to have chosen to withdraw the medication and the life support systems. First, the regional development incentives which were in the budget of my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), have not been reintroduced by the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen), nor were any other incentives to benefit the Atlantic region, which is perhaps the most underprivileged region in the whole country. It is not just that the present administration failed to reintroduce the provisions and tax contracts and capital cost allowances for newly built fishing vessels, for example; they have also stalled, I trust for not too long, the previous incentives of our government for the older industries like SYSCO and the new and expanding ones like Michelin.
Let us now look at the actions of one other department capable of generating real development, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. This department directly contributes to this industrial impotence in the Atlantic region. It is an anti-development department, as far as we are concerned. It operates a number of programs which attempt to deal with the crisis of Canada's technological underdevelopment, but it does not do anything for us. For example, between 1970 and 1977 the Program for the Advancement of Industrial Technology, called PAIT, spent S146 million, but only $63,000, or .4 of I per cent, was spent in our region. During the same period the Industrial Design Assistance Program spent $64,000, or less than 3 per cent of its budget, in our region.
A third program with great potential but little action is the Defence Industry Productivity Program, DIPP. Considering the way it is now administered, it is well-named. It will provide the basis for most of the ostensible benefits of the F-18 offset program which has been widely advertised, as was mentioned here in the House today. Between 1970 and 1977 DIPP spent nearly $340 million but only 1.5 per cent, or $5 million, in the Atlantic region. In fiscal year 1978 the region received only .15 per cent of the DIPP funds, or $70,000.
In the same year Ontario and Quebec received 99 per cent of the available funds. We can readily see how this program has failed miserably to spread the economic potential that it has across the country in those areas where it is most needed. One might naturally assume that this region would receive a similar portion of the F-18 offset program. On this matter the
present Minister of Regional Economic Expansion stated in Parliament when he was DREE critic in the opposition, "I would like to see DREE involved in the F-18 picture, not all spent in metropolitan areas". He said that last fall.
This program is in great difficulty because it does not have funds available, and many of the widely touted benefits, which are advertised at such expense to the taxpayers of this country, I suspect cannot be realized. If Canadian industry does not have the funds to re-tool or to take advantage of these offsets, then all of the industrial benefits will not be realized. The McDonnell Douglas Corporation cannot wait indefinitely. It has a production deadline, and so the benefits which could come to Canada will go back either to the United States or to other countries.
By fiscal year 1979 many of the industrial incentives of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce were integrated into the Enterprise Development Program, or EDP, as it is called. Unfortunately, the EDP has shown itself to be just as incapable of dealing with Atlantic Canada as its predecessors. In that year EDP spent $150 million, but only $850,000, or 0.57 per cent of 1 per cent of its budget, in the Atlantic region. During the same period, Ontario received about 60 per cent of the total assistance. This totalled some $91.4 million.
I do not mention this matter in the spirit of antagonism or to complain about the benefits which other parts of Canada receive, but only to emphasize and to show, I hope graphically, that the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is failing miserably in working with the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and other departments to try to do something meaningful to alleviate economic disparities in this country. If I have time I will talk about transfer payments in a moment, which also have generated some strange results in Atlantic Canada.
Another aspect of the attempt of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to stymie Atlantic Canada may be found in the export financing activities of its Export Development Corporation. Since Atlantic Canada's economy is one of the most export oriented of any region of Canada, it should appear normal for EDC to be heavily involved in export support activities in that region. In fact, it is not.
In 1977 the corporation provided nearly $2 billion to support Canadian export transactions. In that same year its annual report's list of principal exporters in each of its export financing ventures with foreign nations includes none-I emphasize none-from Atlantic Canada.
Today this department, the Department of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray), is providing $200 million to Ontario's Chrysler Corporation. It has not changed so far as its approach is concerned, in my view, to the rest of Canada. It is a department that gave more than $60 million in direct funding to Ford in Windsor. In a few months the department is likely to add Massey-Ferguson to its list of welfare recipients. This corporation, which does not operate in underprivileged parts of the country, in fact barely operates in

this country. It is true that it employs substantial numbers of people, but in relation to its worldwide operations, both its investment and its employment are very slight compared to the operations in countries as spread around the world as Argentina, West Germany, the United States, and so on.
1 know that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has been approached. He may very well be approached by the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce which has a trifling loan that they are worried about of some $400 million in Canadian dollars. I do not know what their plans are, but I would be very upset, and I am sure many members would be upset, if large amounts of money, $100 million for example, were allocated to Massey-Ferguson, unless there were some pretty stringent guarantees that this money would not be allowed to go out of Canada to settle some of the debts that this company has incurred in other parts of the world, unless there were some guarantee of jobs, and unless the Argus Corporation, and other sources of money that Massey-Ferguson has, make a substantial contribution as well.
This is very interesting, when one looks at the incompetence and the anomalies in this government. I do not want to stray too far from the subject of the bill, but I do want to make one side comment because it relates to another contradiction in policy. 1 had hoped to raise it in the question period today, but I will just put it on the record because I think it is rather funny that when we are talking about economic development we are talking about energy conservation, and there is nothing that is as dear to the heart of the government, ostensibly, as energy conservation. Yet I find that as of April 1 there is a conditions of permit document, as it is called, at Toronto international airport. I do not know whether or not the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) knows about it-I doubt it-but just for his information and that of his colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), "who work so hard" to conserve energy, let me say that it is a fact, so I am informed, that the limousine service to the Toronto International Airport, by the conditions of the permit as of April 1, are restricted to using Lincolns, Cadillacs, and Chrysler New Yorkers. Anybody who had a more energy-efficient car by definition, such as a diesel equipped automobile, just cannot operate.


An hon. Member:: A Mercedes Benz.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I should say to my colleague that Mercedes Benz is being discriminated against, I am sorry to say.
But I would like to point out, at this stage how contradictory government policies are, and ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to check with his colleague, the Minister of Transport, to see whether it is now official government policy across Canada that, in an attempt to promote energy efficiency, they are restricting limousine services to those operators who can afford Cadillacs, Lincolns and Chrysler New Yorkers.
I want to speak for a moment, in talking about economic development, on the anomaly of the federal government's transfer payments. One would assume that a government
Borrowing Authority Act
committed to regional development would gradually increase the transfer of payments to provincial governments in a region such as the Atlantic region at a rate beyond that provided to provinces with fewer economic problems. In this period of extremely high regional unemployment, it would be necessary to do this to allow all provincial governments to maintain their level of services and to allow regional economies to make a greater contribution to the national economy. Unfortunately, this did not happen.
The portion of federal transfer payments to provincial governments in the Atlantic region remained static between 1970 and 1978. In 1970 the Atlantic region's provincial governments received $605 million, or 18.3 per cent of all transfers to provinces. If the unemployment rate is used as an indicator of economic well-being, in 1970 the region was only performing at slightly less than the national average, that is to say, at 6.2 per cent unemployment as opposed to 5.7 per cent. By 1978 the region had clearly fallen behind the nation. It had a 12.5 per cent unemployment rate as opposed to 8.3 per cent nationally, and yet during this period the transfer payments to the region stands at $2 billion or 19 per cent of all federal transfers to provincial governments, compared to 18 per cent in 1970-not much of a selective effort or targeting, to use a current word that is quite popular.
The transfers to provincial governments can also be analysed in terms of their net growth over the 1970 level, and this makes a very interesting analysis. Once again, the growth of transfers to the Atlantic region as compared to the Nation as a whole is less than dramatic. Newfoundland provides perhaps the best example of lopsided growth in transfers of payments to provincial governments. In 1970 Newfoundland received $194 million in transfers. In 1978 the provincial government was receiving $579 million, quite a healthly increase, it would seem. This represented a growth of 298 per cent. But during the same period, transfers of payments to the government of Alberta increased by 269 per cent to $627 million. Thus the growth of transfers to Alberta, the richest province, paralleled those of Newfoundland, of course.
Over the last period of the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) administration, the economy of the Atlantic region became, according to the Atlantic Development Council "more dependent upon federal transfer payments". Dr. T. J. Courchene of the University of Western Ontario, stated before the Senate National Finance Committee in November, 1978:
-theirthe Atlantic region's
-relative position has deteriorated vis-a-vis the 'have' regions to the point where several of the provinces arc in danger of being reduced to the level of 'dependencies' of the federal government.
The dependence of gross regional expenditure on total federal transfer of payments to the Atlantic region has increased from 20 per cent in 1970 to nearly 30 per cent in 1978. The growth in comparative dependence for the rest of Canada was from 8 per cent to 10 per cent.
So, Mr. Speaker, I put these on the record only to show that, in my humble opinion, the Minister of Regional Economic

June 3, 1980
Borrowing Authority Act
Expansion requires a great deal of support, not only with an increased budgetary allocation, not only in getting legislation through this House, but also he requires a great deal of support from his colleagues. 1 noticed, when 1 was minister of DREE, that all kinds of co-operation existed until it came time to pay the shot. Even when we went out to lunch, poor old DREE had to pay because DREE had a little extra money. The other departments, because of their huge budgets and their complexes, they analysed their responsibilities, were willing to pay lip service to DREE, but they were not prepared to give any money, or at least only very grudgingly. There are areas where budgetary flexibility must be achieved.
If DREE were operating as efficiently as it could, if the line departments of government were doing their job-as so manifestly the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is not, in looking at regional responsibilities-we would not need such a doubtful effort, I might say, as this government job program which was introduced yesterday in the House by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy). As was indicated in today's issue of the Ottawa Citizen, "it looks good, it is impressive on paper only", and that is about the size of it.
The fact that we must spend hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to create temporary jobs to alleviate areas of high unemployment, without getting any lasting benefit, without building up the country, without leaving any trace of economic development behind when the benefits run out, is an indictment of the kind of economic development policy which have been developed in this country over the last number of years. Surely at a time when the government is requesting an amount of money as vast, as huge, as almost incomprehensible as $12 billion, which as I said last night is $5 billion more than the hon. member for St. John's West in our government requested only a few months ago, there will have to be a more judicious and careful analysis of how it is expended. If this is not the case, we are simply adding a massive amount to our deficit, a tremendously high proportion in one fell swoop to the already large amounts of money the parliamentary secretary and I put on the record last night as owing in our national indebtedness.
We will not achieve one single thing except put ourselves further in debt, unless there is a reassessment of the way this money is spent. Whether the House of Commons gives its consent ultimately to the government for $5 billion, $10 billion, $12 billion or whatever, unless those funds are allocated properly and spent to develop the economic potential of this country, unless there is some investment that is designed to achieve the generation of some wealth, the accompanying activities of all these other departments which are intent on distributing the wealth will not ultimately assure the future of this country. All it will do is bankrupt us a little sooner.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I should like to begin my remarks by seconding in part some of the things which have been said already about the lack of accountability to Parliament for just how the government spends these large sums of money on which it is in the habit of coming to Parliament for approval.
We in the NDP believe that there ought to be more accountability to Parliament for how the government spends its money. In fact, as a relatively new member, I should say that it is one of the things I have yet to get a sense of, how we in this Parliament are in any way like the Parliaments I came to know in abstraction through learning about the role of Parliament in British history, for instance, that the first and fundamental role of Parliament was control over spending. I certainly have no sense as a member of Parliament that I have in any way exercised any form of meaningful control over how the government spends its money. In fact the whole process is somewhat confusing.
I think moves should be initiated which would make life simpler for members of Parliament. I do not say simpler in any way that would reflect upon the intelligence of members of Parliament, but simpler so that all members, and indeed the citizens of Canada, could understand just what was going on with regard to the spending of their tax dollars. I think this is an erosion of parliamentary democracy about which we ought to be very, very concerned.
1 want to make clear that we at this end of the House, in any case, are not against government spending on principle. We do not see government spending as some form of demonic force which ought to be opposed simply because of its very existence. Sometimes I hear that kind of perspective coming from my Progressive Conservative colleagues to the right. We believe it is not accurate and it does not do a service to Canadians to just get up and talk about government spending as if it could be talked about as a homogeneous lump of spending. There are differences between kinds of government spending.
There is a difference between investment in the future of Canada, whether that investment be in the health of Canadians, which I will have something to say about later, or whether that investment be in building the transportation systems and the energy capacity we will need for a strong future. We think a distinction needs to be made between that kind of spending and spending that is just so much money down the drain for projects which are more aptly described as Liberal patronage rather than investment in the future. Distinctions need to be made between long-term spending-investing of public money in those things which will produce assets for the future-and short-term operational spending. Also distinctions need to be made between that money which we owe ourselves and that money which we owe foreign countries.
My opponent in the last election campaign wanted to describe the deficit. 1 just forget how he said it, but it was something to the effect that if we piled up the one dollar bills they would be seven miles high. He never made any distinction between to whom that money was owing and for what pur-
June 3, 1980

poses it was owing. It was kind of a scare tactic designed to create within Canadians a fear of their own government. If there is anything Canadians need more of and not less of, it is a positive view of government. They need to begin to see government as an instrument through which they can act to enhance their personal freedom over those forces which by now are much, much larger than most of the governments of the world. I am thinking particularly here of global and multinational corporations. It is through perceiving government as a positive instrument that Canadians will come to see alternatives to the forms of domination which they know now. This sort of uncritical talk about the size of deficits and the harm which governments do to the country is a very, very one-sided and dangerous way of speaking about society, as if there were only governments and individuals involved and not these other very, very large and powerful actors on the same stage.
One thing we hear a lot about when we hear people talking about government spending is the soaring costs of health care. I am particularly referring again to my colleagues on the right and their provincial counterparts in the various Conservative provincial governments. As a result of their believing this, we have seen an attempt to cut back on expenditures in health care at the level of provincial spending on the part of many provincial governments. I think it is important to say that only a while ago-in 1971, I believe-both Canada and the United States were paying approximately 7 per cent of their GNP for health care costs. Canada is still paying approximately 7 per cent of its gross national product for health care costs, and the United States, which has a private system of providing health care for its citizens, now is paying 9 per cent of its GNP for health care costs. This is not only a significant numerical difference, it is a significant human difference when one considers that the extra percentage is being paid not by governments but by individuals who happen to have the misfortune of being sick and therefore have to put forward the increased costs they experience by virtue of living in the United States and not in Canada where we have a publicly-funded health care system.
There is a growing anxiety about our medicare system related to costs and also related to a number of other phenomena which I want to mention briefly. There is the anxiety of health care workers who now see that they are doing much more work with much less staff for a much lower standard of living than they used to have. People are overworked, and underpaid, and we see the results of this in the frustration which health care workers in Manitoba are now expressing through their strike action this very week.
We can only expect our health care workers to go on for so long, doing very strenuous physical and mental work as they look after patients. They are constantly on the edge of human suffering and are constantly being faced with the most difficult of human situations. Yet we expect them to operate within tighter budgets than almost anyone else. We put ceilings on the amounts of money available to maintain their standard of living. This is done in a way that we do not do for other sectors
Borrowing Authority Act
in society, and it is no wonder that we are now experiencing things like strikes.
We see a growing anxiety about the percentage of money that is going toward health research in this country. Since I became the health critic for the New Democratic Party, I have received a number of representations about the dismal effort that the Canadian government has played with regard to the provision of funds for health research.
We see more and more doctors opting out. More and more of them are extra billing, or balance billing as it is sometimes called. As a result of this, more of the costs of health care are being transferred to the private sector, and in this case to the individual patients.
As 1 mentioned before, we see cutbacks in hospital staff and services. We see people waiting in the hallways on Monday morning, and lying on stretchers in the hallways because laundry is no longer done on a weekend as a result of cutbacks in staff and a refusal to have people in on the weekends because they might have to be paid overtime.
Recently we have seen premium increases of 22 per cent in Alberta, 15 per cent in British Columbia, and exorbitant premiums already in the province of Ontario. These are the three richest provinces in the country, and yet those three provinces are the ones that charge premiums. This brings me to another matter that 1 will mention later and that is that fundamentally the problem with our medicare system is not one of cost but one of attitude.
We need to arrive at a place where we do not talk about how much health care costs, but instead talk about how much ill health costs. It costs us not just in the short run but in the long run. It costs us in terms of human resources and in terms of human happiness. I presume this is the goal of our getting together here in this Parliament. It is not to toss back and forth abstractions about deficits and government spending and what-not, but to ask how we can put our minds together and build a better life for Canadians, not only for the present but for the future. If that is not the goal that we are about, perhaps we ought to pack in this whole exercise.
There are concerns about health care costs. I think it is important to mention them, but not the cost concerns that we are so sick and tired of hearing about from our friends on the right. Our friends on the right here are so afraid that somebody might be coming in and getting a service from a doctor when it is absolutely not necessary. Two of my Conservative opponents in a row now have made much about how people might be coming to see the doctor for every little ache and pain. This is supposed to be an argument to tighten up our medicare system.
Some provinces have introduced deterrent fees and other measures that will reduce the use of the health care system. Deterrent fees will not deter those people who are in the habit of wanting to see a doctor every time they are not feeling well. Deterrent fees will only deter those who cannot afford the deterrent fee. That set of circumstances has been proven in Saskatchewan, and it is an issue that I am very sad to see and

June 3, 1980
Borrowing Authority Act
sad to say that we are having to fight again. Talk of this kind of measure is being heard again, in New Brunswick and in other places.
As I said before, there are some cost factors when it comes to health care. There are legitimate cost concerns. There are cost concerns about the overemphasis on institutional care and the high cost of this kind of care. This is a problem which can be resolved in part if we were willing to use our imagination, and our knowledge that people get well faster and feel better when they are at home, or when they are in a more human setting than that which can be provided in hospitals. But we must not use this insight, as some governments have done, to do what they call deinstitutionalization. This must not become an argument for just turning people out on the streets and then providing them with no back-up support. Nor must it become an argument in which glib phrases are uttered about how the family ought to be looking after family members more than they do now, and in a way that they used to care for them. In our modern society where there is so much mobility and anonymity, often people who are turned out on the streets do not have any family in the particular city where they are to look after them.
As we de-emphasize institutional care to the extent that we perceive it to be necessary, we need to provide the financial support and services and staff to look after people in their homes and to provide them with that kind of service. That will not only be a more human kind of health care system, I believe it will be a less expensive health care system than the heavily institutionalized form that we have now.
There is a lack of co-operation between hospitals when it comes to high medical technology. There is competition between hospitals to see who can get the most expensive technological unit. There is a hoarding of these kinds of capabilities. Here again we see the spirit of competition acting in its usual destructive way instead of having a health care system based on co-operation, enabling hospitals to make the maximum use of machines no matter where they were located. That is a cost factor that we would like to hear more about.
Of course there is the cost factor of lifestyle, that is, people who do not take enough responsibility for their own health. In this connection I believe all Canadians find themselves guilty in one way or another, some more obvious than others. More emphasis will have to be placed on this aspect as we move into a more preventative notion of what it means to be healthy, and a more preventative notion of what it means to have a quality health care system.
Our doctor-centred model comes to mind, where too many things, things that do not need to be treated in this way, have to happen within the context of the fee-for-service-doctor-centred model of medicine. If we had the freedom to seek more use of paraprofessionals and others who would be able to deal with problems that do not necessarily have to be dealt with by a doctor within our medicare system, we would again be addressing ourselves to a legitimate problem of cost and how we might reduce our health care costs.
Of course, in the whole question of health and its relationship to other matters, including health and its relationship to social policy, and its relationship to social services, one cannot separate a person's health from the kind of house in which that person lives. We cannot separate human health from the total context in which human beings are asked to live out their lives. Providing excellent quality health care in the absence of providing people with decent living conditions, working conditions, and a decent environment in which to live, is to have a very single-minded and inadequate view of what it means to promote human health in the long run.
We are not against government spending on health care, because we make a distinction between government spending on something which is as fundamental as health care and government spending in other more frivolous areas. The government must spend money on existing services which will not only expand but live up to the original vision of the health care system which was embodied in the report of the Royal Commission on Health Care Services headed by Mr. Justice Emmett Hall in 1964. Canada needs a comprehensive health care system.
The government has lived up to only a very small part of what was originally envisioned by that commission. More money must be spent, as I implied earlier, in the whole area of prevention and enhancement of health before one becomes sick. I referred to enhancing the environment, the living conditions and working conditions under which people exist. In all these areas the federal government and provincial governments have been and are responsible.
We once had a cost-sharing program in which the federal government and the provincial governments shared the costs of the health care system. But in 1977 the federal government initiated what came to be known as the Established Programs Financing Act. It was a federal initiative which was designed to cap federal expenditures on health care. It is important to remember this fact because so much political attention has been paid to the way in which the various provinces have abused the freedom they received under the block funding system. Many people have forgotten the origin of this particular scheme. It was initiated by a federal Liberal government and was a move to put a lid on its commitment to health care spending.
The federal government is not only not blameless with respect to the gamble which it took with health care, but also with respect to its original intention in suggesting this block funding scheme. Whatever changes may be forthcoming to the health care system, the federal government must not put us in the situation where it hassled the provinces into health care and then leaves them without the capacity to fund the program as it withdraws from this very important field.
Some of the insights behind the block funding program were very good, and I think that it is important that I point some of them out. One feature was that it would give the provinces more freedom to decide where the federal money would be

