1980-04-22

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson):
That whereas a lawsuit by one airport limousine driver against his employer for wrongful dismissal has brought to light the common practice of owners requiring drivers to pay for the right to drive, at fees up to $55,000, and to pay for the car and all associated costs; and whereas the drivers are led to believe they have bought the airport plate thereby, in contravention of the terms of issuance, and failure to pay results in imposed radio silence and death threats; therefore this House directs the minister to commence a full-scale inquiry into all aspects of ground transportation at Toronto international airport in order to properly protect the public interest and well-being and safety of the drivers.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


METRIC CONVERSION
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that the forced implementation of metrication in the county of Peterborough last summer had a negative effect on consumers and store owners, because of the difficulty tourists had in adapting to the new system, and due to the fact that the subject of metric conversion has never been introduced in the House of Commons in the form of a bill so that the views of the people of Canada may be heard, and considering that metrication in Canada is already seven to nine years ahead of metric conversion in the United States, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone):
That no further implementation take place in the retail sector in Canada until full parliamentary debate on the issue occurs and until all Canadian citizens have been given an opportunity to make their feelings on metrication known to the government.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In light of the evidence that conclusively shows the implementation of the Garrison diversion unit in North Dakota in its present form will cause an estimated $6 million worth of damage annually to the Manitoba commercial fishing industry, and that it will force Manitoba municipalities to pay tens of thousands of dollars each year for the chemical treatment of their water supplies, and in light of the mounting pressure on United States President Jimmy Carter to approve this project, despite the proven harmful environmental effects on Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
That this House instruct the Secretary of State for External Affairs that he should firmly and forcefully remind his American counterpart, during their discussions tomorrow, that the Canadian government expects the United States to honour its commitment under the Boundary Waters Treaty not to pollute to the injury of Canadian health or property and, further, the minister should advise Mr. Vance that the Canadian government is not prepared to accept a Garrison diversion project that permits damaging interbasin biological transfers.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

April 22, 1980


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
[Stage Direction]
SALARY OF MICHAEL PITFiELD-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, concerning the fact that two years' salary, amounting in total to approximately $150,000, was paid to Michael Pitfield when his position terminated as Secretary to the Cabinet following the May 22, 1979, election and he is now back in that position. I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn):
That the Prime Minister clarify forthwith to the House whether or not Mr. Pitfield, on his return to the position of Secretary to the Cabinet and Clerk of the Privy Council after only nine months absence therefrom, refunded to the public treasury, as one would expect, the unused portion of the two years' salary payment; and, finally, the Prime Minister also clarify whether or not Mr. Pitfield, as required by conflict of interest guidelines, declared the existence of a consulting firm known as N. Michael Pitfield Investments Limited, or at least the fact whether he has or is in the process of divesting himself of any interest in such a company.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of continuing and urgent, pressing necessity in virtue of the provisions of Standing Order 43.
It being statistically established that traffic at Victoria international airport by both jet-powered and propeller-driven aircraft has increased considerably over the past decade-in fact, nearly doubling in that period of time-and recognizing that the growing mix of propeller and jet-driven aircraft heightens the risk of accident, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon):
That this House urge the government to proceed without further delay in securing Treasury Board approval for the proposals of the previous government to instal radar, as a matter of top priority, at Victoria international airport.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that on Sunday the Ontario New Democratic Party passed a resolution censuring the federal NDP on its foreign policy during the 1980 election, thus creating a split on the NDP commitment to withdraw from NATO and the North American Air Defence Command, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Manicouagan (Mr. Maltais):
That the NDP change its name to the "Newly Divided Party" and that the Minister of Labour immediately appoint a conciliator to prevent the lamentable suicide of this party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SOCIAL SECURITY
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I would like to move a motion. In view of the fact there was a disposition in the last Parliament to have the report of the task force on retirement income policy referred to a special committee of this House, and in view of the interest in this matter, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie):
That the report of the task force on retirement income policy be referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Last evening, the Minister of Finance presented a budget indicating the greatest amount of borrowing in the history of Canada, $11.73 billion.
In view of the fact that interest rates presently being paid on Canada Savings Bonds are significantly less than the 15% per cent paid to the "big boys" on treasury bills, and in view of the fact that there is already a run on Canada Savings Bonds by people who have more sense than to lend their money at 12 per cent or less, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt):
April 22, 1980

That the government do forthwith increase the interest paid on Canada Savings Bonds to 13 per cent on all bond issues outstanding, to the maturity of those bond issues.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In light of the fact that the Minister of Employment and Immigration two weeks ago announced the appointment of an unsuccessful Liberal federal candidate for Calgary West as his special adviser for western Canada, and that the same minister last week appointed three unsuccessful Liberal candidates in Manitoba to comprise a task force studying native employment and assistance programs, and that there are currently native people in Manitoba with knowledge and experience in these programs who were not appointed, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
That this House condemns the blatant abuse of ministerial powers by the Minister of Employment and Immigration in an attempt to revitalize the western Liberal party at the expense of the taxpayers of Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
S)



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, in the wake of the debacle last night, I should like to direct my question to the President of the Treasury Board. As that minister knows, under the Financial Administration Act the Treasury Board has clear responsibility for all government financial management, including expenditures.
Would the hon. gentleman tell the House whether the Treasury Board was fully familiarized with the statement made by the Minister of Finance prior to its delivery last night, including the expenditure jump of $7.9 billion, the
Oral Questions
greatest one-year jump in Canadian history; and, if so, did they approve it?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, it seems to me the statement made last night speaks for itself, and it is fully supported by Treasury Board.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Again to the President of the Treasury Board, who has indicated that, indeed, he is only a token President of the Treasury Board. Would he tell the House whether he agrees that the deficit announced last night-which amounts to more than $500 for every man, woman and child in this country-will, in fact, be most inflationary and will crowd out financing in other fields, including the private and public sectors?


Donald James Johnston: It appears to me that that question would be more appropriately directed to the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for fiscal policy and for the over-all expenditure plan of the government. As he indicated in his comments last night, the expenditure plan is being fleshed out and will be available within a reasonable time.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I can only take it from that comment that the minister has not read section 5, in particular, of the Financial Administration Act, and that he does not know his responsibilities to this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The Treasury Board is responsible for financial management and expenditure. Does the minister not agree that unless he gets some clout in cabinet and starts trimming the expenditure of these big spenders, the only recourse open to the Minister of Finance is going to be to increase taxation in the country which will place a needless load on the citizens of Canada?


Donald James Johnston: Let me assure the House that I am fully aware of my responsibilities as President of the Treasury Board. Unlike my predecessor, I have no intention of trying to usurp the position which is so ably handled by the Minister of Finance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald James Johnston: As a matter of fact, I shall be making a full statement during the debate on the throne speech concerning my own, personal philosophy toward my role as Treasury Board president, perhaps later this afternoon.


INCREASE IN DEFICIT-PROGRAMS TO BE CUT
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Last night's half-budget increases the federal deficit by fully $2.5 billion. Before he meekly agreed to that increase in the deficit, what specific programs did the minister insist be cut by the federal government?

April 22, 1980
Oral Questions
An hon. Miember: It was $3.7 billion.


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, if I understand the question correctly, the hon. member is asking me what programs are to be cut in terms of the projected deficit which the numbers given last night suggested to the House.
First, I point out that last night's statement with respect to the deficit, as indicated in the information put forward by the Minister of Finance, does not take account of what other measures may be introduced subsequently this year, and does not take account of the negotiations which will be carried on by my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It was clearly indicated last night by the Minister of Finance that that number, at this point, represents a maximum number. I can assure the hon. member that I am continuing with the responsible restraint measures which were begun by this government in 1975 and will continue-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board now indicates that he insisted that no cuts be made prior to the statement being tabled last night. I would like to ask him about the statement by the Prime Minister on January 12, in Toronto, in which he outlined a five-point Liberal economic platform which included a firm commitment to hold down the growth in expenditures to less than the growth in the gross national product, and to reduce the federal deficit in a phased and orderly way.
Why did the President of the Treasury Board agree to allow these firm commitments to the Canadian people to be broken?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I reject any suggestion that I have allowed any commitment to the Canadian people to be broken. It has been, and remains, the intention of this government to reduce the deficit in an orderly way.


EFFECT OF FISCAL MEASURES ON ECONOMIC GROWTH AND JOB CREATION
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. On December 12 last, when in opposition, the Minister of Finance said that the Conservative budget "last night painted a picture of doubledigit inflation, increased unemployment, higher taxes and slower economic growth".
Considering that his statement last night as Minister of Finance painted a virtually identical picture, and considering that the Liberals voted on December 13 on a motion calling for economic growth and job creation, why did the minister last night betray completely his party's commitment which led to the defeat of the Conservative government and to a general election?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I have no hesitation in replying to the hon. member's question as to why we joined with the New Democratic Party in defeating the Conservative government on that night. We did so because we opposed basically the inequitable tax system which was implied in the excise tax on gasoline, and because we opposed the use of that particular tax to finance what we considered to be an inequitable mortgage assistance program.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is the reason we defeated the government. There were other elements in the budget presented by the hon. member for St. John's West which were not pronounced upon and which I have looked at, and some of them I found worth while in the present circumstances and brought back. I am happy that I was able to rescue the hon. member for St. John's West from oblivion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Given last night's statement, I am sure the people of Canada will hope that the present Minister of Finance will soon join him in oblivion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: 1 remind the minister that what he voted on, as opposed to what he says now, was a motion calling for a reduction in taxes, a reduction in interest rates, and economic stimulation. That is what his party voted for, not for what he just said.
I would like to say, in asking my second question, that considering that in the campaign and in the throne speech the Liberals have committed themselves to regional development programs, and considering that the minister of finance from Nova Scotia has pointed out in the past 24 hours that the statement of the Liberal Minister of Finance last night contains not a thing for regional development, when is this government going to start delivering on its commitments to all those parts of Canada which have not shared in the economic benefits of this land, which the Liberals have been promising for more than a decade?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member's question gives me an opportunity to explain why I dropped from my statement last night the provision calling for a special tax contract with firms which might decide to locate in regions of underdevelopment. The reason it was dropped is that I concluded that the present DREE program had sufficient flexibility and because, indeed, I could not find out from the material which the hon. member tabled in the House of Commons what was involved in that particular program.
I indicated in my statement last night the continuing concern of the government in regional development, and that presently there is an ongoing review of techniques that might
April 22, 1980

be developed in order to accelerate the process of regional economic development.


PROMISES MADE DURING ELECTION CAMPAIGN
John Edward Broadbent: The ongoing review and flexibility to which the minister referred has been going on for a decade. Meanwhile, unemployment in Cape Breton remains at about 25 per cent and is unacceptably high throughout Atlantic Canada.
I should like to address my final supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the failure to deliver on promises, not only by the Minister of Finance when he was in the opposition but by the Minister of Employment and Immigration, by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and a series of others-including promises made by the Prime Minister himself-would the Prime Minister tell the House what he will say to the people of Canada, who will view his colleagues' and his own statements made before the election as totally unacceptable cynicism, simply guaranteed to win them office instead of producing action for the people of Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman's comments are quite unfair. If he looks at the Speech from the Throne which was read to this Parliament less than ten days ago, he will see that, on the contrary, the Speech from the Throne is a composite of the promises that this party made during the last election. That is the program for this session which we intend to carry out.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. John Gamble (York North):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. In light of the Auditor General's report, tabled in this House last week, referring to deplorable public service inefficiency, and in view of the mini non-budget of last evening of the Minister of Finance, forecasting an additional $3.7 billion in deficit for this year, will the President of the Treasury Board, in pursuing a policy of restraint, explain to the House what specific steps he proposes to take so that the oppressed taxpayers of Canada can receive a fair day's work from their public servants?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, first of all, the report of the Auditor General will be in front of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, and the hon. gentleman, who I hope will be an active member of that committee, will have ample opportunity to question the representatives of the Auditor General who can
Oral Questions
explain how the efficiency studies in question were conducted, and he can make his own evaluation with respect to them.
At the same time, the comments of the Auditor General must be placed in context, and the context is one of over-all management of human resources by the Government of Canada. The hon. member is aware of the existence of the D'Avignon report. We are looking very carefully at the steps we will be taking to improve human resource management, including job retaining, and so on, with specific reference to the D'Avignon report. I hope that in that manner we will be able to improve remarkably the efficiency, or correct some of the inefficiencies that we see. It is a mistake, however, to place the inefficiencies, as the hon. member suggests, on the backs of hardworking public servants themselves.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald James Johnston: The problem must be placed in the greater context of human resource management, and that is what we intend to do.


John Albert Gamble: Madam Speaker, we now know what "action, and action now," referred to in the Speech from the Throne, means.


An hon. Member:: Question.


John Albert Gamble: Given that the Auditor General stated that a possible 85,000 public servants could be eliminated from the public payroll without reducing service in the public service, has the minister established targets and target dates for public service reductions and, if so, what are they?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, let it be noted in this House that I have no intention of being known as the happy slasher or a closet slasher. I think it is a mistake-


Mr. Kempling:: Do you know how to subtract?


Donald James Johnston: -to set targets, particularly those
extrapolated from one study, as the hon. member has done. I think this is unfair both to the public service and to the report of the Auditor General.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question is also addressed to the President of the Treasury Board. Does the President of the Treasury Board have at his disposal a five-year projection of federal government spending which is an important expenditure control mechanism as recommended in the Lambert report?

April 22, 1980
Oral Questions


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, of course long-term planning is essential to the management of government resources.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, I take it that the President of the Treasury Board has answered "Yes".


An hon. Member:: He said "No".


Thomas Edward Siddon: If that is the case, and recognizing his responsibility to control expenditures, will the President of the Treasury Board table here and now his five-year projections so that Canadians can judge the degree of restraint which he hopes to achieve in government spending over the next five years?


Donald James Johnston: Statements will be made at a later date


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: -with respect to projections and the government's intention with respect thereto.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FINANCE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. The nonbudget, budget announcements last night avoided taking action on the question of interest rates on farm operating credit, which is in part what the demonstration outside is all about.
What is the minister proposing to do with regard to interest rates on farm operating credit, in light of the emergency situation which producers face in all parts of the country, but most dramatically in the potato producing areas of the mari-times as seeding time approaches?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I believe that the questioning today underlines the dilemma which a minister of finance faces in these current circumstances. I have already been berated by members of the official opposition because of what they describe as increased government spending, and I have the hon. member proposing another expenditure program which, if applied to farmers-however deserving they may be at the present time-would necessitate the application of a similar program to other groups affected in the economy.
My purpose, as I have indicated with respect to home owners, is to attempt to develop techniques which will assist affected groups with a minimum of public expenditure, but with a maximum consideration of the hardships that individuals may face at the present time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In light of what he has just said, would the minister then provide a moratorium on all farm debts until such time as the Farm Credit Corporation could be upgraded to include, as well, the administration of the Farm Improvement Loans Act and the granting of operating credits at fixed rates under the Farm Credit Corporation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, for reasons which I have already indicated, it would be impossible to accept the suggestion of the hon. member at the present time.


An hon. Member:: Just pass a law.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, 1 wish to direct my question to the President of the Treasury Board. He came to my riding during the election and I would have been glad to see him if he had had the time.


An hon. Member:: Question.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Since rises in interest rates and oil import costs will increase spending by something like $2 billion more than was forecast in the December 11 budget for 1980-81, an over-all increase of 13.5 per cent-


An hon. Member:: Question.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Hon. gentlemen keep asking for the question. It is not my fault that they have made a mess of the economy. I will get to the question in a minute, if they will just be patient.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Would the minister indicate what departments or programs he plans to cancel in order to remain within his government's stated restraint program of keeping spending restraints below 10 per cent?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I am most flattered by the attention given me today. Frankly, Madam Speaker, I think it would be premature on my part to answer such a question.


FINANCE
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, I have a brief supplementary question. I am not certain whether I should direct it to the President of the Treasury Board or to
April 22, 1980

the Minister of Finance. Since there is no long-term forecast in the mini-budget presented last evening by the Minister of Finance, I should like to ask him, what yardstick can businessmen in Atlantic Canada or, in fact, what yardstick can businessmen in all of Canada use as a guarantee that he is serious about his plans to reduce progressively the deficit?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's raising this question, because it gives me an opportunity to reiterate a point which I made in my statement last night and which has been almost totally ignored by comment; namely, that I would like it understood that the projections I outlined last night do not in any way constitute the expenditure plan or the planned financial requirements of this government for the fiscal year 1980-81.


An hon. Member:: They are meaningless.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I thought it was important to give the House and the country-


An hon. Member:: What do they mean, then?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -an up-to-date accounting of the situation as I found it when I assumed my responsibilities as Minister of Finance, and that I did.


An hon. Member:: Normally, that is done in a budget.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: These are projections, and I have indicated to the House that I propose to maintain a very tight control on expenditures-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -that through the introduction of a blended price on oil, we will be able to reduce both financial requirements-


Mr. Clark:: And the size of the country.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and the deficit by $1 billion over the projection mentioned last night; and that I will be considering, when I frame my budget, revenue measures which undoubtedly would have an effect on any deficit for the fiscal year 1980-81.


An hon. Member:: More taxes.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I want to assure my hon. friend that that is the situation as 1 defined it last night. He ought not to regard these projections as firm figures which I have accepted as a basis for planning.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


INCREASE IN GOVERNMENT BORROWING-EFFECT ON PROGRAMS
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, who last night showed that in tackling our economic problems he has all the courage, determination and ferocity of Robert Burns' little mousie.
In view of the fact that the minister's forecasts show an increase in government borrowing of $3.5 billion and an increase in government spending of $3.7 billion for the present fiscal year, I want to know whether the Minister of Finance has consulted with the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who advised the country on March 23 that she had "done a lot of work in the income tax system" and discovered a hidden tax budget of about $30 billion, including tax breaks which she thinks should be killed and which could be directed into special programs.
With this hidden tax system, with $30 billion in savings in tax expenditures which the Minister of National Health and Welfare has found, has the minister inquired of her where they are? Will he promise us he will bring some of them in so that he can reduce his spending or his budget deficit as a result?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has a real fascination for mice.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would describe him as the mouse which roared on the night of December 11, and whose roar turned into a whimper on the night of December 13.
I just want to tell my hon. friend that I am aware of the proposals, or the ideas that have been put forward by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Obviously, they would be considered as we seek ways of not only controlling expenditures but, if necessary-and, indeed, if I followed the advice of the hon. member last night, it would be necessary- of levying additional taxes when I bring forward a budget. I appreciate his advance support for any possible increase in taxation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: There is nothing less intimidating than a fangless mouse.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: The old bite has gone. The Minister of National Health and Welfare has said she wants to have re-examined and, by implication, eliminate exemptions for the aged, the married and for children, as well as those offered corporations.
Is the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance seriously considering doing away with the income tax exemptions for the aged, the senior citizen, married persons and children? Is that now under contemplation? Would he enlight-
262

April 22, 1980
Oral Questions
en the House and enlighten the people in the country who might want to think about these proposals more seriously?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I would like to tell the hon. member something which he already knows, that all these matters are constantly under consideration by any government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: But I want to assure the hon. member he should not hold his breath in respect of the implementation of any of these proposals which he is putting before me at the present time.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Given the steady increase in unemployment in recent months-made worse by massive lay-offs in the auto and forest industries-and given the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance last night gave no indication of measures to expand the economy and, indeed, predicted an increase in the rate of unemployment in the coming year, will the Minister of Employment and Immigration tell the House whether he is planning any new job-creation strategies, especially those which would help meet the very substantial rate of unemployment of women, young people and natives whose rate of unemployment is reaching alarming proportions?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, in response to the hon. member for Winnipeg North, I would be pleased to point out to him that the question he asked was a simple repetition of a statement we made in the throne speech a week ago Monday, indicating that in fact measures would be taken to develop job programs, particularly those helping women, young people and those with disadvantages in the job market.
I would say, Madam Speaker, that I am very pleased to note the interest of the hon. member for Winnipeg North, and look forward to his support and encouragement when we bring forward legislation and measures into this House to provide those job programs.


David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, given the fact that the minister's government is committed to reducing the number of people working for the government, and given the fact that women and native people who work for the government-in too few numbers-were the last hired and, therefore, in any program of reducing the number of public servants will be the first to be let go, would the minister indicate some of the concrete steps he proposes to take in the near future to meet the needs of those people, rather than just giving us more rhetoric, as he usually does?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, it is not rhetoric. It was stated in the throne speech very clearly that we intend to introduce affirmative action programs to make sure that the full working rights of all people, both in the public service and in the public sector, are provided, and to ensure that where there are inequities or inequalities in the work place, the affirmative action programs would aid and assist to overcome those inequalities.
Again, I welcome the hon. member's support when we bring those measures in, because we will need it, compared to the attitude taken by members directly opposite me.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. As the minister knows, the former Liberal government had signed an agreement in principle with the COPE organization regarding the settlement of their aboriginal claims in the Mackenzie Delta, which agreement the Conservative government had attempted to unilaterally change or rescind.
Would the minister confirm that he intends to respect the COPE agreement in principle; and when does he intend to proceed with the final agreement and the legislation to implement it?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Yes, Madam Speaker, we do intend as a government to honour the agreement in principle. I have met on a few occasions now-the last time as late as last Friday, I believe-with leaders of COPE, and we discussed the personalities to be considered in terms of a special negotiator to get on with the discussions for implementation. I believe we will be in a position to appoint that special negotiator some time, perhaps, within the next two weeks.


FINANCE
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. I understood the minister last night to indicate that the capital gains taxes as proposed by the former minister of finance, the hon. member for St. John's West, would not be proceeded with. Since this may well ruin the retirement of many of our farmers, and will kill initiative, is the minister prepared to reconsider this decision?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I did say that it was not my intention to proceed with several items dealing with the
April 22, 1980

treatment of capital gains. As the hon. member may recall, the former finance minister indicated that he would be bringing forward a discussion paper on the question of capital gains.
This is a very serious matter that often times is not fully understood. I thought it would be better to have the discussion paper produced first, and then to proceed in making any changes that might be justified as a result of public discussion of that paper.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question for the minister. Will the minister, then, assure the House that the discussion paper will include consideration of the once-in-a-lifetime exemption for those who finally have to sell outside the family and who often face ruination and have to borrow to pay the capital gains.
The once-in-a-lifetime exemption is a very important item when it accumulates at the end of the lineage. Will the hon. minister assure us that that item is one that will be discussed under the discussion paper?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I would like to discuss the matter with the hon. member to get a broader understanding of his concerns, so that when the discussion paper is produced his concerns may be addressed.

Oral Questions PENITENTIARIES


SHOWING OF SEX FILM TO INMATES
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Last fall, the administration of the B.C. pen showed a film to the inmates and the general population. The film was entitled "The Night of the Voyeur"-explicit sex,-and the commissioner of corrections, in justifying this, said that it was shown as part of the policy to provide an environment that, within the limits necessarily dictated by incarceration, emulates the normal.
I should like to ask the Solicitor General if it is the policy of his department to show sex films such as "The Night of the Voyeur", supposedly emulating the normal.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, let me assure the hon. member that I shall look into that matter and be prepared to make a statement about it. In the meanwhile, he will be glad to know that we have decided on, and are planning and have under way, the closing of the B.C. pen.
* *
*


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that, should Canada proceed with an Olympic boycott, those called upon to make the greatest sacrifice would be our athletes, and recognizing that most athletes have already given up many months of employment income, have incurred loans and expenses to a considerable extent, will the government-should it proceed with the boycott-make an assessment of those losses to our athletes and provide financial compensation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, you recognize, of course, that the question is, in its very terms, hypothetical.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: A supplementary question, Madam Speaker. In order to end that period of time in which a decision is being made, to reduce those expenses and to allow athletes who are becoming discouraged and are not, perhaps, putting forth all their efforts in anticipation of the boycott, will the Prime Minister make that decision forthwith, in order that the athletes may end their indecision?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Madam Speaker.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Yesterday, in this House, the Prime Minister stated that evidence of illegal RCMP activities-so-called disruptive measures-would be turned over forthwith to the provinces involved: Quebec, British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario.
In view of the fact that only heavily edited transcripts of evidence were, in fact, turned over to the provinces, and in view of the fact that the attorney general of Ontario has stated that he is being denied the evidence that he needs in order to prosecute, will the Solicitor General now assure this House that he will, in fact, turn over all evidence-not just edited evidence, but all evidence-of RCMP wrongdoing, to enable such prosecutions to take place?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I have communicated with the attorneys general and have told them that I would be prepared to discuss with them the evidence that was made available to them last week, following our policy of making the information that they require for the discharge of their responsibilities available to them. I am looking forward to those discussions, and I am prepared to share with them at that time all the evidence I have that I can legally share.
I should point out to the House, however, that the evidence relating to Checkmate-which I understand is the subject of the question-is mostly based on oral reconstruction, and not documents. In connection with that evidence, not very many names are available. Whatever I can make available to them

April 22, 1980
Oral Questions
legally, however, I will; and then it will be their decision what to do about it-whether to take action, and when to take action. That is their responsibility, and I want to support them in their discharge of it.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, of course, the reason that the evidence is largely oral reconstruction is that the files were in fact destroyed. My supplementary is to the Minister of Justice. Yesterday, the Prime Minister told this House that evidence of breaches of federal statutes by the RCMP would be turned over to provincial attorneys general for possible prosecution.
Will the Minister of Justice now confirm that, in fact, the responsibility for prosecutions under the Post Office Act and the Income Tax Act lies with himself, the federal attorney general, and not with the provincial attorneys general, as the Prime Minister suggested yesterday. In view of this, will the Minister of Justice tell this House what action he intends to take to ensure that there will be prosecution where there has been evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the RCMP?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, I do not think that the Prime Minister indicated yesterday that any violation should be turned over to provincial attorneys general. As Attorney General of Canada, I will take my responsibilities if it is necessary to prosecute under my mandate. However, under criminal law, it rests with provincial attorneys general to lodge proceedings and we will provide the necessary information. At this time, Madam Speaker, no decision has been taken. We are studying the records and it will be probably advisable to wait until the McDonald commission winds up.


CULTURAL AFFAIRS
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State concerning the Vancouver art gallery. Since provincial government commitments and private pledges totalling almost $4.5 million are dependent on federal funding, is it the minister's intention to honour the commitment made by his predecessor to provide $4 million toward the conversion of the old court house into Vancouver's art gallery?


Hon. Francis Fox (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. I should like to add my congratulations on her appointment as official opposition critic on matters concerning the Secretary of State.
I should like to point out that there were a number of campaign promises-I really mean campaign promises-made by my immediate predecessor during the election campaign. I
do not believe they were really commitments made by the previous government; I think, in fact, they were campaign promises, and in that sense I am reviewing all of them.
The hon. member has mentioned one, but if I looked at the whole series of campaign promises made by my immediate predecessor in the months of January and February, 1980, there would not be any revenue left in my department to honour any other intentions of funding in the arts and cultural communities.
I should also like to point out to the hon. member that there would be a great deal more money available to the cultural and artistic communities had not the previous government entered that sweetheart deal with the provinces by which they reduced, by a number of millions of dollars, the moneys available to those communities in Canada.
*
* *


INDUSTRY
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. A number of estimates have been given about the size of the possible support to Chrysler (Canada) Limited- $250 million, $500 million, $750 million. I ask the minister if he could give some indication to the House today of the level the government is considering for this support. Also, could he advise the House under what authority the aid would be provided?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, the matter is still under negotiation and is being considered by ministers, so I do not think it would be appropriate to indicate a figure. As to the program in question, if it involves-as it may primarily, or perhaps even totally-loan guarantees, then there would be the provision whereby Parliament approves the loan guarantee activity by the government.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: When?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: A supplementary question, Madam Speaker. Last week, a motion was made by the hon. member for Halton asking that the government place this matter before a standing committee of the House for consideration. Is it the intention of the minister to follow through on that motion, or will a decision be taken prior to any consideration of the matter by the House?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the matter of committee consideration of the operations of the auto industry and the auto pact is something I certainly want to discuss with the House leaders.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Prior to a decision?
April 22, 1980


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: But it may well be necessary for a decision to be reached on this by the government before the kind of consideration can take place that my hon. friend and his colleagues have in mind.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain has, unfortunately, confused the problems of the car industry with problems of development in other parts of Canada, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
As this question involves joint expenditures of the federal and provincial governments, however, I know that the Minister of Finance is fully aware of the problem. Could he assure this House that the Michelin application under DREE, a national policy of both governments, will be considered on its merits, and will not become involved in any other confusion and/or problems of other industries in other parts of the country? Has he recently had discussions with the Premier of Nova Scotia, and when can we except an announcement?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I had discussions with Premier Buchanan last weekend by telephone and the earlier weekend, in person-at his request-on a number of development matters affecting Nova Scotia. One of the items we talked about was Michelin.
I want to assure the hon. member that the government proposes to consider that application in the usual way and to consider the important income and employment results it would bring to the province of Nova Scotia. It is our hope that we can conclude the discussion very early and have the matter decided.


CULTURAL AFFAIRS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State. Would the Secretary of State place upon the table of the House of Commons a list of all the commitments by the Government of Canada to the advancement of culture and arts in the country which he is contemplating breaking?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, I would be delighted to
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
table with the House a list of all the campaign promises made by my predecessor during the course of the election campaign. I would be delighted to do that, indeed. I would also be interested in seeing whether they were commitments made by the previous government, whether these campaign promises have gone through the process of Treasury Board and cabinet approval, and whether they were indeed campaign promises, as I believe they are.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I am afraid the Secretary of State did not understand the question I put to him.

The question I put was whether he will put upon the table a list of those clear commitments by the Government of Canada which his government is now considering breaking.


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, at the moment I am reviewing all of the requests that have been made to us by the cultural community throughout the country.


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Mr. Andre:: The question was fairly simple.


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, here is my reply to the question of the hon. member. I am now going over all requests addressed to me in that field, which come from all parts of the country. I should like to indicate to the former prime minister, the present Leader of the Opposition, that we would be in a far better position to meet those requests if his government had not reduced by, I believe, some seven or eight million dollars, the funds his immediate predecessor, the present Prime Minister of Canada, had made available to help those who labour in the arts. Indeed, the amounts now available to give assistance in the fields of arts and culture have been reduced as a result of the steps taken by his government.


