1981-04-06

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I would like to introduce the following motion. Whereas the Department of National Revenue has commenced a crackdown against northern trappers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper):
That the Minister of National Revenue call to mind the attitude in the Northwest Territories toward Ottawa fur taxes ever since the days of Louis Riel, and that he think twice before levying retroactive taxes on trappers' income when these trappers do not share in the benefits of the northern remission order designed to assist public servants and employees of large corporations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43. Whereas the Canadian taxpayer is taking a beating through the action of the Canadian government in buying foreign oil at double the price of oil which could be purchased from Alberta which if bought here would, in addition, keep the money and the jobs in Canada, therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Thomson):
That the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources start negotiating for a change with the government of Alberta or, alternatively, accept the offer made by Premier Lougheed last year which would bring benefits to all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, as we all know, there are serious problems within the North American auto industry operating here in Canada. The solution to these problems has been compounded by the degree to which export vehicles are entering Canada, particularly from Japan. At the moment the United States and Japan are in the final stages of an agreement to limit Japanese auto imports to the United States. Most experts are of the opinion that this could and will cause severe problems in Canada. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the government, being aware of the likelihood of economic damage caused by Japanese autos being dumped in our market, be required to produce within thirty days its plan to deal with this urgent matter, and further, that the government consider the initiatives being taken by other countries in defence of their own workers.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that secretaries who live outside of Ontario and Quebec, in places like Cardigan, Cape Breton, Bathurst, Halifax, Newfoundland, and the west, were today not eligible to work as secretaries in External Affairs, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid):
That this House condemns the Grit cabinet for its numerous gross violations of the mobility rights of Canadians and, in particular, its failure to allow any secretary, living anywhere in Canada, the opportunity to compete for a job in one of our diplomatic missions, to serve Canada in other countries.

April 6, 1981


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the national energy policy is in complete chaos and has proven a national disaster; and whereas it is essential a policy be devised which will provide Canadians with a secure supply of energy and the rapid development of Canadian oil and gas to provide jobs and incomes for Canadians across this land, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
First, that the government move immediately to rescind its national energy policy. Second, that an all-party special committee of Parliament be formed with power to hold hearings in the maritimes, in central and northern Canada and in the west, with the oil industry and other interested and involved Canadians, in order to establish a rational and reasonable national energy policy which will work.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of some urgency. In light of the fact that Treasury Board is pressuring several government departments and agencies to increase the number of scientists on staff on the basis of artificial language criteria, and because the Department of Agriculture, in response to that pressure, has indicated it plans to pay francophones to return to school until they can qualify for research jobs, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis):
That the government be condemned for using quotas to exclude naturally developing expertise in the field of scientific research, and for continuing to drive talented people out of government service and out of the country.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. David Smith (Don Valley East):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the failure to agree on constitutional reform in the past 54 years; in view of repeated efforts by the Prime Minister and the premiers to achieve a national consensus; and in view of the divisive actions being taken by the "gang of eight" premiers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Willow-dale (Mr. Peterson):
That this House reject the blackmailing tactics of the provincial cabal and urges Premier Lyon to state immediately if there is agreement by all ten provinces on an alternative to the constitutional resolution now before the House, and to state the terms of such an agreement.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity especially to the small independent community newspapers across Canada. Unlike other countries which use their taxes to encourage the growth and development of independent newspapers, the government's Bill C-57 will have an adverse effect on those small newspapers which best reflect the views and personality of Canadian communities. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That this House request the Minister of Finance to amend those sections of Bill C-57 which place serious financial burdens on Canada's small independently owned newspapers.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HEALTH RESOURCES FUND
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In the past two elections the Grits have supposedly been very concerned -with the amount of medical research grants being allotted and the manner in which they
April 6, 1981

were being distributed by the provinces. Now the Liberal government is decreasing these grants by over 10 per cent, which will result in a 33 per cent drop in the number of research projects carried out in Manitoba. In light of this hypocritical stance taken by Liberal members, both in Manitoba and throughout the country, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That the Liberal government immediately restore the health research grants to the level which had been promised earlier in the year and show themselves, at least in this regard, not to be worthy of the label "hypogrit".