spent. One of the limitations of the old system was, for example, that if the federal government decided to fund acute care beds and not fund chronic care beds, then there would be an overbuilding of acute care beds and an underbuilding of chronic care beds. This led to the serious situation which can now be found in many Canadian hospitals, that there is a serious shortage of chronic care beds, and people who are in need of chronic care are taking up acute care beds.
The provincial governments were given a certain amount of freedom under this scheme, as it was felt that since they are closer to the people they should have more say over where the money should be spent. But this proposal came at a bad moment in history, because the arrangements of federal-provincial cost-sharing programs do not happen in a political vacuum. They, of course, happen at a particular time and place in the political history of Canada. In addition to certain inadequacies inherent in the block funding proposal, it was introduced at a bad political moment, just as we had a wave of so called neo-Conservatism spreading across the country like a plague, and just as the provincial governments thought that their first duty was to use health care as an avenue of fiscal restraint. Instead of the freedom which the provinces were supposed to receive under the block funding arrangement being utilized to innovate and to expand, this freedom turned into licence to use health care as a means of fighting what was perceived to be inordinate government spending.
To a certain extent and, on those grounds, it is fair to say that block funding never really received a decent chance. There is some question as to whether or not it should be given a second chance because of its inherent faults. But because it came at this bad historical moment, block funding never really had a chance. Two exceptions are the provinces of Quebec and Saskatchewan because they used this freedom in a more creative way.
The federal government will have to take action to bring the provinces which are abusing their freedom under block funding arrangement into line. To a certain extent the answer given three times now by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) in response to questions about health care, to the effect that nothing can be done until the review of the health care services by Justice Hall is completed, is legitimate. 1 can understand why the minister does not want to comment on this subject before the Hall report has dealt with some of the problems about which she has been asked.
But I have no illusions as to whether or not the Hall report will be implemented the day after it comes down, given that the government agrees with its contents. In the meantime we are hearing more and more every day about how the medicare system is being eroded at the provincial level through the charging of premiums, deterrent fees, extra billing, opting out and cutbacks in hospital services. We must act now. If the minister must wait for the Hall report, then that is fine. But after it is completed I call upon the minister to act expediently to bring the provinces into line.
I call upon the minister to act soon, so that when the subject of health care comes up with regard to what will be the federal
Borrowing Authority Act
responsibilities and the provincial responsibilities at a constitutional conference, we will still have a health care system to discuss, and so that we can debate legitimately which government will provide the funding, instead of being in a situation where far too much of the health care costs has been transferred to the private sector already by all these devious means. At this point the debate on who will administer and fund health care would become, to a certain extent, academic.
We have a very young health care system. It is only 18 years ago that the battle for health care as a right was fought in Saskatchewan. We have a very young, philosophical mongrel type of system. We have a publicly funded system mixed with a fee-for-service view and an entrepreneurial view of medicine. Some of the strains which were built into the original compromise are becoming more tense. The battle, as I said before and as we see it from this corner of the House, is fundamentally not a battle of cost, but a battle of attitudes and how we are going to perceive health care within the context of the society which we wish to create in Canada.
We must see health care as a right of individual Canadians and as something which the community and the country which we call Canada perceives in such a way that to the extent that individuals suffer, then we all suffer, because we are connected not merely in the phony connection of the market place, but as human beings. When we begin to see health care in that way, we will not have to ask where the money is going to come from for health care. We will not pass millions and millions of dollars without debate in one day in the form of tax expenditures, and then spend months and months moaning and groaning about the cost of health care. It was $32 billion in tax expenditures alone in 1978.
When we come to the point that we regard health care as a right and not a consumer commodity to be exchanged in the marketplace, all these problems of cost will disappear, at least in the way we so often hear about them. We will be willing to pay the costs in order to ensure a future of which we can all be proud. We will not have to fight the battle for our health care system in Canada every ten years. It should have become part of the fabric of Canadian society long ago. It should not be something that is attacked periodically, as it has been recently. I hope, when we consider supplementary borrowing and all these questions of government spending, that we will take into account that it is important to spend money on health care.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a number of comments on the bill now before the House because when I look back on what has happened in the last 24 months in this House, I believe that the attitude of the government in introducing this bill is the worst example of irresponsibility that I have ever seen.

June 3, 1980
Borrowing Authority Act
I well remember and realize the purpose of this bill which asks for a borrowing authority of $12 billion to meet cash requirements and provide a sufficient margin to deal with contingencies. All Canadians, and the government especially, are well aware of the present economic situation. This economic situation has been brought about by the present government.
I do not think that anyone can accuse us of having accumulated a debt of nearly $70 billion after four months in power, but it seems that the administration of the last 15 years has brought about this situation which looks more and more like a bankruptcy of horrendous proportions. The members of the government who worry about our reluctance to support such legislation, should understand that, in all honesty, it is not only difficult but impossible for us to comply with the invitation made to us by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), who was in such a hurry himself to refuse us much less than what he is now asking for.
Mr. Speaker, I believe it is important for the Canadian people to know one thing. I would like to go back-and this is directly relevant to this bill-to about May, 1978, when we were already speaking about an election campaign. I remember quite well that the then minister of finance, who understandably no longer holds that portfolio, the hon. member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien), and the then minister of energy, mines and resources were already speaking about the importance of increasing the price of gasoline because it already was a heavy burden for Canada to continue to subsidize the price of oil so that Canadians could pay less than world prices.
The mandate of the government was over and elections were postponed three times for totally political reasons, and it is important, Mr. Speaker, that Canadians remember these events which are not so far behind us. The government therefore refused to face its responsibilities. The year came to an end and, in 1979, an election was finally called, which enabled us to make an in-depth study of the economic situation of Canada.
The Canadian people should remember that because the government refused to face its responsibilities at the time, the Minister of Finance, who condemned us only four months ago because of a budget which I shall explain later, now asks for a borrowing authority of $12 billion even though everyone recognized several months ago that government expenditures were already exceeding the normal level. And in May 1979 we had an opportunity to make in-depth analyses of this government's economic failure. And the senior officers, I remember very vividly for having been part of cabinet and therefore tremendously lucky in obtaining information, told us this increase in expenditures had to be stopped, they had to be cut and contained, as the warning had been given the government two or three years past, but for purely political reasons the price of gas had not been increased before the May 1979 election, expenditures had not been restrained, because certain projects
were cut for purely partisan reasons. The responsibilities of any member sitting on either side of this Flouse were not assumed.
And for that reason the analysis was not easy. However, we are now blamed for not having brought forward a budget before seven months. But although four months have now gone by and the Minister of Finance has yet to give us any indication, he is now requesting a blank cheque for $12 billion on money he needs of course. The government needs money, but they have not yet found any, and God knows, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Finance is aware of this country's economic plight, though he has been in cabinet for 15 years.
That budget did not undergo major changes, except that we attempted in those seven months to make a difficult analysis, as I said, that forced us in Canada's interest to restrain expenditures and show courage toward Canadians, placing them squarely before the economic situation with which we were confronted by the previous government. And this we did. Ours was a tough budget and it was necessary. I think that in the country as a whole, including my colleagues opposite if they showed any sincerity, people would recognize today that our proposals were taking into account the reality and the difficulties experienced by Canada now and some seven months ago. But it was not a popular measure, it would not pay up political dividends and as the thirst for power was more acute than the care for Canada's interests, it is for that reason that we were defeated barely three and a half months ago. There are no other reasons, Mr. Speaker. At that time we were fully guilty of having tabled such a budget because we wanted to put Canada back on the track to prosperity and stop letting it go adrift, finally to end up in an embarrassing failure when having to explain it to people who are not Canadians. Those seven months had also enabled us, I think, to give evidence of a new sense of direction thanks to the proposals that we had made and I was quite pleased to see my cabinet colleagues make proposals and give an account for everything. One had to show a good deal of audacity to explain to Canadians that belt tightening was not simply empty talk but that it meant action on our part. And the point was that we had begun acting by bringing forth corrective and drastic measures regarding government expenses and most ongoing projects.


An hon. Member:: The people passed judgment on that.


Roch La Salle: I'll get back on that subject later.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we knew that the measures we were putting forward three and a half months ago were the necessary remedies. Of course, because of its craving for power the government now in place, in collusion with the members of the New Democratic Party, considered it was time to bring the government down because we were in a minority position, of course, but even in a minority position we did not have the
June 3, 1980

right to refuse to face our responsibilities, and that is what we did.


An hon. Member:: The people have spoken.


Roch La Salle: During the election campaign, Mr. Speaker, this government showed unprecedented hypocrisy, bordering on dishonesty. First, they condemned our position on the gas price increase. There is nobody opposite suggesting now that the price of gas will not go up. But they did not talk much about it. They did not talk about it as long as possible, and they said we were wrong. Of course, for the everyday man, an increase of 18 cents is a lot. But those Liberals opposite knew full well that has been necessary for the past three and a half years if we were serious about self-sufficiency.
When we were talking about self-sufficiency, it was a way of going and getting the revenues where we had to go and get them because we did not want through a general taxation formula to tax those who do not have a car, a poor lady who would have had to pay taxes to help those who use a car. We thought that was an unpopular, but fair, and particularly necessary measure in view of the unprecedented spending and deficit we had. Our budget, I want to remind you, Mr. Speaker, included in addition to those measures that were necessary, the assurance that our budget deficit would be reduced over three to five years, and that was interesting and important for businessmen. Indeed, businessmen did not blame us on the proposals we had already made public. But in spite of the increase in expenditures that was turning out to be ridiculous as the result of the policies being carried out by the present government, they wanted to go ahead with things like a second rail line in western Canada, a second phase at Mirabel which is currently in the red. Of course, it was tempting for older people to have been offered the small amount of $35, which adds up to approximately $400 or $450 million, I think. We could have promised $50, Mr. Speaker. We had already considered the whole issue. The then minister of national health and welfare (Mr. Crombie) did a thorough analysis of the situation in order to increase the amount and give elderly people a decent income while managing to keep within the limits of the economic envelope and avoiding a larger budgetary deficit. That is the difference.
But no, the Liberals told the public that we were wrong and that the government was still in a good borrowing position. Today the parliamentary secretary points out that things are getting more difficult to manage because it will cost us nearly $11 billion to service the debt this year. That is the situation we are in now. That is $11 billion spent in a very negative way; there is no doubt about it. Think of all the things Canada could do had the government not sunk us so deep into debt, Mr. Speaker. But Canadians will have to realize that time has come to restrict government spending and put the economy back on its feet, and the sooner, the better.
Borrowing Authority Act
Will Canadians be spared the increase in the price of oil? I ask the question of our friends on the other side.


An hon. Member:: No tax.


Roch La Salle: No tax. They will pay the price through their income tax, then. It is only a different formula. How much will Canadians have to pay for this enduring mismanagement? Of course, my friends opposite remain silent.
As usual they will be party to such a legislation which will compel Canadians to pay more for servicing an enormous debt. But that is not new, and the people will wake up.


An hon. Member:: There is no need to shout so loud, the people have heard you!


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, the people cannot maintain in power for many more years representatives who demonstrate such irresponsibility and such incompetence. That is impossible, Mr. Speaker. And I am sure that the time will come when Canadians will realize what sort of treason they fell victims to during the last election campaign.


An hon. Member:: Vox populi-


Roch La Salle: It is perhaps because we have been more honest than our hon. friends opposite, Mr. Speaker, and it is not easy for anybody involved in politics to be honest.


An hon. Member:: That is why you are still in the opposition.


Roch La Salle: My hon. friends opposite are not aware of that. It is not easy to show enough courage.
Indeed, during the last election campaign, I saw Liberals behave like wolves in my constituency-and I said so not such a long time ago-roaming everywhere to bother elderly people and get then all worked up about the $35. They were telling them if you vote for the Liberals, you will get $35 a month, but if you don't you may not get it. They went so far as to make Quebeckers believe they would lose their family allowances and might have their old age security pension reduced. That is how they campaigned-


An hon. Member:: Louder!


An hon. Member:: Why did you support those $35 earlier, then?


Roch La Salle: In my constituency they did not vote for that, they did not vote for you. That I want to point out.
Mr. Speaker, here we are today after this hypocritical campaign-and the word is not too strong-facing a Minister of Finance who refuses to bring down his budget to tell us what he intends to do with these $12 billion. Moreover, these gentlemen are so inconsistent that they think we will bend to

June 3, 1980
Borrowing Authority Act
their will because Canada is in a delicate situation. It is the responsibility of the gentlemen who sit on the other side.
Mr. Speaker, we are not eager to make ourselves accomplices of such an economic failure. I am one of those who will prove that our budget was a factual budget and, incidentally, all that the Minister of Finance has come up with until now were propositions which were made by us. To date, he has not brought up anything new, just his old habit of getting Canada into debt. He wants us to increase Canada's debt by $12 billion. We think that enough is enough and we will not be accomplices or refuse to march to the tune of such incompetent people, Mr. Speaker. This is really true, Mr. Speaker. 1 would be so embarrassed to be on the other side of the House and to ask for a credit of something like $12 billion whereas those people asked us to reduce the budget deficit only four months ago. We were asked questions, and the then minister of finance, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) demanded proposals to reduce the budget deficit because Canada could not afford it, and because Canadians could not go on paying for debt servicing through their taxes.
It is unbelievable, Mr. Speaker, and Canadians should know that there are people in this House who were on this side hardly four months ago and who blamed us, who requested an oil price, who urged us to cut down our expenditures, and today, most of them are very silent and let the Minister of Finance-and 1 understand them, it is embarrassing. How can they justify an increase in government spending, an increase in government deficit, when the evidence of this economic failure is most obvious. That is the type of government we have. It is important for Canadians to know why we cannot support this measure.
When we talk about contingencies, Mr. Speaker, just for your information, to show you how our affairs are managed by this government, to demonstrate how this government has been not only irresponsible but incompetent, I shall tell you-


An hon. Member:: It will be the third time you have said it.


Roch La Salle: I shall never overemphasize the fact that this government is incompetent and some Canadians are going to believe it. Indeed, a great many Canadians did believe it. Recently, I had a look at what the President of Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) endorsed as supplementary estimates. For the Lachine canal in Montreal for instance they had figured $50 million. 1 was only going to ask the President of the Treasury Board if they had decided to build a second canal since the additional funds total a mere $45 million, 90 per cent over the initial cost, only peanuts.
I take the example of Trois-Rivieres where the initial cost of a small contract of $15 million has been increased by 65 per cent. The President of the Treasury Board authorizes those expenditures with a stroke of the pen. It amounts to $639
million. I do not have time to list them all as there are 400 such projects. This goes to show you, Mr. Speaker, what type of administration Canadians have chosen for themselves. It is important to emphasize it. It is important because the people opposite will not tell it. So, Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that my co-operation will not be forthcoming in this debate.
Before 1 resume my seat 1 should like also to remind you that in our proposals we had something for poor owners. It was a compensatory measure well thought out and well prepared, in the spirit of that just society that the Prime Minister has long since forgotten. We were going to help the construction industry and today I heard, and I think that the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Cousineau) is here, that 120 workers in his riding are losing their jobs because of problems in the construction industry. The assistance we wanted to provide for home owners in view of interest costs was a highly useful and positive measure. However, this was defeated because, as I remember quite well, when we introduced the bill, we were told that we had forgotten about tenants. What has the government introduced for tenants in the last four months?
The Minister of Finance refuses to present a budget, supposedly because he does not know the price of oil. At least, we had an agreement in principle on oil. We had an agreement in principle, but the present government certainly does not have one. In any case, Canadians will pay more for their gas, they will go deeper in debt, and they will see part of their taxes used for the service of a debt which has become excessive. This is the type of administration that we now have, and we are asked for a blank cheque, for a borrowing authority of $12 billion for a government which is unable to present at the same time a paper which would provide explanations and information on how these $12 billion will be used. Mr. Speaker, this is asking too much. 1 believe we have no right to accept this blank cheque that the Minister of Finance demands because we have proof of his lack of knowledge in view of the reluctancy he has shown in this House about presenting a budget which could stimulate the Canadian economy. I have said that we gave a new direction to the Canadian economy by the service and the role that we wanted to provide for the private sector, and we would have obtained rather extraordinary results.
For political and partisan reasons, this government decided to defeat a government which wanted to implement measures to correct the situation, and Canadians are now disappointed, as we shall see in the months and the years to come. We shall continue to urge the government to present budgets within reasonable time limits and to introduce measures to correct the situation, and I believe that the House will agree that it is urgently required, but for this we need much less irresponsibility or fewer irresponsible people than we now have, and I hope that Canadians will realize what is happening and allow us to put this country on the way back to prosperity and prevent the
June 3, 1980

bankruptcy which seems imminent because of the present government.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, my contribution to the debate will be brief. Listening to the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), something I have had the pleasure of doing for many years, I could not help but note, as 1 listened to his useful contribution, that perhaps it is time members opposite forgot the fact that they lost an election. It seems to me that most of their contributions, covering the widest range of subjects, reflect a preoccupation with the fact that they are no longer in power. I have listened to the hon. member for Joliette, to the former minister of finance, and to other members rising at every opportunity, repeating, retracing the events in December which led to the defeat of that government. Every time 1 listen, the events are depicted or described a little differently.
The government which was defeated in December was defeated because the opposition, exercising its democratic right, in its collective wisdom decided that the government was not capable of administrating the affairs of the nation. That is the political process under which we operate. But what the members opposite never state is that on February 18 the people of Canada, in record number, went to the polls after listening for two months to the arguments of the government as to why the opposition parties were irresponsible. They listened to the explanations as to why the concepts of the then minister of finance were logical, to assurances that there was a master plan which would restrain spending, revitalize private industry, and do all the proper things.
The people of Canada had 60 days in which to evaluate the events of that fateful night in December, to listen to the arguments of the minister of finance, the leader of the government of the day, the hon. member for Joliette and others. If the party of the hon. member for Joliette had a case, then the people of Canada had an opportunity on February 18 not only to return that government to power but also to do it by a substantial majority. They did not do that, and I am surprised that hon. members opposite are still discussing, reviewing, and moaning over the events of December 14, or whatever the date was, and saying nothing at all in debate about the events of February 18.
As I recall that election campaign, night after night the then minister of finance and the then leader of the government went on television and leading ministers went across the country, talking about the irresponsibility of the Liberal party and the New Democratic Party, and the copping out in their responsibilities of the Creditistes. The message was pure and simple. Hon. members opposite said that if they were re-elected, they would bring back exactly the same budget, and they gave their reasons. That is exactly the message which came through every day and every evening on the news. It dominated, quite logically, the speeches of the members of the government of the day. Why? Because they believed in their philosophy. They
Borrowing Authority Act
believed that it is necessary to put more people out of work in order to balance the budget.
They went back to Adam Smith's concept. They tried persuasively to tell Canadians that in December the opposition parties had acted collectively and irresponsibly. The Canadian people did not accept their version of the events. If anything, the Canadian people applauded what took place in this very democratic Parliament in getting rid of a government which, if it had not been defeated at that time, would have brought us back to the good old days of R. B. Bennett. There is nothing different in the philosophy of the former minister of finance and the minister of finance of the hungry thirties. There is nothing different in the policy re-enunciated a few moments ago by the hon. member for Joliette and those which brought us the terrific depression of the thirties.
I am not a cabinet minister; I can criticize. In the United States the President said on television Saturday or Sunday-it was Sunday morning when I heard him-"We miscalculated, it is not going to be a recession, it is going to be a deep depression," and he urged Americans to start spending. "Spend, spend, spend", was exactly the message which came from Schultze. There has been a whole series of speeches and public interviews on American television over the last four weeks. Schultze, the economic adviser to the President, was really saying that once again the ability of the American administration to fine tune has been miscalculated. To fine tune what? The level of acceptable unemployment? I never thought the day would come as a politician or as a member of Parliament that one's success would be measured by one's ability to put X number of people out of work. I am talking now about the previous government for the moment.


Mr. McDermid:: You are the one complaining about relevancy.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I will be talking about this government in a moment. I am responding to the speech of the hon. member for Joliette, who had every right to make a speech. He had every right to get up and say that his government was right, that its policies in December were accurate, and that we should never have defeated it. He was unable to sell that argument to the Canadian people in February, and if we are back in the House of Commons as the government it is not because the party of hon. members opposite was defeated in December but because when the Canadian people, when given an opportunity, decided that they preferred to re-elect a Liberal government with a majority.


Mr. Malone:: Two provinces.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: If there had been any substance to the argument of the hon. member for Joliette that somehow we defeated the government because we were being expedient, ganging up and taking advantage of a minority government, and if Canadians really believed it, they would have shown their displeasure with the opposition parties by seeing not only that they did not form a government but also by making sure that the Conservative party came back with a majority.

June 3, 1980
Borrowing Authority Act
Canadians, in their wisdom, said, "No, thank you". The older generation remembered the Bennett days, and the younger generation could not understand a policy which, as pointed out in the support papers to the budget, would result in a level of unemployment of 11 per cent, 12 per cent or 13 per cent. That is as I remember the document.