PRIVILEGE
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I gave you notice last night, and again today, of a matter which my colleagues and I believe is a very real question of privilege and which is a substantial invasion of the rights of members of Parliament.
I believe that what we saw last night was not, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) tried to pretend, a mere summary of the economic situation in Canada or a list of measures which did not go as far as a budget would go. His presentation had the essential ingredients which this House should be able to debate, amend, approve or disapprove within

April 22, 19B0
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
the procedures that have been established for a budgetary matter in this House. That is why I described what happened last evening as an attempt to sneak a budget matter into the throne speech debate without the usual protection and privileges given to members of Parliament and, indeed, to the public with respect to budgetary presentation.
I want to make it clear at the outset that 1 have studied the applicable precedents. I know that ways and means motions have been introduced without a budget presentation. That is a practice that has been accepted in the past, even though objections have been raised. I know that economic statements have been brought into debate at the resolution stage or at Committee of the Whole stage on income tax measures. We all remember the statement made to the House on October 20, 1977, during the throne speech by the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) when he was minister of finance.
1 contend, Madam Speaker, that the minister has leaped beyond all of these precedents and has presented a mini-budget to this House while denying to members of Parliament their right to debate and to amend a motion of approval which he would be putting to this House. That is the fundamental difference between the practice that we saw yesterday and what has occurred in the past. No doubt, Madam Speaker, you will have the occasion to examine Beauchesne, but if I could refer you to Beauchesne's fifth edition, citation 515, we find the following statement:
There is no necessity to have a budget presentation before the introduction of ways and means legislation.
I agree with that statement. It makes sense to give the minister freedom to introduce some changes without a six-day debate. The citation is derived from a point of order raised by my friend, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), on March 20, 1972. On that occasion, the Speaker ruled that there was nothing wrong with bringing forward income tax measures from a previous budget without a new presentation. In turn, he was partially relying on a ruling made on October 22, 1962, at which time the then minister of finance had made a detailed economic statement at the resolution stage of an income tax ways and means motion.
There were objections to the procedure in 1962. But we should remember that there have been changes in the rules since 1962. We should remember that the House was able to debate a ways and means motion under the then existing rules. On that occasion, unanimous consent was given to allow the debate to be of a general economic one-quite different from the case last evening. At that time, the House was debating only one type of ways and means motion, and that was to amend the Income Tax Act.
In 1972, the House was again debating one type of change, again an Income Tax Act amendment. This was still a limited curtailment of the rights of the House because, by this time, the six-day budget debate had replaced the right to debate ways and means motions and the House debated only the bill. As everyone knows, the then government went further during the throne speech on October 20, 1977-just another step in the process of erosion. The then government made an economic statement and gave notice of ways and means motions regarding the Income Tax Act and the income tax application rules.
It is noteworthy that these measures were dependent on future administrative action or future amendments to the Income Tax Act and did not take effect immediately. There were no increases, only reductions. There were no amendments outlined to statutes other than the Income Tax Act.
Last night, despite the press statement, there were amendments; there were increases. Last night's case was completely different from the statement in 1977, which my friend no doubt would rely upon as some kind of precedent. Last night, we saw the full machinery of budgetary presentations and a full range of economic measures. The minister's only defence is that he lacked the courage to face all our economic problems and promised us another budget some time in the future. That is an apology, not a procedural argument, Madam Speaker.
Let us go over what happened last night. There were lock-ups for the press representatives because there was an opportunity to profit outside this House from advance knowledge. The minister spoke from a carefully prepared budget text. He even began his remarks at 8 p.m. on Monday, which is a traditional budget hour. He gave us a forecast of Canada's economic prospects and the projected deficit. More important, he tabled ways and means motions on all of the usual budgetary statutes. There are amendments to the Income Tax Act, the income tax application rules, the Excise Tax Act, and the Customs Act. Some of these provisions took effect at midnight last night. This is what happens when a budget is presented.
This was no statement. This was no summary that the minister was giving us. This was a real budget which today- as of midnight last night-is taking money out the pockets of Canadians. It is quite a different situation from that which occurred in 1977. These measures were drawn from a budget that was specifically rejected by this House and put forward by a government which was defeated largely on the terms of that budget.
The minister has no right whatsoever to pick and choose and say that the House and the electorate liked this, or did not like this or that tax. He must submit the statement of budgetary policy to this House and receive the general approval of the House in the terms of the usual motion. As great a parliamentarian as the hon. gentleman may be, he has no right to draw some sort of mystical mandate from the House and set a budgetary course for Canada by executive decree. That is precisely what he tried to do last night.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: There have been previous mini-budgets that have followed the proper procedures, and this should have been done last night. It is silly to point to the speech that my colleague from St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) made last summer and say that he is doing the same thing. The former minister of finance, the hon. member for St. John's
April 22, 1980

West, is here and is prepared to deny that, and I deny that to the House. My colleague said he would proceed with measures contained in a budget that had been approved by the House and which did not take immediate effect, as some of the minister's measures did last night. That is quite a significant difference.
I believe, Madam Speaker, that this is the first procedural point of substance of which you have had to hear argument. 1 say to you, with the greatest respect, that I think we have travelled too far down the road to submit this House of Commons to ministerial convenience. Because the normal procedures were not followed in this case, our rights as members of Parliament, and the rights of the people we represent here, have been abrogated by the process that we saw last night. That is why the question of privilege was raised last night.
We received no formal notice of the budget speech that we would have under the proper rules. We have no automatic right of debate and reply: Mr. Deputy Speaker confirmed that for us last night. We cannot move an amendment. All of those rights are vested in us as MPs, under the budget process, for the protection of the people of the country, and those rights were abrogated by the process that was used by the Minister of Finance last night.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Last night, an economic direction was established for this country without the approval of the House of Commons. That is an abrogation of the right of Parliament and the right of the people. The fact that the minister was afraid to face all of the country's problems in this budget does not mean that a new direction has not been established. It has been established.
If we allow this, Madam Speaker, what next? What else are we going to have? What other kinds of attempts are we going to have to abrogate the rights of members and the public? We will end up hearing a full-scale budgetary address after the House leader moves a motion "that this House notes with interest the economic remarks of the Minister of Finance", if this keeps on. The necessity of following the provisions of Standing Order 60 at any time is on the verge of being annihilated by the processes that we saw last night. I do not think it is an auspicious beginning for the government House leader to have given that kind of advice to the Minister of Finance.
The House is piling precedent upon precedent to remove from its members the right to vote general approval of budgetary policy. Last night, the precedent-if it is a precedent, and I hope it is not-the attempt at establishing a precedent was a giant leap forward in the abrogation of the rights of members of Parliament in terms of the budgetary process.
I think this is a very serious question. I have argued it at some length. I do not want it to end there; I do not think it should end there. I am, therefore, proposing the following motion:
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
That the matter of the erosion of the rights of the House of Commons to approve the general budgetary policy of the government, particularly as revealed in the procedure followed by the Minister of Finance in his presentation to the House on Monday, April 21, 1980, during the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
That motion is seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). This is a question and a matter that should be stopped, and it should be stopped now. There are budgetary processes that could have been observed by the Minister of Finance. If the Minister of Finance had been doing his job in terms of the economic problems facing this country, we would not have had this pirating of the process: we would have had a budget, a real budget, with real protection, with all of the rights and privileges of hon. members observed, and the public protected with all of the statements that were made long before now.
At this point we have this trampling on the procedures of this House, which are there for good reason, for the sake of allowing the minister to avoid his responsibilities to the public of Canada. I do not think this could be allowed to happen in this House of Commons. Therefore, I move my motion for the consideration of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I conclude that the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) is describing my statement last night as a budget. The hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), over television, said it was not a budget last night. He said it was not a mini-budget.


John Carnell Crosbie: Minnie Mouse.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: He said it was a Minnie Mouse statement. The two frontbenchers are sitting so close together I will not repeat the description of unity which the hon. member for St. John's West described during the campaign that existed between his leader and himself; but surely these two frontbenchers, sitting so close together, should decide what it was. The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton says it is a budget, and the finance critic says it is not. I agree with the finance critic on that matter. I want in a sense to review with the House the situation which I faced in becoming Minister of Finance.


John Carnell Crosbie: This is a sob story.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is not a sob story unless one would weep at the deficiencies of the former minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Which one?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The situation that I faced was that there were ways and means motions which had been tabled in the House by the former minister of finance that had not yet received parliamentary approval.


Mr. Nielsen:: They died.

April 22, 1980
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I faced the additional fact that there were ways and means motions which had been tabled by the hon. member for St. John's West that were still there.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: They died.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member ought to remember that there were many people out in the country in the business community who were calling the department and writing to me asking what disposition I intended to make of the unfinished business arising from the budget of the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) and the ways and means motions arising from the budget of the hon. member for St. John's West.


Charles Joseph Clark: They are separate matters.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: They wanted answers. I wanted to deal with that as quickly as possible in order to clear up the uncertainty. It is very surprising to me that the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton should overlook recent history. What made the statement last night a budget if it was a budget? What is a budget? Is the tabling of ways and means motions the essence of a budget? I argue that the tabling of ways and means motions is not, in itself, the essence of a budget. If that were the case, the hon. member for St. John's West would have presented two budgets in the only session of the last Parliament.
Standing Order 61(1) reads:
A notice of a ways and means motion may be laid upon the Table of the House at any time during a sitting day by a minister of the Crown but such a motion may not be proposed in the same sitting.
In other words, it is possible to table the motion but it is not possible to ask for concurrence. That practice has been followed by other ministers of finance. It was followed by my predecessor when on October 25 last he laid upon the Table notices of ways and means motions. In fact, on October 25 he moved that those ways and means motions be concurred in, both a ways and means motion to amend the Income Tax Act laid upon the Table on Tuesday, October 23-two days earlier-and a motion to amend the income tax application rules laid upon the table Tuesday, October 23, 1979.
These were not insignificant measures which were reintroduced by the hon. member for St. John's West. The tabling of the ways and means motions for the Income Tax Act and Customs Tariff amendments were contained in the budget of November 16, 1978. The new income tax motion-I draw this to the attention of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton- significantly altered one of the measures, namely, the application of the small business tax rate to professionals. That income tax ways and means motion relieved and tightened.
In addition, there was a tabling of a ways and means motion for sales and excise tax changes from the November 16, 1978, budget. Was it a minuscule event? It certainly had broader implications than any step I took, because it contained $1 billion in tax reductions, and some tax increases. These were
motions laid upon the Table by the former minister of finance last October.
I draw to your attention, Madam Speaker, that in the summer the minister issued a press release in which he gave notice that he would be tabling these ways and means motions. One hon. member made a point about the fact that the general motion relating to the budget had been defeated, and that therefore, for some reason, these motions should not be revived in any way.


An hon. Member:: They are not ways and means motions.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Of course they are ways and means motions. The ways and means motions which I tabled last night were never dealt with by the former Parliament. They were never called. They were never concurred in. They were never defeated, and they were not approved. Neither thing happened to these particular ways and means motions. It is a travesty to suggest that the defeat or the carrying of the particular general motion on the budget presentation predetermined the result of the ways and means motions.
Let me explain to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark): his minister of finance brought in ways and means motions which had been presented by a defeated government and which had been voted against by his party on the main budget resolution. So you cannot have it both ways. The former minister of finance brought in these ways and means motions because he thought they were good, even though his party had voted against his predecessor's budget and even though the government which had introduced these ways and means motions had been defeated in the campaign.


Charles Joseph Clark: But not in the House.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Not in the House, but which is the more important-the House or the people of Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is a red herring which has been drawn by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton. His argument is a red herring. What I did was to revive motions which were tabled by the former minister of finance, and what he did was to revive motions which had been tabled by his predecessor, the present Minister of Justice. If I had to go through the formality of a budget presentation to accomplish that, I ask the hon. member why he did not do that himself.


An hon. Member:: The circumstances were different.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: What else did I do after I had revived some of these motions? I thought hon. members opposite would welcome the fact that I had accepted and brought back into the House certain measures which they thought were important. I did not bring in any new measures, not a single new tax measure. Except for some technical modifications, they are exactly the same motions. I thought hon. members would welcome them. I thought the Leader of the Opposition would welcome the fact that I had brought in the small
April 22, 1980

business development bond, which was the only item in the budget to which he referred in his speech on leaders' day. But here they are raising questions about the actions I took.
In addition to tabling these ways and means motions, I gave information on the expenditure situation. This was done by the former president of the treasury board, and the minister of finance, in a most voluminous way before Parliament was called. Never given to Parliament. Is that a budget? I cannot understand why on this occasion, when motions are tabled and when, openly, they are tabled in the context of a speech which explains all the tax changes which are being reintroduced, a speech which gives information on the expenditure situation, the opposition should complain about an abrogation of the rights of Parliament. Why should they describe it as an abrogation of the rights of Parliament?
I carefully considered the precedents, Madam Speaker. I want to assure you that I considered very carefully whether 1 was in any way departing from a practice which had already been accepted by this Elouse. Also, I wanted to make sure that nobody was caught by surprise. 1 wanted to make sure that I was making a statement in the context of the debate on the Speech from the Throne so that hon. members opposite would be alerted and so that if they wished to comment, criticize or condemn, they would have three or four additional days in which to do so. 1 was not concerned about the procedural ground, which 1 found very solid; I was concerned about the broad parliamentary character, namely, whether members opposite would have a fair chance to comment on anything I had done.
Last week, I called up the hon. member for St. John's West and told him I was going to make a speech last night. I tried to reach the financial critic of the New Democratic Party last week to tell him, but instead I conveyed the information to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) last week, alerting him that 1 was to make a speech on Monday night in which they ought to be interested, and to reserve their opportunity to speak after I did.


Charles Joseph Clark: So you misled them too.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I indicated in general terms what I intended to do. Yesterday, if hon. members were alert, they would have noticed that I walked across the floor and sat with the hon. member for St. John's West and expanded upon my intentions, and I did the same thing with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. So 1 cannot understand why there is indignation at the procedure.


Charles Joseph Clark: Because it is wrong, Allan.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1 hope the indignation is not very serious.


Charles Joseph Clark: It is profound.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I hope it is a vigilance which oppositions normally show, and that it is not an attempt to reflect upon a
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
practice which has been followed by the former minister and other ministers of finance.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is not true, Allan, and you know it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If I had brought in new tax measures-


Charles Joseph Clark: Which you have.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and if I had established a firm expenditure and revenue plan for 1980-81, then hon. members might conclude that it was a budget. I ask them to go to Erskine May and get a definition of a budget. I ask them to go to Beau-chesne and get the definition of a budget and, if that is not sufficiently clear and lucid to indicate that what I did last night was not a formal budget presentation, I ask them to go to the Oxford dictionary. All three of them will illustrate very vividly that what happened last night was obviously a speech relating to the finances of the country and to the economy, and the tabling of ways and means motions.


Erik Nielsen: And imposing taxes.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: But it certainly was not a budget. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) says it was a budget because I imposed taxes.


Erik Nielsen: Without debate.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member for St. John's West did the very same thing.


Erik Nielsen: Not without notice.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: His motions, if the hon. member for Yukon had read them-which he tabled-raised taxes by several hundred million dollars.


Erik Nielsen: That is specious.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If they had been called, those motions would have been debated in the normal way.


Miss MacDonald:: 


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. lady for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) says "IP'. It is not my fault if her party has the capacity to self-destruct at critical times. 1 do not want to add any acrimony to the debate, but 1 stand by the statement I have made and say that the hon. member for St. John's West and hon. members of the New Democratic Party have plenty of opportunity to comment on what I did. No rights have been taken away in that sense. In fact, I think I have gone to good lengths to give them an opportunity to comment, because I could have tabled all these ways and means motions just by standing in the House and saying, "I table these ways and means motions, every one of them", and I would have done exactly what the hon. member for St. John's West did. I could have done that, and I am being attacked-


Charles Joseph Clark: Poor Allan.

April 22, 1980
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -because 1 took the additional step of providing additional information to the House of Commons in an effort to demonstrate that this is an open government and ready to tell the House of Commons all the facts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, I doubt if anyone would contend that last night was one of Parliament's finest hours.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: We wasted an hour.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a matter of fact, I believe what happened is a matter of serious concern. We may be able to argue from both sides on the basis of the rules and the citations, but in my view what happened goes deeper than that. 1 shall come to what 1 have in mind in a moment, but first I should like to comment on one or two points of detail.
1 was deeply disturbed last evening when I heard the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), who at that time was trying to get the floor, say that there had been an agreement among the whips that he would follow the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). 1 take it that the phrase "the whips" is an all-inclusive one which can include whips and House leaders; but I say on my behalf and on behalf of the whip of this party, the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), that we had not been consulted on that point at all. We had not been told a word about the possibility of the hon. member for St. John's West following the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Nystrom:: Shame on John.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette) came over and talked to me during the latter part of the afternoon about the arrangements which were being made so that the Minister of Finance would get on at eight o'clock. That arrangement involved having two Conservative speakers in a row just before six o'clock. Did 1 object? Not at all. But there was no suggestion at all as to what would happen after the Minister of Finance spoke.
I went to the Chair several times to make sure that the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper) was in the place which had been assigned to him, and it was. There was no question at all about the order of speakers. Therefore, although I was not surprised at the hon. member for St. John's West trying to get the floor, I am surprised, shocked and disturbed to learn that there was some kind of consultation with people who may have had authority but perhaps did not have authority, but in which we were not involved. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) came over to me last night and said that he did not know about it, but the word "hanky-panky" is not too strong to use about this kind of thing.


An hon. Member:: I can think of some better ones.


Stanley Howard Knowles: 1 just remind the two older parties in this House that there are three parties here, and that the work of this House will proceed much better if we are all consulted on matters of this kind.
Before I get to what I think is the most serious part of this whole matter, may I say that I am not as greatly impressed by the indignation of my friends to the right as they might expect me to be. I had a feeling last night, and I have it again today, that they cannot attack the budget-budget or non-budget, whatever it was-brought in last night by the Minister of Finance because it was the same as the budget they brought in.


An hon. Member:: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, just about the same. So instead they are attacking the Minister of Finance on the procedure that he used. However, this kind of procedure has been tried one way and another across the years. The Minister of Finance referred to the press release last summer by the former minister of finance. I remember long ago, before some of my hon. colleagues were born, that Mr. Abbott brought in taxation by announcing it over the radio.
If you want to read the debate on procedure, which was dramatic and went on for a long time, go back to about 1948 when we contended that taxes should be announced in the House of Commons, not over the radio. That was before the days of television. I also remember the last time we had a Conservative government before the one of last year, the one headed by the late Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker. We had a minister of finance by the name of Donald Fleming at that time. He was like the present Minister of Finance. He did not want to bring in a budget; he wanted to find some way of getting around it. So when in December, 1957, we were discussing estimates- in those days we dealt with estimates on the floor of the House, instead of shipping them off to committees-Mr. Fleming rose during the course of a debate on estimates and gave us what in effect was a budget speech.
All of the arguments that we have heard today, that it is a mini-budget, a non-budget, a "mousey" budget-we heard all of that at that time, and the debate went on for hours. In the end, the Tories won the day and Mr. Fleming was allowed to present his resolutions and to make budget proposals. But what annoyed us was that he was a minister of finance who did not want to bring in a budget, yet he had to tell the House how things were going and he had to propose certain taxes, so he chose an unusual way of doing what the House prefers to be done according to the practices surrounding a budget presentation.
So, Madam Speaker, there is a lot of work for you and those at the table to do in reading the precedents before you make a ruling as to whether the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton has a point of privilege in precise procedural terms. But, as I said earlier, despite the fact that I have taken a crack or two at my friends to the right who have raised this issue, I think it is
April 22, 1980

very important that we get this sorted out. The Minister of Finance can argue until he is blue in the face-Tory blue, in fact-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: -that in the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne a member can speak about anything, so that includes him and he can make a speech about anything he wants.


An hon. Member:: Or about nothing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He can also argue that under Standing Order 66(1) he can give notice of a ways and means motion any time in the House of Commons. He can argue that there have been times when we have avoided a general budget debate. But this is an unusual Parliament. It was elected after the previous government was here for just a short time. I will not go into the motives of the last two elections, except to say that most of us realize that both of them were elections in which people were voting against something. But this government has been elected with a majority although many people in the country do not have confidence in it. They have the majority of seats and they can stay here, if they hold their numbers, for four or five years. But it is terribly important for this government to establish the feeling that it is trying to be fair and that it has lost its old arrogance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just before this session started. Madam Speaker, I became involved in one of those radio programs that abound around here, and I was asked how 1 thought the Liberals would perform. Being a generous soul who gives people the benefit of the doubt, I said, "Well, maybe they were chastised by those few months out of office and maybe they will not have their old arrogance."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sorry I said it, Madam Speaker, because that is what we are faced with now. It is a government which feels that because it has a majority, because it has the power, it can do things any way it wants to. As I said, the minister can argue from now until doomsday that he has the procedural right. But I do not think he had the moral or the parliamentary right to do something that went beyond what the House felt was the way to deal with budget measures.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: The very fact that we are having this discussion today means that there was some question about the way this government is going to run Parliament. I think that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), when he was prime minister, made a mistake when he said-as he did so often- he and his colleagues intended to govern as if they had a majority, which they did not have. 1 think that was part of the reason for his downfall. But, Madam Speaker, I think, what
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
we have now is even worse. We have a government which, of course, has a majority but it is acting as though it owned the whole store, as though there were nobody else here and it could do what it wanted to do.
The Minister of Finance says that he made known to the Conservatives and to us-through me, in this case-what was planned. It is true that he spoke to me last week about his intention to speak last night. I asked him quite openly whether it was going to be a budget speech. He answered, "No, it is going to be a statement setting out what we are going to do with these two left-over budgets and what our general plans are". It was more of a procedural matter than it was a budget speech.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yesterday, when it got around because of a press notice that it looked more like a budget speech, we had another conversation and I asked him again, "Will it be a mini-budget or will it just be a procedural matter?" I was even called by the CBC and asked my opinion, because apparently they were wrestling with the proposition that they might put the minister's speech on live last night. I said, "I think you are making a mistake, because the minister tells me it is not a mini-budget." Well, this is a matter of definition, and the minister still says it is not. I took his word for it, and I even argued with some of my colleagues and some of the press, saying, "Let us not get hot and bothered about this." But when I saw the document at seven o'clock and heard the minister read it at eight o'clock, 1 felt it went beyond the simple procedural explanation which the minister had indicated was going to be the nub of that budget.
1 feel that that being the case, he should have had much more discussion with the representatives of the two parties on this side to see how to handle the matter. He did not want to bring in a budget-sometimes, 1 think, just like Donald Fleming in 1957 who did not want to bring in a budget-so he dragged it in this way. This minister is not ready to bring in a budget, but he felt there were certain financial matters he had to bring forward, and he brought them in this way. As I said, he can quote Standing Order 60, he can quote the rules and the precedents regarding the throne speech debate, and we will have a hard time persuading Your Honour that you have to rule that what he did is out of order. But it is not good for the life of this Parliament and for the confidence of the people of this country-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: -if we get the feeling that the government is just going to run things the way it wants. I contend, Madam Speaker, that this government, with its majority, should be more careful and more sensitive about the opposition than the minority government had to be last time. They took their life in their hands, and we know what happened. But we are here now for three, four or five years and it is terribly important for the country to get the impression that this Parliament is

April 22, 1980
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
working together well. I do not think that what happened last night would give that impression.
The Minister of Finance says that he has leaned over backwards, he has done this on day five of the throne speech debate and there are three days left. This is the argument every time. It was the argument in the Donald Fleming case in 1957 and it has been the argument, in all those instances where budgets were bootlegged in in some other way, that members can still speak. But in the throne speech debate, especially in the first session of a new Parliament, there are many new members wanting to speak. There are a dozen or more in our party who would like to speak and do not have a chance. We cannot replace them by our leader and have him speak again. We had planned that our finance critic would not speak in the throne speech debate, but that he would wait for the budget debate. The chance of our members taking part in the debate on the budget in these three remaining days-and we will lose half of today on this question of privilege-is very small.
The minister might have chosen the vehicle of a statement on what we call motions, but it is really on statements by ministers, with the opposition parties having the right to respond or ask questions. But no, he feels he did the fair thing; he told us about it. However, when I saw the statement it seemed to me to go much further than 1 had thought from what he had said. 1 think the suggestion that the opportunity is there to comment is really meaningless.
It is in Madam Speaker's hands to study the precedents and decide what to do with the motion put forward by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). I think perhaps better than a committee study of that kind of thing would be a real heart-to-heart session among House leaders.


Charles Joseph Clark: No, let's have it public.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps even some other ministers and other members could be there as well to face up to the fact that the success of this Parliament two years, three years, or four years down the road depends on this government realizing that it does not own this place, that it has a majority but that we are here too. Just the bare fact that we had this hassle last night and that we are having this session today proves that members are not satisfied, that there was not sufficient consultation. 1 hope that the government will take these things to heart.
As I say, I leave it to Your Honour whether you rule that there is a question of privilege of the procedural or parliamentary kind that the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton is claiming, but I feel very strongly that before we go any further we should consider how we are going to run this Parliament. We have obligations too. We on this side of the House have to be responsible. We have to do our job. We must not obstruct and all that kind of thing, but the government must come to the realization that the country does not trust it as much as that majority seems to suggest.
We went through this some years ago. We had the 19721974 minority experience. We think that it was a pretty good Parliament; we got several things out of the government. Then the 1974 election gave them the majority and some members on the Fiberal side of the House said to me then, "I hope we do not revert to the pre-1972 stance; I hope we learned a lesson in the 1972-1974 period". No, within a couple of weeks they were right back. From 1974 to 1979 it was the God-given Liberals running the show.


An hon. Member:: So what's new?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then we had a few months last year when we had a respite from the Liberals. They are back now, and even 1 said on the radio before the session started that they might take a different attitude. They are not, in doing it this way and I plead for them to reconsider their attitude.
I thank the minister for having told me last week that he would be making his speech last night. If there is a misunderstanding between us as to what he meant by saying that it would not be a budget, which some of us think it is, I am sorry there is that misunderstanding. But to me this whole incident should lead to some pretty serious conversations among us, and it should lead the Liberal government of this country to the realization that just because it has 147 members does not mean that it owns the place. It has to operate in a way of complete consultation with the opposition parties. It has to make the people out there feel that it is helping to lead Parliament to constructive things, not just running Parliament the way it wants.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I want to address myself to some of the remarks which the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) has made. In considering this matter, it is very clear that there is no correspondence at all and no similarity to the statement I made on July 26, 1979, on tax and tariff measures. There were two statements, and 1 have both of them here. One was on the fiscal and economic situation, and the other was on the tax and tariff measures that were made on July 26 which had to be made for good reason.
On November 16 or 18-I think it was on November 16, 1978, that a budget was brought into this House. That budget was not defeated. The House did not repudiate the budget, but some of the measures in that budget were not passed, were not put forward to this House for passage. The then Liberal government, in its usual way, did not care whether it got these measures passed or not. They had announced that they would all go into effect on budget night whether or not the House passed any legislation. So the then House leader was not able to get amendments to the Customs Act, the Income Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act passed through the House by March.
In March, the then prime minister finally dissolved the House, or asked the Governor General for a dissolution. Of course, he was into his fifth year and that is probably a predecent for what will happen this time. He will be in his fifth
April 22, 1980

year before he makes a decision as to whether the House should carry on or what will happen this time. But that was the position. The House was dissolved and they went to the electorate. All of those measures were put into effect by order in council and administrative measures taken by that government. So when 1 made a statement on July 26, it was not to say whether or not some taxes were going to go into effect on the night of July 26; it was to say what our attitude was going to be with respect to these measures that had been in effect since November 16, 1978-


Walter David Baker: Quite a difference.


John Carnell Crosbie: -and that people were paying taxes based on the fact that it was taken that these things would be enacted by Parliament. So people were doing their income tax returns based on the income tax changes. They had stopped paying sales tax. The sales tax was reduced from 12 per cent to 9 per cent-the general federal sales tax. There is still not a thing passed by this House of Commons. This Parliament has not yet passed legislation that approves the reduction in that sales tax rate from 12 per cent to 9 per cent, and it had not passed it between November, 1978, and July, 1979. But people had stopped paying. People were not longer paying 12 per cent; they were paying 9 per cent based on orders in council, jiggery-pokery and hocus-pocus that had been enacted by the previous government.
There is some question as to whether the whole kit and caboodle was legal, as to whether they could really be doing what they were doing. In any event, the public thought they could do what they were doing; the public was acting on the basis that they could do what they were doing. So there was a tax reduction that had been in effect. That is why I had to make a statement on July 26, 1979, on whether or not we were going to go along with these measures then in effect, what we were going to do about them when Parliament resumed, or what we were going to ask Parliament to do.
If Your Honour looks at those two releases, you will see that I deal with the situation in them. I said in the fourth paragraph that most of the measures that will be included in the legislation are measures that we have no choice but to continue, since the Canadian people have been conducting their affairs since November 16 on the basis that the budget provisions brought down that evening were effective at that date. We did exactly the opposite. After our defeat, which I think was on the night of December 13, the lucky 13, is it; or the unlucky 13-


Walter David Baker: December 13.


John Carnell Crosbie: After our defeat on December 13 we had a cabinet meeting the next day, I believe it was. Based on the advice of myself and my department, and the advice of the Privy Council, we decided that we were not going to pretend that the measures in the budget of December 11 were in effect. We issued a statement saying that they were not in effect, that they were not going to go into effect, that they were all to be
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
postponed until after the election and then we would have to decide what would happen.
We announced our intention to reintroduce them. We were not going to go to the country and weasel and try to pretend that we were not going to do some of the things which were unpopular. We were not going to say one thing to the electorate and do the other when we got in, as hon. members opposite have done, and have done before. So we announced that these measures were not in effect and we passed no orders in council to make them effective. We took no legal steps that would make these provisions effective. So there is a vast difference. Now the hon. Minister of Finance, a gentleman who has been in this House for donkey's years-


Erik Nielsen: The Prime Minister calls them donkeys.


John Carnell Crosbie: He has been in the House for donkey's years, and he is as slippery as a cod tongue in a barrel of cod livers. He tries to say that what he is doing is similar to what 1 did last July 26. Well, look at the background notes to the notices of ways and means motions, Madam Speaker, and you will see what he was doing last night. He reduced the write-off for oil and gas properties and he made it retroactive to December 11, 1979. That was never in effect before: it is a new tax measure. He imposed a temporary corporate surtax; he made it retroactive to January 1, 1980. It indicates 1979 in his release, but that is obviously a mistake: it is 1980. That is the new corporate surtax. That was not in effect before. That did not come into effect on December 11. We deliberately said it was not going to go into effect because we had been defeated in the House. So he introduced a new tax. He was not announcing that he was going to continue a tax already in effect-not at all. He was introducing a new tax. He increased the levies on tobacco.