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCES SUGGESTED INITIATIVE BY PRIME MINISTER-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The Prime Minister, together with the government House leader, had an extensive meeting with the House leader of the New Democratic Party after the vote on Thursday night. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling):
That the Prime Minister show the same initiative and aggressiveness and desire in meeting with the provincial premiers as he does with the House leader of the New Democratic Party.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In his book "Federalism and the French Canadians", the Prime Minister quoted Jefferson as follows: "Nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and inalienable rights of man." Then, in his own words, he wrote: "Nevertheless, I have always wished to assure myself that the changes would be for the best and not for the worst." Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer):
That we have seen the worst and it would be for the best if the Prime Minister would accept the invitation of the premiers to sit down with them on April 16
Oral Questions
and reason out the impasse which separates Ottawa and the provinces and, in the interim, adjourn the debate on the Constitution.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MARINE TRANSPORT
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) is preparing to lift the environmental moratorium on the B.C. coast, and in view of the fact that this will jeopardize both Canada's international position on west coast tanker traffic and open the coast to oil and gas drilling prior to appropriate consultation with British Columbians, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly):
That the Thompson inquiry be immediately reactivated with a mandate to hold a public inquiry into tanker traffic, oil and gas ports, and the proposed drilling activity under Bill C-48.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister, who on Friday received a telex from Premier Lyon, the chairman of the provincial premiers conference, indicating that eight of the provinces have negotiated and come to an agreement on what Premier Lyon describes as a new Canadian patriation plan, including an amending formula. The premier went on to ask that the Prime Minister suspend parliamentary consideration of the resolution and agree to join the provincial premiers at the conference table to achieve the goal of a made-in-Canada Constitution.

April 6, 1981
Oral Questions
My question to the Prime Minister is whether he will respond positively to that very positive initiative taken by eight provinces, adjourn the debate on the matter in the House of Commons, and meet the premiers to discuss a made-in-Canada Constitution.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, the short answer is no. The longer answer is that I still continue to entertain very grave doubts about the veracity of the statement that they have reached agreement. We have been told that many times before. The agreement has never been forthcoming.
In this particular case we know from Mr. Ryan that he would not attend such a meeting. I presume he has not been consulted on the formula. Mr. Ryan is the leader of the party which, just last week, the Leader of the Opposition was saying would presumably win the election.
We know from Mr. Levesque that he has seen some vague draft, but I am convinced that if he had seen anything which is near to an agreement he would be making it public, as would be his duty during a provincial election campaign, so that the people would know if it is good for them and the people of Canada, or if it is just another bluff on the part of the premiers.


REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT OF DEBATE ON CONSTITUTIONAL RESOLUTION
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I must express not only regret at the Prime Minister's response but at the tone of that response, in which he calls into question the veracity of the eight provincial premiers of the country who have worked through the summer, worked through the winter, and sent a telex to him. I think that indicates Canada has reached a new low in federal-provincial relations caused by the unreasonable position taken by the Prime Minister of Canada.
The question I have for the Prime Minister is this. Will he at least consider delaying and adjourning debate in this House on the constitutional resolution until the people of Quebec have the opportunity to elect a government on April 13, and then be prepared to discuss with the seven other premiers and whatever party forms the government of the province of Quebec the possibility of meeting, so that we can discuss and resolve here in Canada this Canadian question in a Canadian way of agreement, rather than aggravating and deepening the differences in Canada by the Prime Minister pursuing his own path and standing up in the House of Commons to insult the integrity of eight provincial premiers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, once again we have the key strategy of the Tory party in this question. Once again the Leader of the Opposition wants delay. First it was delay because of the substance, then it was delay because of the process, then it was delay because of the courts, and now it is delay because of the premiers. It has been quite clear that that is the only capacity
of the Tory party for decision. It is not to make up its mind, it is to seek delay.
If anything characterizes this Parliament and this House of Commons, it is that it must take its responsibility for its actions. When a former leader of that party used to call this the supreme court-Parliament-he was following a valid doctrine in political theory and in parliamentary terms, Certainly he would not have suggested that this House not take its responsibility when faced with a serious question like that and wait for the premiers or for the courts to give us their blessing.