An hon. Member:: Read it again.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon. gentleman is a little excited. The support papers of the budget predicted a much higher level of unemployment than that which prevailed when the government of the day took its place. The minister at that time explained that it was unfortunate that it would create a terrible burden but that it was a natural reaction to the policy of his government in the short run. However, he said, "Cheer up, in the long run we will all be better off'.
What was the big issue in that election campaign? I know that in the area I represent it was not so much an increase in excise tax on gasoline, although that became the big issue. After all, there had been precedents for excise tax. If I recall correctly, there was a seven-cent excise tax in place. Perhaps 1 may be forgiven if I am a little rusty. I have not been around for four or five years, but if I recall correctly there was an excise tax of seven cents, and 1 do not think the average Canadian would have been too concerned if that was increased. Canadians were angry because it was increased to provide money for a mortgage interest deduction scheme. However, more particularly in my riding what made the difference, and what made people vote for the Liberals and against the Conservatives, was who that excise tax was levied against.
For the first time in Canadian history a government imposed an excise tax on the gasoline being used by the farmers of the country, which was a discrimination. For the first time in history there was an excise tax on the gasoline being used by the fishermen of this country.


An hon. Member:: Tell us about the rebate.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The rebate comes to the same thing. How could hon. members opposite expect people who travel 15, 20 or 25 miles to work by public transportation to accept an excise tax on the gasoline used by public transportation?


An hon. Member:: You are going to do the same thing.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: 1 am sure hon. members opposite did not realize that the excise tax applied even to the transportation of handicapped people.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Terrible.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I can only commiserate with the backbenchers who had to live through those days. Somebody in that party had to be extremely insensitive to apply increased excise tax to those categories I have just mentioned.


Mr. Paproski:: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a question of privilege.
I know the hon. member would not want to mislead the House,
because he is one of the finer members in this chamber, but I want to bring to his attention that there was a tax rebate for any person who was disabled, as far as the excise tax on gasoline was concerned.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: 1 know that there was indeed a rebate through the income tax, not only for disabled people but also for anyone who had to pay increased excise tax. That was recoupable through income tax. I simply say that hon. members opposite did not sell that concept very well. However, that does not in any way, shape or form change the fact that for the first time taxes were imposed on farmers and fishermen, and for the first time an excise tax was imposed on public transportation. If disabled people were being asked to recover it somehow through their income tax, and half of them have no income tax to recover it through, it was at best an insensitive application of an excise sales tax. There might have been some justification. After all, the government has ways and means of discouraging the use of automobiles for unnecessary purposes.
If the government felt that the money should have been directed to people to help them with their mortgages, so be it. That was the policy of the government. The point 1 am getting at is that the Canadian people realized that, sure, some day they are going to have to pay considerably more for gasoline, but they did not think the method of application of that excise tax on gasoline should have been so insensitive.
Normally hon. members opposite would have been sitting on this side of the House for four or eight years. That is the normal pattern of politics in this country, but the reason they are not sitting on this side of the House can be summed up in one word: insensitivity. They were insensitive in applying increased excise sales taxes to the farmer. I recall people saying in my community, "I do not understand. No matter what the price of fuel is, no matter how difficult it is to live with these interest rates, we have no choice but to use gasoline in our daily work; we have no choice but to use gasoline for our tractors, our trucks and our automobiles."
I cannot understand why the hon. member for Joliette failed to understand the anger in the rural community when people realized for the first time that, in the eyes of the government, their use of the tractor was not that necessary in the economy of the country. So they showed their collective anger on February 18 in the most legitimate way it can be done in a democracy, namely, by voting against the government and voting a new government in.
So long as the opposition members want to devote most of the time in the question period and in their speeches rationalizing the policies which led to their defeat, that is great for us. It means they do not have time to come up with new ideas, new principles, or new concepts or to show that they have learned anything from their defeat. As a matter of fact, one of their most laudable traits, a positive trait, to me, of the minister of finance of the day or the prime minister of the day, was to say, "If we are re-elected, we will bring back the same budget without any change. We have learned nothing. There is noth-
June 3, 1980

ing we have learned in the 60 days. We have not made a mistake". It would not have been hard to say they made a mistake. They could have said, "If we are re-elected, we will not apply the excise tax on gasoline to the farmers, to the fishermen, to public transportation, to travelling salesmen and to other people who have to use their cars and use gasoline in order to earn their living, not for luxury. In that respect perhaps we are wrong and we will provide for an exemption for these groups, even if it means adding, in the spirit of conservation, two, three, four, five or ten cents to the tax of other people who use their cars part of the time for unnecessary travel."
I think that kind of flexibility on the part of a government seeking re-election might have had a dramatic impact on the outcome of that election. When you go into the rural areas, or into the Atlantic provinces and say to the people "Re-elect us and we will guarantee that we will impose the terrible tax which you have to pay for the first time, despite the problems you have in earning a living or to break even, but we will do so for your own good and you will feel the beneficial results 20 years from now," and then to come out and refer to the background papers in the budget predicting the state of the economy five years down the line, predicting a substantial increase in unemployment figures, all this is hardly designed to win friends and influence people in the industrial sector. So 1 am at a loss, as a friend of hon. members opposite, to understand, even at this late date, 60, 90 or 120 days after the election, their motivation for saying that they were right in December, they were right in the election campaign, and that even if the people defeated them on February 18, the people did not know what they were doing, and in the next election they will come back with the same outmoded concept. That is music to my ears.


An hon. Member:: Why is MacEachen doing the same thing?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon. gentleman over there is doing very well looking through his papers. If he has an argument with the present Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), 1 am sure that he is quite capable, as one of the future leaders of that tired little band in the corner, to make his case during the question period.
I am pleased and satisfied with the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) today that no matter to what degree we are committed to restraint, to reducing the accumulated deficit, we will not do it at the risk of increasing unemployment in a country where the level of unemployment, so far as 1 am concerned, is already too high.
It was consolation to know that despite the pressures of the opposition in the question period, despite the pressures from certain financial institutions, despite the pressures from some editorialists, we will not be decreasing the deficit by cutting back on those programs that are so badly needed to stimulate the economy at a moment when we are suffering from an over-reaction by the United States government to the whole issue of inflation. 1 have never been convinced that inflation in
Borrowing Authority Act
the United States is the result of too much money chasing too few goods. On the contrary, I think it is self-evident that it is related to the high cost of petroleum, and 1 think the opposition is right when they make that case. I think we make the same case. But be it as it may, unemployment in the United States spills over into this country if for no other reason than that as our best trading partner they take in many of our exports, and if they are not buying because their economy is, or will be, at a stand still, this is bound to have a negative effect on this country.
It is at that time in our economic history when the government of the day has to stimulate the economy. The hon. member from the New Democratic Party spoke very recently and very persuasively about the tendency of some bureaucrats to advise this government. Perhaps the difference between the two governments, the Clark government and our government, is our ability to resist bad advice. Whatever the reason, medicare is a perfect example of what happens when private enterprise and government are competing for the same shrinking funds.
I have often likened our system in Canada, particularly the one that this party has fashioned by reason of the fact that it has been in government for so long, to a marriage of convenience between private enterprise and social policy and social reform. We believe in private enterprise because obviously it is the most effective and successful generator of capital in world history, as compared to communist, socialist, or social democratic countries. Private enterprise, as epitomized by the Americans in the United States and, to a lesser degree, by ourselves, is still the best way of generating the capital we need. What does the government do? Our government simply said, "We would like to distribute some of that capital on those types of programs that should be synonymous with our way of life, that is, universality of medicare, universality of education, equality of opportunity, and minimal regional disparity through our transfer of payments". That is our responsibility.
When that pool of available capital becomes smaller and when there is legitimate competition for funds between free enterprise and social policy, then you have to, as the French people often say, pour a little water in your wine. Surely you do not want that marriage of convenience to end in divorce. It is obvious that the strategy and the policy of the Conservative party is to say, "This is not a convenient time for one of the partners in the marriage to advocate social policy and to be making demands." Perhaps it is not, nor do I think it is time that we should cut back these policies to the point that we destroy them, because these are the things that distinguish Canada from the United States.
Medicare is a perfect example of the difference between our two countries. When we say, as a government, that we are dedicated to equality of opportunity for Canadians, that should apply to all Canadians. It should mean that the level of medicare available to the people in the Atlantic provinces is equal to that in Alberta, in Quebec or Ontario. Already through block funding we have evidence that that is no longer

June 3, 1980
Borrowing Authority Act
the case, that the "have" provinces are able to make medicare available with other features to their people, and to the more hard pressed provinces in the maritimes this is not possible. It is equally true in the field of education and in many other areas, that if you are going to have equality of opportunity, that equality should not end at the frontiers of the central provinces.
The minister is asking for the right to borrow $12 billion during the course of the year. The bill specifies that this is for public works and other purposes. I can only give you the description in the bill, which is not as hon. members opposite describe it. But I want to say that this party does not tend to balance the budget or reduce the deficit by cutting back our social programs to the degree that they would be outmoded and, in fact, unfair to most Canadians.
In conclusion, 1 would just say that it is time members opposite remember the election is over. When they are tracing the course of events leading up to today, they should start earlier, or not skip from December to today. They should remember that on February 18, after listening to their arguments as to the irrationality of the opposition for two months, the people of Canada had an opportunity to evaluate the programs of both parties. Perhaps they came to the conclusion that there was very little difference between the two programs of the parties. The main difference that I would agree to is the application.
I shoud like to come back to one example of many, that is, the increase in the excise sales tax in order to conserve energy and provide needed funds to help middle-class people with their mortgages. I cannot quarrel too much with that objective, but I quarrel with the application because, as usual, it wreaked the greatest hardships on farmers, disabled people, people dependent on public transportation, fishermen, and people less able to protect themselves. On election day everybody is equal in the country. The will of the people was that we have a change of government, after listening to the eloquent persuasion of the minister of finance and prime minister of the day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. Before 1 recognize the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson), I should like to deal with the late show for this evening.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen)-External Affairs-Soviet Union-Reported reinstatement of cultural, scientific and educational exchanges; the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Jelinek)-Metrication-Economic development programs to improve employment in automobile industry; the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo)-Canadian Wheat Board-Losses to farmers due to U.S. embargo on grain to U.S.S.R.-Government policy.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen that Bill C-30, to provide supplementary borrowing authority for the fiscal year 1980-81, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we have all been entertained by the fatherly advice of the peripatetic hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey). I am sorry he had to leave so soon because I would have liked to comment on some of the things he brought to our attention. One important observation he made was that after a certain progression of government policy, as the French describe it, we mix water and wine. That is one of the principal messages I should like to leave with the House today. When we have had over a long period of time the government policies that have been followed since 1968-and going back even prior to that-the result is that we are mixing water and wine. We are getting a diluted product which, in the illustration of the hon. member for Lincoln, was bad wine. Also we have bad dollars because the dollars today are worth less than half what they were back in 1968 when the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) first took office.
I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate on Bill C-30 to provide the government with the borrowing authority to raise $12 billion. This is a very, very important debate. Passage of the bill will provide the government with the opportunity to continue its programs for the balance of this fiscal year. The shocking part of it is that we know nothing about these programs. That is the key message which members

June 3, 1980

on this side of the House are trying to get across to the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen).
I used to be an investment dealer before 1 got into politics. As an investment dealer, any time one of my clients came to me and asked if they could raise some capital through the capital markets, I said, "What are you using the money for; what is the purpose of the issue?" We have seen nothing about what is the purpose of the issue today. We could debate this for the next two or three months if we wanted. Also we looked at the usefulness and the quality of management of the organization, and again I must say that it is an area we could be debating for the next two or three months as well.
We heard clearly from the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) that he is very disappointed with the quality of management in this organization. That quality has been building up over many, many years. Another aspect that we look at is whether there is any attempt whatsoever to reduce the loan or to reduce the demands on the public purse. 1 have seen nothing to indicate that in the period of time 1 have been here since February 18. Many times members on this side have said that the government is asking for a blank cheque. It is just as simple as that, because we have no idea what is happening. Ministers are asking us to provide them with the authority to continue the disastrous policies of the 1970s, with no accounting to Parliament. It is incomprehensible why there has been no understanding built up during this period of time as to the effects of high government deficit.
I fully support the various things the hon. member for Lincoln raised in the course of his remarks as to the importance of social programs. But the key thing we must realize is that if we cannot afford those social programs, it will hurt this country very, very seriously. The long-term damage being done to this country by continuing and accelerating levels of budget deficit are things we will be living with for many years, as will our children and our children's children. There is no way of getting away from that.
On many occasions we have said that it is essential the government bring forward a budget at the earliest possible opportunity, because the sorry excuse for a budget that was brought down in April is simply not good enough to get an understanding of where the government is going. Again we tried to get some understanding from the Prime Minister today and from the Minister of Finance on previous occasions. We are getting nowhere in understanding the direction of the policies of this government. That is why we say we need a budget.
The last time a budget was passed by this House was in November, 1978, a year and a half ago. That is why we need a budget before the summer recess. The distressing fact is that either this government does not have the wisdom and the intelligence to recognize the existence and the magnitude of the problem of a major series of deficits, or it understands the problem and continues on its way with a full understanding of the impact it has on the people of the country. They are borrowing money at today's rates and at today's value for the dollar, and they are paying it back in reduced dollars. As I
Canada Labour Code
said, in 1968 the dollar was worth over twice what it is today. If we continue doing that, the only organization that benefits from it in the country is the Government of Canada. To hear the possibility that this government is considering removing indexing from personal tax exemptions is just removing one more discipline from stopping them continuing on the basis they have been for years. It is a classic example of buying the votes of Canadians with their own money.
What the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) was trying to do with his budget of December 11 was to show Canadians a way to get out of the sorry state we are in now. But we get from the government opposite policies which will permit them to get short-term gain unfortunately with longterm pain for this country.
May I call it five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, private bills, and notices of motions.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. John Gamble (York North) moved: that Bill C-203, to amend the Canada Labour Code, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to introduce Bill C-203 for second reading and of exercising a right common to all members of this House, the right to change the laws by which Canadians are governed. 1 mention this rudimentary fact because it is often forgotten when we, as members of Parliament, are caught up with concepts of party solidarity and partisan politics. While I might have preferred to introduce Bill C-203 under circumstances where, with amendments to the rules and practices of the House, there was a greater likelihood of a vote on the same, 1 am nevertheless pleased to be able to address the issue contained therein with hon. members of this House.
Naturally I would be extremely gratified if Parliament shook off the mantle of executive control and provided a forum where individual members might freely debate the affairs of state and provide a direction for our country, unhindered by an all-powerful bureaucracy. Practice today, regrettably, precludes the realization of such a lofty hope.
The Canada Labour Code sought to be amended by Bill C-203 endeavours to regulate labour and management affairs

June 3, 1980
Canada Labour Code
touching on or involving federal works. In essence, it governs labour matters that fall within federal jurisdiction, and accordingly has no direct bearing on provincial legislation of a similar kind.
The code contains the customary provisions relating to the rights of employees to join a trade union of their choice, the certification of bargaining agents for a unit of employees, and provides for the regulation of the affairs of the Canada Labour Relations Board.
Pursuant to section 161(a) of the code, a collective agreement may include a provision requiring, as a condition of employment, membership in a specified trade union. Subsections 1, 2 and 3 have the combined effect of obliging an employee to contribute his union dues to his bargaining agent on a check-off basis from his salary.
While sections 184 and 185 relating to unfair practices by both employer and trade unions respectively list unacceptable conduct of both parties, the dismissal of an employee is provided either by the employer on his own volition, or at the request of the union, where the employee has failed to pay his required union dues.
By the interaction of sections 161, 162 and 185 of the code, the payment of union dues is therefore linked directly with the right to gain and retain employment. Bill C-203 deals effectively with what may or may not be done in the political sphere with some of those dues so contributed by individual members of Canadian trade unions.
The purpose of the bill is to grant to the individual employee the right to determine whether any part of his union dues are made available for political purposes, and the bill provides, in that portion of the code which relates directly to the deduction by way of check-off for union dues, as follows:
Any provision in a collective agreement requiring an employer to make a deduction from the remuneration paid to an employee and to credit the deduction to a trade union, is invalid if any part thereof is, or is intended to be, contributed to or used to support a political party, unless the employee has expressly so authorized in writing.
Several trade unions in Canada have constitutions which permit individual members to opt out of the political contribution portion of their dues. These situations are rare, however, and require an overt act by an individual member of a trade union to gain what must be a fundamental right of all Canadians, the right to determine which political party, if any, is supported by them financially.
Peer pressure within labour organizations, and labour leadership disfavour, prompt many to fail to avail themselves of the opportunities to opt out of making a political contribution as a part of their union dues payments. As I have said, it appears that there are few labour unions under whose constitutions an individual member thereof may take advantage of the right to which 1 have made reference.
It is fundamental to individual freedom that Canadians, including members of trade unions, be granted the right to exercise freely, and of their own choice, who shall benefit from their financial support of political parties.


Svend Johannes Robinson: What option do the shareholders have?


John Albert Gamble: We will deal with that, and I am sure the hon. member will too.
I submit to this House that no money should be extracted from Canadians in the fashion that union dues are to be spent on a political party which the contributor does not support. This bill will guarantee that funds contributed as union dues and directed to a political party will have the express written consent of the donor.


An hon. Member:: Taxes.


John Albert Gamble: The New Democratic Party, the alleged supporters of individual civil rights, have long been the benefactors of enforced political taxation, and I can well understand why I now hear the clamouring from the left.
From the office of the Chief Electoral Officer, I have determined the following information pertinent to the 1979 general election.


An hon. Member:: Let's hear where you got your money first.


John Albert Gamble: Individual candidates by political party affiliation received the following contributions from trade unions during and with respect to the 1979 general election: Progressive Conservatives, $280; Liberals, $100; Social Credit, $50; and the New Democratic Party $420,186. Registered political parties, by party affiliation, received the following contributions from trade unions: Progressive Conservative Party, $430; Liberal party, $2,849; and the NDP, $1,765,083. On the basis of that analysis, 1 well understand why the most vociferous opposition has come so far and will continue to come from the NDP part of this House.
That party has proclaimed itself as the champions of civil liberties, but its members are undoubtedly blinded by their own financial well-being when it is confronted with a proposal which grants to individuals the right and freedom to refrain from contributing to political party coffers through enforced political taxation. Fundamentally, economic freedom is permanently linked to political freedom. The recognition by individual members of trade unions that a percentage of their union dues support the NDP may, indeed, be one of the chief reasons that that party does so very poorly at the time of general elections.
Although they have been able to induce labour leadership to follow them, the NDP have signally failed to persuade the rank and file. It is well understood that the antagonism against NDP enforced taxation has the effect of alienating those people when they exercise their free will at the ballot box. Having regard to the practice in the House and the clamouring of the NDP benches, I have the decided advantage of confronting my NDP opponent, at the time of the next election, with the fact that 1 sought to relieve trade union members of a

[DOT]rAV-A'v,v- - .	**
June 3, 1980

financial burden and members of the NDP party, as I am sure they must, blocked passage of that remedial legislation.
What of the inevitable comparison between the shareholders of corporations who make political donations and the members of trade unions who indirectly do the same? The question, of course, has already been screamed out at me in this House by members of the NDP. The individual shareholder who disapproves of the actions of the board of directors or officers of a corporation in which he has shares may, at any time, dispose of his investment. But individual trade union members have no such luxury.
I have already described the fact that their continued enjoyment of their occupation is dependent on the deduction of their trade union dues. I have already described what happens to those dues. They cannot simply divest themselves of their jobs. If an occupation is an investment, then it must surely be a very special one. It is an investment of one's life and the comparison, accordingly, cannot be drawn between a member of a trade union movement who is obliged by the constitution of that organization to make political contributions to a party that he may or may not support, and the shareholder of a corporation who may simply divest himself of his investment and walk away.
There is one other matter to which 1 would draw the attention of this House. It relates to the tax consequences to individual trade union members when a portion of their dues is contributed to a political party. In computing the income of members of a trade union, one may deduct, pursuant to the provisions of subparagraph 8( 1 )(/)(iv) of the Income Tax Act:
Annual dues to maintain membership in a trade union as defined
(A)	by section 3 of the Canada Labour Code, or
(B)	in any provincial statute providing for the investigation, conciliation or settlement of industrial disputes.
In interpreting that subparagraph, however, one must have regard to subsection 8(5) of the Income Tax Act which provides that:
Notwithstanding subparagraphs (1)(/')(i) and (iv), annual dues are not deductible thereunder in computing a taxpayer's income from an office or employment to the extent that they arc, in effect, levied

(c) for any other purpose not directly related to the ordinary operating expenses of the association or trade union to which they are paid.
It is my understanding that the Department of National Revenue interprets those two sections in the same fashion that I do. That being the case, I suggest that it is imperative that members of trade unions be apprised of the consequences of actions taken by the union leadership which render ineffective statutory provisions granting their members specific tax relief. Undoubtedly, the general provisions related to tax credit arrangements in connection with political contributions under the Income Tax Act which are made available to all Canadians would be a preferred way that individual members of trade unions might make, both freely and economically, a contribution to a political party in a fashion which would benefit them more than the simple deduction and the computation of income in the fashion authorized by subparagraph 8( 1 )(/')(iv) to which I made reference.
Canada Labour Code
There is much in the labour laws of Canada that requires change, change designed to grant to Canadians as members of trade unions a greater degree of control over their own destiny. This bill is but a part of that process. The bill is short and concise, and so are my remarks. I would conclude these remarks by urging passage of Bill C-203 on second reading.