Madam Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but, it being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
April 22, 1980
274_____________________________________
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker


Madam Speaker:: If the House will give me a few minutes, please, I have the honour of tabling in this House the ninth annual report of the Commissioner of Official Languages.


PRIVILEGE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the question of privilege of Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton).
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, as we adjourned at one o'clock I was outlining the difference between the situation last night and what the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) was doing and the action that was taken on July 26, 1979, by myself, to which he referred in an attempt to justify his extraordinary conduct of last night.
I was pointing out, Madam Speaker, that the measures 1 had to address myself to last July 26 had been brought down in the budget of November 16, 1978, and stated to be effective as of that date. The tax and tariff measures contained in it were already implemented by order in council and other legal measures although legislation had never passed the House. That is why we had to take some steps to advise people whether we were going to carry on on that basis or not.
To show you the difference, Madam Speaker, I might just make one other reference to the statement I made on July 26. I pointed out in that statement that the legislation involved in these bills should be passed as soon as possible. Because of the returns from 5,000 taxpayers who had filed on the basis of proposed changes for 'he 1978 taxation year before their returns could be processed, this situation had to be clarified and legislation passed. In other words, they were told in the November 16 budget that they had an option as to how they conducted their affairs. Some 5,000 taxpayers had filed returns for 1978 based on the changes in that budget, although there had never been legislation passed by the House. So we had an entirely different situation.
I am referring now, Madam Speaker, to the ways and means motion of which notice was given last night and on which the minister spoke. We have a whole set of new taxes, never before implemented in Canada, never advanced on. I shall also find for Your Honour-or Your Honour's staff, I am sure can get for you-a press release issued on December 13 or 14, 1979, in which the government, through the Department of Finance, pointed out that none of the tax measures in the budget speech of December 11 would go forward.
Last night, Madam Speaker, there was given to the people of Canada and to this House through a mere speech in the address in reply-and I was just reciting some of the tax changes-reduced write-off for oil and gas properties from 30 per cent to 10 per cent per year, made retroactive to December 11; a new temporary corporate surtax made retroactive to January 1, 1980-never in effect before; increased levies on tobacco and alcohol beverages, all of which went into effect at midnight last night-increases never in effect before in this country. We have an exemption for volunteer firemen. These are all good things. I am glad to see the Minister of Finance is following some of the things that had been indicated in my budget.
We have a new application of sales tax on cosmetics that will raise $25 million; we have the sales tax extended to photofinishing-never before in effect in this country and it is going to take in $10 million immediately; we have changes in sales tax exemptions for containers and coverings and so on-I will not go into it all. We have a different method of collecting the sales tax on gasoline and diesel fuel. Madam Speaker, this is a very significant change. Because the change there is from a tax of so many cents per litre or gallon to a tax of 9 per cent on the selling price of gasoline and diesel fuels, it means that the tax will go up each time there is an increase in gasoline and diesel fuel prices. That is to go into effect immediately, Madam Speaker.


Walter David Baker: That is a sneaky one.


John Carnell Crosbie: There is a whole series of other changes with effective dates given between December 11 and January 1 in this notice. So we have very, very many changes in the tax system of Canada imposed last night never before in legal effect in Canada, and in fact made clear by the administration that first suggested them on December 11 that they were not in effect and would not be going into effect unless our government was re-elected. We were not re-elected. The people of Canada had no reason to expect that this government was going to reintroduce them. This government had decried these tax increases. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) practically bit through his lips, gnashing his teeth at the horrific tax increases contained in the budget. He said that if you smoked or if you drank in Canada, you could not get any relief from this government. Now his Minister of Finance and the government bring in exactly the same tax changes that were proposed for tobacco and alcohol on December 11.
If that is not the height of hypocricy, it is certainly a new budget measure. It is semantics, Madam Speaker, as to whether it is a budget, or a mini-budget, or a Minnie Mouse budget. It is a travesty of justice, whatever it is. Nevertheless, it is a major change in the taxation system of this country. It is a major change in the revenue system. It is a major change in the tax system of the country and the hon. minister opposite brings it in without any adequate notice.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) mentioned that the Minister of Finance called him.
April 22, 1980

The Minister of Finance called me last Friday, Madam Speaker, and I, being the trusty, innocent Newfoundlander that I am, picked up the phone. 1 was astounded to have a gentleman so high in dignity and power in this government call me. It certainly never happened between 1976 and 1979. They would not give me the time of day then. Anyway here was the minister calling. 1 picked up the phone, my hand trembling with excitement that the Minister of Finance was calling. He told me that on Monday night-you know what soft, dulcet tones he has and how he can persuade a rock that it is not a rock, it is a stone-and said that he was going to be making a speech Monday night in the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, that he was going to deal with some questions affecting ways and means motions from the last two budgets, and that he was going to deal with some questions of revenues and expenditures, how they were last year and what he expected this year.
I was not even suspicious enough to ask any other questions of him. I thought that we would have a statement about revenues and expenditures and what was to happen with ways and means motions from the budget presented by the former minister of finance and so on. The minister never said to me that he was going to bring in a mini-budget or that he was going to deal with a number of tax questions or new taxation. He may not have meant to mislead me. It may be that I was just so reasonable and sweet on the other end that he forgot to enlighten me as to the full iniquity of what he was proposing.
Then in this House on Monday he came over and sat by me. I nearly dropped off my chair at the honour. He told me in essence the same thing and that 1 would get a copy of his speech an hour ahead of delivery. I was very grateful that these pearls of wisdom would come my way an hour before the actual delivery of his speech. When I saw the speech a minute after seven last night, 1 discovered a whole new world. It was like that afternoon serial called "Another World". It was not what I had been led to expect by the Minister of Finance. I am sure that he would not deliberately mislead anyone-such a sweet picture of Cape Breton innocence!
Not only were we not expecting this, and it would not have been palatable even if we were, but the press were locked up, though not just until the minister started his speech at eight o'clock. Oh! no, he was too cute for that; he thought that I might scuttle out to address the press while he was making his speech. So they were locked up until his speech was concluded, and if I had wanted to speak to the press, I would have had to give up my speech in the chamber. Not only had that been arranged, but by God I did not get my speech in the chamber until 9.45 last night.
This is a concatenation of events not to be encouraged. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre certainly put his foot on it, whether or not it is technically-and I do not think it is even technically-within the rules. It is certainly outside any sense of propriety or decency, and I know that the Minister of Finance is a man who has a high sense of both.
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
I will now address myself to the question of the whips. 1 had been told by our whip that it was arranged for me to speak after the Minister of Finance. I would have thought that the Minister of Finance would have wanted to arrange not only for myself to speak, but also for the NDP finance critic to speak following his address on such an important matter as this. The fact that this is out of good order at all, Madam Speaker, was shown by the fact that tonight the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne is being adjourned by order of the government. The government wants it to end tonight although we have two more days remaining. The government is going to suspend it because it wants to bring on other business.
It is not for us to consent or not to consent to that; they have the power to arrange these things themselves. We have members on all sides of this House who want to speak in the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. These members are being prevented from that privilege and honour because of the argument that is now going forward and because of the minister's statements last night.
For all of these reasons, Madam Speaker, there is no justification for the minister to attempt this procedure. What he is doing is avoiding a debate on this major economic and financial statement that he made last night.
He cannot say he is just adopting part of our budget. Our budget took an over-all approach to the economic and financial problems of Canada. Its thrust was to reduce budget deficits. It was to reduce government borrowing, and over a period of three or four years would get inflation and all of these other serious problems under control. The thrust of the minister's actions last night, the actions that he indicated in his speech, was exactly the opposite. It was to throw out all restraint. It was to allow government borrowing to increase $3.7 billion and allow the deficit to go up $3.5 billion. Perhaps I have the figures transposed. In each case it is an addition of $3 billion more. This is completely opposite to the thrust of the fiscal policy that we set for this country. It is completely opposite to the thrust of the fiscal policy recommended by the governor of the Bank of Canada, whose interest rate policy the minister has endorsed.
So this was a financial statement, a budget or a mini-budget last night 180 degrees reversed. It reversed 180 degrees the fiscal course that we had set for this country in the last budget that was brought before this House. For the minister to suggest that such an important reversal of financial and fiscal policy should be done by means of a speech in the debate on the address in reply, where our leader has spoken and cannot speak again, where so many members of our party have done the same, and where the Leader of the New Democratic Party has already spoken-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: They can speak again.


John Carnell Crosbie: I am saying that on the address in reply they cannot speak. If there is another amendment, perhaps they can.


Walter David Baker: It will be voted on tonight.

April 22, 1980
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker


John Carnell Crosbie: The point is that these members have been blocked out from this consideration. There is another vote tonight on a non-confidence motion of the government. The minister, who has been in this House longer than many of us, far too long for any good it is doing the people of Canada and who has adopted this technique, knows that it will boomerang. Rather than making this kind of a statement, if the minister is going to do more in the fiscal line, if he is going to indicate a different direction and that the deficit is not going to go up, that he is going to reduce the deficit, or that borrowing is not going to go up as it appears, surely to God he should have waited until he was ready with his whole package.
Now what he has done is shown that it does not matter. He is going to spend more. He is going to borrow more. That is his direction. That is his message to this country. That is his message to the investor. That is his message to the foreign investor. That is his message to the IMF. That is his message to the world. That is his message to the ordinary people of Canada-that he is going to be a spendthrift; that he does not care about what direction the United States is going or others. He is going to do the exact opposite to what everybody else who has studied this seriously thinks ought to be done.
If that is the role this government is now set on fiscally and financially, surely we should be having a six-day budget debate on this, not a two or three-speech debate, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. Minister of State for Finance.


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would not want to delay unduly the proceedings of the House but I would like to make a few comments following the question of privilege that was raised.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) is in fact being blamed for following a procedure that is in accordance with the customs and rules of this House. That was very well explained under the rules and precedents that were quoted and recognized by one of our colleagues whose authority is respected when it comes to the rules and procedures of this House, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). The issue is clear to all members from a procedural point of view; the Minister of Finance proceeded according to the rules, customs and normal procedures as they are known to hon. members. However, he is being blamed for that.
What is the Minister of Finance also being blamed for, Madam Speaker? He is being blamed for taking the opportunity to inform hon. members and the people of Canada of certains measures that were already tabled in the House and the way he intends to proceed with respect to those measures and thus dispose of certain business that had been left in abeyance. Furthermore, he is being blamed for taking the opportunity to describe the situation with respect to the expenditures as they are forecast today and also give certain indications on the state of the economy. In fact, coming back to the first point, as was pointed out, the tabling of ways and means
motions was often used outside budgets, as the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) has done himself. He did so to table ways and means motions originating from the tabling of a budget, and in that instance, a new government.
His ways and means motion also included extremely important measures concerning either new revenues or tax reductions. The hon. member for St. John's West had also used a ways and means motion to put forward the mortgage interest tax credit program and property taxes on buildings. Everyone will recall that the revenues that were to be produced by this measure were very large. The hon. member had proceeded correctly by tabling a ways and means motion following the rules and traditions of this House.
We therefore see that the procedural argument is not valid since the procedure followed is in accordance with our rules and since there have been many precedents concerning the tabling of ways and means motions. Moreover, I said earlier, our colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre recognizes that the Minister of Finance has faithfully followed the procedure in this case.
As for the second argument, I believe that no one should criticize the government for having given too much information. Quite the opposite, the government is often blamed for giving out too little information to the House and the public. This opportunity of clarifying certain points was used by the Minister of Finance to let the members know the situation and I believe that it shows a will to keep Parliament and the public well informed. The Minister of Finance should be congratulated for having taken the first opportunity after the general election to give this information to the House and to all Canadians.
Madam Speaker, those are the few comments that I wanted to make.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, we have heard several epithets used to describe the conduct of the minister in his presentation last night, some of which have been slippery, dishonest, fraudulent. I want to liken that conduct to a certain insect in Alice in Wonderland. When Alice was having a conversation with the caterpillar, Alice took objection to the misuse, distortion and abuse of words by the caterpillar in that conversation. She said to the caterpillar, "You cannot use words in that fashion". The caterpillar, like the minister, said, "When I use a word, it means precisely what I choose it to mean, nothing more or less".
That is the kind of verbosity which the minister is bombarding us with in this shabby, tawdry attempt to smuggle in by way of the throne speech debate what in effect is a full-blown mini-budget. He chides the opposition for not being aware of the precedents. He cites May.


An hon. Member:: You deserve it.

' jjU
(0$
:

Hi
April 22, 1980


Erik Nielsen: I hear a heckler on the other side say we deserve it. If he will withhold his enthusiasm until I cite some of these citations, he may change his tune. If he has ever read May, Madam Speaker, he might even understand the arguments I am about to propose to you. I have turned up May and Beauchesne. I am going to quote from them to perhaps jog the minister's memory, which perhaps is becoming a little senile with the years he has spent in this place.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: There can be no doubt that when a minister makes a statement outlining the financial situation of the country and accompanies that with a ways and means motion, which he did, for the purpose of raising or adding to additional taxes, this according to all of the authorities constitutes a budget. Traditionally this is preceded by a budget resolution which has the effect of providing for a budget debate, following a reference to committee, providing opportunity for the House to criticize the policy outlined by the minister. The minister has chosen this shallow and tawdry device to avoid that debate.
The House leader for the NDP makes the suggestion that this very serious matter can be resolved by some kind of cosy little chat between House leaders. I say to him on behalf of all members of the House, including his own backbenchers, that the seriousness of this matter goes beyond a cosy little chat among House leaders. It affects the privileges of every single member of this House who wants to participate in a debate and criticize.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: That is why the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) suggested an airing before the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections where views can be expressed.
There is another serious matter. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) says he does not expect the members of the opposition to criticize what they put forward last fall in their budget, and so why we should be raising a fuss may not be understood by a good many members in the House. Certainly those opposite do not care whether we understand or not. They intend to proceed like a steamroller in any event. They are up to their same old tricks because they are the same old bunch.
Some of the matters we would like to have debated which point out the seriousness of what this government is trying to do is the $14.2 billion deficit which is projected for 1980-81 as compared with the $10.5 billion projected by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) when he was finance minister. We would like to debate the $11.5 billion deficit which the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) project for 1979-80 which differs from that contained in the budget of our government. We would like to debate his figure of a .5 per cent real growth in 1980 as compared with the 1 per cent predicted by ourselves.
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
We would like to debate the 8 per cent unemployment figure that is projected by the minister as compared with that projected in our budget. We would like to debate the 10 per cent inflation he projected for 1980 as compared with the 11 per cent projected in our budget. We would like to debate the increases in interest and oil import costs which are being increased by $2 billion more than forecast on December 11 in our budget for 1980-81, and over-all increase of 13'/2 per cent. We would like to debate the revenue loss because of a decision not to impose the 18-cent excise tax, which means revenues of $2.5 billion less than forecast in our budget. We would like to debate the blended oil price which the government say would reduce the deficit and expenditures by $1 billion as the oil import subsidy is progressively phased out.
We would like to debate his dropping of the common stock investment plan. We would like to debate the changes in the treatment of capital gains and RRSPs. We would like to debate the provision for the transfer of capital gains on farming assets to RRSPs. We would like to debate his statement that also abandons special incentives for the Atlantic region, investment incentives for Atlantic fishing vessels, tax contracts for firms investing in depressed regions. We would like to debate the fact that he provides no major relief for home owners facing renewal of mortgages. Only those actually facing foreclosure will be helped. Those are some of the matters that the conduct of this minister and his^government are preventing us from debating.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre sees no difference between what the Minister of Finance is attempting to do now and the occasion which arose, not as he believes in 1957, but rather in 1962. I have gone to the trouble of having the House of Commons Debates produced for me for that period. It was when the hon. member for Eglinton, Mr. Fleming, who was then minister of finance, was engaged in something which bears a similarity, a long-range similarity, to what is happening here. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre participated in that debate at the time. It begins, for his easy reference, on page 783 of Hansard for October 22, 1962.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There was also an incident in December, 1957.


Erik Nielsen: This, I submit, is the relevant precedent and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre certainly had quite a number of things to say in opposition to the procedure which was allegedly being adopted at that time by the minister of finance of the day, Mr. Fleming. But the distinction there is very vivid. The House at that time under the rules then in force was in Committee of the Whole on ways and means. It was already a debate which had engaged seven or eight days of the time of the House with interventions by many members. The chairman at page 795 of the Hansard record of those debates at that time said:
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the minister, but this is the point at which we seem to be moving away from the ambit of section (2) of Standing Order 59.

April 22, 1980
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
Perhaps I should obtain unanimous consent of the committee before the hon. gentleman carries on. Is it agreed that he should be allowed to be at variance with the rules as to relevancy in section (2) of Standing Order 59?
The record continues:


Mr. Leboe:: I think it should apply to all members.


The Chairman:: Unanimous consent is given on condition that it will apply equally to the leaders of all other parties in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: In addition, it is agreed that those other leaders of the House shall be permitted an extension of time, as will the minister, to permit them to complete their remarks on this resolution in a general way.
The present finance minister was also very prominent in that debate. I quote him from page 855, when the rules were quite different but what was being attempted was quite similar. He said at that time as a member sitting in opposition:
I should like to say a word on the point of order you have raised, Mr. Chairman, in awareness of the fact that your point was not raised with respect to relevancy. We decided when this debate began that it would be a general debate equivalent to a budget debate during which a wide range of matters could be brought before the committee. If you had raised a point of order in connection with the relevancy of the remarks of the hon. member, then I think we would have occasion to attempt to define the limits of the consent which we gave on Monday. But I understand that your comments are on an entirely different level, namely, you wish to secure from the committee an expression of opinion as to whether at this time, in view of the international crisis, it was proper or in good taste or in the interests of Canada to discuss a matter which has some sensitivity.
The distinction which emerges from that debate and which distinguishes it and the 1957 precedent, I suggest to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, is that the debate then took place on a debatable ways and means motion. There was unanimous consent given for a general debate and we spent eight or nine days on the resolution; and it affected-another distinction-only the provisions of the Income Tax Act as opposed to what is being attempted here.
The distinction which was pointed out to you, Madam Speaker, with respect to those objections in 1962 is principally that we must remember that the House was able under the rules in force at that time to debate a ways and means motion at great length with no limitations imposed by the rules. On that occasion unanimous consent was given to allow the debate to be a general economic one, and the House was debating only one type of ways and means motion, namely, one to amend the Income Tax Act. But that is not what is being attempted here. The Minister of Finance said in the last paragraph of his notice to the parliamentary press gallery, which I presume was distributed some time yesterday, announcing that there would be a lock-up: "There will be no formal official briefing"-and this is the important phrase- "inasmuch as no new measures will be involved." That, I suggest to the Minister of Finance, is a grossly false statement in view of what was contained in that statement last night, which did involve new measures.
The hon. gentleman wants, in response to my hon. friend for St. John's West, to impress us with this great opportunity which still remains for debate of his statement. He says there is an amendment and that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) or anyone else who has spoken may speak again. That amendment is to be disposed of tonight, but in addition to that they are adjourning the throne speech debate and he is gallivanting off to Germany for the week. What kind of opportunity does that afford hon. members to criticize that mini-budget of his delivered last night? I suggest, none.
Through the device of introducing what is what I call a vest-pocket budget during this throne speech debate, the minister, like the Artful Dodger, has artfully evaded the possibility of a structured, organized opposition attack on his budget, which in effect is what it was. He has brought it in by the back door. He has brought in by the back door what he dare not do by the front and has cut off parliamentary debate in the process.
We have come to expect that kind of high-handed action, that abuse of parliamentary privilege by the same old bunch which sits over there once again. He has, in effect, imposed this government's view of the economy on the nation by fraud and by deceit. In so doing he has shown that this government's view of the economy consists of an intellectual vacuum. He has been obliged to borrow, resurrect, reinstate the economic views of his predecessors in borrowing liberally-and I underscore that word-from the budget which he and his party defeated with their collaborators in the NDP simply because they thirsted for power; and it ill behoves us to hear the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, speaking on behalf of his members, whining and complaining after participating and collaborating in the action which brought those rascals back to the other side of the House. The minister has shown by his conduct last night that he has learned nothing and forgotten everything.
What he has done is at the very least a breach of order, and at the very worst a breach of privilege; and many guise it is a surreptitious invasion of the right of this House to examine and criticize fiscal expenditures. This is another step in the erosion of parliamentary control, another example of the contempt in which that group holds parliamentarians.
We have had the example of their twinning. They do not need opposition members. They are going to set up a structure of their own which would replace the representative system here in Parliament, so why listen to us? Why have any debates at all on any matter? There was a mere casual announcement of financial policy without even fulfilling the parliamentary requirement of notice, and I draw that to the attention of the minister as being a further distinction between all of the past precedents and what he is attempting to do now.
This is nothing other than a definite imposition of new taxes through a ways and means motion. If these are not budgetary measures, what are they? The minister tries to take refuge in the fact that he is picking up these measures by the device of trying to convince us that they were already tabled in the last Parliament, and that somehow they are still living and breathing ways and means motions. He knows better than that. He knows that with the death of that budget last December the resolutions which were tabled at that time and, indeed, everything else on the order paper died, and died with that Parliament.
April 22, 1980

One would really expect the minister to have a little more shame, if at all, about venturing to suggest such a proposition. If the imposition of such a wide range of taxes as he announced last night is not a budget, I challenge him to tell me what it is. He would have us believe it is merely a statement of the financial condition of the country. I will have a reference from Beauchesne to refresh his memory in a moment.
If this government is allowed to get away with this trickery-it is now claiming the right to rule by diktat without recourse to Parliament-as I say, why not send us home? I have no doubt that that is what hon. members opposite would like to do. I think that is what the government in Ghana did when the opposition got a little obstreperous; it abolished the opposition. Hon. members opposite would like nothing more than to take that course.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: You did not even face Parliament for four months.


Erik Nielsen: That minister had 16 years in office.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: He was here with C. D. Howe.


Erik Nielsen: I am reminded by my colleague that he was here with C.D. Howe and, if we want to compare ages in Parliament, he is getting a little long in the tooth. However, he and his government had sixteen years to do something about the economy, and now they are saying to us that we caused all this devastation in two parliamentary months. That is absolute, unadulterated rubbish.


Mr. Chenier:: You are excellent in opposition.


Erik Nielsen: To drag previous motions from previous Parliaments kicking and screaming into this one as an excuse for an invasion of the rights of Parliament would be invidious of any minister, but for a minister who is supposed to know Parliament and who is supposed to be an experienced parliamentarian, it is far too deliberate and too much a flouting of parliamentary rights to be passed over or tolerated. This government has now thrown aside the veil and revealed its absolute and utter disregard of the rights of Parliament and, indeed, of the parliamentary system, which certainly does not come as any news to most of us here.
The minister knows only too well that he cannot avail himself of the proceedings of a previous Parliament to justify his excesses and the excesses of his government in this one. Obviously he is still feeling a sense of guilt over the manner in which he brought his party to power by defeating a budget which would have been good and useful for this country. Now he is trying to have the best of both worlds in the process and is destroying Parliament's right to inquire and to criticize.
If there is any doubt about the nature of the document the minister read last night, I would like to refer him to page 174 of Beauchesne under the general heading of "Ways and Means", and I commend citation 514 to you, Madam Speaker, which reads as follows:
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
The consideration of the financial statement made by the Minister of Finance is the most important business of Ways and Means.
Indeed, it is one of the most important purposes, if not primarily the most important purpose, of the business of this House.
This statement, familiarly known as "the Budget Speech", is made when the minister has completed his estimate of the probable income and expenditure for the Financial year. In it, the Minister of Finance develops his views of the resources of the country, communicates his calculations of probable income and expenditure, and declares whether the burdens upon the people are to be increased or diminished. The economic aspect of this budget is important and taxes are imposed for their economic effects as well as for raising revenue to meet the expenditure for the year.
Then Beauchesne goes on in paragraph 517 and other succeeding paragraphs to describe the procedures normally followed when fulfilling that objective, an objective which the minister fulfilled in very small part last night. There is no way that the statement made by him last night can be considered anything but a budget, meagre as it was, according to all of the precedents. If the minister takes the trouble to read chapter 30-and I commend this to the honourable heckler over there who interjected a moment ago-


An hon. Member:: Groucho Marx.


Erik Nielsen: -of May's nineteenth edition at pages 775 through 783, he will find that there is no way that he can weasel out of the conclusion that his contribution to the throne speech debate last night was a budget.
He asks, "What is more important, Parliament or the people of Canada?" That is very typical of him and that crowd opposite. It is time he found out that the rights of Parliament are the rights of the people, and when the rights of Parliament are abrogated, flouted and trampled upon, the rights of the people are equally abrogated and flouted. Parliament is the people. The people send us here to debate the most important thing, which the minister and his government, by this devious device, are preventing us from debating.
The minister is attempting to take credit for bringing in a budget without undergoing the scrutiny which a budget ordinarily warrants and which is part of our parliamentary tradition. This is in keeping with the philosophy, according to the Auditor General, that Parliament has lost control over the public purse. The minister is determined in his conduct to continue that, and his gesture of defiance and the flouting of Parliament is intended to ensure not only that that control will not be reimposed, but also that whatever vestige of control remains in parliamentarians will be disposed of in this shabby and fraudulent fashion.
Madam Speaker, this motion should carry and, if it does not, indeed we might as well all go home. Because the whole purpose of Parliament will be thwarted, and intentionally so, by a government which has lost none of its arrogance and none of its concept of being in government by divine right forever.

April 22, 1980
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the procedure is quite simple. When a government wishes to amend tax provisions or levy taxes, there are not too many ways to go about it. Two rules are applicable: Standing Order 60, which I am sure our adviser called your attention to, and Standing Order 61.
Standing Order 60 has 11 paragraphs, while Standing Order 61 has only one. It is in light of those 12 paragraphs of these Standing Orders that amendments to fiscal acts or new taxes must be considered. That type of computation is reminiscent of the remarks made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in 1972 when he used the same figures. He almost apologized for using that kind of arithmetic, but added he wanted to limit the debate on a similar matter. He suggested: Mr. Speaker, you have a finding to make as to whether such a measure can be brought in outside a normal budget debate. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was very much to the point when he submitted: Of course, in making your decision you are bound to interpret two Standing Orders, Standing Orders 60 and 61. Of the 12 paragraphs in those two Standing Orders, 11 in Standing Order 60 and one in Standing Order 61, nine deal with a budget proper, two allow the Minister of Finance to do what he did yesterday evening, and one is general in nature.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, making your decision is simply a matter of reading Standing Orders 60 and 61, and also Beauchesne, fifth edition, pages 174 and 175. Everything is there.
Madam Speaker, Standing Order 60(1) states quite simply, and I quote:
A notice of the ways and means motion may be laid upon the Table of the House at any time-
May I stress "at any time"-
-during a sitting by a minister of the Crown, but such a motion may not be proposed in the same sitting.
The door was open for the Minister of Finance to change tax laws or raise new taxes and that was done through our Standing Order 60(1). It is very simple. From everything that has been said on the subject since this morning it may sound very complicated but the procedure is so simple that it is staring at you in the face.
If we read paragraph 11 of the same Standing Order we realize that it completes the provisions applying to that kind of situation. It reads, and I quote:
The adoption of any ways and means motion shall be an order to bring in a bill or bills based on the provisions of any such motion.
An important fact should also be emphasized, Madam Speaker. When bills based on such motions are introduced they can be debated without any time limit on second reading,
in committee or on third reading. The opposition parties have then all the time they need to criticize the government policy as concerns those new taxes or changes to tax laws. So when I hear that the opposition might be muzzled because the Minister of Finance has tabled ways and means motions, I say that it is unfair. According to our Standing Orders, it will be followed by an order of the House, bills will have to be introduced and debated at all stages without time limits, without any constraint on the opposition.
So, Madam Speaker, when we must make a decision in that kind of discussion, if Parliament is to be respected according to the wishes of my friends opposite, it is important to follow our Standing Orders. They authorize the Minister of Finance at any time-it might have been done outside the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne-to introduce ways and means motions at any other time, following which the opposition would not have enjoyed the opportunity to raise the question of privilege on which we heard several of its members and then to make comments on the budget. And he could have introduced his notices of motions at a time that would not have allowed the opposition to comment through its financial critic and through speeches criticizing the minister, if necessary, or congratulating him for his initiatives. So the procedure that was followed is perfectly acceptable. The minister did nothing but conform to Standing Orders 60(1) and 60(11).
1 seize this opportunity also to congratulate the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre because we may owe to his intervention in 1972 the fact that the following principle is stated in Beauchesne's fifth edition, page 174, citation 515. There is no necessity to have a budget presentation before the introduction of ways and means legislation. The reference is to the Journals of March 20, 1972, page 202, and in that debate, Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre with whom I agree, said the following:

But I do not think that Standing Order 60 and Standing Order 61 are all that deficient. They make it possible for a change such as is proposed today to be undertaken without a six-day budget debate, but the rules make it pretty clear that it is the intention of Parliament that at least once a year there will be a full dress six day debate on a budget presentation.
[ Translation]
I agree with what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said in 1972 during a debate in very similar circumstances. The year is far from over, Madam Speaker, and I have every reason to believe that in the course of the year the parties across the way will have the opportunity of taking part in a six-day debate on a budget. But in the meantime there is nothing irregular, illegal, abnormal or unparliamentary with the Minister of Finance giving notice of a ways and means motion allowing him to amend tax laws or levying taxes. The situation being perfectly in order, I fail to see how you could entertain the motion presented by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) on his question of privilege and
April 22, 1980

claiming that, in some way, the privileges of hon. members are being eroded,
May 1 point out, with all due respect, that when the rules of this House are clearly being respected the privileges of hon. members are not being violated even if past practice has not always been the same. How strange that every time standard practices are not strictly adhered to here in the House, everyone becomes excited, it almost becomes a scandal, even when the rules are still being respected. The House can act in many various ways within the framework of our Standing Orders. But it seems there are some who cling so much to tradition that they would have the House react, in absolutely every thing, in exactly the same way, to the Standing Orders of the House.
Madam Speaker, I do not agree with that way of thinking. 1 see no reason for it and when our rules give us sufficient leeway-of course, that supposes some broadmindedness, there I agree with the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton-when our rules allow us to act according to them, even if it is not exactly the same way as in the past. Provided we respect the Standing Orders of the House and act in parliamentary fashion, 1 say there is no reason to dramatize the situation, or to drag out the debates unduly or to rise on questions of privilege which are unfounded.
So, in conclusion, Madam Speaker, to solve the matter once and for all, 1 would respectfully submit that we are only dealing here with the integral application of Standing Orders 60(1) and 60(11) as explained clearly and specifically in Beauchesne's citations found on pages 174 and 175 of the fifth edition.