POSITION TAKEN BY PRIME MINISTER ON TIMING OF FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL MEETINGS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the purpose of this party, and I would hope of this Parliament, is to keep this country Canada together and not to drive it apart through unilateral, stubborn action on the part of the Prime Minister.
May I ask the Prime Minister whether it is his position that the Government of Canada will under no circumstances meet with provincial premiers to discuss a Canadian way to bring our Constitution home and to amend it here, until his personal resolution has been rammed through the House of Commons by whatever means?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Is that the position of the Government of Canada, that there will be no discussion until he has had his way with his resolution?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the expression "rammed through the House" seems a little bit hyperbolic when one realizes we have been debating this very subject for six months; that is hardly a ramming procedure. It has given six months to the premiers in order to come up with a resolution or some kind of a suggestion. Now they are telling us to wait again, and the Tory leader is supporting them.
The question was: would I meet with the premiers? I have pointed out that the resolution before the House provides for two years of meetings to find an amending formula which would be the result of a consensus between the premiers and the Government of Canada; two years to do that. If the premiers have indeed made some progress, which I continue to think unlikely or implausible, they could tell us now. We could, within days of having our own Constitution in Canada, convene that meeting. We could use the formula provided in the resolution to have whatever amending formula we could all agree upon. Failing agreement, we could have the people decide on the differences of opinion between some premiers and the federal government and some other premiers. So the meeting, if indeed it is fruitful, will not be lost, because we will meet with them as soon as we have our Constitution, and get
April 6, 1981

this magic amending formula which they say will be good for Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, let me be clear about this question which goes to the heart of our ability to exist and to prevail as a nation. Has the Prime Minister of Canada ruled out absolutely the possibility of any meeting with the premiers of the country to discuss a patriation package and an amending formula before his own personal resolution is passed by the House of Commons?


Some hon. Members:: Personal?


Some hon. Members:: Yes or no?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I do not know why the Leader of the Opposition persists in caricaturing this resolution. It is the result of months of deliberation by a joint committee of both Houses.


An hon. Member:: Organized by you.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member's own members sat on that committee. Hon. members opposite brought various amendments to the charter. That charter is the product of many months of deliberation. Most parties and members of the House supported those amendments. How can the Leader of the Opposition say that it is my own privilege?


Charles Joseph Clark: Answer the question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What I am saying is that it is something the people of Canada want; the spokesman of the Tory party in the joint committee said the people of Canada want a charter. It is something the premiers say they do not want.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I see the Leader of the Opposition indicates skepticism.


Charles Joseph Clark: I am wondering whether you will answer my question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is quite clear that Premier Lyon does not want a charter of rights. It is quite clear that Premier Peckford does not want a charter of rights if it includes mobility rights. It is quite clear that Mr. Ryan-Mr. Levesque does not-


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have answered the question. I have said that we would meet with them after we had our Constitution in Canada.


Charles Joseph Clark: And not before?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: And not before.


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


PROCEDURE RELATING TO CONDUCT OF FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. No matter what are the differences in the House or in the country, I think there is a certain manner in which all of us expect federal-provincial relations to be conducted; not by raising the veracity of the other partners in confederation, nor having them described as a cabal or a gang of eight by one of the members of the government back row.
In view of the fact that the Prime Minister has now rejected meeting with the premiers, despite the formal request by the chairman of the premiers, has the Prime Minister replied formally to the premiers that he will not meet with them? Has he given them the reasons why he will not meet with them, or are federal-provincial relations now to be conducted by press comment, media assessment or, for that matter, by comments made from abroad?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the opposition seems to make much of the statement that I doubted the veracity of the premiers in saying they had reached agreement. If they had reached agreement, can the hon. member opposite tell me why they would not make it public now? Or are they too only seeking delay in order to make up their minds, which is the position of the party opposite?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, obviously the Prime Minister does not intend to answer the question I asked him.


Mr. Lalonde:: Why not make it public?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The message was sent to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. He can reply. He should.