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I gladly join in this debate on Bill C-203 which the hon. member for North York (Mr. Gamble) has brought before the House. I do not intend to engage in any of the invective to which we have been subjected so far this afternoon. I thought perhaps I could inject a note of rationality into the debate. I would do that, first of all, by reviewing, for the benefit of some hon. members of the House, the legislative enactment with which we are concerned, namely, the Canada Labour Code.
The Canada Labour Code, which was alluded to by the hon. member for York North, as the legal instrument pertaining to employment within the federal jurisdiction. This jurisdiction encompasses some half a million working Canadians from coast to coast, and it covers such national industries as railways, airlines, shipping, grain elevators, trucking, broadcasting, telephones, banking, certain Crown corporations-in effect virtually all undertakings which are of national significance. The code itself consists of three parts, the first one dealing with employment standards, the second one dealing with employment safety, and the third one dealing with what we are involved in today, industrial relations.
As it appears in the statute books, part V contains an interesting preamble which, with your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote, as I believe its essence is pertinent to the subject matter which is under discussion. 1 quote from the preamble:
Whereas there is a long tradition in Canada of labour legislation and policy designed for the promotion of the common well-being through the encouragement of free collective bargaining and the constructive settlements of disputes;
And whereas Canadian workers, trade unions and employers recognize and support freedom of association and free collective bargaining as the basis of effective industrial relations for the determination of good working conditions and sound labour management relations;
And whereas the Government of Canada has ratified convention No. 87 of the International Labour Organization concerning freedom of association and protection of the right to organize and has assumed international reporting responsibilities in this regard;
* (1720)
And whereas the Parliament of Canada desires to continue and extend its support to labour and management in their co-operative efforts to develop good relation and constructive collective bargaining practices, and deems the development of good industrial relations to be in the best interest of Canada in ensuring a just share of the fruits of progress to all;
Now, therefore. Her Majesty-
There follows part V of the Code.
In the present context I would particularly refer to the way in which existing labour legislation in Canada follows this long tradition, a tradition which has been in effect for decades. It has been closely tailored to the requirements of the parties primarily concerned, that is to say, labour and management.

June 3, 1980
Canada Labour Code
Through its traditional nurturing of good industrial relations-and it is paramount if there is going to be co-operation that there be good relations between the two groups and this is essential to good industrial relations-the federal government has always been at pains to ensure that the legislation which is enforced is, as far as humanly possible, legislation that is best suited to, and most acceptable by, the prevailing circumstances and conditions.
In the case of part V of the Canada Labour Code, a part of the code which has had, over the years, an immense amount of attention focused on it, its various requirements and provisions are well tested and well proven.
As I have indicated, the code is in many ways a culmination of the input of many different people, people with a direct knowledge of and concern for the industrial relations environment. This input has been commensurate with the tradition in Canada of promoting the common well-being referred to in the preamble-by encouraging free collective bargaining and the constructive settlement of labour-management disputes. This, I think, is the essence of the labour code, to see to it that these two groups can attempt to reach the end which they see they need and must have in order to function, but to do so with compassion and, surely, the understanding we need in this very fast changing world today.
Having said that, I would respectfully make the point that it would be folly indeed to introduce any amendment to the provisions of the act that has not been vociferously and specifically requested by one or preferably both of the parties directly concerned.
To my knowledge, neither labour nor management side has made any sort of a concerted call for the proposed amendment that is now before the House, introduced by the hon. member for York North. And I think it is true to say that the government has no desire whatever to set what may well be a dangerous precedent by agreeing to an amendment which does not have widespread support, to say the least.
The point should also be strongly made that when it adopted part V of the Canada Labour Code, Parliament was in effect reaffirming the principle of actively encouraging unions to be masters of their own affairs-and indeed to operate with an absolute minimum of government involvement and interference. I am sure the hon. member for York North would agree with that concept because he is an advocate of more laissez-faire rather than more government involvement in whatever the issue may be. This has been, and remains, the Canadian way, and I for one heartily encourage it.
It was because of this strongly held principle that Parliament decided not to enact the twin Woods task force recommendations of automatically granting unions the agency shop or compulsory check-off to which my colleague alluded, and legislating procedures to guarantee the freedom of dissenting members to opt out of plans that channel union funds to political parties.
As you know, the Liberal party is not funded by the unions.
I would say, on the other hand, that although some funds are
brought in by bigger businesses throughout Canada it is, by and large, the rank and file, the ordinary Canadian who has chosen to donate moneys for our campaigns and to our party.
It is also interesting and relevant to note that Parliament's approach on the issue of regulation of union contributions to political causes also indicated that this had not been a source of problems. In addition to this, Parliament's approach paralleled the provincial practice of non-regulation.
Some may ask what provinces have legislation with regard to the specific use of moneys from union dues going to support political parties. I would point out that both Prince Edward Island and British Columbia, in the 1960s, did possess legislative provisions controlling the use of union funds for political purposes. They removed these provisions in the early 1970s. That, to my mind, say a lot, and adds further support to the federal government's stand.
I venture to suggest that another and equally compelling reason for opposing Bill C-203 is that it can very easily be viewed as being against the best interests of the union movement. Let it be known that this party is not opposed to unions. We are in favour of unions, and of unions organizing so that they can get the best possible deal for their membership.
As I have already indicated, there are no problems my department knows of that stem from the practice of unions contributing to political parties. I think this is another important point, and should be underlined. Over all, I think Canadians can take some satisfaction in knowing that federal labour legislation is generally viable, responsive, and effective.
I am by no means implying that the legislation as it presently stands is perfect-no legislation is-far from it. It can always be improved. Indeed the Department of Labour is continually reviewing and comparing the Canada Labour Code with its many counterparts in the provincial jurisdictions, as well as with legislation in force in other countries. To this end I will be attending the International Labour Organization Conference next week in Geneva, with my colleague, the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Irwin). At that time we will have a chance to compare our legislation and ideas with other countries. This will give us a better idea of where our government and ideas fit into the over-all scene as it is looked at by those countries.
The government is only too willing to give due consideration to any well-founded suggestion that might materially improve the operation of industrial relations in this country. Indeed, much of the legislation contained within our Canada Labour Code does, as I have indicated, reflect a high degree of input from the various players in the field of labour affairs. However, in my opinion, by no judgment can this bill presently before us be considered as offering any improvement whatever in the existing legislative framework.
For the reasons I have mentioned, I urge my colleagues in this House today to oppose the passage of this bill, and I trust that they will give due consideration to the points I have put before them.


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


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, it was very gratifying to see that small standing ovation on the other side for my friend who just spoke.
I too rise to oppose Bill C-203 presented today by the hon. member for York North (Mr. Gamble). I say, in commencing, that this bill represents an insult not only to the union movement of this country but to all working people who have chosen to join unions to defend their rights. We in the New Democratic Party are proud to be associated with the trade union movement and proud to receive the support that we have received from them. I would point out that it has been the union movement in this country that fought, in many cases long before Parliament, for civil liberties, a safe and decent work place, a healthy work place, a fair share of the wealth that is generated in the work place and to ensure that the strength of working people together is represented when they come up against what is becoming an increasingly more concentrated corporate sector.
This bill hearkens back to the days of W.A.C. Bennett in the province of British Columbia who, when the New Democratic Party was being formed, brought in legislation which banned outright any contributions on the part of the trade union movement to any political party. Of course, that was a backdoor way of getting at the New Democratic Party and preventing any money from the trade union movement being processed to the NDP.
There is a suggestion in this private member's bill that somehow the union movement is not responsible and that somehow it is perhaps abusing its rights in collecting funds and duly deciding how those funds will be expended. I would point out that democracy exists within the trade union movement to a far greater extent than it does within the corporate sector. In many cases in the corporate sector the decisions are made behind closed doors by a board of directors who often are not responsible to anyone but themselves.
In the union movement, before any decisions are made to spend money in an election or any other major expenditure of funds takes place, a democratic vote is taken of the membership of the particular local. It is only following such a vote that the funds are expended in the direction that is desired. Is it any wonder that it is the New Democratic Party and not the Liberal party or Conservative party which is the beneficiary of these funds?
One only has to look at the track record of the Conservatives, for example, in Nova Scotia, which smashed the movement that is attempting to organize Michelin Tire. One has only to look at the Liberal record. My friend talked about how the Liberal party supports the union movement and encourages them to bargain collectively.
It was the Liberal party that brought in wage controls. It said it was all right to bargain collectively so long as you did not try to get more than a certain percentage of the wage. That iniquitous piece of legislation will be remembered for a long time by the working people of this country.
Canada Labour Code
It is no surprise that members of the trade union movement, members of union locals in many parts of this country, have voted to support the party which has gone out of its way to ensure that the voices of ordinary men and women are heard in the councils of this country at the highest levels, and has been responsive to the concerns expressed by those working men and women.
A democratic vote is taken by the members of the local. I would point out that virtually all union constitutions go beyond that. Not only is there a requirement that there be a vote before any funds are expended of a political party, but virtually all union constitutions have a provision whereby any member who pays dues and does not wish to see his or her dues being used to support a particular political party can have a portion of those dues returned. What we have is the union movement in a democratic manner doing exactly what the hon. member for York North is suggesting be imposed upon them by legislation.
I point to a typical provision of a union constitution. This happens to be in the constitution of the labourers union, section 4:
Any dues paying member or person who pays dues or agency fees pursuant to union security provisions of a collective bargaining agreement shall be entitled to a rebate of the portion thereof which has been expended for political causes to which such person objects.
That kind of provision is found in virtually all trade union constitutions. I suggest that if we are looking for democracy, examples of democratic decision-making in the expenditure of funds, we should look at the trade union movement. 1 suggest that the hon. member for York North hang his head in shame if he suggests that the corporate sector is any kind of example of deciding how political funds are going to be expended.
It was in 1974 when we had a minority government that, because of the pressure from the New Democratic Party, we had a requirement for the first time that all donations over $100 be publicly disclosed. Prior to that time corporations were making massive donations to both the Liberal party and the Conservative party with absolutely no accountability to absolutely anybody. Their shareholders did not even know about those donations. Lor my friend to suggest that somehow the shareholders can object is, frankly, not at all feasible.
It goes beyond that. Many of these corporations which give donations to the Liberal party and Conservative party are extracting a tax from consumers and working people. The money which they take in assessing a price for their product or service, part of that amount is being used to support a political party. Therefore, in respect of the Royal Bank or some of the other corporations which so heavily support the Liberals and Conservatives, many people are not aware of the fact that they are in a sense contributing indirectly to a political party.
I have a list here from the most recent returns before the chief electoral officer of some of the contributions which have been made to both the Liberal party and the Conservative party. I think these belong on the record of this debate. To start with, these are to the Liberal party, that great defender of working people: the Alberta Gas Trunk Pipeline, $15,800.

June 3, 1980
Canada Labour Code


An hon. Member:: Build that pipeline.


Svend Johannes Robinson: As my friend says, build that pipeline quickly. The Aluminum Company of Canada, $15,000; Cadillac Fairview Development Corporation and land speculators, $11,090; Campeau Corporation, another big developer, $16,400; Canadian International Paper, $15,123. Lo and behold, we find the Canadian Pacific donating $25,000 and $15,000 the previous year to the Liberal party, that great defender of the working people and the rights of working people.
How many people who board a Canadian Pacific train are aware of the fact that they are indirectly contributing to the Liberal Party. What does the hon. member for York North have to say about this tax? They can and they should stop flying CP as a protest against this invidious form of indirect taxation.
Then we have the Conservative party, the party of my friend from York North, receiving donations from the Aluminum Company of Canada, $15,000; Denison Mines, $51,000; Dominion Foundries and Steel, $31,678; Gulf Oil of Canada, $41,000. How many people are aware when they drive up to the Gulf oil pumps to fill up their gas tank that they are contributing to the coffers of the Conservative Party of Canada?
I suggest the hon. member for York North should ask that a little sticker be inserted on every Gulf Oil gas tank indicating when there is a fill-up being made there that a contribution is going to the Conservative party and the Liberal party. What do my friends on my right have to say about this form of corporate taxation to support their political parties? They are strangely silent on that subject.
What about the banks? In the most recent year for which there was disclosure, the Bank of Montreal gave $25,000, not just to the Liberal party but also to the Conservative party; the Bank of Nova Scotia gave $20,000 to the Liberal party and the Conservative party; and the Royal Bank gave $25,000 to both the Liberal and Conservative parties.
How many consumers are aware of the fact that when they go into the bank to cash their cheque that they are contributing to both the Liberal party and the Conservative party? How voluntary is that contribution? What proposal is my friend from York North making to ensure that that is voluntary? "Sell your shares", he says. Well, Mr. Speaker, how many old age pensioners in this country, how many working people have pension funds which are invested in some of these corporations-invested in the Royal Bank, invested in the International Nickel Company? What kind of voluntarism is that? Are we to tell these pensioners whose funds are being invested in their best interests that they can stop receiving their pensions if they do not want their pension fund to invest in some of these companies which give money to both the Liberal party and the Conservative party? There is no suggestion of that.
So it is not surprising to see a Conservative member coming forward with a bill which suggests there has somehow or other been an abuse of the power of working people organized collectively through their unions to make decisions about the way in which their funds should be allocated, to make decisions about which political party represents them best.
I am not ashamed to say, in fact, I am proud to say, that 1 received substantial support in the last election from the largest union in British Columbia, the International Woodworkers of America. I am proud of the fact that my campaign manager, John Jantzen, was elected by the membership of that local and that the membership of the local chose to donate funds to help elect me to this House. I am proud of that. I am proud the decision was made democratically at an open meeting of the members of that local. I might say in passing that this local was headed until very recently by a gentleman named Syd Thompson, one of the great labour leaders in the province of British Columbia. He is retiring this year having given many years of service not only to his own membership in the IWA but to working people both organized and unorganized in British Columbia. I am certainly very proud to have been suppported in the last election by a union whose leadership is as outstanding, a union which is as democratically organized as is that particular union. Contrast this with the organization of, say, the Royal Bank, or of Inco and some of the other corporations which support the Liberals and the Conservatives. The hon. member advises people to sell their shares. That is his answer to those who suggest there is perhaps an element of hypocrisy in the bill before us.
I have laid my record on the line. 1 have received no corporate contributions. I thought it might be interesting to place before the House the record of the hon. member for York North. It is a very interesting document and perhaps it makes it clear why the hon. member for York North is bringing this motion before the House today. Where did the hon. member for York North receive his funds in the 1979 election, from trade unions? 1 suggest he received not a penny from them, and it is no wonder, Mr. Speaker. The record shows: from individuals, $10,148.81; public corporations, $1,000; and private corporations, $23,363.57. That is what the hon. member for York North received from his friends in the corporate sector. What does he have to say about how voluntary those donations were as far as the people who happen to hold shares in those companies are concerned?
Let us examine the return of the hon. member for York North a little more closely. We see here that he received some $15,000 from various elements of the building industry. He received $1,000 from Milo Management. He received $1,000 from Aztec Steel Manufacturing Company. I wonder whether the customers of Aztec Steel are all aware of the fact that they are contributing to the election campaign? The same applies to the shareholders of Doubletex Incorporated. Or what about Union Carbide of Canada which contributed $300 to the campaign of the hon. member for York North? I wonder how many customers of Union Carbide were consulted. One of my
June 3, 1980

hon. friends suggests there should have been consultation before this donation was made. How many of the shareholders of Union Carbide were asked whether they wanted to assist in the election of the hon. member for York North? I would be interested to hear the hon. member tell us what kind of consultation took place with respect to that particular donation. The same applies to the $300 from the Ontario Arms Collectors Club. It would be interesting to learn how the hon. member voted with respect to certain legislation which affects the Ontario Arms Collectors Club. What sort of consultation took place with regard to the $20,000 received from various corporations involved in the building industry in his own riding.
We see here yet another example of the duplicity of the Conservative party. They suggest that somehow there is something wrong with working people deciding democratically to donate funds and labour to the party they have decided best represents their interests while on the other hand remaining completely silent about corporate donations going to their own party on a massive scale and on an involuntary basis.
Again, I would draw attention to the fact that in 1978 the Conservative party received from corporations some $2.67 million. That was in the most recent year for which figures are available. We are told the Liberal party did not receive very much, really, from the corporate sector-that they receive a lot of money from individuals. That certainly is not the case, Mr. Speaker. The Liberal party received $2,500,000 from the corporate sector and $2.1 million from the private sector. So it was a case of Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Both are in the pockets of the corporate sector and neither should be coming before the House suggesting that the union movement which democratically gives certain moneys to candidates in the New Democratic Party should in any way be criticized. Such decisions are made freely and openly and democratically and they are made by the trade unions with which I and members of my party are proud to be associated.


Mr. Ron Irwin (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, with your permission I should like to direct some remarks about the bill now before the House. 1 represent a riding where the major union supports a political party financially. Even though I may not like this and even though I may speak against it, as is my right, it is the democratic right of that union to decide its own affairs, and as a member of Parliament I must protect that right. Parliament has no business making that activity illegal.
It was with a sense of amazement that I listened to the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). He says it is okay for a union member who presumably has the right to vote in a free society privately, to go down to the union office, because that is where he has to go, and sign a paper saying he declines to support a particular political party. Mr. Speaker, if you believe in a principle you believe in the whole principle, not just half a principle because it happens to help an hon. member's party politically.
Canada Labour Code
As hon. members of this House are well aware, industrial relations in Canada have in recent years become a topic of prime concern and interest to Canadians in all walks of life. Today nobody is untouched by the workings and breakdowns of a country's industrial relations system. As the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Parent) said earlier, all countries have been affected by the worldwide problems of inflation and other associated economic and social upheavals. However, Canada has also had to come to grips with factors which have conspired to challenge the industrial relations system and to challenge the leadership and flexibility of those government departments responsible for the conduct of labour affairs.
Labour Canada is, of course, the federal department responsible for developing and administering the framework in which labour affairs are conducted within the federal jurisdiction. The legislation which Labour Canada administers consists principally of the Canada Labour Code, which is the product of some 80 years of trial and error.
While success may be a difficult quality to measure in the world of labour affairs, I think it only fair and accurate to say that the present legislation is generally successful, appropriate and effective in an area noted for its volatility and for its capacity to threaten the success of the country's socioeconomic operations. We should therefore not arbitrarily introduce off-the-cuff changes to this legislation which involves such a delicate balance between the legitimate rights and duties of labour and management and the protection of the broader public interest.
If the hon. member who introduced this bill is so concerned, he should be prepared to propose a similar bill which affects corporations. He said today that shareholders can say something at annual meetings, but for how long is that remembered after elections? If he is prepared to use a shotgun against unions, he should be prepared at least to use a BB gun against corporations.
As 1 have indicated, our labour legislation has not been developed overnight. It is the product of a vast amount of deliberation, common sense, expertise and good will on the part of innumerable Canadians. Each of its provisions which has been developed over these 80-odd years has been developed with painstaking care and much debate by legislators, union leaders, industrial relations professionals, constitutional experts and a host of others.
What I am saying is that neither the legislation itself nor the institutions of labour and management are about to benefit by any ad hoc amendments such as that proposed in Bill C-203. As a matter of fact, the bill is so anti-labour 1 am surprised the hon. member placed it before this House. In the case before us today there appears to be no real cause for the proposal.
This proposal would amend part V of the Code by the insertion of the following words after section 162, and I quote:
Any provision in a collective agreement requiring an employer to make a deduction from the remuneration paid to an employee and to credit the deduction to a trade union, is invalid if any part thereof is, or is intended, to be

June 3, 1980
Canada Labour Code
contributed to or used to support a political party unless the employee has expressly so authorized in writing.
The intent of this proposal might seem fairly obvious, but what it would do, in effect, is trespass into the preserves of union responsibility. Let the men who have to run the unions and who have to vote in the unions make their own decisions, and let not the legislators decide.
The handling of internal union matters-and those matters might well include the question of financial support provided to a given political organization-should in all cases be left to the democratic processes which are duly provided in the various union constitutions. They may be imperfect, we may not agree with them, but they are still their constitutions and their rights.
There are a number of traditional precedents which support this statement. To quote from just one of them, 1 refer to the much respected Woods Task Force on labour relations. This task force, in a section dealing with trade unions and political action, reported, and I quote:
Historically the labour movement has always been active in politics. Individual unions have different degrees of involvement depending largely on their ideological orientation and the extent to which they are affected by government policies. Union political action may range from lobbying, through the approach of rewarding one's friends and punishing one's enemies, through the support of a particular political party.
Lobbying is legitimate. The report continues:
Today in Canada unions tend to involve themselves in the political life of the country for one or more of three reasons. The most common relates to a desire of the labour movement to improve the statutory and administrative framework of rules and regulations within which it must operate.
Beyond this, many unions are interested in the pursuit of legislative goals which will complement and supplement their gains at the bargaining table. Among these objectives are more generous social security arrangements and the vesting and funding of privately negotiated fringe benefits, particularly in the pension field. A large number of unions seek the implementation of more radical social reforms through economic and social planning.
The Woods task force went on to say many things about the union movement and the balance within the movement. It is interesting to relate that Parliament decided not to enact major proposals of the Woods task force report, which would automatically get us into the agency shop or compulsory checkoff. Parliament did not enact these recommendations because it wished to reaffirm its strongly held principle that unions in Canada should be given every encouragement and incentive to regulate their own affairs and to operate within a bare minimum of government interference.
I listened to the hon. member representing the Progressive Conservative Party say that we should outlaw this spending of money by unions on political parties without specific written notice from union members. On the other hand, representing the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for Burnaby said he thinks it is just terrible that we should even be getting into this. Because certain unions support his party he thinks it is a good idea even though in another timeframe he would support the democratic vote of individual union members. I know today why the Liberal party has the best policy. It takes the middle of the road. It is fair to both sides and does not tolerate bills such as Bill C-203.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in the brief couple of minutes available to me I would like to touch on just a couple of things. First, the union I have been associated with is perhaps the most politically active and involved plant, of the most politically active local union, of the most politically active union as a whole in Canada, the IWA. I have been the financial secretary of that local union for the past year. I signed some of the cheques to which my friend probably takes exception, and I can assure him that democracy is no healthier anywhere than it is within that particular local union. 1 have been one of its officers ever since 1972, and we stand vigorously to defend the rights of Socreds, Liberals or Tories in our membership who want to speak out against our actions and policies at local union conventions. We have continuously paid affiliation to the New Democratic Party since its founding in 1961 on the basis of a proportion of our membership. Whether or not people sign out, they are guaranteed that moneys are not paid on everyone's behalf because we recognize that everyone does not support the same party.
1 think we have to look at this bill not in isolation but together with private member's Bill C-267 in the name of the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) which basically is a right-to-work bill. I think those two things taken together lead us to understand better from whence all this comes. There is a poem, which I do not have time to read, called "The Free Rider's Psalm," which seems to me to relate to an attack on the labour movement. The principle that is implicit in this bill follows the same principle which chooses to attack all of the labour movement and the right to collective democratic action, as enunciated in the private member's bill of my friend's colleague. I oppose the bill, Mr. Speaker, and 1 believe 1 can now call it six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business having expired, 1 do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At 6 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
June 3, 1980


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen that Bill C-30, to provide supplementary borrowing authority for the fiscal year 1980-81, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When the debate was interrupted at five o'clock p.m., the motion for second reading of Bill C-30, an act to provide supplementary borrowing authority for the fiscal year 1980-81 was under consideration. The hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) had the floor.