Madam Speaker:: 1 would like to point out that indeed all comments by hon. members are useful for me to rule on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). I will surely hear the two members who have already asked to speak, but I would urge them to limit themselves to new arguments, as should any other member wishing to rise after them.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, 1 want to share with you my best wishes on this very momentous day when the decision you make will reflect significantly on the direction of our Parliament, and I want to extend my best wishes on what 1 feel is an extremely important question that faces you.
What I sense we have before us today is, in its simplest form, the question of whether or not last night's performance was or was not, however we define it, in fact a budget. The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) has suggested today that it was clear that last night his speech was not a budget speech. I submit that if that were the case, then that should be clear to this Parliament, which obviously it is not, and it should be clear to outside observers, which obviously it is not. They are referring to this as a mini-budget or an economic
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
statement, and they are giving to it a diversity of descriptions, which certainly means that it is not clear to them what it is.
I would like to make a couple of points, one of which certainly has not been made up to this point. When the Minister of Finance submits that he brought this matter up during the throne speech debate so that we would have the opportunity to reflect upon it, in fact the minister is attempting to direct the throne speech debate, because members set aside what they came to this Parliament to speak about in what has been an assured period of totally free time for all members. It is an interjection therein which diverts members away from their free will. There is a very serious obligation on the part of any who are finance critics or associated with finance to cut down out of necessity the throne speech debate in order to give consideration to another matter placed before Parliament. Thus it would be irresponsible of opposition members not to comment thereon.
Keeping that in mind, and if we accept the explanation of the Minister of Finance, in effect the introduction of such a motion as the one last evening could totally do away with the concept of a throne speech debate, where members have the freedom to bring up constituency and regional issues. If I were able to catch Madam Speaker's eye during a throne speech debate, I would feel almost compelled to bring to the attention of Parliament the kind of antics which have taken place lately that bring about a tremendous alienation of the region of Canada from where I come. To somehow feel a diversion would be a great insult to my opportunity to be able to speak freely on some subject.
I should like to turn to another subject area which 1 think is specific and important to the question which relates to what happened last night. When Madam Speaker takes a look at the motion, 1 would ask that she consider the importance which has been traditionally attached to what we call the security or secrecy of budgets. That tradition is long and well-defined.
In Great Britain ministers of finance have resigned because of alleged budget leaks and leaks established by Parliament. In this Parliament some five or six years ago, the House will recall the review of statements made by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid). For much of that very hot July of that summer, members on both sides of the House sat to see whether there was a leak of security by knowledge which the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River may have had or by statements he may have made. Certainly to the gratification of Parliament and I am sure to the relief of the hon. member, it was found that there was no substantive evidence to show that there had been a leak. What I am attempting to put before Madam Speaker is the importance of the view which has existed over the long 700 years of tradition of Parliament, the view that there is nothing more important in terms of secrecy than the budget.
Fast night there were lockups and handouts of the statement made, there were amendments to the Income Tax Act and the Customs Act, and new taxes were to take effect at midnight.

April 22, 1980
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
Let us put before the House the possibility that there were some leaks of that information. Then a very interesting question must be asked: Can a member or a minister be excused from his obligation now simply because he titled what he did last night as something different from a budget? I think it is a matter of extreme concern to Parliament if all one needs to do is somehow make reference to what happened last night by some other name. Then to relieve the minister of the obligation which goes with budgets would in itself be a very serious matter.
Probably recognizing the seriousness of what would happen if there was a leak, the minister took the opposite view. He called for a lockup and the kind of security that was always associated with a budget. Because he called for that nature of security, then surely what the minister was saying in his mind was that in fact this statement has the overtones of a budget. It called for the raising of money through new taxes and changes to the Customs Act, and referred to the new taxes which would be coming into effect as of midnight. If the minister did not see it in the context of a budget, then none of the security measures would have been necessary or implied. It seems to me the measures he took were traditional to a budget. In handing the speech out after eight o'clock, in effect the minister himself has said that this is budget like. All he did that was different was to label it with a different name.
I submit that at this point we are at a most interesting crossroads in Parliament. It is not just the question before us, it is the question as to how members of Parliament feel about Parliament, whether or not we in the opposition think there is a chance and an opportunity for a fair shake in representing out constituents and speaking about important issues and matters. We await with great curiosity Madam Speaker's deliberations because I feel, as one member, that this is an extremely important decision.
Government members should not seek any co-operation from us. If they live by the letter of the law but cannot live with the spirit of Parliament, even if there was a precedent in the past, when they know full well that there is a spirit and an esprit de corps among parliamentarians which says that we co-operate and allow each other to speak and to reflect upon important issues, then surely the Minister of Finance would not want to stand in his place and say that what he did last night was not important. If he stood and said that it is important, then surely he should not in the same breath say: "But in spite of the importance of what I say, no one else can reflect upon it".
With that long tradition of security and secrecy of budgets, in view of the kind of measure which the Minister of Finance took, I want to conclude by saying that by his very actions he is saying that what he did last night was budget-like in its nature. Therefore, the treatment by Parliament of that particular act last night should be budget-like.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, I will be relatively brief because I do not intend to
review the authorities which have been reviewed nor to draw the very relevant parallel of the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) and other speakers who have spoken between what was done last night and what ordinarily is done on budget night.
I am rising because this matter is something which I think is most relevant. In effect, Madam Speaker is cutting her procedural eye teeth on a debate-and frankly the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) touched upon this in his remarks- which does not just involve the frontbenches of the government or the opposition. Fundamentally it goes to where the backbencher on either side sits and as to whether he will participate in the debates and/or the procedures of the House of Commons in trying to represent the views of his people. To me it is that fundamental.
Perhaps I would agree in part with some of the rhetoric of the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I think Madam Speaker as the commoner of commoners, taking office for the first time, has a distinct duty in the interpretation of the point under dispute, whether it involves the finite rule of Standing Order 60 or making the rules of this House much more relevant than they have been heretofore.
You, Madam Speaker, and I have sat in this chamber and heard speakers talk about how we are the captives of archaic rules. Precedents have been cited here today by all speakers. Whether my Machiavellian friend, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, is Minnie Mouse or Minnie MacEachen Mouse does not matter because, whether you call him "mini-minister" or "mini-budget minister", or any other name, were he sitting on this side he would know that the first four pages of his statement last night was a budget, a budget by any other name. You cannot make those tax changes in any way other than in a budget.
I am not going to review them all. There is not a person who was watching this debate over television-and this is my point-who did not consider it to be a budget speech. I do not want to trespass too far, but I am just wondering whether in the Chair's mind, with something called judicial notice, a legal phrase we sometimes use when we are doing professional work outside as lawyers before we come here to try to write laws, that was not also the case. There is not one common, reasonable person who watched the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance last night who did not think when they heard the first four pages of this speech, with changes in the Registered Retirement Savings Plan, the common stock plan and the elimination of capital gains, let alone all the other tax additions, that they were not listening to a budget speech.
This is part of the dilemma, Madam Speaker. Regardless of the finite rule in Standing Order 60, this Parliament with these television lights and the cameras has something much more impressive than the precedents in respect of Standing Order 62, 72, 77 or even 79. Frankly they can all be distinguished, as has been done here today.
April 22, 1980

The one that worried me the most and which had some historic flavour, because it was in 1962 when the then member for Eglinton, and others who were around here and to one of whom I was vicariously related, was that one relating to the minister who did then, obviously with a little more purity, what this minister of finance did last night. I thought the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance was going to refer to that a little more strongly, but there was in that case provision for an eight-day debate on a ways and means motion.
This dispute affects all members, not just frontbenchers. I was not too worried, quite frankly, about whether I spoke on the throne speech debate or the budget debate. Quite frankly, with this back door budget smuggled in by the minister last night, in effect we will not have a budget message presented by him with an opportunity for backbenchers to participate in respect of budgetary matters perhaps until next fall. The pressure is now on my whip to try to fit us in in order to take part in a joint Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne and budget debate. I do not care what the rule says.
1 am afraid the minister unfortunately did not spend enough time in opposition to appreciate that members of the opposition, especially the backbenchers but on the government side too, have very few opportunities to participate. Hon. members including the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who is known for supporting certain issues and not necessarily for making great constituency speeches, paid credit to the fact that there are limitations on backbenchers' opportunities to participate and talk about constituency matters.
It makes it even more reprehensible that the minister at this time smuggles in this back door budget into the Speech from the Throne debate at a time when members, certainly members on the government side, are preoccupied with a fundamentally large question that is to be voted on May 20. We are now going to muddy the debate on the Speech from the Throne with a budget debate when in effect one of the more important questions in the country, which will be voted on in Quebec, has certainly very much taken the attention of members here. We have members standing up and talking about momentous issues, such as sovereignty-association, to say nothing of the usual constituency speeches from new members who are entitled and should have the opportunity to speak for their constituents as brand new members, not talking about budgetary measures.
The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) earlier recited a list of matters in respect of which we are not going to have the opportunity to debate. I would take the matter a little further, Madam Speaker. Those on the other side when they sat over here last December 13 did not have a chance to take part in a debate but had the opportunity to vote during a division. Obviously I did not like the result of that division.
There were things smuggled in last night by the minister who has cloaked himself in royal robes. It was the Queen's birthday just a couple of days ago, and this minister in his solitude status has, in effect, infringed upon the purity of the Queen by, in effect, smuggling a budget speech in under her robes.
Privilege-Mr. IV. Baker


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I know he likes to wear kilts, but I did not realize his affinity for the kilt, or the quilt, would let him smuggle in a budget speech under the Queen's robes. But that is what he has done, Madam Speaker.
In a sense, I go further than the hon. member for Yukon. I am almost finished, Madam Speaker. I am trying to impress that it is not the frontbenches on either side who are the only ones involved. There are backbenchers opposite who 1 am sure wanted to speak today on the referendum in Quebec. They have been precluded from that opportunity by this discussion on a legitimate point of order, regardless of how Your Honour finds.
There are members here who 1 am sure wanted to make speeches about their own constituencies but cannot. Even if they could they might have been pre-empted because they would have had to reply to this pseudo-budget speech.
This is what has gone on here, Madam Speaker. It is more than just debate. The other side had a chance to vote on division. I would like to see members opposite vote on some of the proposals in this piece of paper. I would like to see members from Atlantic Canada vote in respect of the removal of no special tax contracts for Atlantic Canada. I would like to see any member of any constituency have the guts to face a division on the exclusion of capital gains assistance, in other words, the retirement plans of the farmers in this land who built this country. That is another thing that has happened, Madam Speaker. There is not an opportunity for members to stand up and put their votes where in effect some of the rhetoric is during a budgetary division.
In conclusion, I think this matter comes around full circle. The member for Yukon said there was a little Alice in Wonderland here. I think you were here last night, Madam Speaker. If there was an Alice in Wonderland here-and as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said, this was not Parliament's finest hour-Alice in Wonderland would have been boggled when she listened for three-quarters of an hour to the division bells ringing across the country, with members of Parliament hard at work going to take a meaty division. What was the result? It was 148 to one.
If that is not a reflection of how archaic some of our rules and/or some of our practices are, 1 do not know what is. With the penetrating eye of television, that sort of action will dissect this place unless we change some of the rules, not just to suit television but to make this a more reasonable place.
What does the resolution of my House leader ask? Does it ask for something extreme, does it castigate the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, or does it include some of the things we could call him, besides Minnie Mouse or anything else you want to call him? I am not going to get involved in appellations. All the motion says is that there is a prima facie case here. 1 suggest and submit in all sincerity that we have taken all this time to try to impress upon Your Honour that there is such a prima facie case. That is all we have to

April 22, 1980
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
establish. We do not have to establish the fact beyond a reasonable doubt.
There is room for argument in respect of this debate. There is an area of grey here. All the motion says is that the matter of the erosion of the right of the Elouse to approve the general budgetary policy of the government, particularly in view of the procedure followed by the minister in his presentation to the House on Monday, April 21, during the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
You know as well as I, Madam Speaker, that the whole foundation of this institution in terms of the Mother of Parliaments is the power of the purse. We also know from every auditor general's report for the last 25 years, and certainly! since the Second World War, that no matter who has been in the opposition benches, we have slowly, and sometimes too fast, lost control of the purse.
I submit, in conclusion, that unless this matter can be referred to the committee for proper redefinition as a minimum, then this institution is going to lose even more respect than it has to date. I think this institution should be advancing in terms of modern technology; but when we have modern technology with archaic rules and questionable procedures, 1 do not think it will advance.
I can understand the minister trying to get some paper before us. Madam Speaker, if the first four pages of the statement had not been read to the House-those implementing tax changes-and if from the middle of page 4, where he started talking about the fiscal position for 1979-80 and 1980-81, to page 12 had been his speech, that, Madam Speaker, would have been the speech that you and I and other members of the House had heard previous ministers of finance give in this House-a general survey of economic conditions, a general survey of the revenue position of the government and a general survey of what the government needs in terms of taxes, but not tax changes. Statements in the House, Madam Speaker, are not tax changes. When you get tax changes you have a budget, and then members on all sides have an opportunity to debate that budget.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, one wonders what has been going on here today. We have heard all the rhetoric about mouseland. Sometimes 1 think this is mouseland. We have heard about Alice in Wonderland, we have heard the government House leader compared to a rascal, to a caterpillar and to a cod liver.


An hon. Member:: Cod tongue.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Sometimes we might wonder what is happening to the institution of Parliament.
I just want to say one or two things, Madam Speaker. First of all, to repeat the point made by the House leader of our party, this is not so much a question of procedural argument as
a question of whether it was good political judgment or good leadership by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). 1 maintain that it was not good leadership and it was not good political judgment by the Minister of Finance. That surprises me, because he is the wise old fox of Parliament. He is the architect of the Liberal party, the so-called architect of the downfall of the hon. member who is now Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark). It surprises me that the minister would make the kind of insensitive blunder that he did in a moral sense in terms of slighting Parliament.
Now, Madam Speaker, I want to mention a couple of things that are very important. First of all, it is obvious that a number of us on this side of the House feel slighted. We were planning the throne speech debate and a number of members wanted to participate in it, to speak about their own region or constituency or province. All of a sudden we have a budget measure, or something that most of us think is a budget statement, that is going to take the place of a regular budget debate a few weeks ahead. Some of our members were planning to speak at that time and others wanted to participate in the debate before the House today. I say that is very important.
The last few words in the throne speech were to the effect that members of Parliament are equals, that we should reflect each part of the country, and so on. If we are to do that, we should be equals in this place; we should all be treated as equals. This should be where the decision-making process takes place. We should all be consulted and we should be apprised of what is to go on. I do not think we were in this case. I maintain it is a question of fair play between the government and the opposition.
If the government wants to be productive, it must never forget that opposition parties are important and that they can be more productive if they know the opposition parties will co-operate. The way to get opposition parties to co-operate, of course, is to get them involved, to fully consult them and make them a legitimate part of the process with a legitimate amount of input into government policy, not to bend the rules of this place in any way.
It seems to me, Madam Speaker, that this is an adult institution. We should be "up front" with everybody and should level with everybody. Much of what this debate is about is the relationship between the various political parties. That relationship must, I think, be one that is co-operative and open.
I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that the House leader of our party did not understand from the Minister of Finance that the statement he was to make would include all the tax changes and the regular budgetary changes that he announced. We operate according to the information given by our House leader. I think that if the Minister of Finance were more open and more sensitive to the opposition-after all, we on this side of the House represent more than 50 per cent of the Canadian people-he would have handled this in a totally different way.
I just make that appeal, Madam Speaker. We have four years to go-maybe three or maybe five. I think we can have a
April 22, 1980

very co-operative and productive Parliament, but that will depend on the leadership given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the government House leader and people as "heavy" as the Minister of Finance. If they provide us with open, frank and honest leadership, use good judgment in giving decent leadership in this House, and are sensitive to all parties, then this can be a productive place. If that were the case, we would not be engaged in this debate today and wasting three or four hours in this procedural debate. We would not have had the kind of crazy vote we had last night if there had been that type of "up front" attitude on the part of the Minister of Finance.
I make the appeal to him that in the future he be more sensitive to the wishes of the opposition parties in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. At the end of this debate I want to assure hon. members that I have listened very carefully to all the arguments that have been brought forward on both sides of the House, and notably to those offered by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). He said that he feels very strongly that there has been an invasion of the rights of Parliament and that the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) should have followed the procedure for a budget rather than act in the way he did.
I note that the hon. member recognized that there are some precedents for tabling ways and means motions at the time when the hon. minister has. He has even quoted Beauchesne in saying that there is no necessity to have a budget presentation before a ways and means motion. He went on to tell the House that there were changes in the rules and that he did not feel we could any longer interpret it in that sense. 1 think his main conclusion was that the sequence of events suggests that the Minister of Finance indeed presented something that might be called a budget and that the rights of the members and of the public have been abrogated by the process.
The Minister of Finance has, of course, argued the point very eloquently. I feel that most of his argument is based on what he feels is the definition of a budget. He quoted authors like Erskine May and Beauchesne, authors with whom I have spent a lot of time in the last several weeks, but I did not know that I could learn something about parliamentary procedure from the Oxford dictionary! I shall look that up too.


An hon. Member:: That's where he gets his!


Madam Speaker:: The arguments of the Minister of Finance are mostly based on Standing Order 60(1) which other hon. members have also invoked in this House. He felt he was entitled to table this ways and means motion and that in fact he was only reviving motions that already existed.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has once again offered his enlightening remarks to this House. 1 appreciate them but he bases his argumentation on grounds other than procedural in order to disagree with the Minister of Finance on the kind of procedure that he used.
Privilege-Mr. Axworthy
I just want to point out at this time that the Chair knew nothing of any prior arrangements made between members of the House about who was to speak and when. Therefore, the Chair has to assume that there was no arrangement. It would be helpful if arrangements of this nature which occur between the parties were conveyed to the Chair.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I have listened to all the arguments but have summarized only some of them to indicate to the House that I feel the matter is a very, very complicated one, even for someone experienced in the function that 1 have assumed. No one in this House would have any trouble recognizing that I am indeed very inexperienced in this new function. Therefore, since I do want to give it all of the thought that is required by the seriousness of the matter and the seriousness of the arguments which were brought by all members in the House, I will take the matter under advisement.


MR. AXWORTHY-STATEMENT ON INTEREST IN WINNIPEG HOTEL
Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege touching on my position as a member of this House. I realize that members of this House have just gone through a very extensive discussion on a question of privilege so I beg their indulgence to hear me out on a case which I think is of some importance.
It relates to my interest in a Winnipeg hotel. The matter of this interest has been raised in question period both on April 16 and again yesterday in connection with a permit I issued Mr. Timothy Leary to enter the country. I repeat now, as I did on the two previous occasions, that the action to allow Mr. Leary to enter the country did not represent in any way a conflict of interest in the application of my ministerial duties.
As I stated in the House yesterday in respect to a question by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie), my interest in the Royal Albert Arms Hotel in Winnipeg has been placed in a blind trust. This measure was the consequence of instructions I gave to my solicitor in Winnipeg following my appointment as a minister.
The hotel in question had been established as a partnership with two categories of partners; a managing partner and several limited partners. I subscribed as a limited partner. In that category I never participated in the day to day management of the hotel. Indeed, under the partnership act of Manitoba, I could not have done so if I were to remain as a limited partner.
This past weekend, in the course of handling this transfer to a trust, my solicitor discovered that the hotel had participated in a federally-sponsored program designed to provide on-the-job training for handicapped workers. This program was entered into by the managing partner of this hotel last fall when I was a member of Parliament. This program has now terminated.
286

April 22, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Axworthy
Upon learning of this fact, I felt it important to ascertain the full facts and present them to this House at the earliest opportunity so there would be absolutely no misunderstanding.
I am advised by the managing partner and the departmental officials that the facts surrounding these arrangements are as follows.
In September, 1979, a local officer of the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission approached the hotel with the request that the hotel accept the placement for on-the-job training of a handicapped worker under the special needs component of the Canada Manpower industrial training program. The hotel was approached by the employment officials because of its previous history in providing employment opportunities for handicapped workers, and because one of the managing partners had trained experience as a social worker in dealing with handicapped people.
In November, following a request by a teacher at the Prince Charles school for the mentally handicapped, two additional handicapped workers were given on-the-job training in the hotel. In return for providing training and supervision to these handicapped individuals, the hotel received from the government 85 per cent of a participant's remuneration. There was no additional subsidy or grant. The agreements were all signed during the period of the previous administration and were approved and monitored by both federal and provincial officers. These agreements were handled in a routine manner by the managing partners without reference to me as a limited partner. Thus I had no knowledge of these transactions until this past weekend.
Further, 1st me state, Madam Speaker, that at no time have 1 received any form of dividend, interest, payment benefit or return from my investment as a limited partner in the hotel.
I am convinced that, as these facts demonstrate, my interest in a hotel, now in a blind trust, did not in any way constitute a breach of my obligation as a member of this House. But I want to assure all hon. members of my willingness to bare the record and to conceal nothing about these transactions.
If hon. members require more details of these matters, I will be happy to have the issue referred to a committee so I may have the issue determined by the high court of Parliament.
If you rule that I have raised a prima facie question of privilege, Madam Speaker, I am prepared to move that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for examination and report, if it is the wish of the House so to do.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, this is, of course, a matter of the utmost seriousness and a matter of deep concern to the House, and I am sure difficult for the minister involved.
I have just received and had delivered to me a copy of the statement that he intended to make. I must say, and I say this with no undue criticism, that it would have been helpful to us to have received notice of the nature of the minister's statement on the question of privilege a little earlier than we did.
The matter is important because it applies to the standards that attach to the conduct of a minister of the Crown. I presume the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) knew this matter was to be raised today. The minister nods to indicate that the Prime Minister did. I am consequently a little surprised that the Prime Minister is not here in the House at this time, since the conduct in question does speak to the Prime Minister's own severity of standards in terms of what he asks and what he expects of people who serve in his ministry.
The Prime Minister indicated in this House in answer to questions from the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) that he was reviewing conflict of interest guidelines that were to be established for the new ministry, that the conflict of interest guidelines to be followed by the Liberal government were to be different in fundamental ways, and 1 judge from reading the record that they were to be weaker than those which applied to the government of which I had the honour to lead. He said he hoped to have those tabled in the House of Commons within a fortnight.
I believe that it is urgent that those matters be put upon the House of Commons' Table as quickly as possible since there is prima facie evidence in the statements by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) that these standards raised by the Prime Minister do not appear to have been as searching as they should have been in the case of this particular minister.
The Prime Minister said, in answer to my colleague, that he would rely upon the word of individual ministers when he was interviewing them regarding their capacity to serve in cabinet. The statement by the Minister of Employment and Immigration, as I read it, indicates that this information to which he now draws the attention of the House came to his personal attention after he had been interviewed by the Prime Minister and after he had been sworn into the cabinet.
That may well be a matter which members of the House of Commons would want to have further elaborated in committee or elsewhere, and particularly there might well be some interest on the part of members of the House of Commons in knowing the degree to which there was scrutiny, either by the Prime Minister or the minister himself, of all of the implications of arrangements in a partnership which already, in six weeks in the ministry, has been raised twice now as a matter of public debate concerning the propriety and actions and involvements by this particular minister.
Unhappily, Madam Speaker, we have too many instances of ministers even sitting in this House now, whose conduct has been found inconsistent, at least for a period of time, with their maintaining their position as ministers of the Crown. There have been instances with regard to the present Secretary of State (Mr. Fox), the present Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro), the present Postmaster General and Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), and the former minister of public works, the hon. Mr. Drury.
I raise these matters not to review history but simply to draw the attention of the House and of the minister, who is
April 22, 1980

new to his responsibilities, to the practice that followed those cases. In each of those cases, when a question arose as to the propriety of the conduct of a minister of the Crown, the minister involved offered his resignation to the Prime Minister, and in each of those cases that resignation was accepted.
There has been an indication by the minister that he would be prepared to have the matter considered by a standing committee of the House of Commons. I think that that should be done. I believe that a matter of this kind, which obviously raises questions about the capacity of a minister of the Crown to carry on his responsibilities effectively and free of conflict, is a matter of the utmost seriousness and deserves consideration by a standing committee.
I say with some sadness and considerable seriousness that the minister should also recognize that so long as there is a question in the minds of the House of Commons and the people of Canada about the degree to which he was operating free of conflict, then it is incumbent upon him to follow the steps of certain of his colleagues in the present government and offer his resignation for at least the period embraced by the inquiry by a standing committee of this House.
1 say this because it is obviously of some importance to the minister himself. If it were not important, he would not have raised the matter as a question of privilege in the House of Commons. 1 say simply that if it is a matter of sufficient importance to the minister that he would raise it as a question of privilege in the House of Commons, then it follows that it is a matter of sufficient importance that he should follow consistently the attitudes of some of his new colleagues in cabinet and step aside from ministerial responsibility for the period, which we hope will be limited and brief, of an inquiry by a standing committee of the House of Commons.
My recollection of the statements that were made by certain of his colleagues when they were in similar situations and faced conflicts between their private activities and their public responsibilities is that at least one of them and perhaps several indicated there would be the kind of questioning arise until the matter was resolved, that there would be the kind of worry and preoccupation involved that would be inconsistent with the effective carrying out of ministerial responsibilities. 1 think that that same argument exists in the case of the minister here involved.
I suggest this would be the honourable and the proper course for the minister, since he has raised this question which is obviously of deep concern to him, this question of a potential conflict of interest, a conflict not simply between himself and the government generally but between himself and the department of which he is minister. Because as I understand the statement, it was his department which was involved in the relations with the hotel in which he had a profitable interest. If it is important enough to have the matter raised as a question of privilege, then the course of honour for the minister would be to stand aside from the ministry for at least the period of investigation by the standing committee of this House.
Privilege-Mr. Axworthy
I urge the minister to follow through with his offer and move a reference to the standing committee. I suggest to him also that he offer his resignation to the Prime Minister, which 1 hope the Prime Minister will accept for at least the period of the inquiry to which he has referred.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, it is not my purpose to pass judgment on the minister or on others who have raised this issue in the House. However, it seems that the request of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy), if I may call it a request, is one to which we ought to agree. I think it is incumbent upon the House to have this matter cleared up. We do not seem to be getting it cleared up by questions and answers on the floor of the House of Commons. I believe it would be a good idea for the matter to be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Your Honour may feel that you would like to reserve judgment on it to decide whether or not there is a prima facie case of privilege, but now with a spokesman from each of the three parties in the House saying we would be satisfied, perhaps it could be resolved right now.
I may say, Madam Speaker, that if you do find that the minister has a case or privilege and if the motion is put, I do not think debate on it is necessary. The important thing to happen is for it to go to a committee to be examined thoroughly.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, may I direct your attention to a similar question of privilege that was raised on May 14, 1970, by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), who had made an application to purchase land over which the then minister of Indian affairs and northern development had jurisdiction. At that time he sought consent on a motion to refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
After the Speaker ruled there was a prima facie case of privilege, the House gave unanimous consent to refer the matter to that committee. After hearing the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and after the generous offer made by the minister, there would obviously be no objection on this side of the House, if you should find there is a prima facie case of privilege, to referring the matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, 1 would not have risen to participate in this discussion if it were not for the reference just made to me in the context that this discussion has taken place. I want hon. members to know that the reference to which the House leader just referred had nothing to do with conflict of interest. That case had to do with the provision in a government drafted agreement for sale which prohibited any member of Parliament from purchasing a piece of Crown-owned land. It had nothing to do with conflict.
It was decided by the standing committee that members of Parliament had the same right to purchase Crown-owned land

April 22, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Axworthy
as any other person. I want to make that clear because the matter was raised in the context of this discussion. The two matters are not similar at all.


Madam Speaker:: The President of the Privy Council agrees and this is what I concluded from his comments and from those 1 heard on the other side of the House. If he wishes to introduce a motion with the unanimous consent of the House, I would receive it now. Otherwise, I will take the whole matter under advisement and decide later whether or not there is a basis for a question of privilege.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, if you would allow me, I could ask the minister who has raised the question of privilege to present a motion referring the case to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. And, of course, there is no question of a short-term resignation as suggested by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark). It is only a matter of referring the case to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for consideration. If you have no objection, the motion could be moved by the minister who raised the question of privilege and I presume that my colleagues will have nothing against that.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, before moving the motion,
I should perhaps make a clarification of the statement made by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). The events to which I allude took place prior to the time 1 was a minister. It is not a question of conflict of interest, but a question of standing in the House, which is comparable to the position which the hon. member for Yukon was in previously.
This is a matter which took place prior to my having been sworn in as a minister. It was terminated prior to that time. Therefore it is not a question of conflict of interest, it is a question of standing in the House comparable to the precedent cited by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard). As a result, that is why I am referring the matter to the standing committee.
I would therefore move, seconded by the President of the Privy Council:
That the subject matter of my question of privilege be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the minister to move his motion?


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I am by no means rising to suggest that the course the minister has indicted is an inappropriate course. I am a bit worried about the words "subject matter" as they appear in the motion. We will want to make sure the motion is reasonably precise so that it can be dealt with.
I had experience with this some time ago. There was a meeting of the House leaders of the parties whereby we may
get some precision in the language so that it indicates what the House really has to deal with. There seems to be some imprecision. I know it is not intended, but I am sure the minister would want the matter cleared up. It is in that sense that I rise.
I wonder, Madam Speaker, if you would consider a meeting of some kind so that we may just review the words to ensure that what is indicated by members of the House of Commons in fact happens as a result of the wording of the motion. That is my only reason for rising. If you think it improper that I should rise on this occasion, I will have to go along with what is being presented to the House; but I wonder if we could just defer that matter until we have a chance to talk about it.