DETAILS OF PROVINCIAL PREMIERS' PROPOSAL
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice is charged with the responsibility of federal-provincial relations, in the cabinet. In view of the fact that he made the statement at the weekend that he would be surprised that this party would welcome the initiative of the premiers and "We did not know the details of the proposal," why would he then reject the proposal if he himself does not know the details?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, we are dealing with a purely hypothetical situation. I suspect that some of the premiers have no interest in making the formula-if they have one-public at this time because of upcoming elections. 1 do not want to deal with a hypothetical question. I dealt with ministers three months on this question, and I have no reason to believe now that there will be agreement among the eight
8982

April 6, 1981
Oral Questions
premiers. They could not agree in the summer. We explored all avenues. The checkerboard proposition they made was not even accepted by the hon. member in the committee because he proposed another type of amending formula which was completely different from the Vancouver formula. I am quite sure there will be no such thing.
What disappoints me most in the statement of Premier Lyon is that he did not refer at all to the charter of rights. That is something which a great majority of members of this House believe we should have. They believe we should have a charter of rights which will give exactly the same rights to all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the President of the Treasury Board. In some ways it follows the statement of the Minister of Justice about a charter of rights for all Canadians.
Earlier today the Canadian Labour Congress in a paper entitled "A Strategy for Workplace Health and Safety in the 1980s" called for changes to Part IV of the Canada Labour Code. On page 7 of that report it says:
The proposed new legislation must apply equally and without any reservations to all workplaces and undertakings in the federal jurisdiction. Activities such as uranium mining and processing, the entire transportation sector, or the federal civil service are examples of undertakings which must be included without exception under the coverage of the new law.
With that and the recent statement of the Minister of Justice in mind, is the President of the Treasury Board willing to guarantee that federal civil servants will come under any new legislation under Part IV of the Canada Labour Code?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: No, Madam Speaker, I would not give such a guarantee, but I would guarantee that the protection enjoyed by federal civil servants will be at least equal to, if not exceed, that provided by Part IV of the Canada Labour Code.


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR PUBLIC SERVANTS
Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, the problem is that the present system does not provide protection. Protective clothing is not required for meat inspectors in Agriculture Canada. There are three lab technicians who have liver damage. They are being told to be careful. There is the infamous example of Les Terrasses de la Chaudiere, where asbestos and formaldehyde have been found in the atmosphere but, because of overlap and lack of guidelines, the workers there are calling it "Les Terrasses of Shoddy Air." That is what is happening. We cannot trust directives.
I ask the minister to consider putting public servants under Part IV of the Canada Labour Code in the same way that government workers come under Canadian human rights legislation at the present time, because it is only through legislation that they will have the real guarantee of protection. I ask the minister to consider that very seriously.


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I am obviously prepared to consider anything which will provide better protection for federal public servants, but the statistical data I have seen-unless the hon. member has something contrary to what I have seen-indicate that the accidents and hazards suffered by federal public servants are considerably fewer than those suffered in other sectors covered by Part IV of the Canada Labour Code. In any event, of course, I am prepared to consider it, if it would provide better protection for federal public servants.


HEALTH AND SAFETY
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: My question, Madam Speaker, is a supplementary one but I will direct it to the Prime Minister, if I can get his attention. Given the fact that the Minister of Labour has been trying unsuccessfully since August of 1980 to reach a consensus with his cabinet colleagues over the consolidation of federal occupational health and safety jurisdiction, will the Prime Minister undertake to guarantee that all aspects of occupational health and safety, after Part IV of the Labour Code is amended, will be under the sole jurisdiction of Labour Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I will be happy to consider this suggestion.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The entire western world is concerned with the mounting threat of a Soviet invasion of Poland. East German news sources have reported on a continuing build-up of Soviet forces in and around Poland, and at the meeting of the Warsaw Pact countries this morning mention was made and the prospect was raised of a Soviet invasion. Given this tense situation, I should like to ask the minister how he intends to carry out his undertaking made in this House on December 15 when he said:
The government's policy is clearly one that there will be a strong and appropriate reaction to any intensification of the crisis with respect to Poland.
April 6, 1981

Does the minister consider that there has been an intensification of the crisis since he made that statement and, if so, what is the strong and appropriate reaction which he said in December would be the government's response and the government's policy in the face of this intensification?
Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Madam Speaker, the situation around Poland is indeed a serious one and we are most concerned about it. We are in very close touch with our allies with respect to the situation. As the hon. member well knows, in my comments in December the word "intensification" was used in that context to refer to an actual interference by the Soviet Union, or by other countries, in the affairs of Poland. We are consulting with our allies on all the situations which may occur, but we do believe and trust that all countries will allow Poland to settle her own problems in peace.