An hon. Member:: Question.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no.


An hon. Member:: We are ready for the question.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. 1 am delighted to see that members opposite are so pleased to hear what 1 have to say.


An hon. Member:: None of your friends are.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I might touch on a few remarks that I was making just prior to the private members' hour. 1 said at that time that the government was taking advantage of the people of this country by borrowing in today's dollars and repaying those dollars in depreciated dollars some years hence. Now, any of us who is borrowing any money, whether it is by way of a mortgage, or whether it is by way of a bank loan, is doing the same thing. The point I want to make is that it is very wrong when this is being done by the federal government, for the simple reason that its action contributes directly to the devaluation of the currency. The government has the greatest control over the level of inflation in this country, particularly with the tremendous demands on capital we have in this country, and that is what makes their actions so wrong, so unfair, and so damaging to this country.
The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) has recognized some of the aspects of this problem. Recently he is quoted as saying that the government remains committed to limiting spending growth, but he has argued that this has disadvantages because it forces cuts in government spending during times of economic downturn.
We are at that point of time right now, and it is not going to be easy for this country. I hope the government has begun to understand that it does not have the flexibility to adjust its policies and priorities, and it does not have the flexibility to change the tax structure to give the incentives required to bring the business of this country to a higher level. The
Borrowing Authority Act
province of Ontario has also shown the benefit of fiscal restraint.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: They have had a policy of reducing the level of their deficit over the past few years, and last year the level of the deficit did drop by some $200 million. This year, in anticipation of a slowdown in the economy, they have been able to increase their deficit by a significant amount, and direct that money to small business development, employment development, assistance to pensioners, and energy development. This illustrates the benefit of flexibility in fiscal policy, a flexibility which is now, as the President of the Treasury Board has pointed out, completely non-existent in the affairs of the federal government of this country. But I am sorry to say that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) does not understand it yet. Some days ago, in the House of Commons, he was referring to the amount of money that Canadians saved through the reduced cost of energy in this country.


An hon. Member:: It cost them 12 per cent.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: What he does not understand is that Canadians are not saving that money. They are just shifting the load from today to tomorrow. Instead of paying that money today, we are paying and will be paying for many years through the increased taxes that we will have to pay.


An hon. Member:: Tomorrow at 12 per cent.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Today that subsidy is costing the government and the people of this country, through their taxes, and through increasing the size of the government deficit, some $3 billion. At current rates of interest, in just six years' time, the amount of money that will cost the Canadian taxpayer is $6 billion-double in six years. That is the problem we are faced with today.
1 do not understand, as I said earlier in my remarks, why the government has consistently ignored professional comment, the advice and the experience of other governments, and the comments that have been made many times by people on this side of the House. Let me just quote to you here, Mr. Speaker, what Mr. Carl Beigie said in a recent speech:
This year the federal government's budgetary deficit is expected to reach $14 billion, compared with about $30 billion in the United States-
That is a country with a population ten times the size of Canada. He went on to say:
There is a total lack of concern, at the political level about the budget deficit in Canada.
I am sorry to say that I am going to quote an economist who does not seem to understand that so long as the federal government borrows domestically, in other words, borrows from its own residents, it is like a father lending money to his son. The son pays the interest to the father and it is all in the family, therefore it does not really matter. In this way we can continue to go on and on.

June 3, 1980
Borrowing Authority Act
Let us carry that illustration just a little bit further. The son starts to pay more and more money in interest, so he cannot take that trip out of the country or he cannot buy that new car. Then it starts to cut into his ability to spend money on the necessities of life. That is the point we are at right now. There has been a total misallocation of federal resources as a result of the very high level of interest payments in the country.
This year it will amount to 19 per cent; that is nearly $1 in $5 of federal government expenditures, or to put it another way, $1 in $4 of federal government revenues will be spent on interest. That is just interest alone; no repayment of the debt, no reduction in the size of the government debt. That is the point we have reached right now. We cannot redirect that money to other more worth-while uses than the payment of interest and we cannot use that money to reduce the government deficits.
Mr. Speaker, $12 billion or $14 billion is a very large amount of money. It is hard to understand how much money that is. But is it very hard to understand that because of that deficit today we are spending 30 per cent more than we are taking in revenues? That figure is lower than last year. It is hard to know what it will be this year because we have not had any figures from the government. Clearly it will be of that order of magnitude. That is the problem we are facing today, and until some action is taken, we will be facing that problem for years ahead. This is why we are concerned about passing this bill at this point in time.
Another aspect of the deficit worth noting is that the federal government is borrowing far too much just to pay current bills. This is not for capital expenditures, but for the bread and butter daily expenses of government. The C. D. Howe Research Institute estimates that from 1975 to 1979 the federal government borrowed $30 billion more on the current expenditure. That is over and above the deficit from capital outlays. A recent analysis of the United States federal budget indicates that current revenues in recent years have financed all the current outlays plus half of the capital outlays. That is the difference right now. That is the difference between the fiscal position of the Government of Canada and that of the United States.
Is this prudent financial management? Let me illustrate my point in a basic way. This type of borrowing to cover current spending is like taking out a bank loan to buy food and the other basic necessities of life. That is the reason we cannot use Chargex at the supermarket or the liquor store, because normally, the use of Chargex results in a loan. This is one more reason why the government should not be borrowing on a continuing basis just to finance spending on day to day expenditures.
Recently we had two statements by the governor of the Bank of Canada which I think are very important. We received a clear message from the governor of the Bank of Canada in his statement to the Senate Standing Committee on National Finance and in his 1979 annual report. I should like to briefly paraphrase what he had to say in his statement. He
said that what he wanted to register was that the way in which the real economic variables in the economy respond to changes in financial flows, which are heavily dependent on other policies and practices throughout the economy about which the Bank of Canada can do very little. He indicated there is little doubt that the key reason for this slide toward even more inflation was the result of an effort by public policy in most countries to achieve and maintain more output and employment from their economies than was consistent with price stability. This view should have been discredited long ago by logic for it implies that people can be fooled indefinitely.
It has now been discredited by events. The governor of the Bank of Canada is clearly linking excess government spending to inflation. He also made the point I made earlier that the government is trying to fool people by giving them something now with the feeling that they are getting it for nothing. But there is no such thing as a free lunch, to paraphrase a statement that has been made many, many times before. He also indicated that people have learned to be sceptical about public promises to reduce inflation, for the fulfilment of such promises would require a radical break from a long-established inflationary bias in public policies. The inflationary bias on the part of people in this country is so ingrained it is very, very hard to break the inflationary spiral.
Let me just look ahead to what the governor said later on in his statement about the spiral. He indicated that there is a clear need for leadership in the country. He said the Bank of Canada certainly has a central role to play and that it was trying to play it, but that governments at all levels have a major role to play and the role of the federal government is clearly of crucial importance. It is important that those policies and practices throughout the economy which are inflationary-and clearly he identified the federal government deficit as inflationary-should be modified, that all policies and practices should be reviewed in this light.
I should like to refer briefly to the annual report of the governor of the Bank of Canada which reads as follows:
But if large fiscal deficits are continued when the economy has little more effective capacity to increase output they will discourage such investment. The restraint on investment is felt through various channels. One of them is that the fiscal deficits absorb savings that could otherwise be channelled by financial markets into financing the expansion of plant and equipment. This can militate against the increases in productivity and income that capital formation makes possible.
He pointed out that governments can crowd out private sector investment. He made the point further on in his report that private sector investment can be crowded out and into international markets. I will come back to that later.
Governor Bouey provided an eloquent illustration of the link between economic growth and the low inflation rate. He stated clearly that the tax policy and the level of the deficit is important to increasing the amount of productive plant and equipment in the economy. We must have this to avoid shortages of supply of goods and bottlenecks in our lines of supply, both of which will cause great pressures. The message is clear. The governor of the Bank of Canada has put the government on notice, that there must be greater spending control and a
June 3, 1980

reduction of the deficit if we are to tackle the inflationary problem more effectively. But 1 am sorry to say that today that commitment is lacking. 1 made that comment during the debate on the Speech from the Throne, and 1 will say it again.
In the Speech from the Throne there was practically no reference to fighting inflation. It was mentioned just twice in passing; inconsequential references. Whatever sense of commitment there is, and it is not apparent, has been redirected so that the government is only concerned with fighting the symptoms of inflation and not getting to the root cause. Again, they are buying our votes with our own money. This makes it all the more difficult for the House in conscience to approve this borrowing authority.
Let me return to a point which governor Bouey touched on but did not develop further, the link between the impact on domestic savings from high government deficits and the level of our current account balance of payments. Let me just trace it through. As I said, between 1975 and 1979 we borrowed $30 billion just for the current account, just for the day to day expenditures. The government is borrowing for current spending and forcing a redirection of the savings of Canadians away from productive investment in plant and equipment. In the long run, this has a very damaging impact on the economy through the impact of inflation. It causes the crowding out of other borrowers to external markets. We are seeing this happening now. Just last week we had the largest amount Government of Canada financing ever, $1.6 billion. 1 predict that figure will grow higher as this year goes on.
During the 1974-1976 period we had a classic example of what happens when this combination of policies takes place. That was one of the most damaging periods of economic mismanagement in this nation's history presided over, I might say, by the hon. blue eyes. I hope we do not have another one of those again.
I will only focus on fiscal policy at this time, but monetary policy and settlements by the federal government in collective bargaining were equally debilitating in their impact on government fiscal requirements. Recently we saw a settlement in the postal service that could have some of the same damaging effects, in that it may lead people in the public service to demand larger and larger settlements. When we compare what has been publicly stated by the union as to the levels of remuneration that have just been negotiated for January 1, 1980, we see that the settlement is between 23 per cent and 26 per cent higher. What the government has done here-and for the life of me I do not understand how the President of the Treasury Board could congratulate the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) for this-is added a COLA clause which adds 79 cents an hour to a $7.11 or $6.84 basic hourly salary plus 8 per cent. The government calls that an 8 per cent settlement. 1 do not know any other business in the country that would call that an 8 per cent settlement. I do not know any other government in the country that would call that an 8 per cent settlement. That is
Borrowing Authority Act
why we are calling it a 23 per cent to 26 per cent settlement. I challenge either the President of the Treasury Board or the Postmaster General to deny that.
The heavy borrowing in the 1974 to 1976 period by the federal government to finance the deficit forced up interest rates in this country. It pushed other issuers into other markets in the world and the result was that the Canadian dollar was held at a far too high a level at $1.03 and $1.04 U.S. The necessary adjustment that was needed so badly by our manufacturing industry was delayed. Their loss of competitive position was deferred for two or three years. We are seeing the results of that today in the $17 billion trade deficit on manufactured goods. Our balance of payments deficit therefore was affected in two ways; first, in the increase in interest payments that we have to continue to pay on an ongoing basis to service this foreign debt, and second, in the poor trade figures that I have just referred to. The increased deficit is going to require further financing year in and year out down the road. It is going to keep further downward pressure on the Canadian dollar, and in so doing continue to encourage higher levels on inflation than we need.
Let me point out that during a more recent period, 1977 to 1979, Canada was by far the largest international borrower in the world. We borrowed $25 billion over the period 1977 to 1979. That compares with Mexico at $16.9 billion. So one can see the amount of interest that we will be required to pay outside of the country. It is substantial and it will be with us for many years. That is why governor Bouey is concerned. That is why the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) should be concerned. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) criticized us during the election for our doctrinaire commitment of reducing the deficit. There was no doctrinaire commitment. It was just a simple recognition of the dollars and cents facts of the impact of these high levels of deficits.
I watched and I listened to the Minister of Finance wringing his hands as the interest rates rose in this country, saying we are helpless to avoid the effect of increases because of what was happening in the United States. He is absolutely right, but we are in that position because of the foolhardy and shortsighted policies of the 1970s which his government followed. It will get worse unless he starts now to move in new directions, similar to those followed by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) in his budget of December 11. The short-term effects are not pleasant, a combination of higher taxes and lower spending. Cost pressures will increase in the economy and economic growth may well be slower in the short term. But the government has a majority. It has the power to make these adjustments without the political risk that we encountered. The longer-term results will clearly benefit this country through more sound, less inflationary economic growth. If this government fails to act, it deserves to be defeated at the earliest opportunity. The answer is to withhold at least one-half of this borrowing authority and request the government to return to this House after a budget has been brought down so that we can assess the policies and commit-
1718

June 3, 1980
Borrowing Authority Act
ments toward the new direction of which 1 speak. We should not be giving the government a blank cheque. I am not prepared today to move an amendment, but I say on behalf of our side that we are prepared to consider such an amendment.
Let me return to the purpose of this measure. We do not know the purpose for which these funds will be used. We do not know the direction the government is proposing to take. There has been no accountability to Parliament. This is a fundamental problem in respect of what the government is asking us today. We do not know the broad direction of fiscal policy, nor do we know what combination of fiscal and monetary policy we will be having or whether it will be consistent. We do not know whether the Bank of Canada will be able to live with what the government is going to be doing after the budget comes down. Until we know that, this House in good conscience cannot provide the government with the borrowing authority for a full year. To do so would be irresponsible, and it would not be fulfilling our obligation to the Canadian electorate.
Let me close by referring to one of the long-term problems of inflation. It is a problem that I believe we in this House should be very concerned about. We have a free country. We cherish this free country. What inflation does to that freedom is erode it on an ongoing basis. We are living here in an * unreal world with low income taxes in Canada. They are much lower than they should be for the size of our government spending. We have to close that gap. We are living here with unrealistically low energy prices. That is very comfortable at this point in time, and we can sit here with a big smile on our faces and feel comfortable, but consider what it does to the freedoms of our children and our children's children. When the time comes they will have to support the higher tax load that will be required in Canada. This is a tax load that will go on and on and get higher as we continue to endure these very high rates of interest. That is why we have to take action, Mr. Speaker. That is why it is very important that we try to project ourselves a little bit further beyond the easier times we have today with lower energy prices and lower taxes. If we do not do, the legacy we are leaving our children will be something 1 personally will be unable to explain to my children why we in this House allowed government deficits to go on and on.
A few years back I recall that the deficit was $4 billion, then $5.4 billion, then $9 billion, then $11 billion and this year it could be as high as $12 billion or $14 billion; who knows? That is why we must take action now. 1 ask members opposite to consider making an amendment to this bill which would reduce the amount of borrowing to $6 billion. We can then return to consideration of this very important problem at a later stage.


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, it is the duty of every member of this House, regardless of party, to stand up at this time and express his concern over this excessive spending of our tax dollars. I congratulate the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) on the remarks
which he made with respect to the generations which will follow us.
The present government has been in power just under three months. All we are really sure about at this point is that it will not be any different from the Liberal governments of the past 16 years. We know they have not learned anything from being in government for all those years, and that they did not learn anything when they were in opposition last year. They are still the same old crowd, devoid of ideas, short of talent and long on arrogance. They still do not answer any questions as to where we are going and what they plan to do about the serious problems which continue to plague our country.
During the last election campaign the Liberals from across the floor could list all the problems plaguing our country, and they had instant solutions for those problems. Today they cannot even remember what the problems are. When we ask about all the magic solutions which they had a few months ago, every member on that side of the House suddenly becomes tongue-tied. My distinguished colleague, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) said in this House the other day that when it comes to answering specific questions the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) appears to be in slow motion. The finance minister and his colleagues are not in slow motion when it comes to asking this House for additional borrowing authority.
We have before us a bill comprising two paragraphs and a subparagraph requesting authority to borrow $12 billion. This bill is hardly more than a casual gesture, yet it proposes to plunge us $12 billion deeper into debt before we even know how the government plans to spend the money. Where are all the specific programs to back up the grand solutions which the Liberals had just a few months ago? Where is the national energy policy, the magic pricing formula promised to the Canadian public in the last campaign?
The government's energy minister seems to have run out of steam, or out of oil. Instead of a solution to our energy problems, we appear to be heading for still another head-on collision between the federal government and the provincial governments. Last week the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) accused some provincial premiers of waging war against the federal government, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was quick to back him up. The government's so-called blended price formula for establishing domestic and foreign prices for oil seems to have run into a snag, and it is not surprising.
The energy minister approached the provinces with a take-it-or-leave-it attitude when he tried to sell the government's pricing formula. Now that he has been rebuffed, he chooses to blame the provinces. I am very concerned about the apparent failure of the government to come up with a national energy policy for a number of reasons, and I am not comforted in the least by the threat of still another clash between the federal energy minister and his counterparts in the provinces.
We are led to believe that one of the main reasons our government was defeated last December was that we proposed to raise the price of gasoline at the pumps by 18 cents per
June 3, 1980

gallon. Many people called it the 18-cent election. Now we are faced with a price rise of close to 18 cents per gallon for this year, if not more, and we have no way of knowing how much it will rise next year and in the years following. This makes a farce of the present government's support of the NDP's nonconfidence motion against our government last year.
There are two things which Canadians must know about our energy situation and which we ought to know as soon as possible. All of us want to know just how much oil and gas prices will rise. We also want to know and be assured that there will be sufficient supplies of oil and gasoline to meet domestic requirements now and in the future. Neither the Minister of Finance nor the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has told us whether those contingencies are to be met by the borrowing authority requested in this bill.
Another of my great concerns is the small business community in Canada. Small businesses provide approximately 60 per cent of all the jobs held by Canadians. Yet, small businesses are the most vulnerable and the least protected segment of our economy. When interest rates soar small businesses are the first to suffer. When we were the government, the interest rate for small business loans was about 11.5 per cent. When the rate climbed to 17 per cent and 18 per cent, the point spread was, in many cases, greater than the profit margin of many small businesses in Canada and they were forced out of business.
There is one other point which must be made while I am on the subject of small businesses. The vast majority of people employed by our small business sector are people who do not have professional or technical skills. When the shop or store for which they are working goes out of business, these people cannot easily or immediately be absorbed into the manufacturing or industrial labour force. In many cases they become part of our growing army of permanently unemployed.
That is a vital reason why we must provide financial assistance on a continuing basis for our small business community. The only answer provided so far by this government is to increase the funds available under the Small Businesses Loans Act. That is not the answer. It has been shown that there have always been sufficient funds available to small businesses. That is not the problem. The problem is that they have had nothing in the way of a cushion against the effects of wild fluctuations in interest rates, such as those we have experienced in the past few months. Availability of capital is one thing; whether or not one can afford to borrow is yet another thing.
Another excellent case in point is the government's own Federal Business Development Bank. Recently it shut down its operation, not because of a lack of funds-the Federal Business Development Bank has money to lend small businesses- but because the rate of interest which it is required to charge was so high it was no longer of any advantage to a small business to borrow the money at that price for the purpose of inventory, expansion, or for many other purposes.
Small business people have told me that over the past few months they have been working 12 to 16 hours per day just to
Borrowing Authority Act
pay the interest on the principal of their debts. When I consider the government's request for authority to borrow $12 billion, in addition to the $2.7 billion borrowing authority which it already possesses, I have to think that this would be an excellent opportunity to initiate something in the way of meaningful legislation to protect our small business community. The small business act is simply not enough, and that is a proven fact.
What we need is a more comprehensive act which takes into account the traditional vulnerability of small business to changes in the economic climate, both in Canada and in markets that have a direct effect on our small businesses. We have seen recently that even some of the larger, multinational corporations can get into serious financial difficulties, and we have also seen that there are times when it is expedient for government to bail them out of their difficulties.
I am thinking, of course, of the Chrysler Corporation. Canada's share of the loan guarantee to keep Chrysler alive is $200 million, and we will not know for a while whether this is really a cure or just a short-term remedy. I believe this was a legitimate risk venture for our government to undertake, because something obviously had to be done to protect the thousands of jobs that were hanging in the balance.
However, Mr. Speaker, I also have to think of how important it would have been to our small business community if $200 million had been made available to them over the past few months to provide guaranteed small business loans at an affordable rate of interest. It is easy to calculate the loss of jobs through the failure of a large industry, where 10,000 or 15,000 jobs can be wiped out by one failure. It is not quite as easy to assess the over-all effect of thousands of small business failures where the employment figures are more in the order of 10 or 15 jobs per business, but, the effect on our economy and on our small towns and villages is every bit as great.
Before I move on, Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to draw attention to clause 2(2) of Bill C-30, which would authorize the government to borrow "in a currency other than that of Canada.'' There are two aspects of this that are disturbing to me, and I am sure they are equally disturbing to many of my colleagues on this side of the House. The government says this provision is to ensure greater certainty of being able to borrow this much money.
This subclause implies that the government is concerned that it will not be able to raise this money from Canadian , sources, and I believe this raises the question of whether the government is already so deeply in debt that all domestic sources of funds are exhausted.
I would also remind hon. members that the spread in the value of U.S. and Canadian currencies is an important factor in authorizing the government to borrow heavily in the U.S. money markets. The premium on U.S. dollars is about 15 per cent, and when the interest charges are added, borrowing in the United States is an expensive proposition. 1 really do not