Lloyd Axworthy: If 1 may speak to that point, Madam Speaker, I should like to say to the House leader for the opposition that the wording was drafted exactly from wording used in a previous motion in this House in 1968, so the precedent is there. We have checked it out carefully and it is wording which was applied in 1968 in a similar matter.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, concerning the business of the House, I simply want to advise hon. members on both sides of the House that, following the vote tonight on the NPD amendment introduced by the hon. member for Kootenay West, the throne speech debate will be interrupted to be continued at a later date during this session.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, it might be appropriate at this time if the government House leader could detail for us the order of business which will be followed. We have had some discussions on this.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, 1 should like to repeat publicly what 1 said privately to my hon. colleague, namely that tomorrow afternoon we shall deal with Bill C-2. Other bills are to be introduced today, including one concerning small business loans, which we should like to consider, once Bill C-2 has been dealt with. There is another bill which must be urgently considered. It is because this legislation could not be introduced before the throne speech debate had ended that we have decided to interrupt it temporarily. It will be introduced tomorrow by the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It relates to the employment tax credit, and we shall deal with it the day after tomorrow, as soon as we have completed consideration of Bill C-2 and/or the small business loans legislation.
April 22, 1980

Therefore, the three bills which I feel are most urgent are those which I have just mentioned for this week, and next week if it is possible we shall look into the banking legislation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I should just like to be sure with respect to the order of the first three bills. The order as the minister has just given varies slightly, according to my notes, from what we were told at a meeting a day or two ago. We were told then that the first item would be the bill on immigration, that the second would be the bill with respect to the employment tax credit and that the third would have to do with small business. I take it the minister has altered that order slightly. It is now first, immigration, second, small business, and third, employment tax credit.


Yvon Pinard: It is correct that I have just said that. The reason is that the bill concerning the employment tax credit cannot be introduced in the House before this debate is interrupted. Consequently it will be introduced tomorrow for first reading. 1 would need unanimous consent to proceed with the second reading of that bill tomorrow if we have finished dealing with Bill C-2. So what 1 told the hon. member still stands. If possible, it will be Bill C-2, the employment tax credit, and then the small business loans bill. But it may happen that we have to deal with small business loans if tomorrow, by any chance, we have finished with Bill C-2. If the hon. member wishes a further explanation, I am available.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The more things change, the more they are the same!


MAIN ESTIMATES, 1979-80 TABLING OF REPORT RESPECTING MAIN AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (A) AND (B)
Donald James Johnston: By leave I should like to table a report to the House of Commons covering the 1979-80 main estimates, supplementary estimates (A) and (B) and further supplementary estimates in order to complete the fiscal year 1979-80. This report shows how each of the items to be voted in these estimates were financed by appropriation acts. Treasury Board contingencies vote and special Governor General's warrant. Since some items were paid under the authority of a special warrant, specific reference to this effect will be included in the next appropriation bill.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, in this connection I was wondering whether the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) would confirm that he intends to make a statement on motions later this afternoon touching on what he is now tabling. 1 might say, also, that 1 should like to reserve for further consideration a question of privilege having to do with what is being tabled, especially in the context of the statement which was read to the House last night by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen).
Statistics Canada


Donald James Johnston: I shall be making a statement later this afternoon, Madam Speaker.


FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT
Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, with your permission, 1 would like to table in the House of Commons a report indicating the special warrants issued under section 23 of the Financial Administration Act after the dissolution of Parliament on December 14, 1979, in accordance with that section and Standing Order 41(2).


MAIN ESTIMATES, 1980-81
[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1981, was presented by hon. Donald J. Johnston and read by Madam Speaker to the House.

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting Supplementary Estimates (A) of sums required for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1981 and, pursuant to the provisions of the British North America Act, 1867, recommending those estimates to the House of Commons, was presented by hon. Donald J. Johnston and read by Madam Speaker to the House.

[Stage Direction]

Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table, in both official languages, copies of the Statistics Canada organization study completed by Price Waterhouse Associates in February of 1980 and the Statistics Canada methodology review completed under the responsibility of Sir Claus Moser in March of 1980.

April 22, 1980
Point of Order-Mr. Malone


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, at this time I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the minister could indicate whether he intends to make a statement later today with respect to the two reports he has just tabled and, second, when may we expect the tabling of the Peter Newcombe report?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I do not intend to make a statement today with respect to the two reports I have tabled, i have indicated that I would make the report of Mr. Peter Newcombe available to spokesmen for the opposition parties. As yet I have not received a request for such copies and, as 1 also indicated in reply to a question, I believe last week, I would be prepared to consider tabling that report. But I think initially I would like to confer with my colleague, the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens).


Henry Perrin Beatty: He has already asked you to dp it.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, to be abundantly clear on this question, I do not think it is right that the minister should suggest that there be a private disclosure of this report to certain members of this House without the report being tabled in the usual way for the consideration of all members. I would like formally to request that the minister table the report as initially promised when this commission was set up and that he do it at the first opportunity.


POINT OF ORDER
Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order relating to this question but with a different perspective from that just raised. My point of order relates to the fact that when the tabling took place under the name of Her Majesty's servant, Your Honour requested on both occasions, "Would hon. members please rise". In the first instance four members here to my left declined to rise. In the second three others very reluctantly did, while the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) continued to refuse to rise after that request.
While on the surface it may appear that I am raising a position which may seem to some to be petty, I submit that for most it was only a few short weeks ago that we took our oaths of office as members of Parliament. We swore allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, and we said that as members of Parliament and through the system we have we would recognize our obligation to our monarch under whom we serve and that we would be diligent to it.
When hon. members of their own party reminded them that they were supposed to rise, they shook their heads or moved their hands in a downward motion. In effect, what they were really doing was saying that, whatever their personal motives with respect to systems with which they may or may not agree, they were taking a position quite different from the oath they took just some short weeks ago.
All I am saying is that hon. members who cannot recognize the system in which they live or who find it unpalatable to live with it should at least have courtesy, recognize the dignity of this Parliament and force themselves to live with the system until there has been some change. I hope such change will not come about, but when they simply defy the tradition of this Parliament, I think that kind of behaviour should be noted and that it not be permitted in the future. They should not be allowed to sit in defiance of their oath in this Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Hon. members have surely heard the remarks made by one of their colleagues. They can make what they will of them. It is obviously an established custom in the House and the Chair has no authority whatsoever for enforcing it.


MAIN ESTIMATES, 1980-81
Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I tabled today the main estimates for 1980-81 providing for expenditures of some $58.4 billion, an increase of 11.4 per cent over the main estimates for the previous year. 1 would like to point out, Madam Speaker, that these estimates were put together using the economic assumptions and policies of the previous government without any changes to reflect the policies this government is in the process of elaborating.
In view of the time necessary for a technical analysis of such a complex budget, it was not possible for the government to put together its own policies and programs without unduly delaying the tabling of the estimates. As hon. members rely on the main estimates to vote supplies, it seemed important to me that they should have them today so we can get on with our work as rapidly as possible. My colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) has already described to the House the economic and financial context for our estimates. As the planning process takes place, certain items of the main estimates will have to be adjusted through supplementary estimates or appropriate legislative measures.

Madam Speaker, I should like to draw hon. members' attention to several specific cases in which future supplementary estimates will reflect changes in programs in these main estimates. As hon. members are aware, the government introduced legislation to increase the payments under the guaranteed income supplement provisions of the Old Age Security Act by $35 a month per household. As the $1.7 billion presently included in the main estimates for this program are based on the old rates, the forecast expenditures for the program will be increased to provide for the higher payments.
April 22, 1980

I would also expect that the government's current review of energy policy will lead to adjustments in the level of funding for a number of energy-related programs. The S2.6 billion provision in the 1980-81 main estimates for oil import compensation payments is based on the previous government's domestic oil pricing strategy and on world oil prices as forecast last December. This forecast will be adjusted to reflect the impact of more recent changes in world oil prices as well as the effect of the domestic pricing arrangements being developed by my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde).
The government is also reviewing the capital financing arrangements for Petro-Canada. Until 1979-80 the government had been assisting Petro-Canada with its capital financing requirements through the annual purchase of equity shares in the company. The previous government suspended this financing arrangement and planned to provide for no equity purchase in the 1980-81 estimates. Last month this government took the first step in restoring the planned level of financing for Petro-Canada by providing an $80 million equity investment for the corporation's 1980 financial year. We will be considering further requirements for Petro-Canada in 1980 as part of our over-all energy policy and any adjustments will be reflected in future supplementary estimates.
I would also like to indicate to hon. members that the 1980-81 main estimates for the employment and insurance program reflect that the administrative costs of the national employment services are now being recovered in full from unemployment insurance premium revenues. In addition, it was assumed in determining the main estimates level for the government's contribution to the unemployment insurance account that the Unemployment Insurance Act would have been amended by April 1, 1980, to eliminate the threshold rate so that the first two phases of unemployment benefits would be paid entirely from employer and employee premiums. The legislation has not yet been amended and my colleague the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) plans to make a full statement on this subject.
Madam Speaker, there are a few of the items which may have their main estimates funding level adjusted to reflect this government's policies and programs.
The main estimates which I tabled today represent an increase of $5,971 million compared to those of last year. This is comprised of a $1,123 million decrease in non-budgetary outlays and an increase of $7,094 million in budgetary expenditures. Two major items account for 53 per cent of the increase in budgetary expenditures. Oil import compensation payments have risen by $1,861 million and public debt charges are up $1,925 million over the 1979-80 main estimates. The other major sources of the $7 billion budgetary increase are the other transfer payments, principally to other levels of government, which account for 19 per cent; payments to Crown corporations, which account for 11 per cent; and national defence, which represents 10 per cent. The costs of all
Main Estimates
other operations of government represent only 7 per cent of the total growth. In other words, more than 83 per cent of the increase in budgetary spending will be transferred to other governments, individuals, and corporations in Canada or paid in interest on the public debt.
In 1975-76, the government set out to reduce the growth in person-year requirements in the public service as part of our over-all policy of restraint. The 1980-81 main estimates show the second consecutive annual reduction in the absolute number of authorized person-years to be used in the public service. The reduction of 6,685 person-years in 1978 resulted in a total of 1979-80 authorization of 318,435. Now, a further, 5,840 person-year reduction is reflected in these main estimates, which establishes the size of the public service at 312,595 for 1980-81.
Madam Speaker, in addition to the 1980-81 main estimates, I also tabled today the supplementary estimates (A) for 198081. These supplementary estimates cover new items which are not included in the 1980-81 main estimates. I have also included in these supplementary estimates a number of urgent items carried forward from 1979-80 which did not receive approval before Parliament was dissolved last December. These supplementary estimates provide for the outlay of $232 million.
I am also pleased, Madam Speaker, to have tabled two further reports on government spending. The first is a report on the 1979-80 estimates. This report summarizes the financial requirements of the ministries of government during 197980 and the use of spending authorities not provided in separate statutes, namely, Governor General's special warrants, the interim supply bill of last autumn and the supplementary estimates which received full supply. I have also tabled, in accordance with the provisions of the Financial Administration Act, a report on the use of Governor General's warrants since December 14, 1979, when Parliament was dissolved. [Translation]
In concluding, Madam Speaker, I would also like to expand for the information of hon. members on the intentions of this government as they were expressed in the Speech from the Throne to carry out the policy of cutting down expenditures, to improve the efficiency of government programs and to provide Canadians with a more efficient government. To reach that objective, this government will pursue an integration of its expenditure policy and management.
In essence, the approach adopted by this government consists in establishing within its over-all spending program a set of budget portfolios which represent for each of the policy committees of cabinet a clearly defined planning structure applicable to a policy area. It will thus be possible to give every committee the responsibility to plan and make decisions dealing with policies and programs based on available resources in each sector. With that rationalization of policies and related spending authorities, it should be easier to pursue the examination of new or existing programs and to get the most out of the resources available.

April 22, 1980
Main Estimates


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I wonder, Madam Speaker, if I may be permitted to put certain questions to the minister, based partly on the estimates he has tabled and partly on the statement he has read into the record as prepared for him. Could the minister, first of all, indicate whether he accepts the main estimates as tabled? Does he support them and does he recommend them to the House for adoption?


Donald James Johnston: As I indicated in the course of my statement, Madam Speaker, these estimates represent the policy proposals of the previous administration. They are being tabled legally as our estimates but, as I indicated, we will be bringing forward supplementary estimates to give effect to those changes and to the policies which have been mentioned in the throne speech debate and which will be further elaborated during the course of the current year.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Perhaps 1 was not completely clear in my question to the minister. My question is very simple. Does he recommend to the House the main estimates for 1980-81 as tabled in the House?


Donald James Johnston: These main estimates will be referred to committee and they are recommended for adoption, subject to such changes as might be brought down in the supplementary estimates.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I think it should be noted for the record that twice the minister has refrained from recommending these estimates to the House. Unless the minister chooses to clarify the situation, we will be on the threshold of going into another question of privilege and a debate on how we can consider these main estimates if the minister who has brought them in is hesitant to recommend them to the House. It is a very simple question.
We had this out last fall. The present Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), who was then opposition House leader, became terribly exercised last fall over this question, I would have thought they would have at least got their act sorted out to the point where the Minister of Finance would be in tandem with the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) and both of them would be willing to recommend these estimates to the House for acceptance.


Donald James Johnston: I thought my answer was quite clear. I said that these main estimates were being tabled and they will be referred to the committee. They are being recommended for adoption subject to such modifications as may subsequently be made thereto through tabling supplementary estimates to give effect to policy changes which this administration may wish to introduce.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, in the context of what the minister has said, and with the main estimates showing a total expenditure for fiscal 1980-81 of $58.4 billion, would the President of the Treasury Board reconcile that figure with the
statement given to us last night by the Minister of Finance which indicated that the total outlays for 1980-81 would be $60.4 billion, in short a $2 billion difference? What has happened overnight that somehow or other the $60.4 billion figure, which we were asked to consider last night, is now only being substantiated to the extent of $58.4 billion? Does he have any statement which he can put before the House to reconcile these two figures?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is it not a rule, when a statement has been made by a minister, that a spokesman for each opposition party may make a statement in response thereto and that the question period comes afterwards? I am not trying to cut off the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) from asking his questions. I just think that he should make his statement now, let our spokesman make his statement, and then have the question period as the standing order provides.


Madam Speaker:: I gathered that the hon. member had no statement but only questions. I am in the hands of the House as to what I should do now. I feel that I should continue to recognize the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) for the purpose of him putting his questions.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I do not want to be overly technical, but if Your Honour reads Standing Order 15(3), 1 think it is very clear that the options are open to the members of the House. It reads as follows:
A spokesman for each of the parties in opposition to the government may comment briefly thereon and members may be permitted to address questions thereon to the minister.
1 do not think it is laid out in the standing order that one has formally to make a statement and then everybody, when they are through with their statements, may start questioning. I think it is open to each member to decide. If he wishes to make a statement, he can. If he wishes to ask questions, he can. In my case I think it is very important that certain very relevant information be revealed to this House, as opposed to any member feeling that he just wants to wax eloquent about whatever may come into his mind.
We were not given a full disclosure last evening. We have had a debate on the question of privilege as to whether in fact the minister's statement was a smuggled budget. Today I would suggest that we are not having a full disclosure as to the expenditure plans of this government. I feel that I am entirely in order in asking the President of the Treasury Board at least to shed a little more light on this question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I have no objection to the hon. member for York-Peel asking all the questions that he wants to. Neither do 1 insist that he make a statement. But it seems to me that those who wish to make statements should be heard first. If the hon. member for York-Peel does not wish to make a statement, then I believe that our spokesman should be permitted to make his statement and that the questions should follow.
April 22, 1980


Madam Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) have a statement?


Mr. Anguish:: A point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish).


Douglas Keith Anguish: Madam Speaker, I should like to say in my rookie observations as a member of Parliament that there is clearly no difference between the Conservative side of the House and the Liberal side of the House in the fact that the hon. member in opposition is asking the very same questions that were asked of him when he was president of the treasury board.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Henry Perrin Beatty: That is not a point of order.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Also I should like to say that I am disappointed that I see the hon. member, in trying to question the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston), was given a copy of the estimates-


An hon. Member:: You are out of order.


Douglas Keith Anguish: -to which I had no access and could not peruse while the minister was making his statement so that I could intelligently respond to him.
The estimates which have been tabled before us today seem to indicate that the government intends to approach some things in a relatively new way and other things in the same old way as it always has. Last night's alleged budget and the tabling of these estimates today indicate-


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member asked for the floor on a point of order. He has not offered any point of order and he appears to be making a statement at this point.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member asked for the floor in order to make a statement, and that is the reason for which 1 gave him the floor. Since the hon. member for York-Peel did not have a statement and was asking questions, I decided to hear the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake on his statement.


Henry Perrin Beatty: The record will show something else.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Last night-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A point of order, Madam Speaker. To be abundantly clear, I trust that I will have the right to finish my line of questioning following this statement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Certainly.


Madam Speaker:: Yes, I will give the hon. member the floor afterwards for the purpose of asking his questions.
Main Estimates


Douglas Keith Anguish: It is nice to know that the older members always try to assist a younger member or a member not as experienced in the House and help them present the points of view of the constituents and the people of Canada which they represent.


An hon. Member:: Order.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Last night's alleged budget and the tabled estimates today indicate their new approach, as I was mentioning. Last night's presentation, I think, could be called the "Mac mini-budget", and today's estimates could be called the "maybe estimates" as well. In fact, if the truth be known, had the Liberals done their homework, they would have had time since the vote in December to produce policies consistent with reducing interest rates, tax cuts and other measures to stimulate the economy.
The estimates presented to this House are supposed to represent what I think is the intention of the government. What do they do? Well, we see first that the Liberals have immediately fallen into their old habit of refusing to plan at all. I think we need long-term planning. 1 suggest that these are ways the government could make the workings of government more efficient and more accountable to the people of Canada. We need a long-term plan which incorporates the use of public servants properly, thereby using them efficiently, not a cutting of the person-years as suggested by the estimates by a large number, the 5,840 person-year reduction. Those people could perhaps be used more efficiently within this government.
What about the energy policy that is alluded to? I can certainly agree with the minister's contention that we require the estimates early to get on with the business of government, but surely we do not have to go with estimates which have oil compensation payments based on the previous government's oil pricing strategy, a strategy that has been repudiated not only by the government but by the Canadian people in the last election. At that time Canadians said that they wanted a made-in-Canada price, but it seems that we cannot have this until we can have it made by Canadians themselves.
For some time now we have been receiving hints that the government may be raising its own energy prices higher than it would have had us believe during the election campaign. Perhaps it is part of their strategy to break another promise and to deceive the people of Canada by sneaking in higher energy prices through the back door.
What about the unemployment insurance which is alluded to in the report of the President of the Treasury Board? The Liberals, in these estimates and in their statements outside of the House, have indicated their intention to proceed with the Conservative's plan to switch the cost of manpower programs and even more of the unemployment insurance program directly to premiums. I think the government should be responsible enough to accept the legislation enacted earlier whereby when unemployment reached 4 per cent, it is the responsibility of the government to absorb cost. It is the government's policies that are responsible for creating unemployment, and in view of that
294

April 22, 1980
Main Estimates
fact the government should help in assisting and should suffer some of the consequences.
Before the last election the Liberals were calling such steps unacceptable, regressive taxation. Elow quickly they seem to forget or how quickly we seem to forget the amazing similarities between Conservative and Liberal policies. As a Saskatchewan cabinet minister so eloquently put it some time ago, "the 1979 federal election indicated that the Canadian people gave away onions and got back garlic; after the 1980 election we have got the onions back again".
In spite of the failings in what the estimates say, there are even greater failings in what the estimates do not say. The Liberals have promised action to reduce regional disparities, but nowhere do we see a real commitment to that in the comments made by the President of the Treasury Board this afternoon.
None of us must forget that this is a party and a government that voted last December to defeat the previous government because of a budget that did not stimulate the economy, lower taxes for Canadians and which did nothing about gaining control of the economy.
The estimates before us are a sort of cyclical document, I would think. After I have had a chance to look at them I believe they will show us once again that the Liberals are more interested in keeping power than in keeping their promises to the Canadian people. It seems they were not very responsive in the activities in this House over the past couple of days because of what they call the lack of federal representation in the Liberal caucus. With the possible loss of even more Liberal representation, they are certainly not being responsive to other members in this House.
As a new member of Parliament I had hoped the Liberal government would be responsive to the needs of Canadians in all areas of this country through the democratic process as indicated by what is in the throne speech. What has taken place over the last few days does not indicate any commitment to serve, in my opinion. As a result of public comment in my own constituency I had some praise for Liberals, their throne speech and their supposed response to other members of Parliament, but if this action over the last few days is any indication of what is happening, I regret ever having had any confidence in the Liberal party within Canada.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, 1 only wish the last speaker and his colleagues had sensed that lack of confidence in the Liberals during the last campaign.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Perhaps I could come back to my line of questioning of the President of the Treasury Board. Could he reconcile for the House the figure of $58.4 billion in total expenditures as tabled today with the statement we were given last night, showing total expenditures for fiscal 1980-81 of
$60.4 billion? Could he specifically reconcile the $2 billion difference?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I believe that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Linance (Mr. MacEachen) spoke to this point last night, indicating that since the presentation of the budget in December and, of course, since the preparation of the main estimates which we inherited upon taking office, a number of events have taken place: an increase in public debt charges, for one; the increase in the international price of oil, which in turn increases the oil import compensation payments, to name but two of the major items; and the increase in the guaranteed income supplement which this government has committed itself to put into effect, which I believe was recorded as involving something in the order of $345 million. These represent increases beyond the figure set forth in these main estimates of approximately $58.4 billion. As you know, Madam Speaker, it is not unusual to table supplementary estimates, as I have done today, which take account of some parts of this increase over the numbers shown in the main estimates.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, perhaps we could look at these one at a time with the President of the Treasury Board. I think he owes it to the House to tell us exactly what accounts for the difference between the $58.4 billion and the $60.4 billion. Last night the minister indicated that the upward revision in public debt charges was of the order of $500 million. Could the President of the Treasury Board tell us what is the upward adjustment on account of the oil compensation amount that is included presumably in this $2 billion discrepancy or difference?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I do not intend to analyze the full difference between the $58.4 billion which has been tabled in the main estimates and in the supplementary estimates that I have tabled today, and the numbers put forward by the minister last night. He indicated at the time that they were simply projections. He also indicated at the time, as 1 recall, that he hoped this would be reduced through the establishment of this so-called blended oil price which we trust the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will, in due course, be able to agree upon. Pursuing an analysis of this kind at this time by the President of the Treasury Board and the hon. member for York-Peel I would regard as quite unproductive.


Douglas Keith Anguish: I would address my question to the President of the Treasury Board, Madam Speaker. In his presentation this afternoon he said that an additional 5,840 person-year reduction would result in the public service of this country. Could he detail for us where we might expect those cuts to be found?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I believe there has been some misunderstanding as to the statement I made. The indication was that 1979-80 was the second year of reduction. This reduction that these programs have given rise to in the current year I am advised is 5,840 person-years. If the hon.
April 22, 1980

member wants complete details on it I can give them to him. They are to be found in the estimates. The hon. member indicated earlier that he had not received a copy, but the actual man-year reductions are reflected in the table at the front of the main estimates. I am surprised that spokesmen for the NDP do not have a copy of that table.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Could 1 ask that I get a copy of these estimates to peruse while the questioning is taking place?


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to ask the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) a question about the oil import compensation fund also. The budget speech of December 11 and the documents attached to that document showed oil import compensation payments in our estimate for the year 1980-81 as $1,620 billion. That was the predicted cost of the program for 198081 based on the oil price scenarios set out in the budget, and the estimate of what imported oil would cost during 1980. Of course, as has been pointed out in the House by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), that estimate was based on the price estimated for the year of $27 and some odd cents a barrel.
The present price of imported oil landed at Montreal is about $35 or $36 a barrel, and the estimate is up. In the statement the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) made last night it was indicated that the amount of the increase, with higher international oil prices, has raised the projected level of oil import compensation payments by $1.5 billion. Does that mean that the estimate for this year for oil import compensation payments is now $3,120 billion, or what is the estimate of the President of the Treasury Board for this year, 1980-81 ?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, perhaps I could take this opportunity in response to the hon. member's question to clear up what may be a certain amount of confusion in reconciling the total expenditure projections of the government at this time and the main estimates which were tabled today.
If I refer to the minister's speech of last night, the minister explained the difference between the total expenditure projections of the previous government made in December, and the current expenditure projections we are presenting at this time-those that he presented last night. As he pointed out, the increase in the interest rates on the public debt, and the two increases in international oil prices which occurred after the preparation for the December forecast of expenditures, account in the main for an upward revision of $2 billion in the projected total expenditures.
If we turn to the main estimates tabled today. Madam Speaker, by coincidence the total main estimates amount to $58,437 billion, which is approximately the same number as the previous government had forecast in December for total expenditures. These two numbers represent quite different factors, as the hon. gentleman knows. The $58.4 billion was the total expenditure forecast, whereas the $58,437 billion represents total authorities to be requested from Parliament at
Main Estimates
the time of tabling of the main estimates, and recognizing that there would be further requirements for supplementary estimates during the course of the year.
The main estimates tabled today are about $1 billion higher than had been expected by the previous government at the time they deposited their December budget and their total expenditure forecast, to which the hon. gentleman has made reference.
In the main, the approximately $1 billion increase in the main estimates was due to an adjustment to take into account the first increase in international oil prices which occurred just after the budget was presented and tabled in December, but prior to the finalization of the figures in the main estimates which I have tabled today.
The further adjustments to expected total expenditures have occurred subsequently, have not been included in the main estimates and must be taken into account in providing a realistic forecast of the total expenditures, which is what the Minister of Finance did in his statement last night.
These major additional adjustments, Madam Speaker, are the increase in the public debt cost, the second round of increases in international oil prices and the provision for the increase in the guaranteed income supplement, as I have indicated. Providing for these increases, which have already been identified, plus an allowance to meet further unforeseen requirements for supplementary estimates during the year, results in the forecast presented by the Minister of Finance last night of total expenditures of $60.4 billion.
I hope that this brief explanation of the coincidence of the two numbers, the two $58.4 billion amounts, will serve to clear up any confusion in the minds of my hon. friends.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I think I can understand what the President of the Treasury Board is saying, even though he is a tax lawyer. It would help us, though, if he would tell us about the two items that mainly account for this difference. He says they are the interest cost and the oil import compensation payment-the difference between the statement the Minister of Finance made last night, the estimates he has tabled and the guaranteed income supplement.
Could he just tell us-let us forget the estimates he has tabled-what is the latest estimates of Treasury Board which the Minister of Finance must have used last night for interest payments during the year 1980-81? As far as I can make out, it should be around $10.7 billion. What is the amount that he thinks will be spent on the guaranteed income supplement additional payment in 1980-81-because the Minister of Finance used that figure last night-over and above what already was in the law, assuming the new amendment is passed by the House, which it will be. Also, what does the minister now estimate will be the total cost of the oil import subsidization program this year for 1980-81, given what he now knows about the international price, with only a $1 increase in January and not counting any increases in the rest of the year

April 22, 1980
Main Estimates
because there may not be any. What is the best estimate now? Is it, as it appears to me to be, $3,120 billion? If the minister could give us those three figures it would clear up our confusion, because these are the three main items.


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, 1 would be happy to take that question under advisement and let the hon. member know the exact numbers which are provided for. Some of the information appears in the material which I have before me, but some of it will require further analysis which it would not be appropriate for me to make during the course of this response.


John Carnell Crosbie: This is most mysterious, Madam Speaker. The implication of what the President of the Treasury Board now says is that the Minister of Finance last night went ahead and gave this House his own estimates which were not prepared in consultation and co-ordination with the President of the Treasury Board, and that the President of the Treasury Board cannot give me the answer to those three simple items because he does not know how the Minister of Finance has calculated additional interest costs, additional oil import subsidization costs and how he has calculated the guaranteed income supplement.
Surely that is the job of the Treasury Board. I believe that is the way we did it when we were in government and things were properly run. Treasury Board prepared these estimates and went over them with officials of the Department of Finance. The Department of Finance agreed with Treasury Board on their estimates, or vice versa, and the Minister of Finance and the President of the Treasury Board knew what was what.
The President of the Treasury Board today is saying that he and the Minister of Finance have different figures and that he does not know how the Minister of Finance arrived at his.


Donald James Johnston: With respect, Madam Speaker, I believe that is a complete distortion of the answer I gave. I simply requested the opportunity to review the material and to provide it to the hon. member. By far the largest single item, of course, of the ones we have discussed in the over-all budgetary position of the items raised by the hon. gentleman, is the debt costs which are rising from $8,350 billion in 1979-80 to $10,275 billion in 1980-81.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Madam Speaker, the question I should like to raise is this. In light of the large deficit of the government that has been occurring over the last couple of years-in 1978 $10 billion and in 1979 in excess of $16 billion-do we expect to have this same deficit between revenue and expenditure in 1980-81? If not, how does the minister expect to overcome this?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, that question is more properly addressed to my colleague the Minister of Finance. The issue of the deficit was dealt with by the Minister of Finance during his remarks last night. I believe the statement he made completely covers the government's intentions with respect thereto, including the reference he made to the possibility of a
reduction in the $60.4 billion amount through the application or implementation of the blended oil price.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I think I should start limiting the questions. I shall recognize, however, those who have already indicated their intention of asking a question- the hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon), the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) and the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens). The hon. member for Richmond-South Delta.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, with all due respect to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston), I believe that he has somewhat confused the definition of his figures. In his statement he indicated that government spending as projected in the estimates amounts to some $58.4 billion, while in fact the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) indicated last night that under his revised plan for spending the amount would be $59.8 billion in relation to the projection under the public account basis in our budget, which was presented by the former minister of finance, of some $57.3 billion.
I should like to ask the President of the Treasury Board if it is true that the increase in deficit for the projected 1980-81 year is indeed $2.5 billion and not a lesser amount, as he indicated a few moments ago.
I should like the opinion of the President of the Treasury Board as to where this is leading Canada. In particular, has he contemplated five-year projections as to what percentage of government spending we might anticipate in the form of deficit in the 1983-84 fiscal year; and in doing so, has he recognized that the budget of the former minister of finance predicted that percentage deficit would be reduced to some 6 per cent within four years?
The Canadian people would like to hear what the plans of the minister and the government are to produce a corresponding reduction in the deficit of his government.