EXTENSION OF SOVIET TROOP MANOEUVRES
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, I had asked the minister if he had considered whether there was any intensification of the crisis, as has been stated by his counterpart, the foreign minister of West Germany, in his statements of last week to the Soviet Union, and as has been stated by other members of the NATO alliance. However, the minister has not answered whether or not the government believes there is any intensification of the crisis at present.
I would like to ask him another question with regard to the statement he made last week on March 23, when he said:
Soviet troops are not present at this time because of any disposition relating to the present problem, but because of their normal manoeuvres at this time of the
year.
Since then, the manoeuvres have been extended indefinitely and there has been a very real increase in the number of Soviet troops along the border. I would like to ask the minister if he has been personally in touch with any Soviet officials to convey Canada's concern about this problem, a threat not only to Poland but to world peace, as his counterpart, the foreign minister of West Germany has done, or does he still believe that these manoeuvres taking place within Poland are really the ordinary and normal manoeuvres that are carried out at this time of the year?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the continuation of the manoeuvres, as the hon. member's question would suggest, is indeed a new factor, and that is one of the factors, of course, that has given us cause, along with our allies, for considerable concern. But I must say that I do not think the interests of world peace would be served by any tub thumping or brinkmanship by Canada at this time.
Oral Questions PUBLIC ARCHIVES


REPORTED WITHDRAWAL OF PAPERS AND DOCUMENTS
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, since last Tuesday I have been attempting to ask some questions of the minister responsible for the national archives, namely, the Secretary of State, who seems to have the bad habit of coming into the House for a few minutes at question period and then leaving, which effectively blocks our questions. In the interest of ministerial accountability, however, I will ask the Acting Secretary of State my question in the hope that, if nothing else, I can eventually obtain an answer from the minister responsible.
Over the last month several responsible individuals, and the week before last the Canadian Historical Association, made the allegation that a large number of papers and documents have been withdrawn from the Public Archives by bureaucrats and civil servants. My question to the acting minister is whether this is true, whether actually a large number of documents have been withdrawn from the archives, and is it really possible for civil servants on their own to withdraw government documentation placed in the Public Archives for safekeeping?


Mr. Peter Stollery (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I should like to inform the hon. member that only a week ago the Association of Archivists appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to give evidence on the access to information bill, but that subject was not brought to the attention of the committee. However, I will look into it and report back to the hon. member.


TASCHEREAU ROYAL COMMISSION PAPERS AND MACKENZIE KING DIARIES
Allan Frederick Lawrence: I hope the eventual answers will be given in the House by a minister who is responsible.
I will ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question, in the absence of the minister. Apparently major portions of the same chronological period are coincidentally missing from the Taschereau royal commission papers and the diaries of Mackenzie King. They both happen to cover exactly the same period. We were led to believe that both of them had been placed in the archives for safekeeping. My question to the Prime Minister is whether there has been a determined search within the government and within Public Archives for those papers; is there not a record of what was deposited and what was there, and is there any record that any of these papers have been withdrawn from the archives and, if so, by whom?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I have been informed that there has been a search and that it has been fruitless thus far. As to the other aspects of the question, I will have to take notice of them; I do not know the answer.

April 6, 1981
Oral Questions PENSIONS


REQUEST FOR INCREASE IN OAS AND GIS BENEFITS
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The minister recognizes that hundreds of thousands of Canadians are spending their retirement years in poverty, particularly single women, and this simply cannot wait until the pension system is reformed, as everyone agrees it should be. Will the minister agree to increase OAS and GIS pension payments immediately by appropriate amounts, to correct what everyone knows and what the Prime Minister has said is not tolerable in a nation which believes in social justice?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I have already indicated, both at the pensions conference last week and in the House on Friday, that the government recognizes that more needs to be done in certain areas, particularly with respect to single pensioners who at present are not living at the same standard of living as, say, married pensioners. That is high priority, and it will be dealt with as soon as fiscal and economic circumstances will permit the government to do so.


GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING EXPENDITURES
Neil Young: I have a supplementary question for the same minister. The minister has said that pension reforms can only be made if the economic health of the nation permits such changes. It is estimated that it will cost $100 million to bring those pensioners above the poverty line. I want to ask the minister if he will consider shifting his spending priorities so that pension increases can be made now, for example by cancelling the government's advertising budget of $60 million a year, which is to be increased by a further amount this year.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, in the budget we clearly indicated our priorities. We have increased the outlays of the government in the general field of economic development, which I believe is very relevant in the present circumstances. I assure the hon. member that unless we do experience a strong economy it will not be possible to do all the things that we might wish to do in the field of social development.


FISHERIES
Miss Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. In view of the fact that the price of haddock to the fishermen in South West Nova has dropped from 35 cents a pound to 22 cents a pound, at a time when the grounds are closed and,
supposedly, fish are scarce, will the minister immediately appoint a board composed of fishermen from the southern part of Nova Scotia, industry representatives from the small fishing companies, as well as the large ones, and an economist, to do a one-month study into this distressing situation?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, the suggestion is an interesting one. If the forces which have driven the prices down were within our control, I would be a little more relaxed about this matter. The fact is that haddock are scarce at this time in Canada but are very plentiful in another part of the world, particularly in the American fishery. The prices have been beaten down for this reason. But I will certainly look at the suggestion made by the hon. member.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. In a statement last Friday he confirmed that he had asked the RCMP Commissioner to look into ways in which his department could save dollars with respect to policing in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick. Would the minister explain his position and his actions with respect to this particular issue, and tell the House the criteria that he selected to determine that Saskatchewan, Manitoba and New Brunswick would be the recipients of the supposed cutbacks?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, that is certainly not an accurate characterization of the direction I gave to the RCMP last week. If it was reported in that way, then I am glad to have this opportunity to set the matter straight.
The Government of Canada is anxious to continue providing RCMP services to those provinces which have been using them in the past. We have been negotiating for seven months to try to reach new agreements to take effect as of last Tuesday. The negotiations have gone slower than I would have liked. Thus, the contracts expired without a new agreement.
I indicated to the provinces that we would be prepared to continue providing the services without a new cost-sharing agreement, while we try to reach a new cost-sharing agreement. British Columbia understood this and there has been an exchange of letters which has led the RCMP services to continue there while bona fide negotiations are being carried on. But when I went to work on Friday morning I received a bombshell from the Attorney General of Saskatchewan. Mr. Romanow indicated that he will only accept continued RCMP services on the basis of the cost-sharing agreement which expired. For seven months I have been saying that those terms would not be renewed, that we wanted new terms and we were willing to negotiate them.
April 6, 1981

We are willing to provide the services without an agreement, but we are not willing to continue providing services on a price unilaterally imposed by the provinces.
Some four or five other provinces have joined with Saskatchewan in insisting that services will only be accepted on the basis of the old price. At law, if you continue to provide services when the other party imposes a price, you are stuck with that price. That is not acceptable to Canada. In the next few hours I am hoping to talk to the attorneys general.
When I phoned Mr. Romanow on Friday his executive assistant told me that Mr. Romanow's schedule did not permit him to come to the telephone to speak to me about his telegram. I hope that I will meet with him in the next little while.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TERMS GOVERNING CONTINUATION OF SERVICE
Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. Can he confirm or deny that he has asked the RCMP Commissioner to look into ways in which money could be saved, specifically in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick? Can the minister also advise the House whether or not he will live up to the commitment he made to the province of New Brunswick in a telegram he sent last Monday to the attorney general of that province in which he said that his department will continue to perform normal policing functions as in the past, until a new agreement is reached?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, indeed that is the proposal I sent to New Brunswick and to all other contract provinces. The reply I received from the Attorney General of New Brunswick was that he would not accept to continue negotiating to try to reach a new agreement, but that he would accept the services of the RCMP under the old cost-sharing agreement. That is unacceptable to the Government of Canada. We want to negotiate a new agreement which, when settled, will come into effect as off last Tuesday. We will not continue to provide services on the basis of a unilaterally imposed cost-sharing agreement.