June 3, 1980
Borrowing Authority Act
think we can afford it, especially at the rate the present government engages in deficit spending.
Mr. Speaker, I think that passing mention might be made of the present government's abuse of political patronage. I wonder if a part of the $12 billion might be used to fatten the government's pork barrel. I see more and more defeated Liberal candidates and hangers-on in cushy jobs around Parliament Hill and the government agencies. While I cannot agree with the government's policy of secrecy concerning its blatant abuse of patronage, I can understand why they would want to hide it from public view and scrutiny. It is a national disgrace.
Many of my colleagues have drawn attention to the fact that the Minister of Finance has not yet tabled a budget, and that he will not give us any indication of when a budget will be forthcoming. This is quite a contrast to the Liberals' demands for a quick budget when they found themselves in the opposition. When we did table a budget, they could not resist jumping on the NDP bandwagon to defeat our government and prevent our budget proposals from taking effect.
Now that the shoe is on the other foot, they have the audacity to ask for authority to plunge us $12 billion further into debt, and refuse to match it up with a budget so that we can see where the money is going. Unfortunately, we do not have the numbers on this side to prevent Bill C-30 from passing, but we will certainly let it be known just how we feel about this matter.
I want to address myself to a subject for a few minutes that has a very personal aspect, one that directly affects my riding and the welfare of my constituents, and that is the matter of regional economic expansion. DREE could be one of the most important functions of government if the present Liberal government had not allowed it to degenerate into an arm of its political machine.
This government has no hesitation in blatantly favouring Liberal ridings in designating areas eligible for DREE grants, and my own riding is a classic example of how the DREE program functions. According to the guidelines used to designate DREE areas, my riding compares favourably to many Quebec ridings that are designated, and yet 1 have not been able to get one square foot of my riding designated.
On May 14 I had a meeting with officials from DREE in Hull, and I can sum up the results of the meeting by simply saying that I got the run around. When I returned to my office there were two press releases on my desk from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. One announced that $1,566,250 was granted in respect of five industrial projects in the Montreal area. The other release announced that $2,724,900 was granted to 12 firms in the Quebec city region. Five hundred and thirty-five jobs are supposed to be created by these expenditures of millions of dollars.
Yesterday I received a copy of the monthly report from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion for the month of March, showing the grants approved in that month. There were 71 grants approved, and 50 of those were in Quebec. The
next highest number of grants approved was six, for projects in Nova Scotia. The others were scattered around the country.
I have made representations to various ministers of DREE over the years, without success, to have the northern part of my riding designated. I have not asked for special consideration or favours. I have only asked that this area be judged by DREE's own guidelines, and that I be given the same consideration under those guidelines as other areas in the country.
1 think I can be forgiven for being a little upset when I read press releases announcing DREE grant awards to ridings in Quebec that do not qualify any more for these grants than my own riding. The riding of Mount Royal, in Montreal, for example, is considered to be one of the most affluent ridings in the country, and yet, Mr. Speaker, the riding of Mount Royal is designated as an area eligible for DREE grants. At least a part of Mount Royal is designated, and that is all I have been asking for my own riding-that a part of it be designated.
Last Thursday, May 29, there were two articles on page nine of the Ottawa Citizen that would be well worth discussing while we are debating whether to allow this government blanket authority to add another $12 billion to the current operating deficit. One article deals with the cost of the government's decision to cancel the relocation of Parks Canada's regional office from Cornwall to Peterborough. The other article deals with the matter of more than $1 billion in cost overruns on about 500 government projects.
To take up the matter of the cost overruns first, Mr. Speaker, I was astounded, as I am sure most other members were, to hear the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) say in this House last Wednesday that there is no need for a special committee to investigate the reasons for these cost overruns. While that might appear to be a matter of little importance to the President of the Treasury Board, it represents more than one-twelfth of the total funds being requested in this bill we are debating. When costs of government projects exceed estimates by $1 billion, it is a matter of sufficient urgency to call for investigation by a special committee.
On the question of the cancellation of the move of Parks Canada's regional office from Cornwall to Peterborough, it is quite obvious that the government had expected the Liberal candidate in Peterborough to win the last election, and return Peterborough to the Liberal fold. That did not happen, but Cornwall is still held by a Liberal member. Naturally the move was cancelled.
The minister responsible for Parks Canada has said there is absolutely no basis for the charge that the cancellation was politically motivated. I suppose it is mere coincidence that Peterborough is represented by a Conservative, and Cornwall is represented by a Liberal member. Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, let us look at the cost to the taxpayers of Canada of the cancellation.
Treasury Board places the cost of the cancellation at $1.1 million, and it must be remembered that this is not the cost of the move itself but the cost involved in cancelling the move.

*

June 3, 1980

Because of the disruption of moving plans, the cost of the re-establishment of the regional office in Cornwall will be greater than the original estimates.
According to the Treasury Board submission, nearly half of the compensation paid to employees because of cancellation, or $536,000, will not be covered by current Treasury Board policy. The Treasury Board more or less dismisses this little discrepancy by calling it an act of grace.
Here are some examples of where this money will go. The spouse of one Parks Canada employee will receive a lump sum payment of $30,000 to cover "career injury, interim costs and lost income" caused by the cancellation. Another employee who declined a promotion elsewhere because he preferred to move to Peterborough will receive a lump sum payment of $10,000. The list of such payments is too long to read here, but these examples should give some idea of the ridiculous position the taxpayers have been placed in unnecessarily.
The $1.1 million cost of the cancellation does not take into account the potential legal actions that are likely to be launched by employees for personal suffering, career prejudice, mental anguish and other suffering. There is also the question of a decline in employee morale due to the uncertainty of their situation. The government has certainly bungled this Parks Canada transfer, and that is a high price to pay just to thank the people of Cornwall for voting Liberal.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in this debate on Bill C-30, an act that may be cited as a borrowing authority, 1980-81. Before 1 get into discussing the bill, 1 would just like to mention a couple of debates that have gone on before and the shock and the sadness I experienced last night when my colleague, the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman), was discussing some of the problems in the west.
I believe it is fair to say that the members of this House have a very great duty to all of Canada, not just their specific regions. Although they do represent their constituencies, they have to assess Canada as a whole. 1 will quote the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) who, speaking in Regina on June 2 said:
It is important now for all Canadians, members of both founding groups, native Canadians and those that have come from many other lands, to join together to build a stronger Canada. We must work together to meet legitimate aspirations of all parts of this great country.
However, last night when my colleague from Fraser Valley West was discussing just those regional problems and expressing concerns of the west, the names of three provincial ministers, all of a different political stripe, were mentioned in this House. When their names were mentioned, some members in this House booed them. I am from Ontario. I am a Progressive Conservative and proud to be one. Also, I am from Brampton where the premier of Ontario resides. In fact, he is my MPP. 1 do not always agree with him. I do not always agree with Mr. Blakeney, Mr. Lougheed or Mr. Bennett, but 1 have respect for them and the constituencies they represent.
Borrowing Authority Act
I was shocked and saddened in this House to hear members here boo provincial premiers. We should all be ashamed of that action last night.


An hon. Member:: It was the Liberal members.


John Horton McDermid: It was Liberal and NDP members.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Horton McDermid: Read Hansard and you will see. I will now discuss the borrowing bill. I was interested in listening to my friend from Ottawa Centre last night, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Evans), come here to bamboozle us with some figures, figures that quite honestly do not mean a thing to the public.
How can the general public relate to $12 billion? There it is, $12 billion, represented in that one piece of paper. 1 tried to break that down so maybe the average Canadian could understand what it is. In round figures, it is $33 million a day. Really, that is a little hard to conceive, so let's break it down to an hourly rate. It is $1,400,000 an hour. That is also difficult to comprehend. There are very few millionaires here, except for a few on the other side.
Let us break it down to a minute. It is $23,000 a minute and, as we know, that is far above the average Canadian salary. Let's break it down to per second. This government wants us to approve a bill that will allow them to borrow $400 a second over the next year.


Mr. Chenier:: He can count!


John Horton McDermid: Certainly 1 can count. You guys can't. Do we really need to approve this borrowing authority? I think not, not without giving the specifics. If you, Mr. Speaker, went to your bank manager in Ottawa West and asked for $10,000, and you would not tell him what it is for, how you were going to spend it, how you were going to pay it back, just asked him to give it to you, he would kick you out of the bank. We should kick these guys out for their nerve in asking for $12 billion.


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: That's what Canadians did to you, and don't forget it.


John Horton McDermid: Perhaps Parliament should tell the government that same thing, since it does not want to tell us what the $12 billion will be used for, or where the Liberals plan to steer this country in the next four years. The other day in question period the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said part of the deficit is going to go to the guaranteed income supplement, the $35 income supplement this House passed within the last few days. That is not what he said in the campaign. I remember very distinctly that on January 12 his great platform was that there would be no new expenditures, that we would redirect old funding to provide these things. Specifically, with regard to the guaranteed income supplement, he made the commitment to the Canadian people that the money would come from increased corporate taxes, yet yesterday at page 1626 of Hansard he said:

June 3, 1980
Borrowing Authority Act
This very House has adopted, as recently as last week, measures which will increase that deficit, precisely to assist people receiving the guaranteed income supplement and the hon. member was supportive of it.
Certainly we were supportive of a guaranteed income supplement increase. However, the Prime Minister in his campaign told us it was coming from increased corporation taxes. Now he is telling us he is going to deficit finance-another flip-flop, another broken campaign promise.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) in his "bootleg budget", as the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Cros-bie) would say, said "Our latest forecast is that the economy will grow by one half of one per cent, which actually means no growth." Why then should the government need $12 billion? This question remains unanswered. The minister also stated that "government expenditures on goods and services will continue to be affected by policies of expenditure restraint." 1 ask you, Mr. Speaker, what kind of restraint is this? If the statements of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are to be believed there is no need for an increase in government spending this year. In fact, however, spending this year under the Liberals will increase by a whopping 13.5 per cent. Asking Parliament to approve borrowing authority for $12 billion without bringing forward a proper budget is an abuse of Parliament, not the first such incident, and as long as this government is in power I am sure it.will not be the last. It is an attempt, as we have seen so often in the past, to operate in secret and keep the facts about the public purse from the country. We are left in the dark as to their conception of the future of Canada and what plans they may have to guide the country over the next few years. It represents a disastrous deepening of the debt already placed on the shoulders of Canadians. It is an horrendous imposition upon future generations of Canadians. Do hon. members opposite not have the integrity to bring down a budget in line with proper parliamentary procedure and allow it to be debated in this House, thus giving the Canadian people a chance to judge the legacy which is to be left to the youth of this country-nothing but unpaid bills. We shall have to pass the torch to the young people of this country to carry on but I am worried as to whether they will be able to carry it because it is going to be so heavy with debt-$84 billion if we approve this thing.


An hon. Member:: Assuming they do not use the existing authority.


John Horton McDermid: That is assuming they do not use the existing $2.9 billion and all the money they can get from savings bonds.
Since the opening of this session the Liberal government has really not put forward any legislative proposals to improve the economic climate and this includes the new "employment program" that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) announced. We have seen nothing but the usual fillers and housekeeping measures and now we have this one-page bill before us, a bill which will do nothing but saddle our children with overbearing debt. And members opposite
wonder why the people of Canada become a little cynical about parliamentarians when they take a look at one sheet of paper and it calls for $12 billion. Why is it they require this money so urgently? Do they intend to wait that long before presenting the House and the country with a budget? It looks like it. We shall be in dire financial difficulties if we fail to give the country the economic direction which is so sorely needed. Bill C-30 asks the House to approve borrowing authority for $12 billion as well as authority to borrow the remaining portion of the amount authorized in days gone by. 1 understand this would be around $2.9 billion if the figures are correct.
In his statement of April 21, the Minister of Finance projected that expenditures for 1980-81 would require $11,730 million. These figures are based on the current revenue-expenditure structure-we are not sure exactly what that structure is. I am sure the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) over there is scratching his head, wondering the same thing. He also stated that these figures did not reflect foreign exchange transactions which resulted in a requirement of $222 million in the fiscal year 1979-80.


An hon. Member:: That went down the sewer.


John Horton McDermid: How much will the authority asked for to repay loans in foreign currencies cost the Canadian people? I had the privilege recently of crossing Canada and fulfilling speaking engagements at youth gatherings.


Mr. Regan:: They voted Liberal!


John Horton McDermid: They listened. Let me tell the minister something. I was out in Alberta the same time as he was. His convention was held in a phone booth and he rented out the extra space. Our meeting was held in a hotel and we had a jam. I wifi tell you another thing. The boys from Ontario didn't go out there and "knock" any of the premiers out west like you did, either. You did a great job for national unity out there.
'


An hon. Member:: Address the Chair!


John Horton McDermid: Let me get back to the young people. I had the pleasure of discussing their concerns across this country of ours and they are asking: why don't you people pay your bills; why are you putting them all together and packing them into a debt and passing them on for us to pay down the road; why don't you pay when you fill up your car, why don't you pay what it's costing you; why should 1 pay your gas bills? That is a legitimate question and I want to know why the minister of energy doesn't answer the youth of Canada when they ask that question. Why isn't the government paying what it costs? Everybody is willing to pay their share. We are subsidizing it now to the tune of $3.4 billion, or whatever it is, and it is growing every year and his blender has broken down, he can't get the darned thing to run.


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on!
June 3, 1980


John Horton McDermid: Someone says "Oh, come on." Well, all we have heard since Christmas is "blender, blender, blender" and we haven't seen a darned thing come out of it yet.
A turning point in the history of this great country has just passed. It has shown me that Canada wants to stay united. I hope the government realizes that it has an opportunity not seen since 1867 to let the youth become the new pioneers in shaping Canada. Obviously, they ought to commit themselves to a program of reducing the enormous burden with which our young people are confronted. They ought to be giving them a fair fighting chance. But they are not. They are just piling up this debt. The party opposite has no concern at all for the youth of Canada or for the future of Canada.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Enough concern to put a 13-cent tax on.


John Horton McDermid: Slow down, you will have your turn. When members of our party were on the government side we had respect for this House and for the Canadian people. The present government continues to shroud its feelings-


An hon. Member:: They voted you out!


John Horton McDermid: Well, we are represented in every province of this country. So keep yapping over there. The Canadian people need, and indeed deserve, honest government, a government which is not afraid to tell the public the cold, hard facts about the state of the economy. Open and honest government is the key to a democratic society. It was a great honour to serve as a member of that government, a government that was open, a government that was approachable, a government which was honest. Why is it that the born-again leader of the Liberals and his recycled cabinet are letting this great country slip into a serious state of financial dependence on foreign countries?


An hon. Member:: Sour grapes.


John Horton McDermid: I heard sour grapes this afternoon. I heard my leprechaun friend from the great land of Lincoln get up and criticize us for dwelling in the past. I am talking about a bill which is current, but let me just cover a couple of the facts that he referred to this afternoon. I know he is Irish. I know he is full of the blarney and I know he likes to exaggerate a bit. But he stood up this afternoon and stated that the budget presented by the former government projected 13 per cent unemployment. Well, I don't see that in it at all. In fact, there are no projections over 8.3 per cent for unemployment. The hon. member did that during the campaign as well and misled the Canadian people. He also said this afternoon-and the record will show it-that tax credits are great except they don't help the poor. Something he forgot to mention was that it was a negative tax credit and that, in fact, the money would be received even if the recipient did not pay taxes in that year.
That is the way he won his campaign, by stretching the truth a little bit with just a little bit of the Irish poetic licence, perhaps, or a little bit of the blarney that he spread over the
Borrowing Authority Act
great riding of Lincoln. The same old gang is over there, with the odd one left out of the cabinet. Those who dared to question their leader are the odd ones out of the cabinet. Now they are being slapped into committee chairmanship jobs as fast as possible to keep them quiet, but it is the same old gang over there, and they are continuing the same practices which have burdened the Canadian taxpayer for 12 years.
I get the impression that the government cannot grasp the magnitude of the staggering figure it is asking for. In order that it may be more enlightened 1 am going to use the following example. Let us try to put this into perspective. If from the day that Christ was born a man had spent $1,000 every day of every month of every year, by the end of this century he would have spent $730 million. That is all, at just $1,000 a day.
That would still be almost $300 million short of $1 billion. The government is now asking for $12 billion in a two-clause bill. Surely the government realizes what this is costing the Canadian taxpayer. Surely hon. members opposite realize that to pay off our existing net debt, without adding this one on, would cost $7,725 per taxpayer. I do not know what this government is thinking by burdening the Canadian taxpayers like this, but hon. members opposite sit over there and smile. They are smug and safe for another four years, but they will be hearing from us over the next four years, and we will be keeping them honest.


An hon. Member:: That is impossible.


John Horton McDermid: My colleagues say it is impossible to keep them honest. My colleagues are always right. I bow to their wisdom. They do know of what they speak. Many of them have been here much longer than have I.


Gerald Augustine Regan: And will be.


John Horton McDermid: Be careful, sir.
Right now one out of every four tax dollars is used to service our debt. If the Liberals continue to spend money at this rate, who knows what deficits will face our children?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Which programs do you want to remove?


John Horton McDermid: In short, this borrowing authority adds substantially to our debt and was really not expected at the start of the year. It will mortgage our future for years to come.
The minister asked which programs to cut. I heard him say that very clearly. He has now buried himself in his letter writing. I want the minister to tell us where he is spending the money first so that we can see if there is anything there to cut. He should come clean with the Canadian people and tell us where he is spending the money.


A. Daniel McKenzie: You can't cut what you can't see.


John Horton McDermid: My friend from Winnipeg tells me we cannot cut what we cannot see, and that is right.

June 3, 1980
Borrowing Authority Act
I am sorry the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance is not here. He made a great statement last night. He made a few errors in his statement which he had to correct today. He said he wants to borrow $1 billion with a margin for contingencies. Then he said that the government may need $1 billion less than it is asking for once it gets its blender into operation because Mr. Magic, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), is going to plug in his blender, put it on high speed and come in with a saving of $1 billion on the deficit.
He is passing it on to the consumer, but he will not admit it.
I feel it strikes at the rights of Parliament for this House to approve borrowing authority in the amount of $12 billion- that is $400 per second-for the next fiscal year, without estimates, which are in fact the true estimates, even to be asked for that approval in the face of massive inconsistencies and errors on the part of previous Liberal finance ministers in presenting previous numbers, forecasts and figures. This time they do not even present the inconsistencies.
According to the record of proceedings, the minister simply said that the government requires the authority to borrow $12 billion to meet this fiscal year's cash needs, including the present margin for contingencies. That is some margin for contingencies. How can we remain financially solvent when we think of the millions of dollars we already pay in interest every day and of our debt which increases visibly? I am sure that since I have been speaking it has built up but by how much?