Donald James Johnston: First, Madam Speaker, there seems to be some confusion in the mind of the hon. member about the purpose of the main estimates. They represent seeking authority for expenditures by this government. They do not represent an expenditure plan by this government. I think that point was made clear during the comments of the Minister of Finance last night.
In addition to that, Madam Speaker, I think we have demonstrated-and it is clear from this exchange-that in fact there is very little discretionary increase, if I may call it that, in the expenditure plans of this government. The guaranteed income supplement of approximately $345 million is indeed an increased expenditure which it is within the discretion of this government to make. As the Minister of Finance indicated last night, the increase in oil prices which we have discussed and increased debt charges accounted, for the most part, for this increase of approximately $2 billion.
As the hon. gentleman well knows, Madam Speaker, a deficit represents a shortfall between expenditures and reve-
April 22, 1980

nues. Here we are merely looking at the expenditure side. I suggest, Madam Speaker, that had the Conservative administration had the opportunity of tabling these same main estimates, they too would have produced an expenditure plan far in excess of the authorization of $58.4 billion-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: No. No.


Donald James Johnston: -because they too would have had to deal with increased oil prices-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: No. Read the December 11 budget.


Donald James Johnston: -and they would also have had to deal with the increased debt costs.
The budget, in further response to the hon. member's question, did indeed provide for a substantially lower deficit, but almost entirely because of the imposition of an 18-cent per gallon excise tax at the gas pump which this government, as a policy matter, rejects. Hence, it is inconceivable that the deficit-having rejected that particular source of revenue which was regarded as regressive by the Liberal government- could not have been larger than that projected in the December budget figures.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) finally disclosed the cost of one discretionary expenditure, and that is the increase to the GIS.
With regard to the statement made by the hon. member's leader in Toronto on January 12, 1980, where he issued a five-point policy of the Liberal's economic strategy, the fifth point is this:
Finally, in this election campaign we pledge that any new expenditure programs to meet the evolving needs and requirements of Canadians will be financed by reallocating existing expenditures or by increases in revenues. We will not add to the deficit by adding new programs.
I ask what cuts is the minister making in existing programs, or what revenue increases are anticipated to compensate for the $345 million of new spending on discretionary programs which the minister is dealing with today?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, 1 believe it was indicated during the course of the campaign that the guaranteed income supplement, the $35 a month, to go to each household is essentially to bring people below the poverty line up to the poverty line, which I suggest is a sound and important program with which 1 would hope the hon. member would agree. That was to be financed by a corporate tax of some form. As I understand it, that is the technique, and as I recall, the Minister of Finance indicated last night that the corporate surtax, the creation, conceptually at least, of my hon. friends, would be used in part for that purpose.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, what we have before us is an admission on the part of the President of the Treasury Board that the main estimates that he is now recommending to Parliament for a total expenditure of $58.4 billion are equal to
Main Estimates
the entire anticipated expenditure that was set out in the budget of December 11 by my colleague the former minister of finance. In short, the $1 billion rough reserve that was in there has been used up, and we now have the Minister of Finance, presently in office indicating that there may still be another $2 billion required in total expenditures before the government is through.
What I find most unbelievable today is that the President of the Treasury Board cannot simply explain how he arrives at this figure of $60.4 billion. We must be left only to conclude that this is a figure that was established by the Department of Finance and later communicated to the President of the Treasury Board, and he does not have any more idea than any of us as to where that figure came from.
Let me put this to the President of the Treasury Board. As I understand it, he indicated that the total debt charges in fiscal 1980-81 were to be $10,275 million. Perhaps he could answer that.


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I am referring, of course, to the the amount provided for in the main estimates. The amount provided for public debt in the main estimates is $10,275 million, representing 17.7 per cent of the total budgetary expenditures.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, perhaps I could ask for a clarification of that. The figure my colleague asked for is the estimated total debt charge for the coming fiscal year 1980-81, not just what is expressed in the main estimates but what is in fact the total debt charge? When the President of the Treasury Board is answering that question, perhaps he can reconcile for us his statement that there will be further funding for Petro-Canada in which he says that we will be reconsidering further requirements for PetroCan in 1980 as part of our over-all energy policy, and any adjustments will be reflected in future supplementary estimates.
Could the President of the Treasury Board reconcile that with the revelation last night on the part of the Minister of Finance, which may be pure fudging, that the advances, investments and loans to Crown corporations are only going to be $600 million in the current fiscal year compared to $1,250 million? How is it that their projection as revealed last night shows over $600 million less going into Crown corporations when he indicates that PetroCan is actually going to get more?


An hon. Member:: Inconsistent.


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I find no difficulty in reconciling those two statements. That is a question of numbers. It is a question of arithmetic. It is a question of where less funds are going in and where more funds are going in. PetroCan happens to be a priority of this government, and what the Minister of Finance indicated last night was fully in keeping with that priority.
Returning to the hon. member's first question, by my calculation the total debt provided for at the moment, projected-

April 22, 1980
Olympic Boycott
that is, debt service charge-would be in the order of $10.8 billion, $10.9 billion.


Madam Speaker:: I gave notice a few moments ago, before some members rose again, that I would hear no more speakers.
I think that in the best interests of the House proceedings 1 must now put an end to that question period. Surely there will be other opportunities to discuss those questions. We should proceed to the remaining orders of the day if we do not want our day to be longer than everyone else's.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the Soviet Union's move into Afghanistan at the turn of the year caught the world by shocked surprise. The depth of international opposition can be measured by the strength of the vote in the emergency session of the United Nations General Assembly called to deal with the question in early January: one hundred and four governments cast their votes in condemnation of Soviet action. That action continues. The Soviet leaders are proceeding to tighten their hold on what was, and has been for decades, an independent neighbouring country. Such international behaviour cannot go unheeded. The country responsible cannot claim for itself immunity from the consequences of its own freely chosen course of action.
There has been broad agreement internationally that the Soviet action can only be met by concrete measures, adopted by members of the international community as expressions of concern over unacceptable and unjustifiable policies. These measures are not, and cannot be uniform: nor can they themselves secure the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan. They do, however, reflect a full range of national reactions which when added together constitute an impressive and deliberate demonstration of world opposition to the Soviet invasion.

For its part, and after the fullest consultation with allies and friends, Canada adopted a broad spectrum of measures under the previous government which have been reaffirmed by the present government. Visits to the Soviet Union by ministers and high level officials have been cancelled. Similarly, a wide range of exchanges in education, culture, and sport, along with a wide variety of exports of manufactured goods and agricultural products, have been halted. Thus, Canadians in a broad spectrum of fields of endeavour-artists, sportsmen, farmers, academics and businessmen, to name a few-have been called upon to make sacrifices in the process of Canada's response to Soviet aggression.
In the framework of the government's reaction to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, one issue has remained undecided: participation in the 1980 Olympic Games, scheduled to be held in Moscow in July. This government believes that the international situation brought about by Soviet aggression in Afghanistan makes it wholly inappropriate to hold the Olympics in Moscow.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark R. MacGuigan: Since taking office, the government has maintained that it is up to the Soviet Union to create the conditions under which the games may properly take place. Obviously, such conditions do not now exist. Furthermore, there is no present intention on the part of the U.S.S.R. to create them.
We have said from the beginning that an Olympic boycott would be advisable only if effective. A few countries acting on their own, or even more countries acting in an unco-ordinated fashion, would not constitute an effective boycott. Our policy has therefore been to work actively towards an effective boycott.
In the course of the last several weeks, we have canvassed our friends in the western alliance and Third World states to determine whether a boycott of the Moscow Olympics would be an effective instrument in displaying our abhorrence of the actions of the U.S.S.R. in Afghanistan. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) took a personal initiative in writing a number of world leaders on the subject. The results of these consultations, coupled with conversations I had with foreign ministers present during the recent independence celebrations in Zimbabwe, have convinced the government that the criteria for an effective boycott are now clearly present. 1 expect similar announcements in support of an effective boycott by other governments within the next days.
To ask our athletes, who have been training for four years and more for their chance at an Olympic gold medal, to forgo that chance, is a hard thing for any free country to ask of its citizens. The government is, however, convinced that withdrawal from the Olympics is the clearest and most effective way available to make plain to the leaders of the Soviet Union that the world condemns the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan and its defiance of international demands for its withdrawal. If, as the Soviet Union claims, the 1980 Olympics are a vindication of Soviet policies, then by not participating in those games, we repeat to the Soviet leadership and the Soviet people that their government's actions in Afghanistan stand condemned by the world.
The Canadian Olympic Association has requested a firm indication of the government's position in this matter. The government has considered the situation thoroughly. We have decided that the circumstances leave us no choice but to urge the Canadian Olympic Association to inform the organizing committee for the 1980 Olympics that Canadian athletes will not be participating in the games. The government does not
April 22, 1980

intend to use coercion to bring about a withdrawal. It will not revoke passports or take powers to circumscribe the rights of Canadians to travel freely abroad. But should Canadian athletes participate in Moscow, they will do so without the moral or financial support of the Government of Canada.
Several nations are actively planning for athletic events in which their athletes can participate as some compensation for not having gone to Moscow. If Canadian athletes, through their accredited sport governing bodies, make it clear that they wish to participate in such events, the government will make it possible for them to do so. Moreover, the minister responsible for fitness and amateur sport will have his officials meet with national sport governing body representatives immediately to determine whatever opportunities may be available, or may be developed, to offset this setback to our amateur athletes and provide alternative competitive forums in their pursuit of excellence.
The government is aware that the final deadline for acceptance of invitations to the games is May 24. While any dramatic change in the situation in Afghanistan seems unlikely, the possibility cannot be entirely excluded. The government therefore intends to continue monitoring the situation closely. It remains up to the Soviet Union to create the conditions in which the Olympics can take place. Should it become apparent that, contrary to present evidence and, indeed, contrary even to our expectations, these conditions are being created, the government is prepared to reassess the request it is making today.
Finally, Madam Speaker, we ask Canadian athletes and Canadians generally to support this important decision which has been taken in the national interest. We all recognize the sacrifice this represents for our athletes who have trained so hard, and for whom we have so much respect.
It is, of course, not their fault, any more than it is the fault of other Canadians who are also being asked to support government policies designed to impress upon the Soviet Union that international terrorism in all of its manifestations- whether by armed students or disciplined troops-is unacceptable to Canada. The government urges Canadian athletes to respect its advice. We are confident that they, and the Canadian Olympic Committee, will have the national interest at heart and will decline to participate in the Moscow Games in the interest of Canadians and free peoples everywhere.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, earlier today the minister did me the courtesy of sending me a copy of his statement. I was happy to receive it. 1 was happy to learn that the Liberal government has finally acted, has finally found its voice, with regard to a boycott of the Olympic Games. One hundred and eighteen days, four months, after the invasion of the neutral country of Afghanistan by Soviet troops, the Liberal government has finally seen fit to do something to protest this gross violation of the independence of one country by another. One hundred and eighteen days, four months, after the Soviet invasion, two months after this government has taken office, it has finally
Olympic Boycott
seen fit to adopt the stand taken by the Conservative government to boycott the Olympic Games.
The minister states that the procrastination, the reluctance, of his government to reach a decision on this issue was that it had to await his visit to Zimbabwe to consult with other countries, and particularly to try to convince Third World countries to join the boycott. From what we hear, Madam Speaker, the persuasion was the other way around. Even Third World countries had to join in persuading the Liberal government, the Government of Canada, to support a boycott as the most forceful way possible of condemning the subjugation of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union. And if the minister has any doubts as to why I say it was he and his government that had to be persuaded by Third World countries rather than the other way round, all he has to do is to read his telexes prior to the time that he left for Zimbabwe to know that a great list of countries had already joined in the boycott. Countries from the Third World had already committed themselves; Djibouti, Kenya, Mauritius, Sudan, Zaire, Central Africa Republic, Antigua, Bermuda, Honduras, Paraguay, Fiji, New Guinea, The Philippines, Saudi Arabia. I could go on for a long, long while. They had all committed themselves long before the minister ever went to Zimbabwe. But the Canadian government has finally moved and we agree with its belated action.
We took that action on Canada's behalf, to support a boycott, last January 26. That was three months ago. It is three months since a Government of Canada committed this country to boycott the Olympic Games in Moscow. In those three months the Liberal government has confounded our allies and disappointed our friends, first by its reversal of the former Conservative government's position and then by its reluctance to take a stand of its own.
It has done a real disservice to our Canadian athletes by its failure to proceed with the arrangements we had under way for the holding of international games of a comparable standard. Three months have been lost in the preparation of these games. Three months have gone by during which the government has ignored the work it might have been doing to ensure that our athletes would have a chance to participate internationally, so that they would not be called upon to make intolerable sacrifices.
The government's procrastination has damaged our relations externally and has caused needless anxiety among our Olympic athletes as to whether they would have the opportunity to compete in international games this year. Even now, as the minister presents his statement, one has to realize that this is a conditional boycott. One listens to the minister as he says, "The Canadian Olympic Association has requested a firm indication of the governement's position on this matter." They had to be requested. They could not give it on their own. That is what the minister is saying. He goes on, "We have decided that the situation left us no choice." Surely, after what has

April 22, 1980
Olympic Boycott
gone on, the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union, that should have left them no choice right at the outset.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, after two months in power the Liberal government has finally decided, as we did in January, to boycott the Olympic Games. I deplore the delay and the lack of interest shown by the government in that regard. The delay led to the deterioration of our relations with our allies and friends throughout the world. In addition, our athletes were allowed to drift without leadership during that period.

We in this party did not see the need for any delay in taking a stand on this issue. We knew right from the outset that the invasion of Afghanistan required a firm response. We knew that sanctions would have to be imposed against the Soviet Union. That is why the former government showed leadership at NATO, at the OECD, at the United Nations and within the Commonwealth. That is why we announced last January 11 a series of economic sanctions, including a grain embargo, the ending of export credits, the tightening up of high technology sales, and the end of visits of a scientific, cultural and ministerial nature.
Our decision as a government to support the Olympic boycott, a decision announced last January 26, was taken because we knew that such actions would convey clearly to the Soviet Union and, more important, to the people of the Soviet Union, that the invasion of a neutral country will not go unnoticed or unanswered.
It was clear to us that the Soviets intended to use the Olympic Games for propaganda purposes. I only need quote from a paragraph in the most recent "Handbook for Party Activists", an annual publication for Soviet Communist party members, commenting on the choice of Moscow as the site for the games:
The decision to offer this honoured right to hold the Olympic Games in the capital of the first socialist state in the world was convincing proof of the universal recognition of the historical importance and correctness of the course of our country's foreign policy-
Well, it did not take four months for us as a party or as a government, while we were in office, to reject the claim that the holding of the games in Moscow was "convincing proof of the correctness of their foreign policy" especially with regard to the invasion of Afghanistan. We were not prepared to let the Soviet Union justify that kind of aggressive foreign policy. That is why my party welcomes the decision taken by the government to support, albeit belatedly, the widespread boycott of the Moscow Games.
I would urge the government to take the lead now in pursuing with like-minded countries the holding of alternative games of comparable standard so that our athletes may participate in international competition this year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, may I first take this opportunity to congratulate the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Mac-Guigan) on his appointment, and also to thank him for sending me in advance a copy of the statement he has made today.
The position of the New Democratic Party regarding a possible boycott by Canada of the Olympic Games in Moscow was clearly enunciated by the leader of the party in January. We were then, and are now, opposed to the boycott.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Pauline Jewett: In condemning the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union the leader of the NDP urged the Government of Canada to join with the many other nations which had voted against the Soviet invasion in developing international diplomatic, economic and cultural sanctions as the only effective means of bringing forcibly home to the Soviet Union the wishes of ourselves and the United Nations towards them.
We were then, and remain now, convinced that a boycott of the Moscow games would not fulfil the objective of forcing the Soviets out of Afghanistan. Indeed, the Secretary of State for External Affairs admits this himself when he states "any dramatic change in the situation in Afghansistan seems unlikely".
We regret also the decision to single out our athletes to bear personally the total burden of our anger. No comparable sacrifice is asked of others. Furthermore, crippling the games in Moscow probably signs the death warrant of future Olympic Games as well.
Finally, the proposed boycott, far from causing a Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, may well serve to escalate East-West tensions, making future arms control and mutual disarmament that much more distant.
The NDP feels the government should reject the boycott and instead show leadership among the 103 nations which, along with Canada, condemned the Soviet action in the United Nations Assembly, by developing effective sanctions to pressure the Soviets to withdraw from Afghanistan. Specifically in the case of Canada, the NDP feels that the termination of bilateral, cultural, and sports relations, the withdrawal of high-technology assistance in trade, and the cancelling of Soviet credit lines in Canada would mark the start of a more effective protest than an Olympic boycott. Such actions, when taken in concert with other nations, would have a strong chance of forcing a change in Soviet policy and would better serve world peace.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, I would like to pose a few questions to the minister in this regard. I suppose my first question should really be directed to the Secretary of State (Mr. Fox), but I am sure the minister will be able to answer in his absence.
April 22, 1980

I would like to find out whether or not the arrangements which were made for the CBC to cover the games in Moscow and the moneys which were allocated for that purpose have been cancelled.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, no action of that kind has been taken as yet because this decision was arrived at and announced only today. Elowever, I can say that the government is determined to use all the means at its disposal to dissuade and discourage the CBC from covering the Olympics.


Erik Nielsen: Get Ouellet after them.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: But this happens to be public funding and a decision which the government would have arrived at, I presume, after not only consultation with other countries but also consultation with ministers responsible for agencies in Canada. Therefore, 1 would have expected a firm commitment that there would be a cancellation of that when the minister spoke this afternoon, and when he replied. Can he tell me when he will be in a position to give us that information? It would seem to me that his colleague should be able to meet with the president of the CBC tonight to convey the government's decision and to make it clear that if the government has cancelled its participation, or indicated that it wants to cancel its participation in the games in Moscow, it surely would want to see the CBC, a government agency, also cancel its participation there.


Mark R. MacGuigan: There is absolutely no difference between us as to the desirability that the CBC not cover the games. The hon. member's party is fond of proclaiming from time to time the independence of the CBC, which we certainly believe in, but the hon. member's words right now do not sound like that.
We will use every means at our disposal to discourage the CBC from doing this, but that is a decision for the CBC to make, and we will certainly take that up very strongly with the CBC.


Charles Joseph Clark: Will you start now or in four months? [Translation]


Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, first of all I should like to tell the minister that we have been in agreement with that decision for several weeks already. Our athletes have worked hard, have trained energetically and are ready. Can the minister tell the House, on behalf of the government, whether he has considered steps to encourage those athletes, perhaps to compensate them for the considerable expense they may have gone to? For instance, is there any intention of compensating them through some other competition, that could be very interesting and could somehow make up for the efforts they have made?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, as I have already mentioned, the minister responsible, my colleague the minister of fitness and amateur sports, intends to meet Canadian sports
Olympic Boycott
organizations without delay in order to give our athletes opportunities to appear here in Canada.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Madam Speaker, just to pursue the last question one step further, sanctions always involve sacrifice, and we have clearly identified that the sacrifice will be made largely by athletes, it is very important that that sacrifice is not made in vain. There is no real compensation in a secondary type of non-Olympics. That is one minor compensation, but it is not a real compensation.
Somehow people have the image of an athlete as being a very wealthy person who can spend his money freely to develop. However, of course, that is not true. The sacrifice in many cases is a thwarted professional career, much lost employment income, four to eight years of intensive training five or seven days a week, and broken dreams. All these things are payment that they will make in sacrifice.
If in fact the Olympics are not held or this money is not expended as suggested, I suggest that the money which will be saved-and it will be substantial whether it be with regard to the CBC or whatever-could in fact be used to compensate the athletes directly for their personal losses, be they loans or expenses incurred on their behalf in the past year.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I fear that the suggestion is impractical in its terms. I think the only way by which we can hope to compensate the athletes is through forms of organized athletics. I should point out to the House that when my colleague, the minister responsible for sport, and I met the Canadian Olympic Committee, the committee was totally opposed to the notion of alternate games of any kind. It refused to discuss that matter with us because it said that this was totally opposed to its views and, it believed, the views of Canadian sporting bodies. However, we intend to carry on a dialogue.
My colleague and his officials will very shortly-immediately-be meeting officials, not only of the Canadian Olympic Committee but also of the other sports governing bodies in Canada, to try to arrange for the upgrading and the augmentation of existing sporting programs so that our athletes will not find that their training was wasted. They will have an opportunity to participate and, 1 might say, now that we have a boycott-and this is where we differ from the opposition- with the announcements to come within the next few days from other countries as to their boycotting, the boycott will now be effective.


Henry Perrin Beatty: No thanks to you.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Those who do compete in Moscow will themselves realize that the medals they attain are of very little value. The medals which will be achieved in other competitions around the world may well be of more intrinsic importance to the athletic community than medals they might gain in Moscow with the kind of competition which will now be there.

April 22, 1980
Olympic Boycott


Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, there have been hundreds of families who have booked their vacations for Moscow to coincide with the Olympics, particularly families of competing athletes. Some of these have invested several thousand dollars in advance on pre-paid bookings with tour companies. They are charters, and some of these people are now losing their entire investments because the deadline for refund has passed, and maybe in some cases it has passed because of the delay in the announcement by this government.


Charles Joseph Clark: No question.


Benno Friesen: I would like to ask the minister if this Liberal government has done anything about bringing pressure to bear on these tour companies to make sure that they will refund the money that they have been using now for several months. They have been using money received from families which can ill afford to invest in a package which they will never be able to use. Is the government doing anything to make sure that these companies, such as Sears and others, will refund that money to those families, which cannot afford this kind of wasted expenditure?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, when a decision on public policy is made, it is not always possible to compensate all the citizens who may lose as a result. That is often the case because it is not possible to identify them or to determine what their losses really are, or it might be too expensive for the public purse, but I think my hon. friend has made a suggestion which is worthy of investigation. 1 can at least assure him that we will look at that problem to see what the dimensions of it may be.


Benno Friesen: The minister suggests that I am asking that funds be expended. I am not asking that. 1 am not asking the government to lay out any money. All I am asking is that it use its good offices, if they are that, to bring pressure to bear on those companies to make sure these families get their money back.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Perhaps I was overly suspicious as to the thought lurking in my hon. friend's mind. 1 certainly think we can have a discussion on behalf of the government with these organizations, and if there is no further commitment than that, then I think 1 can give him the assurance that we can do that.


Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, in addition to admitting in his statement that the boycott was not likely to have much effect on changing the Soviet position in Afghanistan, the minister tried to make the point on page two of his statement that, in addition to athletes, other segments of the Canadians society will be making certain kinds of sacrifices as a result of the government's decision. He mentioned that ministers will not be allowed to go to the Soviet Union as frequently as they did previously, and the same applies to other high officials. I do not know if that is much of
a sacrifice. He called on sports federations and some cultural groups to restrict themselves similarly.
What concerns some of us is that farmers and businessmen, to name a few others besides the ones already mentioned, will be asked to bear what, it is implied, is an equivalent burden to that of the athletes. Can the minister tell the House what specific sacrifices he is asking Canadian farmers to make in expressing Canada's outrage? Perhaps he might also care to elaborate on what he is asking the commercial or business interests in this country to do.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Certainly, Madam Speaker. I should mention that we are following the policies established by the previous government. We have adopted those policies as our own. There is quite an array of measures in place but, to be more specific about the ones to which my hon. friend refers, and I think he has in mind potential losses of the business community, that would largely be with respect to export permits for goods or materials of strategic significance. So far permits have been denied to two Canadian firms, and there is an apparent loss of export contracts by four other Canadian firms. The combined value of these losses has been estimated at $6 million. I would think that my hon. friend would be aware of the fact that we have been limiting our grain exports to the Soviet Union to traditional levels. As 1 think is well known, so far they have not sustained any losses as a result of that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mark R. MacGuigan: They have not sustained any losses in terms of volume because we are at the traditional level. But there is a potential loss situation there as well.


Mark Willson Rose: I wonder if the minister could be more specific as to the nature of the six firms he mentioned. Did any of them include high technology contracts, and has the minister considered withdrawing certain lines of credit for continued expansion of trade with the Soviet Union when he was considering other sanctions? It is my view, and also that of my colleagues, that the massive burden of expressing Canada's outrage falls on the high profile athletes in the Olympic Games, and we consider that unfair. If the athletes will be expected to bear this burden on behalf of their country or else be considered unpatriotic, then I think equivalent burdens should fall on other segments of society, and we have no confidence, on the basis of the minister's statement, that indeed they have.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark R. MacGuigan: I do not have with me the names of those firms. I will attempt to get them for the hon. member. But I think he should also take account of the fact that a great number of scientific, academic, and cultural exchanges have been cancelled, affecting hundreds of Canadians who were looking forward to various kinds of opportunities, from scientists from the National Research Council to others. If hon. members would wish to address a question to me that I can



April 22, 1980

hear, I will be pleased to reply to it, but I cannot distinguish the words-


An hon. Member:: Name one.


Mark R. MacGuigan: One instance? Up to 15 National Research Council scientists will not be allowed to go to the U.S.S.R. this summer to do research under the aegis of the Soviet Academy of Sciences. I can name a whole list, if the hon. member wants to know. The opposition critic says that these are things which they have started. We have adopted their policies in this respect. This affects a lot of students, professors, and cultural performers, such as the Stratford ensemble, Karen Kain and Frank Augustyn who will not be making their tour of the U.S.S.R., and so on. There are many different forms of endeavour which are being cancelled. It is not really possible to equalize the burden exactly because it is different in various areas, but I think we have done our best, as I believe the previous government did, to have a wide-ranging program which would be as fair as possible in various sectors.


Erik Nielsen: What new initiatives are you taking?


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: Since the question of the Olympic boycott goes right to the heart of Canada's foreign policy and lets us see the sense of direction which the government will take in the 1980s, which are already starting out as a very dangerous period in world history, is the minister now prepared to have a parliamentary examination of Canada's foreign policy in a way that has not been done in the past ten years, the basis for such an examination already having been laid by officials in his department, in both external affairs and CIDA, and an examination by Parliament of the total foreign policy in a way that would turn out to be of assistance to him in the formulation of a policy which could win support from the Canadian people in this decade?


Mark R. MacGuigan: As the hon. member knows, there is always that opportunity for a review of the foreign policy by standing committees in considering estimates and, from time to time, on other orders of reference. If he is referring to a specific order of reference, however, I might say that I have under consideration the best way in which to review specifically the question of aid to other countries. In my view that is something which, in some form or other, has to be given a fairly broad scrutiny. I want to get a good deal of input, and I welcome any suggestions by opposition members as well on how that best could be accomplished in terms of techniques. If the hon. member is referring to a general review of foreign policy, I must say that I do not have in mind an order of reference with respect to that. I believe our foreign policy is well established.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mark R. MacGuigan: With specific reference to aid, we have had a policy which shortly expires in the sense that there was planning for a particular period of time, and now we need to set some goals for the next five or ten years in the area of aid.
Olympic Boycott


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I will recognize the hon. member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche) on a supplementary question and then I will recognize the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark).


Douglas Roche: Undoubtedly there is a need for a review of aid programs but that review will only be effective if it is done in conjunction with a review of our total foreign policy, since the aid question must be inserted into many aspects of foreign policy.
I want to ask the minister specifically if he has yet had the opportunity of personally reading the two papers that were prepared by the officials of external affairs and the officials of CIDA, which are professional, objective papers, outlining the aspects of the world situation to which Canada must relate in forming a total foreign policy and an aid policy for the 1980s. Has he read those papers and is he prepared to allow the parliamentary committee to review them so that there will be an opportunity for Canadian public opinion to express itself to that committee, which can then make a report which will be effective in the formulation of the policy for which the minister has responsibility?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Yes, I have read those papers, as the hon. member knows. Since his government did not have an opportunity to make them public-the passage of events has perhaps slightly outdated them, more in some areas than in others-I would certainly be prepared to consider releasing those papers, either as they were or with some updating changes. 1 have not made any decision on that but I am considering that problem. Certainly I have not made a decision that it would then be a basis for a reference to a parliamentary committee. That is not a commitment which I am prepared to give at this time.


Charles Joseph Clark: Perhaps the most intriguing passage in this delinquent declaration by the government is the following:
It remains up to the Soviet Union to create the conditions in which the Olympics can take place.
The minister's statement then went on to indicate that if those conditions are created, the Liberal government is prepared to reassess the position that the minister, after four months, has announced today. Exactly what are the conditions that the Government of Canada has in mind which would cause it to reassess its decision to boycott the Olympic Games?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, there is no mystery about that. That is the same type of statement which has been made by most of the countries which have made declarations in favour of boycotting, with the United States alone excepted, because the United States has said that even if the Soviet Union withdrew its troops and allowed a free vote to take place in Afghanistan, that it still would not go to the Olympics. But most countries have made their decision to boycott conditional upon the fact that the Soviet Union continues its aggression in Afghanistan. I do not think we will ever have to decide that

April 22, 1980
Olympic Boycott
question because it seems clearly to intend to do so. But because we are making our decision a month before the time for signification by the Olympic committee, like other governments which have taken the decision we feel that at least we should leave open that possibility. We are speaking about an Afghanistan from which the Soviets would have effectively withdrawn and where the people would be allowed their own free choice of government.


Charles Joseph Clark: The reason I raised the question is that when I expressed that as being the sole condition, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the then leader of the opposition, who is now absent from the House, accused us of grandstanding. I believe that was his exact language. Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) confirm that that is the only condition which his government applies to a boycott by Canada of the games?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, not at all. That is the sole remaining condition. It is not a condition in the sense that we do not expect that there will be any further need to consider it. It is an intellectual condition, if you like.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mark R. MacGuigan: The great difference between us on this question has been that we have not been satisfied just with a verbal forum. We want an effective boycott, a boycott in which other countries that count in the athletic world will be participating.
The hon. member opposite read a list of countries that are boycotting. Certainly; but those are not the important countries in the world of athletics. Many of the important countries have still to make a decision, and they will be making their decision in the next short time. Canada is a part of that process. I might even add that as a result of a meeting which I had with the West German foreign minister in Salisbury last week, we have co-ordinated our announcement with the government of West Germany with respect to whatever decision they may make about the games.


Charles Joseph Clark: 1 am sure that Kenya, West Germany, Australia and Japan will be interested to note that in the view of Canada they are not nations whose athletes would make significant contributions to the Olympic Games. But I want to come back to the question of the minister seeking a policy that would be effective. He has spoken about initiatives which have been taken. He quite properly credited the government which I had the honour to lead with starting most of those initiatives. Can he tell us which new initiatives were started by his government, apart from its whirling around on the question of a boycott? Which new initiatives were started by his government since it was sworn into office?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I am not certain that I realize myself which of the measures now in effect were theirs and which were ours.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mark R. MacGuigan: I believe the decision to deny Aeroflot its usual summer schedule of landing and increased flights in Canada was a decision which we made.