METRIC CONVERSION
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the announcement in The Canada Gazette of February 28 that the federal government intends to amend the Weights and Measures Act within 60 days, and since the retail food sector in the Hamilton-Wentworth region, at least, and presumably this applies all across the country, has only until April 28 to respond to the metric conversion deadlines, which have very severe penalties attached for non-compli-
Oral Questions
ance-this is not as the minister said in the House on March 24, that those who want to express their views have ample time to do so before 1982-will the minister consider rescinding or postponing the order if I dump on his desk a great number of negative replies from Canadians to this latest push toward forced implementation of metric before April 28?
[ Translation]


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, the deadline for sending comments on that draft regulation is the twenty-ninth of this month. I repeat, this regulation will not come into force before 1982. Between now and the end of the month I am prepared to entertain the comments and opinions of the hon. member. Since he still has a few weeks to do so I would urge him to send me his comments. I would suggest three weeks is enough time for him or the Canadian public to make all the comments they may have to make on this regulation.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. There is a suspicion on the part of Canadians-and I would ask the minister to confirm this-that the only reason these latest deadlines were published in The Canada Gazette was because the minister had to publish them, that it was a mere formality, and that it does not matter how many retailers, small businessmen and Canadian consumers respond before April 28, the Metric Commission and the minister's colleagues in the government intend to implement this unilateral decision? Will the government listen to the people of Canada and reconsider this order in council? Will he rescind it if the feeling of the people of Canada is negative toward the imposition of metric?


André Ouellet: In that field as in many others, Madam Speaker, the Progressive Conservative Party has adopted a negative approach. That party looks to the past rather than to the future. My answer to the hon. member is that in that field as in many others, the approach of the Liberal Party is to look to the future, not to the past as the Progressive Conservatives do. We will move forward in that field as in others.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In November, 1980, Canada replied to questions from the United Nations Human Rights Committee regarding the case of Sandra Lovelace. Canada indicated that legislation will be introduced in the House by mid-1981. Such legislation

April 6, 1981
Oral Questions
would end the discrimination against Indian women which now exists under the Indian Act. Last month, when I asked the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development about consultation relating to this proposed legislation, he replied- he hemmed and he hawed, and he talked about the Constitution, but he did not give any indication-


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


James Douglas Manly: Will the Canadian government honour its commitment to the United States Human Rights Committee and introduce this legislation and, if so, when will it be introduced?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, of course my colleague is much more informed about this than I am. However, I believe he would be able to inform the member that he is negotiating with the provinces, and when that process is completed we will be able to proceed with the legislation.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
James Douglas Manly: I do not
know what negotiations with the provinces have to do with this jurisdiction which comes under the federal government. My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The problems that Indian people have with discrimination under the Indian Act have been caused by federal government policies, and the federal government should help to solve these problems. Considering that many bands feel an increase in poverty will result from the readmission of Indian women and their children to band membership, will the minister introduce a program of land and financial entitlement so that band resources will be increased to the extent of their membership increase when these women and their children are reintroduced into band membership?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, as I indicated to the hon. member some time ago, we have already adopted a policy where a chief and a band council, by band council resolution, can ask me to exercise those rather extraordinary powers under the Indian Act to set aside these provisions which discriminate against status women who marry white men and lose their status. We have received some of these resolutions now, and I am acting on them. That is during a bridge period because, under the constitutional proposals before the House, within a three-year period all discrimination of this kind will automatically cease in any event.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I would do it now!