Robert Alfred Corbett: It is probably up to $10,000 now.


John Horton McDermid: We must stop and think of future generations. We must think of our children and our children's children who will have to pay back this money. How can anyone explain this bill otherwise? How can we be silent when faced with the amount of interest the government will have to pay if Parliament passes this bill before us? Just when will the Minister of Finance finally announce tax measures and policies which will speed up our economic recovery instead of always increasing the burden of the national debt? Come on, Mr. finance minister, answer our questions through a budget.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Horton McDermid: Canada deserves no less at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on Bill C-30 to provide borrowing authority for 198081 -


Yvon Pinard: Filibuster.


Arnold John Malone: -the first question which comes to my mind is whether this is going to be the first request for borrowing. This bill is labelled 1980-81 borrowing authority. 1 have been a member of Parliament now for some six years.


Yvon Pinard: Too long.


Arnold John Malone: While I am not in any way a veteran of this chamber, it is a fact that in that period of time I have had the occasion every year to write a blank cheque for this Liberal government. They have asked for money without giving any indication as to what it is to be used for. We should recognize tonight that there has been a very interesting phenomenon here. Through numerous speakers the members of the official opposition, the Progressive Conservative Party, have taken the position, first, that we ought not to be borrowing these expansive amounts of money. That is not the nature of Canada with our wealth or our resources. The second position we have been taking is that at no time should the Parliament of Canada be asked to allow the borrowing of money without being given any idea as to what the budget for the expenditure of those moneys is.
I find it interesting to note that the members of the New Democratic Party to my left have been taking a very similar position; that is, that the government ought not to be asking Parliament to authorize borrowing by the government without having any idea what it is to be used for.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) stood in his place, I doubt if it was for longer than five minutes, and explained that he needed the money, but did not give any reason which convinced me that he was particularly in favour of the bill. He was followed by two or three other Liberal members, one being the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans), who did not speak about the bill at all. Then the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) rose in his place to talk about the campaign of the 1980 election. If it takes some courage to speak against this bill, I wonder why it takes such a mustering of courage on the part of hon. members opposite to even rise in their places and support this bill. Surely this now beccomes a question for the people of Canada. Considering that we have a debt at the present time of some $60 billion, is the trend going to be to come to Parliament asking for borrowing authority to go into the international money market to ask for another $12 billion?
I think it is time we set certain facts before the Canadian citizen. The largest single portion of the tax dollar the Canadian taxpayer pays goes to pay for the interest on accumulated debt.
This does not buy any new fighter plane, it does not buy a new health service, it does not provide any new agricultural research. The largest portion of our tax dollar goes to pay for interest on the debt, to the extent where today of all the money raised by governments in Canada-and I am speaking about the three levels of government-42 cents out of every $1 goes on government expenditure. I think the two are hand in hand because what we must see in this country is a nation with one third of the world's fresh water, the largest supply of fresh water of any nation in the world, but no developed inland fresh water fishery of any significance. This is a country with all the resources of agriculture, forestry and mineral rock, all the resources which could make us into a nation which could
June 3, 1980

develop and grow. But here is a government which has adopted for a dozen years now the notion, not that citizens should be given the incentive to build, to manufacture and to have a kind of growing mentality which says, "let us make this country into something great", but instead has stooped to say, "let us borrow more money, not to generate more wealth so that we could be richer both in our private lives and in government, but to run to the international marketplace to borrow and on the basis of that borrowing to look after our social needs."
One of my experiences gleaned from being a member of Parliament is that I do not think it matters very much if you are a Liberal, a New Democrat or a Conservative in terms of being able to identify a problem in the country. When any member of a party looks at a problem, he tends to see it. If we note that the native people of Canada are not satisfactorily housed, I believe that, regardless whether we are Liberal, NDP or Conservative, we all see the fact that they are not satisfactorily housed. The difference between political parties is how we respond to the question. We find it to be the tradition of Liberal members of the House that instead of allowing this country to grow in an exciting and beautiful way so as to match the country's potential, they have taken the strong centralist government notion of, first, controlling and, second, of believing that we have reached our limits of growth in the country and that all we can do now is to simply borrow further in the international markets and make ourselves more and more dependent on the deficits being created.
We are now spending $15 billion a year more than this government collects in taxes. I do not expect, for a moment, that any citizen who is aware of that fact will not say simply that at first sight this is a situation we cannot tolerate today, nor can we tolerate its extension year after year, because citizens of this country know they cannot run their farms, their corner grocery stores, or Stelco or Chrysler or any other corporation, if there is not a sense of balance between what you do, what you earn and what you spend. Yet somehow this regime in 1968 came in under that great new something who swept the nation in 1968, looking like the hon. member for sanctimony. He came to the public of Canada which believed he was the answer. He probably came out of the new line of economics which is often referred to-


An hon. Member:: Keynes.


Arnold John Malone: Yes, the Keynesian theory. It was on the tip of my tongue but I did not have a tongue quite as long as do some others. But the Keynesian theory is somehow the belief that if you always save money, your system will not grow. Keynes' idea was that if the government were allowed to spend that money for you, the private sector would not have to do that spending. I think that theory has been put to rest, and with it should go the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and all the people in the Liberal party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arnold John Malone: Somehow they have the notion that we can tax the people, take their money, spend it as we wish, and then
Borrowing Authority Act
when we do not have it, borrow more and go into debt. I think it would be worth while for Canadians to know the extent of debt they are being put into, because the debt of today's government, if we take the perspective that debts must be paid, is over $3,000 for every man, woman and child in the country. Interestingly enough, for a family of four, in just three years time, there will be a family debt of some $20,000 built up by the federal Government of Canada. This will become the albatross and the cement blocks around the necks of the children of the future.
I think it is quite one thing to say that we need certain social policies and, therefore, we are going to stand by them because our hearts are big and they bleed for the people of Canada. I think it is quite a different thing to say that we all in this House have a social conscience. You do not have to be a socialist to have a social conscience. Surely, in doing that which we call the common good for the country, we are not just running back to the international trough and saying, "fill it up again," especially in Canada where we have the resources to make the country work and to earn the kind of a life standard we all want.
I would like to diverge for a moment to say that Canadians can surely do that, because if you take a country like Japan, with 110 million people, having only the resources of fish and tin and having zero unemployment and one of the highest economic standards in the world, why is it that this country, with all the resources, all of the blessings of educated people, with the talent of a democratic system and court system, cannot put it together?


An hon. Member:: We have a Liberal government.


Arnold John Malone: Well, my colleague says we have a Liberal government. It is amazing how liberal it is when it goes looking to the international trough. I have been here, as 1 said, some six years. All I know is that, just looking at this decade, 1970-71, the federal government came before the Parliament and asked for borrowing authority for some $3 billion. Then they came back for borrowing authority for another $3 billion. In 1972-73, they wanted another $3 billion, and in 1974 they came for another $3 billion. Note that in the first four years of this decade they needed $3 billion each time they came. Thereafter, in 1974, they wanted $5.5 billion, then $6 billion in 1975-76. In 1977 they needed another $6 billion. Then in that great year of 1977-78 they wanted $28 billion, and now in 1978-79 they want another $28 billion. They say that this bill requests borrowing authority for 1980-81. They are after $12 billion now. There is absolutely no guarantee this is the last time this year they are coming back to Parliament. If past experience counts for anything, they will be back to the trough again saying they need more money. The simplest thing that Canadians can ask for and that Parliament should expect is that there be no granting or borrowing of money unless the government is willing to show accountability for the money they are given.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
1726

June 3, 1980
Borrowing Authority Act


Arnold John Malone: I listened to the speech made yesterday by a member of the NDP, and I thought it was a good speech. He said that appropriations should be divided up into quarters and accounted for by the government on a quarterly basis. That makes sense to me. As a matter of fact, I would think that is the most logical thing we could expect and that the citizens of Canada should expect the presentation of a budget. The basis of that budget gives a projection on how we intend to spend money. On the basis of how we make the projection, then the government has the right to say, "This is the way in which we will spend it". At the present time we have a total deficit of $66 billion and a request for an additional $12 billion. We also have the knowledge that if we add on to that the service and interest charges, it will cost Canadians over $80 billion.
We ran out of billionaires in my constituency a long time ago. We do not have any. In fact, our millionaires are very limited. But if one took a dollar bill which is precisely six inches long and laid one million of them end to end, that million dollars would stretch for approximately 85 miles. If one took a billion dollars, it would go from Vancouver to Halifax and back five times. The government is asking us to give them 12 of those so that they can spend them without giving any idea to the people or the Parliament of Canada as to what they want the money for. They indicate that they just need $12 billion and they expect us to say, "Yes". Why are they requesting $12 billion, for what reason? Perhaps they need only $6 billion or $11 billion. Surely it is unacceptable that the government can ask for $12 billion without the slightest indication as to what the money will be used for. That is unacceptable. It shows what I see as the style of the Liberal government. They love to spend money, but they do not care very much about accountability to Parliament. They do not care very much about how much they must tax people or the debt. Within their mentality of running the Parliament of Canada, power becomes more important than achievement, power becomes more important than Canadians and the purpose for which they became the government in the first place.
If any citizen of this country loses his Chargex or Master-Charge, he should worry and immediately phone the head offices of those companies to let them know his cards were gone. But if he ever lost them around Parliament Hill in the presence of Liberal members of Parliament, he ought to change his identity and get out of the country as quickly as possible. There is only a 24-hour protection period, and they have the ability to run up a debt quickly. So, he should not leave his cards lying around this place.
I should like to change the emphasis of my thoughts for much of the remaining time I have this evening. I want to talk as an Albertan and as a Canadian about one of the very important problems facing our country at this time. I should like to reflect to a large extent upon energy and the way in which I think a new approach to the energy question in fact could provide us with a situation where we would not have to go out and borrow money at the present rate. It would provide all Canadians with a far higher and greater sense of wealth
than exists at the present time in this nation. At this moment in 1980, we in Alberta do not need more tar sands plants, smoke stacks or industrialization. But there is a view among Albertans that as Canadians they must accept the fact that there is a need for more energy in Canada. For reasons which will affect our lifestyle, we do not want the influx that will bring us a great deal more labour, a great deal more welfare, hospital and school costs. We must accept the burden that in the national interest we need to assist somehow in getting away from our dependency on foreign energy, but we will not take a rapidly depleting resource and simply put it on the shelf at any value. We must be aware of what will happen if western provinces go down the tube. I should like to tie in the important question of energy with the important question of borrowing. In fact energy is one item of cost that could provide more money for the running of government than is necessary. At the present time we are importing some 500,000 barrels of oil per day. The cost this year will be some $3 billion. That means that we are taking an amount of money out of the pockets of Canadians and simply transplanting it somewhere else in the world. It goes to Venezuela, Mexico or some country in the Middle East. It does not create a single job in Canada. It does not roll a piece of pipe out of any of our steel mills dotted across the country. It does not employ anybody and it does not use a Canadian resource. I cannot understand why the government is so bent on paying the world price for Mexican oil when it cannot even make a suitable deal for Canadian oil from Saskatchewan, Alberta or British Columbia. It is obvious and well known that there is an agreement with the provinces to give a price at below the world price that would enable us to become self-sufficient in energy and would place us at a competitive advantage far and above that of the world situation.
We must recognize that the governments of western Canada are willing to make our country self-sufficient in energy. It should also be noted that in the past number of years we have lost money in the production of oil out of the tar sands. Any money which has accrued to the coffers of Alberta came from what we call traditional supply, the old pumped oil. A report released three weeks ago indicated that traditional supply has a limited capacity of about another 11 years. That resource took the people in my province from the old coal oil lamps, the drafts and the old Eaton's catalogues in the outhouses into a province which enjoyed a standard of living equal to that of other more well-to-do provinces in the country. I say to all members of the House quite sincerely that the citizens of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta are still quite young. They remember all too well what it was to be living in a situation of poverty in the prairies. Every boy and girl growing up there today is just one generation away from a reminder of what it was like not to be a part of the central mainstream of wealth in this nation. It should also be understood that in the 1910s and the 1920s we knew that there was an oil production capacity in those provinces. We rapped and rapped upon the doors of the money markets of central Canada. We begged for them to come and help us develop. There was nary a response
June 3, 1980

and no one would even take a look at the development of petroleum in western Canada. Finally the Americans came in and they gave us assistance through five fairly large companies.
In the Speech from the Throne one of the objectives of the Liberal government was to make the oil industry 50 per cent Canadian-owned by the end of this decade. 1 wince at that; it makes me angry, it makes me bitter. It would not make me angry if they said they were going to make industry 50 per cent Canadian-owned or even if they said that they were going to make the energy industry 50 per cent Canadian-owned, but when they singled out petroleum, they singled out my province. At the same time they talked about a government agency that is not just 50 per cent Canadian-owned, it is government-owned. Following the Speech from the Throne I was called upon in this Parliament to grant some $240 million to the Chrysler Corporation. We must ask the question: What is so awful about our multinational corporations that somehow a central Canadian multinational corporation receives the blessing of government. They are told, "Here is a cheque, go forward, boys and do what you can. If you can survive it, then away you go". Frankly, I think this expresses an insensitivity to the fact of what is happening in terms of looking after control of resources.
1 mentioned that we have 11 years of oil supply left in our country, that is traditionally pumped oil. I think it would do members good if we had some understanding as to why the price of oil is going up. I have various data that reflects upon what would happen if different things occurred in the oil industry.
For example, in 1949 the average Canadian worked for 21 minutes in order to buy a gallon of gasoline. In 1979 that same Canadian had to work eight minutes in order to buy a gallon of gasoline. I set that aside. I do not think that is the reason gasoline should be more expensive. We could become a more wealthy society. We do not need that as the reason. I suggest we take a look at the price of gasoline around the world. We note that in Toronto at the present time it is about 22 cents a litre, in Melbourne it is 25.1 cents a litre; that is Melbourne, Australia, for those who might wonder. In London, England, it is 42.5 cents a litre, or double the Canadian price. In Tokyo, it is 56.3 cents a litre. In Paris, it is 68.8 cents a litre and in Zurich it is 73.7 cents a litre. I set that aside. I do not think because the price is double or triple in some other place ncessarily means that the price of gasoline has to be higher here. We can then say that gasoline is a certain price, gasoline is a liquid and it comes in litre measures. What else is liquid, and what else comes in litres? Let us take a look at some comparisons.
Here in Ottawa when I came to work this morning 1 saw a sign displaying 24.9 cents per litre of gasoline. The easiest way to think of that is that it costs you two bits to get a litre of gasoline in Ottawa. Maybe it would do Canadians some good to reflect upon the fact that for a litre of orange juice we pay
Borrowing Authority Act
$1.16. For vinegar, we pay 71 cents a litre or almost three times as much as we pay for a litre of gasoline. St. Lawrence corn oil-that sounds like some minister opposite, and here we find a Liberal price tag-costs $2.45 a litre. Corn syrup has a sticky price of $1.60 a litre, and even Bessie the cow will not produce, because it costs 66 cents a litre for milk. Then comes Downy fabric softener. 1 do not know why my researcher chooses Downy, but it is $1.53 a litre. Pine-Sol-we need a little of that for this chamber-costs $3.23 a litre. Next I asked what we could get that would be as cheap as gasoline.


An hon. Member:: What about whisky?


Arnold John Malone: We will come to whisky in a minute here, sir. I asked what the cost would be for distilled water for irons. I found out it costs 40 cents a litre or about twice as much as we pay for gasoline. 1 am from the oil-producing province. But 1 ask hon. members whether they know how we get gasoline? First, one sends out seismographic crews who send shock waves into the earth. After receiving some information they put test holes in those formations where they think they might get some samples. The average is about one well to ten test holes. If they get enough wells, and I underline the word "if', they will develop a field. Once the field is developed, the oil is piped to the refinery. From the refinery it goes to central Canada to a tank farm. A man with a truck picks up the oil at the tank farm and drives it to a service station. There the fellow with the little cap comes out and fills your car with gasoline charging you 24 cents a litre for it.


An hon. Member:: You can get gas a lot easier by talking to a Liberal.


Arnold John Malone: You can get gassed talking to a Liberal.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arnold John Malone: I set that aside, Mr. Speaker, and say that is not even reason enough that the price of gasoline should go up.
The reason the price of gasoline has to go up is that it costs more today to get it than it did in earlier years. Those who have had the opportunity to reflect upon the photos or even to see first hand those wells of 1949 in the province of Alberta, especially Leduc No. 1, will recall that this was a well the media referred to as a gusher, a wildcat and a blowout. It shot oil some 200 to 300 feet into the air. There was oil over everything. The derrick in the ground and the men were all covered with it. These were the early gushers of this century. Most Canadians do not appreciate that oil is not in the ground like water in a lake. It is in what we call a tertiary formation. It is locked into sandstone in the pores and the molecules of rock. When that oil first came up, we ran for about a decade simply having to pump the oil horizontally along the ground and off to the refinery. Then the time came when there was simply no more pressure. We then had to use the rocking donkey-head pumps to suck the oil from down below, put it into the system and so off to the refinery. That was the end of what we call our primary recovery. From then on, and quite by accident, and we knew there was much more oil down there,

June 3, 1980
Borrowing Authority Act
another method was developed by which we could bring it to the surface. This was accomplished by pumping down hot brine, hot salt water. This added to the cost, but it brought the oil to the surface. As you do not want salt in your crankcase, that of course must be extracted. Again, the cost goes up.


An hon. Member:: That is a Liberal plan.


Arnold John Malone: It would be a Liberal plan indeed.


An hon. Member:: It would salt their crankcase.


An hon. Member:: We got it in our crankcase.


Arnold John Malone: When it came to the point that we could no longer bring the oil up by what we call the hot brine method, we moved then to a method of fizz carbon dioxide. This again brought more oil to the surface. This is a method we are using today. It brings our oil to the surface at $13.75 a barrel. We have 11 years' supply left of that conventional oil, and that is all. Canadians should know that 70 per cent of the oil in those fields is still underground. The problem is, if we go to an additional secondary recovery to get any significant amount of that oil, it will cost close to $50 a barrel. Naturally, the choice is made. Secondary recovery is left for new technology and for some period in the future.
In the interim we moved to tar sands oil. it baffles me that Canadians do not know that it costs more to mine oil than it does to pump it. If people could see the operation in the tar sands where we are able to bring oil out at some $20 to $21 a barrel and they could see the kinds of machines working there. The wheels on trucks are so large that when a man stands beside one his head is below the rear axle. This project is comparable only to that of the James Bay project. Surely that mining of oil, its extraordinarily high costs and the fact that the tar sands projects today are losing money, should make us realize there is a middle road here. We can use Canadian resources, employ Canadian people, develop Canadian industries in central Canada to produce the steel, the pipe and the valves, take them to where they are needed anywhere in the country, and put this resource into place. That reflects a difference in mentality, that I see, between the Liberal government and those who would like to develop and grow in the nation. There is a difference between the ones who want control in Ottawa, those who want to borrow and do not care if they borrow, those who want to buy oil-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae) on a point of order.


Mr. McRae:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member accept a question at this particular point?


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, my concern is whether or not the member can ask one.


Paul Edmund McRae: The hon. member just used the figure that oil recovery by secondary treatment would cost about $50 per barrel. I wonder if the hon. member can justify that figure. I have heard figures of around $7 per barrel or $8 per barrel, but I have never heard a figure of $50 per barrel. I would like the hon. member to explain how he came upon that figure as a general figure for secondary recovery.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I did not know that I would have to do a secondary treatment on the hon. member. I already said that is not the price today for secondary recovery. I mentioned the two stages, the hot brine stage and the fizz carbon dioxide stage, and I said that when those methods of technology are gone, the next significant stage of secondary recovery with our present technology will constitute that price. I said that we will run out of oil in about 11 years time and that therefore the supply will be from the tar sands.
I invite the hon. member to pay attention because, as the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) said last night, the mood of this country is not what members opposite may think. The glue in this confederation is very, very thin. The mood in western Canada is one that I do not wish to harbour. I hear my constituents week after week talking about separation. I talk to the people who suggest this, and I listen to what they have to say. I have come to the conclusion that when they make this suggestion they are not expressing a wish or a desire, they are expressing frustration.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Oh, oh!


Arnold John Malone: It should be noted that while I talk about one of the serious problems facing this country, the minister of sport chooses to heckle across the House as if he does not need to pay attention to that part of Canada.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I certainly do not need to pay attention to that sort of guff.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Just cash that cheque.


John Horton McDermid: He goes west and knocks everything.