An hon. Member:: No.


Mark R. MacGuigan: At least 1 had to confirm it since coming into power. Whether or not the same decision was first made by hon. members opposite, I honestly do not know.


An hon. Member:: It was.


Benno Friesen: Who else?


Mark R. MacGuigan: In fact the principal difference between us, I think, is that we have helped to create in the international community an effective boycott.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mark R. MacGuigan: The hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) can quibble about which country participates, but our aim is to have enough countries which have Olympic medalwinning athletes participating in the boycott that the games in Moscow will be a sham. We believe that as a result of our initiative we have helped other like-minded countries to accomplish that objective.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: What initiative?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) is about his concern with the boycott on grain. Because of the decision announced by the government today, I can say as a prairie member that there will be a great deal of concern in my province from a lot of farmers as to the government's position on the grain boycott. I should like to ask him whether or not it is his intention to announce shortly what the government's precise position is.
Farmers have already seen the price of wheat go down between 70 cents and 80 cents a bushel since the boycott was announced, and the use of food as a weapon was announced by the United States and concurred in by the former prime minister. The farmers are wondering how long that boycott will go on. Will we maintain our traditional amount of exports to the Soviet Union, or is the government contemplating cutting back even further? Does the government have any plans in mind for compensating the farmers? I wonder if the minister can answer some of those questions now. If not, perhaps he will consider making a statement on motions at a later date to tell the farmers exactly and precisely where they stand. It is a serious economic question for the farmers of this country. The overwhelming majority of farmers do not want to boycott grain sales. They do not want to be singled out as the people who have to pay the biggest price.


An hon. Member:: That decision was made by the previous government.
April 22, 1980


Mark R. MacGuigan: As one of the hon. members is shouting, that decision initially was made by the previous government, and we have been prepared to continue it. The arrangement and understanding with other countries is that we will continue only our traditional level of supply and that we will not seek to make up any shortfall which the Soviet Union may have. The fall in price is certainly not a direct result of the policies of the Canadian government, although it may arguably result from the over-all embargo situation in which we participated. That is a question we will have to discuss with the other countries which are involved in it. It is not one on which we could have a policy ourselves.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: 1 wonder if the minister can offer farmers anything more concrete in terms of compensation. He implied that he might take some initiative in discussing with other countries what may be done because of the falling price, but is there anything else the minister can say at this time as to whether or not there is any compensation for the farmers other than the western grain stabilization plan which is not adequate in this case?


Mark R. MacGuigan: In general we have taken the position, if there is a cutting back in our sales to the Soviet Union, that this would be an appropriate situation for compensation to the farmers. But that has not occurred. We have contracts now and we are in the process of shipping more than we have in many years, less than we have in peak years, but certainly a representative amount. The hon. member may at some future time wish to return to this subject if it becomes apparent that we are dropping below where we usually are in our exports.


Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) spoke of the comparative values in prestige terms of the medals which are to be won at the Olympic Games in Moscow this year by those who will be participating and those medals which will be won at other games. 1 was wondering whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs can say what arrangements have been made or what exploratory talks have taken place between Canada and the possible sites for those games, either dispersed sites or concentrated ones in Canada or abroad, where these other games with more prestigious medals will be held?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I think it is worth drawing to the attention of the House that the initiative, perhaps led by the United States, to organize a complete series of alternate games or an international sports festival, as I think it was euphemistically called at the Geneva meeting which we attended as observers, is not really going well, for a combination of reasons. There does not seem to be great international favour even among the countries which are boycotting, their Olympic committees and their athletes, in organizing a series of events in the world which, in total, would amount to something like an alternate games.
Olympic Boycott
What we have in mind, if that attempt does not succeed, and we certainly will participate in any such attempt by countries which are deciding to boycott, is that my colleague, the minister, plans immediately to approach the Canadian sports organizations to see if we can upgrade some of our events so that at least our athletes will have an opportunity of better competition. I might add that the best prediction I have heard is that if the boycott, as we are now convinced, will be effective, something like 80 per cent of the medal athletes from the non-communist world will not be participating. That will certainly make the intrinsic value of the medals in Moscow to those who win them very small, indeed.


Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, I was wondering whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs could say whether there have been any conversations with possible organizers of sites in Canada which could entertain athletes from around the world, and Canadian athletes, for these games?


Mark R. MacGuigan: I cannot answer that with complete assurance, Madam Speaker, because I am not sure that there have not been some informal consultations. But, after my colleague, the minister for sport and I were discouraged by the Canadian Olympic committee from considering such an idea, at least before we had made a decision as to the Olympic Games themselves, we have not carried out a systematic attempt to deal with these sites. As I say, my colleague, the minister responsible for sport, has the intention of immediately going into this very question.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) a question. Several months ago when Canada had an effective government, before February 18, when it had a government that had some conviction and some muscle, and this policy was put into effect, it was decided there was no need to interfere with a situation where Soviet fishing vessels were coming into St. John's, Newfoundland, to be repaired at the CN drydock at St. John's, Newfoundland. That is a drydock which is now ready for a Syncrolift, by the way, and I am hoping that the Minister of Industry Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) is going to do his thing and see to the financing of it now, and that the tenders should be called shortly to expand the Syncrolift. In the meantime, there are 18 or 20 Soviet trawlers per year being repaired there, giving considerable business to the port of St. John's and the people who work at that dock there. Is it still the government's position that it would not be of any benefit to Canada and it would not add to any effectiveness of the boycott or otherwise, and that arrangement can continue?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Unless the hon. member wants to make a submission to the contrary, Madam Speaker, it is our present intention to allow Soviet fishing vessels to continue to come into Canadian ports to receive supplies. We have, as I believe the previous government did as well, denied permission to

April 22, 1980
Olympic Boycott
non-fisheries vessels, I think one in each case, or discouraged those vessels from coming into port. I think we will not be moving to take similar measures with respect to fishing vessels.


John Carnell Crosbie: No, my representation is that the position stay exactly the same. I do not want the Secretary of State for External Affairs to misunderstand that, because this is of positive benefit to Canada and it would not bother the U.S.S.R. very much in any event. He has given me confirmation that the policy is unchanged, I gather.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Madam Speaker, would the minister be prepared to table a list of those who are suffering the brunt of the sanctions imposed against the Soviet Union in achieving the boycott, or achieving success of the boycott to take the Soviets out of Afghanistan, and stop their aggression in that area? Would he be willing to table a list of those who are suffering the sanctions?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I will certainly be prepared to write a letter to the hon. gentleman telling him what our over-all policy is, and he can make whatever disposition he pleases of that information.


Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, this afternoon when there have been so many momentous statements by ministers I am sure it is a source of dismay to many members that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) would not show more respect to this House by being here.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Would the hon. member ask his question?


Chris Speyer: Is this not an important measure? Why isn't the Prime Minister here?


An hon. Member:: He is busy working.


Madam Speaker:: Order. Will the hon. member ask his question, please?


Chris Speyer: My question is this. I wonder whether the minister can tell me precisely when he became convinced that the boycott would become effective, and what circumstances surrounded that decision when he knew in his own mind and made a recommendation to the cabinet that the boycott would become effective? The second part of my question is this. Can the minister envisage circumstances where international conduct is so outrageous that we, as a country, would be willing to take independent action, notwithstanding what the effect might have been in Russia, and does not the invasion of Afghanistan fall within that category?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, may I say first that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) did come into the lobby this afternoon with the intention of being here for the statements of both my colleague and myself. He left when he found that the rather lengthy debate on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member was being prosecuted.
There are empty seats on all sides of the House, and I would not like to find fault with anyone for not sitting through the length of this afternoon's proceedings.
I do not know what kind of psychological test the hon. member's question holds for me, but I am quite prepared to say that it was this past weekend in Salisbury, Zimbabwe, when I had the opportunity of discussing this issue with something like 20 or 30 states that I had the opportunity of coming to a firm conclusion that an Olympics boycott would be effective. I may say that not the least important of the factors was the discussion I had with the West German foreign minister, at considerable length, during which we were able to co-ordinate our strategies for this boycott.


Madam Speaker:: I still have three questioners. If hon. members would like to limit themselves to one question each, perhaps I could not see six o'clock for a while and we will see if we can conclude this debate before we adjourn. The hon. member has had one question. I would like now to recognize the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle).


Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan). I was very happy to hear earlier today that he was preparing to accept a revision of the whole question of international aid, but, like the former questioner, I have great doubt that this can be done without a complete revision of the whole role of Canada in the international community. I should like to ask the minister whether he does not really believe that today Canada has to kind of come to a new vision of itself, because I do believe that the era we are living in, in the 1980s and the coming 1990s, and I hope we get that far, is quite different from a time when Canada made its foreign policy before. I was hoping he would be willing to accept the suggestion. How does he feel about the possibility of really and truly making a new accounting of ourselves and who we think we are at this time in the international community, through a revision?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, in the interest of time and because of the eloquence of the hon. member, I will undertake to consider his representation.


Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, I would like to bring to the mind of the hon. minister that on many numerous occasions the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has said he doubted that a boycott would be successful. I would like to ask the minister whether he can assure the House today that the Prime Minister believes it can be successful, particularly when he said just last Friday that his personal view would be irrelevant on this question. Can he assure us that it is the personal view of the Prime Minister that the Prime Minister thinks this move will be successful.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, the hon. member should know that the personal views of ministers, including mine, are not really relevant. I am here stating government policy, policy which, as the leader of the government, is firmly embraced by the Prime Minister, and I would have to take exception to the
April 22, 1980

suggestion that the Prime Minister ever said that the boycott would not be successful. He said, in effect, that a boycott taken in a vacuum, as the other party was proposing, would not succeed. What we spent this time doing is organizing an effective boycott.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), as has recently been stated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan), did not make much of the fact that he delayed taking action to boycott the Olympics in order to convince other countries that this was the right course. I should like to put two brief questions to the minister. First, how many countries did Canada convince to join the boycott and, second, what initiatives did the minister or the Prime Minister take in order to bring about this change of opinion in whatever the number of countries is that they were able to convince? Would the minister table this information so that the House will know precisely what he did, or is he just bluffing once again?


An hon. Member:: Grandstanding.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I am certainly prepared to summarize for the hon. member the steps that we took.
The Prime Minister wrote to some 14 government leaders. The Department of External Affairs, through its good offices across the world and through our ambassadors, actively contacted the governments in all countries in which we are represented. In addition to that I had the opportunity-


Erik Nielsen: The question!


Mark R. MacGuigan: -in my travels in the last month to discuss this with quite a number of western and Third World leaders-


An hon. Member:: How many did you convince?


Mark R. MacGuigan: -including the Mexican foreign minister, the French foreign minister, the British and German foreign ministers and, in some cases, the opposition critics as well.


An hon. Member:: How many did you convince?


Mark R. MacGuigan: The hon. member asks how many people we convinced. Let us assume we convinced them all-all those who are going to announce. We reached a meeting of minds with many of the countries with whom we discussed the issue. We naturally like to think it was our influence that made the difference. I think we have good grounds for thinking that the role we played in this was a very fruitful one indeed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Supplementary Estimates PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


SESSIONAL BALLOTING FOR ORDER OF PRECEDENCE
Madam Speaker:: Order, please. With the permission of the House I should like to convey the following information.
On Monday, April 14, I wrote to all party whips and suggested that the sessional balloting for precedence on the notice paper for private members' motions and public bills be held Tuesday, April 22.
On April 16, I received requests from the whips asking that the date of the balloting be delayed one week. I agreed to the suggestion.
Thus, the sessional balloting for precedence on the order paper of private members' public bills and motions would be conducted by the Deputy Speaker on Tuesday, April 29, at 3.30 p.m and those bills and motions submitted before 6 p.m. on Monday, April 28, would be included.
The bills and motions would then go on the notice paper on Wednesday, April 30, and the bills could be given first reading with the usual caveat on Friday, May 2. The first private members' hour would then be held on Friday, May 2.
Is this suggestion agreeable to hon. members?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.
With the indulgence of the House I shall now proceed to the other items so that we may arrive at orders of the day for eight o'clock tonight.


MOTION FOR REFERENCE OF SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (A)
Yvon Pinard: That the Supplementary Estimates (A), 1980-1981, tabled this day, be referred to the several standing committees of the House as follows:
To the Standing Committee on Agriculture:
Agriculture Votes 25a and 35a
To the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence:
External Affairs Votes Lila, LI 2a and L51a To the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development: Indian Affairs and Northern Development Vote 5a To the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs:
Industry, Trade and Commerce Votes la and 6a To the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration: Employment and Immigration Vote L27a To the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates:
Secretary of State Vote 115a
To the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works:
Energy, Mines and Resources Votes 10a, L42a and LI07a To the Standing Committee on Transport:
Transport Votes 37a, L66a and 90a To the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs:
Veterans Affairs Vote la

April 22, 1980
The Address-Mr. Crosbie


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Madam Speaker:: Orders of the day.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, April 21, 1980, consideration of the motion of Mrs. Cote for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto (Mr. Kristiansen) (p. 226).
Madam Speaker:: It being six o'clock, 1 do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At 6.07 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. When debate was last adjourned on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) had the floor. Is the hon. member prepared to continue?


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think it is around 22 hours since I last spoke here, and I am glad I have the chance to continue my remarks. I know that if I need to go over the 30-minute time limit, because we extended the courtesy to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen), the House will extend to me the same courtesy so that I can finish my remarks.
Of course, I am not as full of fire and vigour as I was 22 hours ago. It really spoils a speech to be interrupted for 22 hours in between. Not only that, the Minister of Finance is now on his way to West Germany, having escaped the confines of this House. He will be gone for the rest of the week, so it is hard to get indignant.
To come back to this situation, we have had a major budget statement by him on financial matters if we listened to the Minister of Finance today arguing a point of privilege that arose. But there was nothing on energy. That whole subject has been left open. That is all to be solved in the near future. We have the spectacle of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), who had some of his officials issue statements several days ago trying to show that the projected increase in oil prices in the next four years under the Progressive Conservative policy was going to be much more than the
public had ever realized before; it was going to be much greater than $4 a barrel this year and $4.50 a barrel in the next three years. This was going to open up limitless possibilities for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and this government to reach an agreement with Alberta where the increases could be $6, $7, $8 or $10, and hon. members will still be keeping to their commitment to a lower price for oil than we had made, using the fact that by January 1, 1983, we were prepared to go to 75 per cent of the international price or the Chicago price, whichever was lower, and, by January 1, 1984, to 85 per cent.
1 will just remind those hon. gentlemen that 1980, 1981 and 1982 were years that were not affected by those provisions at all so that there is no question about $4 and $4.50 a barrel. There is no way for them to avoid their obligations in 1980, 1981 and 1982 to keep prices of gasoline and oil products in this country lower than those increases. The minister did not deal with that at all.
The government is sending the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to negotiate this delicate subject with the government of Alberta. As I said in an interview last Saturday, it is like sending a mongoose to trade with a snake. The only thing that can result from all of that is a mortal struggle, because the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is going to be a man who drives anybody he is negotiating with into a positive frenzy of opposition to whatever he suggests. But this too is not dealt with in the statement of last night.
There is a $5.19 billion deficit in the current account in the balance of international trade in 1979. That has been forgotten about and not mentioned. We have a net foreign debt in Canada of $69 billion. It is double that, but when one takes out foreign investment abroad it is a net of $69 billion at the end of 1979.
In 1979 we had a net outflow of interest and dividends of $5.2 billion in this country. That is not dealt with in this purported budget statement of the Minister of Finance last night.
We have a situation in Canada of people who know and people who do not know. The people who do not know are widows, those connected with estates, and young children. But those who know anything about interest rates and what they should get for their money are cashing in their Canada Savings Bonds. We have a situation where $17.89 billion of the total debt of the Government of Canada, of the internal debt of $70.6 billion, is in the form of Canada Savings Bonds. Except for the fact that many people do not know the difference, the people unlearned, the people not wise in the way of the financial world, the widows, the children and the innocents, most of these bonds would be cashed in.
Those who have any knowledge at all of financial matters are cashing in their Canada Savings Bonds because 12 per cent interest is not high enough in today's circumstances for a lender of money. There was no mention of that problem in the statement of the Minister of Finance.
April 22, 1980

The Minister of Finance is like the old ancient mariner- Alone, alone, all, all alone; Alone on a wide, wide sea!-that is the Minister of Finance, a crafty old bird with an albatross around his neck. Who is the albatross?


An hon. Member:: Trudeau.


John Carnell Crosbie: The albatross is the faded gentleman with a faded flower sitting next to him, and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) who sits two seats down from him-tattle-tale Gray.
Alone, alone, all, all alone; Alone on a wide, wide sea!


An hon. Member:: All alone, John.


An hon. Member:: Where are they, John?


John Carnell Crosbie: This motley crew elected by the people of Canada to form a government for the next four or five years-


An hon. Member:: God help us.


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes, God help us-took the responsibility to defeat our budget, a co-ordinated approach to economic problem solving in Canada. They defeated a budget that took a long view that aimed to defeat inflation, that dealt with oil prices and energy issues, that stressed building up the private wealth creating sector of this country. They defeated all of that. When they came back to this House they brought in a ruptured version of that budget and presented it to the House last night. It is a ruptured duck of a budget. We have a Minister of Finance who cannot squawk for himself; he has to steal from somebody else.


An hon. Member:: Look where it got you, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: I would not tell you what I have got compared to you hon. gentlemen. It is in the same area, I can assure you.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: I know that we cannot expect the hon. gentlemen opposite to take these matters seriously. It is only the ruination of the economic system of our country.
I want to refer to an analysis made by the C.D. Howe Institute. I do not want to quote our own expertise-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: I want to quote from an independent source.


An hon. Member:: You have given up on that.


John Carnell Crosbie: We have two splendid representatives of New Brunswick here tonight. We can hear them squawking in the background. The albatrosses have woken up.
This is what the C.D. Howe Institute reported. I quote from their 1980 policy review which appeared in The Ottawa Journal for March 10.
The Address-Mr. Crosbie
Energy consumption is being encouraged by prices that are well below the cost of providing an adequate and secure energy supply base for the future. Debts are being increased at home and abroad to finance current public and private consumption. As a result, future generations will have to service and repay them.
That is the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite. They don't care. The hell with tomorrow. Let future generations pay.
They go on to say:
Throughout its history Canada has been exposed to, and strongly influenced by economic events in the United States and abroad, but during the 1970s it followed a course that was remarkably independent.
The 1970s when this tribe across the hall was in power. It goes on to say:
Unfortunately many of these policies turned out to be unsustainable,-
They certainly did.
-in fact they had contributed to a serious increase in Canada's vulnerability by the end of the decade.
They certainly did.
Canadian economic policy decisions became dominated by the need to sustain inflows of foreign capital to finance the fiscal and current account deficits.
Inflows of foreign capital. That is why we hear governor Bouey say we have no choice but to follow American interest rates, because the hon. crowd opposite for ten years followed those disastrous policies and put us in that position to finance the fiscal and current account deficits.
In effect, Canadian policies were dictated, in whole or in part, by decisions being made outside the country-decisions that were clearly determined by the interests of the OPEC countries or the United States.
That is what got us where we are today.
Then hon. gentlemen opposite had the gall to say they were going to have a made-in-Canada interest policy. They were going to have a made-in-Canada finance policy. The Minister of Finance admitted a few days ago that he is completely helpless-Samson shorn of his locks. He is helpless in the hands of the United States because of their past policies.
I go on with the C.D. Howe Institute:
The most obvious way to stop the use of foreign borrowing to finance current consumption is to increase domestic saving, and one method of doing so is to reduce the size of the fiscal deficit.
The size of the fiscal deficit, according to the statement last night, has been allowed to increase $3.5 billion.
Further on in their policy review they state:
The imbalances that have emerged in oil supply and demand, the federal fiscal deficit, and the current account are interconnected. The unfavourable trends in these three areas are generally not self-correcting; they can be altered only by deliberate policy actions. Most of the policy actions needed to turn these trends around will inevitably have immediate effects that are perverse-they will tend to increase inflationary pressures and dampen economic growth.
Yet there is a clear pay-off in the medium term.
I wish hon. gentlemen opposite would read this article. Medium term, that is what we were aiming for in our budget. We wanted to get Canada back on the track. We knew we had to aim for the medium term. However, hon. gentlemen opposite do not care about the medium term. They care about being in power now. They do not care what it takes to get them

April 22, 1980
The Address-Mr. Crosbie
in power and they do not care what it does to the country to stay in power. Well, that is the difference between us. We are hopeful that some time during the present century this medium-term approach is going to be successful.
Let us look at what the financial critic of the opposition said on February 4, before he learned he was not going to be in finance any longer. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said:
I don't think that allowing the dollar to have some downward adjustment would do as much harm to our economy as our present high level of interest rates.
That is what the minister said in the Toronto Sun of February 4-let the dollar go down, don't keep interest rates high, that is doing us more harm. That was his statement and his theory.
What does the governor of the Bank of Canada say? He made a speech a week or so ago, and the governor is backed up by the present Minister of Finance. On April 8 in Winnipeg, at page 10 of his speech, he was discussing this issue, should we let interest rates in Canada go lower and the dollar decline in value. He said:
Instead of merely trading off a lower Canadian dollar in exchange for lower interest rates, we would quickly find ourselves faced with more rapid exchange rate depreciation, more rapid inflation, and before long with even higher interest rates; in short, our economic problems would quickly get worse. To believe otherwise is merely wishful thinking.
The governor of the Bank of Canada said that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is a wishful thinker. On what side does the present Minister of Finance come down? Well, he comes down on the side of brother Bouey. He does not come down on the side of his colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Not likely! He agrees with governor Bouey as to what the result of those actions would be. Here is what the minister said on page 9 of his statement last night:
Canadian consumers would have suffered even more from higher import prices if we had not allowed our interest rates to rise and thereby checked the decline in the exchange rate for our dollar.
These two gentlemen exist in the same cabinet. One of them says that if interest rates should go down and the dollar decline with it, it does not matter. That is what he said when he was in opposition. He said it in February. The Minister of Finance says he suffers from wishful thinking, that if we had done that, if we had not allowed the interest rates to rise and check the decline in the exchange rate for the dollar, Canadian consumers would have suffered more.
Who is right? Is it the man now in charge of saving Chrysler, the Chrysler saviour, the second comer for Chrysler, or is it the Minister of Finance? The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is being kept busy at the moment trying to save Chrysler. He is going for the winner. That is his new industrial strategy, go for the winners, the corporations that have lost billions and have misjudged the market and have done all the wrong things. Go for the winners. That is his new policy. If you come from Windsor and have a plant there, you are a winner no matter what you lost in the past. That is what he is doing at the moment.
These are the hon. gentlemen who are presenting a coordinated approach to overcome the economic problems of the Canadian people. When the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) was in opposition and sat on this side, how he made the welkin ring against higher interest rates. He said, as reported in Hansard of November 6:
-that if there is a requirement to raise interest rates, there is an equal requirement to help those people who are hurt by those interest rate increases.
He is the same man who fought against our mortgage interest and property tax plan to help home owners and mortgagors in Canada. Hon. gentlemen opposite fought against that plan. They would not let it go through the House of Commons. They said they are going to help renters and bring in a more equitable plan to help mortgagors and home owners. They have not brought in a thing. They have not brought in a squiggle. They have not helped anyone. They say they are going to help a few thousand of the AHOP home owners whom they enticed five years ago to go into homes they could not afford, but no one else.
The Minister of Finance says that unless you spend 30 per cent of your income on rent or mortgage payments, we are not going to help you. Imagine, 30 per cent of your income before you get help from the flint-hearted Minister of Finance. The Minister of Employment and Immigration has allowed interest rates to go up 2.2 per cent. They are only up now 1.96 per cent since these hon. gentlemen came into office. He has done nothing to help the people hurt by those interest rate increases. We no longer even hear him mention them. Those are the hon. hypocrites who are now governing this country.
Here is the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce again, old tattle-tale Gray, in Hansard of November 6:
The Liberals and I generally want action taken now to prevent the hardships this Conservative high interest rate policy is creating for millions of Canadians and their families.
Some hon. members on his side of the House "quack, quack, hear, hear". What are they doing now they are over there? We do not hear a word from any of them about the effect.


Erik Nielsen: Oink, oink!


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes, oink, oink! They all have their noses in the trough. When are we going to have him as minister of finance? He said, as reported at page 1031 of Hansard for November 6:
For some members on this side, Mr. Speaker-
Yack, yack, yack.
It means a frontier has been crossed into dangerous uncharted territory-
Yack, yack, yack.
As a result, I believe it is right and necessary for Liberals to take a new approach and a new look at interest rate policy.
Where is the new approach? Where is the new look? The Minister of Finance gets up in the House and says proudly that he is following my policy on interest rates. This is the group of interest rate muscle flexers that were going to do something about interest rates.
April 22, 1980


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It is with some regret that I must interrupt the hon. member whose time has now expired-


John Carnell Crosbie: Well, as the Irishman said, I shall conclude very shortly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: -unless with the unanimous consent of the House, he is able to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Carnell Crosbie: Only five minutes. There are other speakers to come and I do not wish to take up too much time or abuse the generosity of the House. I believe I have already demolished completely the arguments the minister put forward last night so I can conclude very shortly.


An hon. Member:: Lost your notes?


John Carnell Crosbie: Here I am. Made-in-Canada interest rates. "Wee sleekit beastie".


An hon. Member:: Go back to reading again.


John Carnell Crosbie: We have to take a reading test to be on our side. You are lucky. You don't have to take it on your side. Anyway, I am not going to read any further.


Some hon. Members:: Hooray!


John Carnell Crosbie: We shall have lots of time to deal with these matters.


An hon. Member:: Four years.


John Carnell Crosbie: I do not think it will be four years. I want to warn hon. gentlemen opposite that if they are going to send mongooses out to negotiate with snakes, it may be a lot quicker than four years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: We will win an election a lot quicker than that. They took a large gamble when they defeated our budget last December 11 and got themselves back in power again. That's a short-term gain but there's a long-term danger because the people in this country are expecting them to come forward with some economic and financial solutions to their problems, and the solutions are not contained in this truncated, ruptured duck of a budget that was brought down here last night by the Minister of Finance. The people of Canada are not satisfied to be told quietly that they are going to have .5 per cent of growth in 1980. They are not satisfied to hear that they are likely to have 10 per cent inflation. They are not satisfied to hear that their deficit is going to be over $14 billion. They are not satisfied to hear that the borrowing requirements of the government are going to be almost $12 million this year, because they know that that way lies disaster, that they are not going to recover from the present economic circumstance
The Address-Mr. Crosbie
either in North America or elsewhere here in Canada if that is the approach taken to their problems.
They are waiting now for the government to produce a rabbit out of a hat. The minister has promised them that there is going to be a painless way for him to get $3 billion or $4 billion to reduce these huge deficits, that he is somehow going to get it from the oil and gas price negotiations. Well, Mr. Speaker, he is not going to get it from the oil or gas price negotiations without splitting this country even further than it is split today, and I am thinking of the present dangers that we see in the province of Quebec. That is going ahead with the vote on May 20 and nobody appears to know how it is going to go. I may go down there myself to try to stem the tide.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Hon. gentlemen opposite do not appear to be able to stem it. I may go down there myself to put my finger in the dike. They had better look at the motes in their own eyes when they are considering that situation. If they consider themselves our saviours, they had better get to it. They are going to need more than Fridays to repair the damage which has been done over the years through their neglect, their high-handed approach to the problem. We may have to go down to pull the irons out of the fire for them.
The people of Quebec, the people of Canada are waiting to see how this government can handle the economic and financial problems of this country because they no longer have confidence that we are going to be on top no matter what. Our margin for error is declining all the time. Our margin for safety is declining. The people who are losing their homes through foreclosures are no longer so confident about the future of this country. The people who want to invest their money but who have to compete with this government to borrow a dollar at ruinous interest rates, are starting to wonder whether there is any future in the country and whether they should stay or not.
How can we persuade people in Quebec that they should stay in Canada if we cannot make a better success of our fiscal or economic affairs than we are making now? It may be that the Minister of Finance has gone to West Germany thinking he has had a coup, that he has sneaked into the House and dropped a little bit of a budget without cracking too many yolks. He got the press all excited; they published their version, and now they have gone on to something else. He may think he has done very well out of this. But he has had a very sticky start, the hon. gentleman who has been in this House for so very long. If he wants to continue stonewalling and baffle-gabbing, if he wants to get up in this House and say nothing and display his mastery of the art of saying nothing in expanded numbers of words, that is going to wear very thin for the Canadian people because a lot of them are wondering what their futures are in this country and where their next meal is coming from, where they are going to get jobs and how they are going to prosper, and how they are going to meet interest rates of 16 per cent or 17 per cent. They want these matters dealt with.

April 22, 1980
The Address-Mr. Keeper
So some time this year the Minister of Finance has got to come face to face with the consequences of his engineering our defeat last December, and those consequences include his finding $3 billion or $4 billion in revenue. And the only place he will find that is in personal income tax, in stopping the indexing or something like that. There are no magic or golden pots in which he will find it. Or he will have to go back to the excise tax, he will have to look at all the tax reductions which have been made in the last ten or 15 years during which revenue was reduced by $7.5 billion. He will have to listen to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) who has told him it is not there through cutbacks in expenditures, it must be got through increases in revenue.
At this stage we are satisfied, Mr. Speaker, that the people of the country have seen what we have proposed, not shortterm solutions but measures over three or four years to help this country. People will remember, and they are going to be waiting to see what the hon. ladies and gentlemen opposite will come up with during the rest of this year. The private sector is going to be waiting to find out whether they are going to be encouraged to do the things that have to be done to create wealth in this country. We are satisfied that when these comparisons are made, when the minister really comes in with a budget, that the one we brought in will stand a test and that, in three or four years time, the Canadian people will remember that while we may have been defeated we at least made a serious attempt to meet their problems and we were not afraid to face them even though we were in a minority, while on the other hand the majority opposite seem afraid to face the facts even though they appear safe and secure for four or five years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a real privilege for me to be speaking here in this chamber this evening. It is an honour. It is not a question of privilege-it is simply a privilege. I should like to begin by asking the Chair to convey my congratulations to Madam Speaker upon her election. 1 think it will be good both for the equality of women in this country and for the country as a whole.
My first attempt to speak in this House was interrupted by this discussion of the financial affairs of the nation, so I should like to direct a couple of comments to the so-called budget.
My understanding is that last December 12 when we had a Progressive Conservative government and this House was dealing with a budget, the NDP put forward a motion on that budget calling for lower interest rates, for a reduction in taxes, and for a stimulation of the economy. The Liberals voted for that motion, and the government fell. Last night in the first statement by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) in this Parliament, he rejected all three of those measures for dealing with the economy. It certainly was not a very promising start for the Minister of Finance and offers very little hope to the country.
I would like to begin my remarks by thanking the people who sent me here. I am thinking, in the first instance, of the voters of my riding, Winnipeg-St. James. I would like to thank all those people who worked and helped to get me elected. I would also like to have the indulgence of this House to thank the New Democratic Party for my being here, for without that party it would not have been possible for me to be here, nor would there have been any purpose for my being here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cyril Keeper: There were many political personalities who assisted me in the recent election campaign, and I am sure that all those people, whom 1 will not mention, would join me in thanking one particular political personality for having helped this seat to fall within the NDP ranks. That person is-


An hon. Member:: John Crosbie?