Arnold John Malone: The other myth which must be dispelled relates to the use of the acronym OPEC. There is no doubt that OPEC was brought about because of an unfortunate and unfair cartel of more than a decade ago. OPEC came about because of the most unfair, extraordinarily low pricing of five American oil companies which were operating in the Middle East. These companies held the price of oil so artificially low that the members which later formed OPEC said they simply could not tolerate it any more. At that point they formed what has become known as OPEC. 1 was about to list the countries, but that is not necessary. These countries, united under OPEC, discovered that they were a world power.
But OPEC does not exist as a cartel today. In 1972 and 1973 OPEC did exist as a cartel, but if one looks at the list of countries in OPEC and notes the great variations in the price of their oil, one can hardly refer to OPEC as a cartel. For example, the price of oil in Saudi Arabia is $28 a barrel,
June 3, 1980

Nigeria $36.71 a barrel, Iran $35 a barrel, Ecuador $36 a barrel, Kuwait $29 a barrel, Qatar $31 a barrel, Iraq $30 a barrel, Libya $36 a barrel, Indonesia $31 a barrel, Algeria $35 a barrel and Venezuela $31 a barrel. A cartel refers to groups joined together to establish a fixed price on a commodity.
It is also interesting to note that there are many other countries which are not members of OPEC but which have prices just as high. 1 cite Great Britain which is self-sufficient in North Sea oil. There is also West Germany and other countries around the world which have oil prices just as high, but which are not dependent upon an oil supply from an OPEC country. The question as to whether the oil price today is led by OPEC or whether it is a world commodity price is a question we must ponder.
As long as we continue to say that we are being gulped up by OPEC, then surely there will be a greater division in the country, particularly in view of the fact that the western premiers have said they are not after the world price, but after a certain percentage of what is the world commodity price. That is an entirely different factor when one refers to an international cartel that sells at one price. We have countries outside OPEC like Great Britain and West Germany which charge prices that are equally as high.
We also have situations where, for example, in Lloydmin-ster, Saskatchewan, it takes one barrel of oil to recover two barrels. In other words, for every three barrels of oil, one barrel is required to bring the other two up, or 30 per cent of the energy brought up is required to bring the oil up. I am referring to a secondary recovery system which requires steam for heat and hot brine to loosen the oil from the tertiary formation in order to bring it up.
I plead with all members to acquire an understanding of this industry and the great potential it offers Canada. There is no nation which has the blessed fortunes of this land and all the resources; its human capacity, its forestry, its fisheries, its minerals or its energy. We have a great supply of this form of energy, but we must be willing to pay the cost to get it into the Canadian market. This in turn will create Canadian jobs, particularly in the Canadian pipe industry. It will save us from paying the world price and put us at a competitive advantage in the world.
However, if we choose to take this projected $8.5 billion out of Canada by 1985 and send it to Mexico, Venezuela or the Middle East and not create a single job or employ a single Canadian-or a married one for that matter-then surely it does not in any way behoove us as a nation to take the position that that kind of throwing away of our money is of any standard that in this country should be looked upon-


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


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, 1 will begin my remarks and call it ten o'clock in a moment. It is difficult to know just how to begin debate on a bill now, after having read the column by Doug Small the other day in which he referred to the conventional, "1 welcome this oppor-
Adjournment Debate
tunity to participate in this debate". Members of Parliament will have to find a new introduction.
This particular bill is to give authority to the government to borrow $12 billion, or as an hon. member mentioned earlier this evening, "$12 billion toward a blank cheque government". What we must look at is when was this blank cheque government introduced to Canada. It was introduced in 1969 when one of the first acts of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was to change the rules of the House of Commons in dealing with parliamentary expenditures. The last thing he wanted was any proper scrutiny over expenditures. Ever since then we have had blank cheque government in this country.
The philosophy of the Liberal government today is that the only solution to any problem is to print more money, spend more money and borrow more money. Any members who use the phrase blank cheque government certainly know what they were talking about. Canadians are still paying for this rule change introduced by the present Prime Minister. He could not wait to get into this House to change the rules so that we would not know where the tax dollars were being spent. As an hon. member mentioned earlier, the Auditor General cannot find out where half the money is going. This government has something like a $52 billion budget, and the Auditor General can only account for half of that. I want to call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker, but I will be back tomorrow afternoon.
.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) if we will be continuing with this delightful exercise tomorrow?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall proceed with Bills C-28, C-19 and C-3, in that order.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, Mr. John Anderson, the alternate candidate 1 guess

June 3, 1980
Adjournment Debate
we could call him, in the United States for the office of the presidency of the United States has said:
We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
If any caption could characterize the comments made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) on television last Sunday it is the statement of Mr. John Anderson which really captures what the minister said, "-the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought". Talk about comfort of opinion! 1 should like to read to you, Mr. Speaker, one of the things the Secretary of State for External Affairs said, as follows:
I sec no indication at all of any Soviet activity in Europe that would be aggressively directed against a country that they don't now control directly or indirectly.
That is the minister's opinion. For the facts, I should like to quote Mr. Alexander Haig who, I imagine, is an authority on the subject. He said:
Whereas the west has exercised considerable restraint,... we find the Soviet Union has maintained defence as its first and overriding priority. Former western superiority... has been replaced by a roughly 3:1 superiority by the Soviets.
If, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs says, there is no aggressive intention, pray tell why have the Soviets increased their superiority to a ratio of three to one? Another authority, Mr. Kissinger said this:
The dominant fact of the current military situation is that the NATO countries are falling behind in every significant military category with the possible exception of naval forces . . . Never in history has it happened that a nation achieved superiority in all significant weapons' categories without seeking to translate it at some point into foreign policy benefit.
That, sir, is the situation in Europe, a situation in which the Secretary of State for External Affairs says there are no aggressive intentions by the Soviet Union. It is the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) allows that maybe we should have been a little bit guilty of foresight rather than hindsight, when questioned in the House about this yesterday.
Again, speaking of the Soviet Union the Secretary of State for External Affairs said:
They don't go against the heart of western civilization and western Europe, for instance, except maybe through the communist parties-
So the Soviets are nice guys! "They don't go against the heart of western civilization and western Europe." Then pray tell, why did we, 18 months ago, expel a dozen or so Soviet so-called diplomats if they all had nice intentions in Canada? Why is it that we are concerned and our NATO allies in Europe are concerned about NATO superiority, or at least NATO balances if, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs maintains, the Soviets, "don't go against the heart of western civilization and western Europe."
He is living in Alice in Wonderland. He went on to say that the Soviets will not attempt an adventure in western Europe. He added:
I think that's completely out of the question.
That is the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. As I said, the Prime Minister allowed that maybe we
should have been guilty of a little bit of foresight rather than hindsight. In effect, on Sunday on television the Secretary of State for External Affairs asked where the United States was two years ago, or three years ago, when the Soviets moved into Kabul. Where were they? Well, I do not know exactly where the Soviets were or the Americans were, but I do know where Canada was. Two years ago when the Russians were already in Kabul establishing a puppet regime, Canada was installing a printing press in Afghanistan so that the Afghanistan people could print their material. I am sure it is all nice Alice in Wonderland stuff they were printing. Canada went right on selling them their printing press.
Two years ago, when the puppet regime was already in office, Canadians were designing the Kabul water and sewage system in Afghanistan. Two years ago, when the Secretary of State for External Affairs was wondering where the Americans were, the Canadians were studying the Kabul River basin for storage, power and irrigation purposes. This was being done by a Montreal firm. Canadians were doing a hydroelectric survey, done I might add, by B.C. Hydro.
Two years ago the Secretary of State for External Affairs was wondering where the Americans were. The Canadians were supporting the establishment of a girl's vocational training school, done by the Red River College in Manitoba.
If the minister wants to question America's leadership, 1 ask him where Canada was during those days. I would like to ask, as I did in the House yesterday, what was the purpose for the unprovoked gratuitous comment about the lack of American leadership during the time of a pre-election campaign in the United States? What was the purpose of those gratuitous, unsolicited comments by the man who is supposed to be the master of diplomacy?
If in the last year when we had two general election campaigns in Canada, plus a heavy referendum campaign, the Americans had offered that kind of comment regarding the internal and domestic politics of our country, we would have been infuriated, and rightly so. Yet this man at the end of a TV show, when he could have said, "the time is up, we don't have time, it would not be right to comment on it," goes on to expand on what he' thinks is the nature of American leadership.
In the last minute, I just want to raise one more point. Is the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) seriously-


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


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has just made some very valid points in a very tough manner, but I suggest that many of the points he made were his own personal observations. He asked where was Canada during these times of crisis. Canada was where it normally is, helping the poor and underprivileged countries of this world which include Afghanistan. I might suggest to the hon. member that not far away from Afghanis-
June 3, 1980

tan is another country that is very poor. It is considered one of the five poorest countries in the world, namely, Nepal. There is a great deal of work being done by our NGOs, other groups and by bilateral agreements as well to assist countries of that nature. It is a poor country, the likes of Afghanistan. Actually the exchange we are concerned about this evening is really between the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) which occurred on June 2, 1980. The subject of the matter was the educational, cultural and scientific exchanges with the Soviet Union.
I have now read the article in The Toronto Star by Professor Jean Edward Smith to which the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta referred. Frankly, 1 am surprised at the suggestion of a dramatic "reversal of policy" to which the author alludes. Professor Smith refers to the "reinstitution of cultural, educational and scientific exchanges with the Soviet Union as of next spring", which is to say, in 1981.
As the hon. member will recall, the measures taken in February by the previous government in response to the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan included a one-year suspension of government sponsored cultural, educational and scientific exchanges with the Soviet Union. In March, the present government confirmed this policy and decided that the measures taken would not be diminished, nor would they be extended, except in concert with other allied governments, which would include the United States. This policy remains in effect and no dramatic reversal is currently envisaged. Therefore, one can only assume that Professor Smith has taken the reference to a one-year moratorium literally and that once one year had passed, these programs will be automatically reinstated. The exchanges may or may not be reinstated next year. Any conclusion at this stage would appear to be somewhat premature. Before any course of action is taken the situation in Afghanistan will have to be carefully assessed, the impact of the measures taken in response to the Soviet invasion will have to be carefully weighed and we shall have to consult with our allies. Only then will we be in a position to consider whether our current policy should be changed.


METRICATION-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS TO IMPROVE EMPLOYMENT IN AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, my subject this evening stems not only from questions 1 put in this House on May 1 to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) but from numerous other questions, recommendations and suggestions which I and my colleagues have been making ever since the automobile industry in Canada was hit with massive lay-offs.
At the outset, 1 would like to say I am well aware that the primary reason for the slump in the automobile industry in Canada is based on the drastic reduction in car sales in the United States and the over-all decline in the American economy as a whole. However, there is no excuse, in my view, for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the gov-
Adjournment Debate
ernment to stand idly by while tens of thousands of Canadians are hit with massive lay-offs within one industry, affecting hundreds of thousands in the secondary manufacturing industry which serves the auto industry while still more lay-offs are being contemplated. Perhaps the minister has been preoccupied with the $200 million package to Chrysler Canada which, as you know, Mr. Speaker, happens to be located in his own riding in Windsor. Perhaps the minister does not realize that the auto industry is suffering in other parts of Canada as well, in places such as Oakville, Oshawa, Brampton, St. Catharines, St. Thomas, to name just a few. No action has been taken to alleviate, at least, the massive problems in these areas and across the country. Even the Chrysler proposal seems to have been a sham since less than 48 hours after receiving the $200 million loan guarantee Chrysler Canada laid off a further 1,400 people without even a peep from this government. When I asked the minister what specific action he would be taking in this matter he simply suggested that he had had discussions with representatives of the auto industry and other high-level officials, that's all. Well, Mr. Speaker, so have I had discussions and consultations and so have others. But we are passed the point of consulting, we are passed the point of mere studying. It is action that we want; action that is needed. There are ways and means at least to assist the industry and curb unemployment within this sector. 1 will give a few examples. Why has the minister not taken up the suggestion to remove the 9 per cent federal excise tax from cars assembled or manufactured in Canada? This alone would reduce the cost of vehicles built in Canada and thereby stimulate sales. The loss of revenue from the tax to the government would be offset by the saving in unemployment insurance benefits which, as of today, have already reached a staggering $5 million per week within the auto industry alone, not to mention the secondary manufacturing sector which supplies the auto industry. Why has the minister not taken up the suggestion of eliminating the $100 excise tax on vehicles with air conditioners? This would provide another much needed stimulus. Why has the minister not adopted the recommendation to impose quotas on offshore imports of automobiles? It would not be a precedent-setting act, Mr. Speaker. The same government imposed textile quotas when the Canadian textile industry was in trouble, and this side of the House supported it.
It imposed shoe quotas when the Canadian shoe industry was in trouble, and we supported it. Does it mean that the Canadian auto worker is a second-class citizen or that the auto industry does not exist in Canada? I do not think so, but it is questionable as to what the minister thinks because all we have heard from him in this regard so far is cheap talk and no action.
What about the Soviet Lada cars which were being promoted by the government in this country when the Soviet Union was invading Afghanistan? Our auto workers are being laid off in this country, and this government is promoting the Soviet-built Lada cars in this country. Why has the minister not taken the suggestion, for example, to promote-or legis-

June 3, 1980
Adjournment Debate
late, if necessary-the assembling of offshore imports here in Canada? That would create jobs. That would stimulate the industry. We do not have to assemble only American-made cars. We could assemble Japanese and German cars. There are many options, and that is what really bothers me.
It is not as if the government and the minister did not have any options. There are options. I have just mentioned a few. However, if the minister is unable to deal with the problems affecting the auto industry in Canada, which seems to be the case, and if the minister is unable to improve the provisions within the auto pact for the benefit of the auto industry in Canada, which seems to be the case-in short, if the minister is unable to take any action in this regard, which seems to be the case-then 1 urge him at least to bring this whole matter before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs forthwith for an immediate review of the state of the automobile industry in Canada, as well as an over-all review of the obsolete and inadequate auto pact in order that all concerned-namely, management, labour, government and opposition parties-could come to a positive, fair and equitable solution in a much needed public debate.
The minister and the government have options. For God's sake, let us take them. Let us have some action.


Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State, Small Businesses):: Mr. Speaker, certainly we have long been concerned about the economy of our neighbour to the south which is so dependent upon the auto industry, but I would like to point out to the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Jelinek) that if he examined the potential of the contents of the Speech from the Throne, I am sure he would realize the potential there and the foresight of our government when it mentioned the creation of a Canadian agricultural export corporation. It will create jobs based on a renewable resource that will offer spinoff effects to all Canadians and will assist in the face of the lay-offs which were announced last week in the Brantford area.
Many of the problems facing the Canadian automotive industy are the direct result of a downturn in the U.S. market. We cannot take actions to stimulate sales in the United States.
There are, in addition, further problems facing the Canadian automotive industry which result from changing consumer demand and the need to conserve energy. These problems are being faced up to by the industry, but the solutions are necessarily of a longer term nature.
As a result of vehicle down-sizing and weight reduction the industry is increasingly turning to new materials which require new technologies. It is in this area that opportunities appear to be for Canada.
We have told the House recently that we have been holding meetings with vehicle manufacturers and parts manufacturers. These meetings have necessarily covered a broad range of topics, but clearly we are interested in identifying areas of opportunity for Canada.
Our officials are working with the auto companies to evaluate sourcing patterns and to help ensure that Canadian capability is used or developed to meet the requirement for auto parts manufacturers to retool and expand in order to capture in parts which are currently produced in Canada.
The full range of research and development grants and loan guarantees available under the Enterprise Development Program is also available to that industry. Additionally, we are working to develop a special program aimed at assisting auto parts manufacturers to retool and expand in order to capture significant incremental business.
Auto parts manufacturers are also participating in fairs and missions at selling more parts in Japan, the United States, Europe and other countries. These have resulted in substantial sales and, in fact, many companies which have developed offshore markets are operating at capacity. One of our objectives is to increase further both the sourcing and production activity in Canada by offshore producers.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD-LOSSES TO FARMERS DUE TO U.S. EMBARGO ON GRAIN TO U S S R -GOVERNMENT POLICY
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: On April 15 I asked a number of questions. I have asked them several times since. Those questions were to find out what the situation was so far as the embargo was concerned, whether there was any chance that the government would reimburse the farmers for the loss of income due to the embargo. The answer to those questions from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) was:
My information and knowledge at this time is that western farmers are not being affected by the policy that Canada has had with respect to the export of grains to the Soviet Union.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in answer to my question, said that they did have a policy of helping out farmers affected by the grain embargo.
Here tonight I think it is necessary that we try to reach the truth as to exactly where we stand and what the effect of the embargo has been. There are a couple of ways to get to this truth. What has happened to grain prices since the embargo? We find that the evidence is different from December 28 until April 15-there have been some changes since then. Since the question was asked on the 15, the price of wheat fell from $233 a tonne to $188 a tonne, or from $6.34 a bushel to $5.11 a bushel. This is a direct, demonstrable loss of $1.23 a bushel caused by the overhang of 17 million tonnes of U.S. wheat which would have gone to the Soviet Union but instead went to the general market with which we were competing.
The second possibility of finding out exactly where we stand as far as our losses are concerned is to compare Canadian prices with those of countries that did sell to the Soviet Union, outside the north American block, not following the U.S. embargo. Here the best example is Argentina which has kept on selling grain to the Soviet Union. Argentine wheat prices have averaged, since March 7, at $204 a tonne, or $5.67 a bushel. Canadian wheat prices have averaged, since March 7, at $183 a tonne or $4.98 a bushel. This margin has narrowed to 70 cents a bushel, principally because Argentina has now sold all its export wheat, and the other countries hit by the
June 3, 1980

embargo, including Canada, the U.S. and Australia, are coming back and strengthening prices.
We are selling to other countries which in turn are selling to Russia. So the answer to those two questions demonstrates the truth of the situation, namely, that we have been hurt by the embargo.
What can we really expect if suddenly there is no market for 17 million tonnes of grain? It is bound to depress the market. What about next year? Douglas Mutch, a commentator on agriculture said:
If the embargo remains in effect, it also means that Soviet grain purchases from the United States next crop year will be limited to eight million tonnes. As current market supplies are more than adequate to meet current needs, this curtailment also will result in a build-up of U.S. grain stockpiles.
We will have twice as much grain on the market by the end of next year, unless we have a crop failure.
What else has been affected by the embargo? I can list a number of prices that have been depressed by the embargo. First of all, Argentina has done very well, but prices of other products have been depressed. Soya beans are down $25 a tonne; rapeseed is down about $1 a bushel; corn is down, and livestock has been affected indirectly. Yet the minister had the audacity to say that Canadian farmers are not being affected by the policy that Canada has had with respect to the export of grain to the Soviet Union, or at least the embargo against the Soviet Union.
Argentina has done very well in this situation. According to a story which appeared in the Christian Science Monitor, Argentina has doubled its sales of wheat and corn to the Soviets. It is the biggest single supplier to the Soviets. It has sold more wheat to the Soviets than it has ever done before. What happened in Argentina is what could have happened in Canada if we had made the same kind of effort. The Canadian Wheat Board was established to make these kinds of economic attempts to help Canadian farmers and the Canadian economy. Instead we allowed that opportunity to go to Argentina. We have demonstrated that it has affected all Canadian producers and that all Canadian producers are entitled to compensation. If there is to be an equality of sacrifice with the Americans in this foreign policy venture, having regard to wheat, then now is the time for the government to try to make some compensation to the farmers who have been affected by the embargo.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member suggests that the decline in grain prices since January 4 is a direct conse-
Adjournment Debate
quence of the embargo restrictions on grain trade with the U.S.S.R. In some of his other questions he also recommended that the 1980-81 initial payment for wheat be raised to $4.25 per bushel.
In reply 1 want to explain that the initial payment for producer deliveries to the Canadian Wheat Board is set at a level which reflects anticipated market returns for the crop year. The government will reconsider raising the initial payment level prior to the commencement of the crop year on August 1, should the market outlook at that time warrant such an increase.
This government is following the approach of the previous government concerning grain sales to the U.S.S.R., including a willingness to consider compensating producers for losses that may be experienced as a direct result of grain trade restrictions. I would remind the hon. member that there are many factors in addition to the restrictions which are influencing grain prices; factors such as the increased estimate by the United States of their own 1979 corn crop, positive crop prospects for 1980 in the United States, Europe and elsewhere, general economic factors such as the interest rate level and a reduced rate of growth in the world economy as a whole.
The grain trade restrictions do not seem to be having a negative effect generally on the volume of world trade in grain. In fact world trade in both wheat and coarse grains for 1979-80 are projected in both cases to be over 12 per cent greater than for the 1978-79 crop year. Most recent projections indicate that the total reduction of U.S.S.R. imports of grain in this crop year will likely be less than five million tonnes. The United States government has announced steps to counteract the impact of the grain trade restrictions by removing U.S. grain from the market. Canadian grain exports generally in the current crop year are approaching record volumes. Canadian exports to the U.S.S.R. are being maintained at normal and traditional levels.
In summary, it is our position that it would be premature to attempt at this time to answer the question of market impact and determine whether producer compensation will be necessary. 1 can assure the hon. member that the government is closely monitoring the effect of the restrictions and other factors on the market. In the event that compensation is warranted, an appropriate program will be developed and brought forward.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow afternoon at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Wednesday, June 4, 1980