Cyril Keeper: -the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). To him I would like to pay particular thanks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cyril Keeper: My most deeply felt thanks for my being here tonight go to my family. I would like to thank my wife Lynne and my two boys for the sacrifices they have undertaken so that I can be here.


An hon. Member:: What are the boys' names?


Cyril Keeper: David Samuel and Edward Stanley.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cyril Keeper: Finally, by way of thanks 1 would like to thank the people of Canada for the opportunity to serve.
My riding of Winnipeg-St. James is a relatively new riding which includes part of the old riding which was represented by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and by J. S. Woodsworth before him. This riding was represented in the last House by Bob Lane, who lived in the riding, as I have, and who is a realtor and a local businessman. I know that Bob did his best to represent the people of that riding, and I hope to do my best as well.
The reason I am in politics and in this House now is that I believe democracy can be made to work. By that I mean that the will of the people can be made to be felt and that the needs of the people can be met. I believe that democracy does not just happen but that it must be made to function. That is why we are here. If we can make it function, then we hold out the possibility for the full flowering of the human person.
The riding I represent contains a great variety of people. It is an urban riding, and I would like to take note of the various groupings which exist in it. There is a fairly large number of small business people in my riding who, at the present time, are suffering from the high level of interest rates. The riding contains a considerable number of working people, both organized and unorganized, who are suffering most particularly hard from unemployment at this time. Students make up a
April 22, 1980

significant part of the population. These students attend both university and community college. Their tuition fees are too high, and their living allowances are too low. Immigrants and new citizens are in large numbers, and they seek an open immigration policy which, as we all know, can only in the final analysis be based upon a strong and vibrant economy.
Women are also a very important group. They seek not so much to be treated as men but as full and equal persons. They seek equality in the work place, and adequate family services such as child care. Public servants and armed forces personnel who live in my riding seek not to be scapegoats or to be ignored. Native Indian people-and there are a number in my riding-need their basic needs, such as housing and jobs, to be met. Franco-Manitobans seek equality and cultural affirmation. Pensioners faced with ever-rising costs of living need adequate incomes.
Home owners are faced with the spectre of exorbitant mortgage rates, and every citizen of my riding is faced with the ever rising cost of living due to continuing oil price increases and interest rates and the general lack of sensitive management of the economy.
I would like to turn my attention now to the substance of the throne speech, which is the focus of my remarks tonight. I would like to begin by mentioning the reference to the handicapped, and the amendments to the Human Rights Act which are projected therein. I must say that I welcome this item, and I urge the government to act on it expeditiously.
During the campaign I attended an all-candidates meeting on a local radio program. One citizen telephoned in and asked all three candidates if we could give the assurance that this item would be in the throne speech. 1 was not able to give that assurance, but I said that I would raise it in this debate. I am glad to see that the matter is included in the throne speech. However, being a member of the NDP and being a member of the opposition, I note that I am free to prod the government to fulfil this hope which has been offered. I am free in a way which a backbencher on the Liberal side would not be free to prod the government and, considering the entitlement of Manitoba in this administration to only one cabinet minister, another Liberal member of Parliament from Manitoba probably would not be able to move these things along at all.


An hon. Member:: Rather like a eunuch.


Cyril Keeper: Those are not my words.
I would like to say, as stated in the throne speech, that I am willing to represent my constituents to the government. I am also willing to represent the government to my constituents in the manner that that is merited, and I am sure 1 will be given every co-operation in that regard.
Another major matter in the throne speech is the whole question of our very high interest rates. The throne speech mentions protecting those most affected by such rates. It is clear now that the government does not intend to do anything about interest rates in general. Its floating bank rate policy reveals a deliberate high interest rate policy. As an alternative,
The Address-Mr. Keeper
the NDP offers a low interest rate policy. We have called for an immediate reduction in interest rates by at least two percentage points as a first step to meet this problem head on and directly.
High interest rates are not simply a problem in general. They also affect specific areas of the economy and specific needs of people. I am thinking of housing, and the throne speech mentions that the government will help people who are having the greatest difficulty with renegotiating their mortgages. It goes on to state "without a major subsidy program." That would suggest to me that the government really does not intend to do much and that its measures will be simply cosmetic.
By way of contrast, the NDP has a comprehensive and, I think, effective housing policy, and I would recommend five points in that policy to the government. I will list them. First of all, we recommend that the government restore CMHC, particularly as a direct lender providing mortgage assistance in the form of subsidies for families with incomes under $30,000. Second, we recommend that we extend federal housing programs with special emphasis on non-profit and co-op housing. Third, we recommend that we promote public land assembly to keep costs down. Fourth, we recommend that the graduated payment mortgage, which perpetuates the problems inherent in the AHOP scheme, be dropped, and lastly we recommend that a federal-provincial conference to examine problems facing tenants as well as home owners be convened. The problems facing tenants have not received sufficient attention, with all the focus that has been put on home ownership problems.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cyril Keeper: It would not be sufficient to have a good and sound housing policy only.
Before leaving the subject of housing I would like to say quite simply that without a sane energy policy there is no way people would be able to live in their homes and meet their other needs because of the rising cost of energy that will continue to make it very difficult for people to keep their homes and to meet their other needs.
In that regard I would like to say that the government must avoid any unjustifiable oil price increases. Judging from a reading of the press-in which I am sure we can place trust, at least I am willing to do so-we learn that the Liberals are beginning to back away from their commitment to lower oil prices. As well, specifically with housing itself, I read that the minister in charge of housing, the hon. member for York-Scar-borough (Mr. Cosgrove), hopes that the interest rates have peaked. I should like to say that people want more than the minister's hopes; they want effective housing policies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cyril Keeper: The whole question of interest rates demonstrates the government's attitude toward management of the

April 22, 1980
The Address-Mr. Keeper
economy. I would like to deal with high interest rates as they affect small business. It is mentioned in the throne speech that the ceiling for loans under the Small Businesses Loans Act will be raised to $100,000. I would say that that is a simple bookkeeping change, in the sense that it just takes account of inflation as it affects the size of the loan for which one would be eligible under that program. It does not affect the interest rate for small business since the rate under that program is the prime rate plus 1 per cent, and in this context we should note that business bankruptcies for the first two months of 1980, according to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, are up as compared with the same period in 1979, by 24.8 per cent. These bankruptcies are directly attributable to the very high interest rates and to poor economic management.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cyril Keeper: That is why I think that Geoff Hale, spokesman for the Canadian Organization of Small Businessmen, described the promises in the throne speech as a sick joke. Yet the government promises more. It promises other measures of assistance.
I must say that when I read the throne speech, it indicated to me, first of all, that the government itself recognized the inadequacy of simply raising the ceiling on loans for small business. It also suggested to me that the government did not know what it was doing, or at least it did not know what it was doing while it wrote the throne speech. It suggested to me that perhaps the Liberal government was going to reveal some of its unreleased portions of the election platform from the last election campaign. But 1 must say that last night's economic statement, the budget, or whatever you wish to call it, indicated that, no, it was not the election platform in the last election campaign that the Liberals failed to reveal but rather that it was borrowed from the Tory budget. The reference here to other measures must have been a reference to temporary small business development bonds. I must say that those bonds are welcome to the extent that they are an attempt to provide some relief from interest rates as they affect small business, but I think that approach to interest rates will prove to be better in theory than in practice. The theory is that small business will have access to loans at one-half of the prime rate plus 1 per cent. 1 think that practice will probably indicate that it is more likely to be above the prime rate, and of course the question is what is the purpose of the loans? I understand them to be for expansion but not for normal activities such as inventory. Also, the interest rates set under such loans are at the discretion of banks, which means that the government really does not have control over its own policies. There is no real assurance that the policy objective which the government set up in establishing these bonds will be achieved. A better approach would be sane, economic management, and a general policy of lower interest rates.
The federal government reveals itself in its throne speech and in the remarks made last night as having no effective small business policy. That is a tragedy because such a policy would, at the minimum, produce 100,000 jobs a year, as
testified to by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. The NDP, by way of contrast, does have a small business policy, and while I will not go through its details this evening, I would recommend it to the government for action.
I would like to indicate also that the rising energy costs will have a very detrimental effect on small business as well. So we must once again stress that there is no room for unjustifiable increases in oil prices, and by that I mean energy dollars which leak from the energy account, which are used by the government for other purposes than energy projects and by corporations for investments other than energy. Those kinds of increases in price are, in my view, unjustifiable and damaging to the community as a whole and to small business in particular.
The very high interest rates which we have now, also have an impact on employment. In this country and in the United States we have what is clearly recognized as a recession. The government in its throne speech mentioned that it will be expanding its employment programs which will be helpful where they apply, but I would be surprised if they are of a sufficient size to be adequate. Also, they are really no substitute for a policy and for management of the economy which would lead to full employment.
Also the throne speech makes reference to women. There is much in the speech which is worthy of praise, but also there are other parts which 1 think require closer scrutiny. The government has made a commitment to affirmative action in the public service, but it failed to mention the private sector, certainly in the throne speech. If the government has any intentions with regard to contract compliance which affects the private sector and the employment of women, it has not said that. In fact a good reading of the speech indicates that the government has no intention of doing anything in the private sector-I think that is a major failing with regard to achieving the objective of equality in the work place for women.
As well, there is no mention of providing adequate and affordable day care which obviously is also necessary if women are ever to take their full and equal place in our society.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cyril Keeper: There is mention of pensions, and whatever increase in pensions is forthcoming certainly is merited, deserves praise, and is long overdue. But I suggest that it will neither be adequate nor will it remove the many inequities which continue to exist in the area of pensions as they affect women. Women constitute a greater proportion of the unemployed than men. If the government is to have a real policy for women, then it must place a much higher priority upon things such as unemployment insurance, manpower training allowances, and outreach projects.
The Speech from the Throne mentions violence against women. The government is going to take action in this area in order to protect women against violence. I think that is a good
April 22, 1980

move, and 1 hope that the substance of the government's action lives up to its rhetoric. Certainly women today will not be satisfied with words alone but will insist upon action, action which meets their real needs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cyril Keeper: Very briefly I should like to say that the throne speech makes absolutely no mention whatsoever of the major social problems in the central areas of our cities. That is a very grave oversight. Also it says nothing with regard to the alleviation of the pressing problems of native people living in urban areas. That matter affects the quality of life of us all.
The speech made considerable reference to national unity. I would not want to deal with that matter in a partisan fashion, but I want to say a few general things about Canada because 1 think at this time it is important to remind ourselves that we can build a better Canada if we so choose. We need a country which is not torn by great gaps in wealth, either in terms of social gaps or geographic regions. Rather, we should have a country where the basic needs of all people and communities are met.
We must not have a country which is torn apart by cultural differences. Rather, we need a country which, while it stays together because of its common interests, acknowledges, appreciates, and celebrates its cultural variety, a country which rejoices in the full flowering of its people, a flowering which emerges from the freedom enjoyed by a people whose basic human needs are met. 1 am not only referring to the need for food, clothing, and shelter, but also to the need for security, the conditions for self-fulfilment such as education, recreation, and freedom of expression. Let us seek today to build a better Canada, a Canada that will stand the tests of time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State (Small Businesses)):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise in this first session of the Thirty-second Parliament, and I want to take this opportunity to extend to you and your colleagues in the Chair my most sincere congratulations and wish you well. 1 would also ask you kindly to convey to Madam Speaker, in addition to my most respectful regards, the expression of the great pleasure I as well as my colleagues in this House take in seeing her talent being put at the service of her colleagues in the House of Commons and to express also to her the great importance we attach to the fact that a woman who in recent years left her mark in the history of this country should now rank first among her peers in the House of Commons.
I also want to mention the excellent work done by the movers of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, and 1 want to thank the hon. members for Rimouski (Mrs. Cote) and Sudbury (Mr. Frith) for the generous vision they gave us of Canada and also the positive tone and pace they gave this debate in reply to the Speech from the Throne.
The Address-Mr. C. Lapointe
As you know, Mr. Speaker, our country is going through one of the most critical periods in its history. Economically, we are faced with an extremely difficult situation where, on the one hand, we have to fight at the same time the unemployment that is affecting dramatically the poorer areas of this country and, on the other hand, to take difficult monetary and fiscal measures to overcome and fight inflation.
Politically, the situation is even darker, Mr. Speaker. The very future of Canada, our country, is being threatened by the separatist views of the Parti Quebecois and its friends. The coming weeks will be decisive and the referendum scheduled for May 20 in Quebec concerns all Canadians from coast to coast and, above all, Quebeckers. This will be for us, Mr. Speaker, a fundamental choice for our collective future. Will we choose to renew our faith in Canada, to reassert that we belong to Canada, that great country that offers so many opportunities and challenges, or instead, Mr. Speaker will we choose to live isolated within narrower boundaries, because we are afraid of those Canadian challenges and because the opportunities offered leave us gasping?
That is the choice we will have to make: that is the choice of existence we are confronted with by the booby-trapped question that is put to us by the Pequiste government, whether we want to admit it or not. At this point in time, Mr. Speaker, we must ask ourselves why Canada exists, what led our forebears, the Fathers of Confederation, to sit around a single table and ask: Why should we not pool our resources? Why should we not seek the compromises and means necessary to ensure the fulfilment, the flourishing of our two peoples?
Mr. Speaker, during the discussions which led to the development of the federal agreement between 1865 and 1867, two great principles were in the foreground. These principles are the most generous and the noblest to which any human being can and must adhere. Mr. Speaker, I am speaking about sharing and generosity. These two principles, along with the courage and the tenacity of the builders of this country have made of Canada a rich and free country where it is good to live. It was not an easy task to build such a large country. Our ancestors had to face many difficulties.
Even today everything is not perfect but we can still consider ourselves one of the luckiest nations on earth. The other question that we have to ask ourselves, Mr. Speaker, is what this federal agreement has given us in the last 113 years. Not only are we living in a country with one of the highest standards of living in the world, but even more important, we are living in a country where basic freedoms are truly respected, in a country where the concepts of sharing and generosity have evolved into one of the most advanced wealth redistribution and social legislation systems in the world and in a country where our rights as a French community are respected

April 22, 1980
The Address-Mr. C. Lapointe
and where we have been able to develop culturally, economically and socially.
Mr. Speaker, we have the opportunity to take part in a great adventure for civilization. We have the opportunity to build day after day this new man born out of the contacts between two great civilizations, the French civilization and the English civilization. This new man, whose behaviour is influenced by the civilization and the way of life of the first inhabitants of this country, our native brothers, this new North American man, formed also by all the wealth brought to this country by the new Canadians who have come here from everywhere in the world, this new man, a Francophone in our case, Mr. Speaker, has the opportunity to live in the second largest country in the world, a country which has never known war, a country born out of negotiations based on a common will to live together in the spirit of sharing and generosity. Or course, all this has not always been easy and in many cases in the past, Francophones in this country have been treated unfairly. But must we enter the future backwards, with our eyes riveted on past mistakes, Mr. Speaker? Or is it not better to consider the enormous progress accomplished during the last thirty years, and build our future on what is already established?
At the present time the spokesmen for the Parti Quebecois are appearing in every forum of Quebec to try in an underhand manner to make our fellow citizens believe that the federal state, its Parliament and its government are foreign institutions. It is suggested that Quebec has always been the poor cousin of confederation and that French-speaking Canadians have constantly been exploited by the English in Canada. That is exactly what the Pequistes tried to prove in their white paper that distorts historical facts. Thus in all the speeches they make these days, culture is one of their favorite examples. They outdo one another in expressing their disgust at the federal government, this foreign power, as they like to say, which has been trying to dominate and control the French culture in Canada. How can they make such contentions, Mr. Speaker, when we know that the Canada Council, created in 1957 by the federal government, helped so many artists in Canada, in Quebec and French Canada, such as Borduas, Riopelle, Julien, Leclerc, Vignault and many others, have successful careers, develop their talents and make a name for themselves in the artistic community not only in Quebec but throughout Canada and even at the international level.
Some of those who benefited most from the Canada Council choose today not to remember. The same thing happened, Mr. Speaker, in the early fifties. You will recall that television was in its infancy and the then government had decided to endow this great country with a national television network. In 1952, Parliament decided to create the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. And in the same bill, Mr. Speaker, this government of foreigners, as the Parti Quebecois calls it, also established the Societe Radio-Canada, a corporation which enjoys an exceptional degree of financial and artistic autonomy, a corporation which through years promoted the development of French culture in Canada and the discovery of several talents in all realms of television.
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note also that in 1979, last year, 36 per cent of the budget of the whole corporation was given to Radio-Canada, the French network, and that 4,300 employees of this corporation now work in Quebec. There is another aspect, Mr. Speaker, which can exemplify the two basic principles of our federation, sharing and generosity, and that is the economic sector. With your permission, I would like to review briefly some industrial sectors of Quebec, starting with traditional industries like textiles, clothing, footwear and leather goods. What is the situation in the textile industry, Mr. Speaker? Statistics show that 48,000 employees of that Canadian industry or 51 per cent of the total Canadian work force are located in Quebec. And 45 per cent of all Quebec's textile production is sold in other Canadian provinces. In the apparel industry, 70 per cent of industrial plant is in Quebec, accounting for 66 per cent of the Canadian total. And as in the case of textiles, 47 per cent of all clothes made in Quebec are sold in other Canadian provinces.
What is the federal government doing to protect that predominantly Quebec industry that is threatened by foreign imports enjoying cheaper textiles and clothes costs? The national government acted to impose quotas on imports and increased tariff protection, which is now guaranteeing stable markets and safe jobs to the Quebec textile and clothing industries. The same goes for the leather and footwear industries. With 10,000 employees in Quebec, or 43 per cent of the total Canadian labour force in the industry, 50 per cent of all footwear and leather goods production is made in Quebec, of which 57 per cent are sold in other Canadian provinces.
The sectorial approach introduced at the federal level in 1973 greatly helped that industry. The use of tariffs and import quotas coupled with the assistance programs not only protected jobs in that industry in Quebec but also led to new job creations since 1976. One of the programs of great value for Quebec in the leather and footwear industry is the adjustment program under which businesses are offered both grants and loans at favourable interest rates. From 1974 to this day, 66 per cent of grants, and 56 per cent of loans under that program went to Quebec. The federal government also contributed in 1976 to the establishment of the Shoe and Leather Institute of Canada with headquarters in Montreal. That institute is very important for Quebec, where 50 per cent of its activities are concentrated. Mr. Speaker, these figures speak for themselves. I am deeply shocked to hear our opponents in the Parti Quebecois suggest that Quebec gets less than other provinces in government help to the textile and shoe industries.
Let's not deceive ourselves, Mr. Speaker, our fellow citizens from Calgary, Kamloops, Winnipeg or elsewhere in Canada
April 22, 1980

who buy textile and clothing, leather goods and shoes made in Quebec could buy these same items from Hong Kong, South Korea or elsewhere at a much better price. But, Mr. Speaker, as I have said previously, the very essence of Canadian federalism is sharing. That is why we want all Canadian consumers to help protect these industrial sectors which provide Quebec with many jobs. To prevent members of the Parti Quebecois from claiming this is economic terrorism or lies, and to avoid a repetition of the Premier of Quebec's statement this morning on Radio-Canada that Quebec federal MPs in Ottawa are all damned liars, I wish to quote from one of the studies the Parti Quebecois itself published in 1980, the Bonin report, entitled: A propos de l'association economique Canada-Quebec. Mr. Speaker, I am quoting from pages 417 and 418 of this report:
Shipments from Quebec to the rest of Canada originate mainly from the labour-intensive industries to which special customs tariffs are applied: food and beverages, leather, textile, hosiery, clothing, furniture. These industries are largely dependent on the Canadian market and, as is to be expected since they need special customs tariffs to survive, they do not export very much outside Canada. Should the Canada-Quebec association take the form of a free-trade zone, part of the Canadian market could be lost to some Quebec firms since Canada, in retaining its own trade policy with respect to third-party countries, would be free to shop elsewhere if conditions are more favourable.
One other point is worth raising for it could also in the short term leave Quebec with less room to manoeuvre. If these highly protected industries are labour-intensive industries (and this is possible even though they could be called "low wage" industries), it follows that a liberalization of international trade in these sectors would be detrimental to workers employed by them unless transitional measures are provided which also include adequate compensation.
It is not only the traditional sectors of the Quebec economy which benefit from being part of Canada, Mr. Speaker, and 1 would now like to refer briefly to the shipbuilding industry. Two weeks ago when I attended the launching of two ferries in the Marine Industries shipyards of Sorel, I once again had reason to feel indignant. In his speech, the Quebec transport minister stated that Quebec was not getting its fair share of shipbuilding contracts because the federal government prefers to grant subsidies to the other provinces.
Mr. Speaker, I am seriously starting to wonder if our separatist opponents are capable of reading statistics correctly and if they do not suffer from some kind of paranoia toward the federal government. If one examines what happened during the last 18 years, from 1961 to 1979, one can see that grants and subsidies contributed by the federal government for shipbuilding have amounted to $625 million for Canada as a whole. Out of this amount, Quebec received $223 million which represents more than 36 per cent of the total and out of these $223 million Marine Industries of Sorel got nearly half or $102 million. So, Mr. Speaker, when I hear people like the Quebec transport minister say that other provincs have always enjoyed preferential treatment for subsidies to shipyards, to say the least I think they are using certain figures and statements which contradict reality.
Mr. Speaker, when we look at the contracts awarded by the Department of Supply and Services for naval repairs or alterations in 1978-79, we see that these contracts totalled $38.1
The Address-Mr. C. Lapointe
million for the whole of Canada. Quebec's share of this amount was $32.2 million, or 84 per cent of all contracts. And yet, Mr. Speaker, some people have the audacity to tell us that Quebec is the poor cousin in Canada and that the federal government gives it nothing. I find this attitude quite unacceptable and it revolts me as a Quebecker and a Canadian.
Aeronautics is another sector where Quebec is far from lagging behind the other provinces. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, more than 46 per cent of the entire aeronautic industry is centred in Quebec and creates employment for about 20,000 Quebeckers. And the federal government is certainly partly responsible for this favourable situation in Quebec. You will recall that in the early seventies, when this sector of the indsutry was going through a difficult period, the then minister of industry, trade and commerce, the hon. Jean Chretien, urged the federal government to purchase the Canadair plant which at the time was employing 1,500 people. Nine years later, Mr. Speaker, Canadair employes over 6,000 people, which is due in part to the Challenger program which was heavily subsidized by the federal government.
Mr. Speaker, I have already said a few words about the textile, the shoe, the leather and the clothing industry, and about shipbuilding and aeronautics, which are all important sectors of the Quebec economy. However, there is one sector to which I would like to address myself more particularly and which concerns our very roots in this Canadian nation, and 1 am of course speaking about the agricultural sector. If there is one sector, Mr. Speaker, where the concepts of sharing and generosity apply, it is in agriculture.
One of the criticisms we hear most often is that federal agricultural policies have been more favourable to westerners, and to the detriment of easterners and especially Quebeckers. However, certain basic facts are being forgotten, Mr. Speaker. We have only to recall that western Canada has 89 million acres under cultivation compared with six million in Quebec. As for farm workers, they represent only 5.6 per cent of the work force in Quebec compared with 17 per cent in the prairies.
Although the potential of farm land in Quebec represents only 6 per cent of the total for Canada, Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that 13 per cent of all employees of the federal Department of Agriculture are stationed in Quebec. And although this farm potential is relatively small compared with the whole of Canada, Quebec receives a substantial share of federal agricultural programs. These programs tend to reflect the importance and the peculiarities of our various regions. For instance, we can mention the crop insurance program under which $10 million were paid to Quebec farmers between 1973 and 1978. The Federal Farm Credit Corporation has also helped Quebec farmers to a great extent, and for the sole fiscal year 1975-76, the federal government approved 1,116 farm loans to them, for a total of some $85 million.
318

April 22, 1980
The Address-Mr. C. Lapointe
What are we to say now about the supplementary Canada-Quebec farm development agreement which the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion has signed with the Quebec government? The purpose of this agreement is, for instance, to improve farm lands in the Montreal region and to encourage land redistribution in eastern Quebec, Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean and Abitibi-Temiscamingue. This agreement calls for some $62 million in federal contributions over a period of six years.
Still in the agricultural area, I would like to take a closer look at the dairy industry which is of capital importance to Quebec farmers. Indeed, in 1977-78, 75 per cent of Quebec farmers drew at least 60 per cent of their revenues from dairy products. The federal government is aware of that and has considered and still considers it to be most important. But there again, Mr. Speaker, I prefer to refer to that study by the Quebec government entitled A propos de I'association econo-mique Canada-Quebec and I want to quote from pages 150 and 151 the following excerpt:
It can be said that federal programs for the dairy industry are less varied than those for grain growing. Indeed, they consist almost exclusively of transfer payments to dairy producers. So the prime concern of the federal dairy policy remains the support of producers' income and marketing techniques play a lesser role than for grain. On the other hand, the dairy industry comes under a highly protectionist policy under which it enjoys privileged access to the Canadian market; the importance of liquid milk and most dairy products is subject to a quota system; certain processed products enjoy more than high custom protection (dairies, for example).
From the strict point of view of Quebec dairy producers, it would be difficult to say that the federal government's dairy policy has an unfavourable impact: nearly half the amounts spent on that policy between 1960 and 1976 were paid in Quebec, particularly in the form of payments to producers; not only did this amount represent a considerable addition to the revenues of Quebec producers, but since the creation of the CDC-
-the Canadian Dairy Commission-
-their total income has increased even more rapidly than that of Ontario producers. In addition, the Quebec milk processing industry enjoyed custom and other forms of protection. That industry sells about 25 per cent of its production to the rest of Canada and only 2 per cent abroad. However, it holds a privileged position (about 40 per cent of the added value) in the Quebec food and beverage industry.
Since in that study made by the Quebec government statistics on dairy policy did not go further than 1976, I thought it would be important and interesting to mention what happened in 1977-78. In that financial year, the federal government paid in direct subsidies to Quebec producers $128 million or 48.6 per cent of total payments to dairy producers in Canada. It means, Mr. Speaker, that in 1977-78 Quebec dairy producers received 52 per cent of federal milk subsidies, that is to say an amount of $238 million.
As concerns its contribution to the Canadian food assistance program to developing countries the province of Quebec also got its full share. In 1977-78, the Canadian International Development Agency, through the Canadian Dairy Commission bought 53.4 million tons of butter and 236.9 million tons of powdered milk in the whole country. Of those purchases, 95
per cent of the butter and 84 per cent of the powdered milk came from Quebec. Agriculture is a rather important sector of the Quebec economy and the federal government is determined to maintain its assistance to Quebec farmers.
I might continue along the same line, Mr. Speaker; as concerns grain transportation, the Parti Quebecois keeps accusing us of sending all the money out west and always fails to mention that, when we invested $100 million to help western farmers ship their grain and asked the Canadian Wheat Board and western producers to build hopper cars with those $100 million, they always fail to say that Quebec, that is to say Canadian Vickers, Marine Industries or Bombardier, gets a large part of the money for those railway cars.
The same thing holds true for VIA Rail, Mr. Speaker, since a $115 million contract was awarded by the federal government to Bombardier for the design and construction of a new, state of the art, LRC train. I could say much more on the economy, but I think that some of my colleagues want to take part in this debate, Mr. Speaker. I also think that the deceitful referendum question asked by the Parti Quebecois calls for only one answer: no, no to this dream, no to the adventure that this party wants to take us on. And this No vote, Mr. Speaker, is the only positive action we can take at this point in time. As His Excellency the Governor General mentioned in the throne speech, a No vote in the referendum, a no to the question asked by the Parti Quebecois is a Yes vote for the renewal of federalism in Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. Ordinarily I would recognize the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) who has sought the eye of the Speaker, but in view of the hour, and with the consent of the hon. member for Joliette, we would understand that he will be the first to speak tomorrow, and with the consent of hon. members I will see the clock as 9.30.


An hon. Member:: There is no debate tomorrow.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: He will be the first to speak on the next occasion for debate on the address in reply.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I understand the debate is being adjourned, but we have five minutes tonight for the hon. member.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: As I said earlier, if the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) would like to take the floor for the remaining five minutes, obviously it is his right to do so.

If the hon. member for Joliette wishes to begin his speech, he may do so.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I frankly admit that I have barely enough time to greet and congratulate you
April 22, 1980

as well as Madam Speaker and her assistants. I would also like to take advantage of those few seconds to congratulate the mover and the seconder. You pointed out that it was difficult to make a good speech, but you would expect me to do it, I am convinced, because there are problems which particularly concern me. First, however vague it may be, the throne speech deserves a few comments and 1 am also interested in order and in national unity. Under the circumstances, 1 would rather remain the first member to speak when the debate is resumed and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, as well as my colleagues, that 1 will have some relevant comments to make on those two subjects.
I would ask that the vote be taken rather than begin a speech which would not have all the impact that it deserves. This is all, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. It being 9.30 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38(4), to interrupt these proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the amendment now before the House.
The question is, therefore, on the amendment to the amendment (Mr. Kristiansen). All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Call in the members.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
It being ten o'clock, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon, pursuant to Standing Order 2(2).
At 10.02 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, April 23, 1980