John Carr Munro: This would permit us to work matters out with the provinces, where questions of enforcement and administration will give us an opportunity to explore that problem.
Also, to answer the latter part of the question of the hon. member, with respect to the number of new people who will come on the reserves when this takes place, yes, my department and officials are looking into the implications, in terms of costs and land base, and are studying the question very thoroughly in anticipation of this eventuality.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: My question is directed to the Solicitor General, and it also deals with the problem in reaching an agreement on the use of the RCMP forces in eight provinces. Would the Solicitor General consider concluding an agreement with all ten provinces so that the two largest provinces, Ontario and Quebec, which use their own police forces, could receive compensatory payments in lieu of the benefits which are received by the other provinces?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I think there are great benefits derived for Canada when the RCMP are used by provinces as provincial police, and by the municipalities as municipal police. But it is not intended to be a cost-sharing agreement, and never has been. There is no realistic prospect of the RCMP being accepted as provincial police in either of those two provinces.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The National Energy Program has several aspects to it which will impact substantively upon several sectors of the Canadian economy, indeed, particularly on the financial community. Can the minister advise whether the government has done an analysis or an investigation? If so, can he inform this House how much capital will be required by the energy industry in the next decade, how much of such needed capital will be Canadian capital, and how much of that capital will be public capital, that is, capital required for input by the federal government?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the government has carried on a number of internal studies in this regard. However, the type of information requested by the hon. member should more properly be sought in the form of a question on the Order Paper, or I would be very happy to put it in the form of a letter, because it is very elaborate and, second, it is subject to many assump-
April 6, 1981

tions. It is of a speculative nature by necessity, since we are trying to foresee at least ten years down the line.


IMPACT ON OTHER SEGMENTS OF ECONOMY
William J. Yurko: The National Energy Program forecasts prices over a ten-year period, and that is why 1 use the ten-year time-frame. It also indicates self-sufficiency by 1990. 1 would like to ask the minister if he can give the House any assurances that the capital which will be raised will not mean a deficiency of capital in other segments of the Canadian economy, particularly mining, forestry, real estate, and the food growing industries. If there is not sufficient capital for these other industries, at the same time as we are involved in Canadianization and nationalization of the energy industry we will be involved in massive Americanization and internationalization of some of these other very key industries because of the shortage of capital in Canada.


Marc Lalonde: I am advised that I can say yes to the question of the hon. member.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. John Gamble (York North):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and arises out of his response to earlier questions, when he indicated that he did not intend to meet with the provincial premiers although they apparently requested a meeting with him. At the same time, he indicated there would be ample opportunity over the next two years, or two years after his constitutional proposal became effective. In that regard he is referring to Clause 37, which provides that the Prime Minister shall indeed convene a conference of himself and the first ministers of the provinces.
In the event that the Prime Minister will not attend a meeting requested by the provincial premiers, how does he propose to get the provincial premiers to a meeting which he, under his constitutional proposal, is obliged to call? By bringing them in chains?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I believe that the hon. member, when he referred to Section 37, meant to refer to Section 35. It came over here as 37.


Mr. Nielsen:: Two digits in crossing the floor.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There is no way of obliging the premiers to attend such a federal-provincial conference, any more than there is any way to oblige me to attend one that they would convene. They are welcome not to come if they do not want to come.
Oral Questions


John Albert Gamble: The lack of availability to attend meetings or even answer telephones has been made obvious by the response of the Solicitor General, who cannot even speak to the attorney general of the province of Saskatchewan, any more. I think if that type of thing develops, it is very destructive of the system. What the Prime Minister has just indicated is that Section 35, although it is in the resolution, may in fact be useless like so many other provisions of the resolution.
The Prime Minister has indicated that other leaders of this party have said in the past that Parliament is indeed the supreme court and that this House is the supreme court of Parliament. Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that after his constitutional resolution is adopted, that state of the law will cease to exist when the Supreme Court of Canada alone will legislate, as a consequence of its interpretation judgments, in dealing with an interpretation of the resolution which he has before this House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the preamble, the hon. member argues that Section 35 is useless. The reason Section 35 is in the resolution is so that premiers, if they wish, and if they can find a better formula than the Victoria formula, can put it to us at a federal provincial conference. That is why in an earlier answer I said we would be happy to meet with them if indeed they can find and have found a better formula. Well, an hon. member says "Why not before?" Before we must have our Constitution. If what they are worried about is an amending formula, then they have a guarantee that they can reach agreement on the amending formula and put it to us. That is what the resolution says.
What the opposition seems to be saying is that they do not want to have our Constitution until there is a national consensus. We are saying that we have tried a national consensus for 54 years and it did not work. Let us have our Constitution and then we can bring in the amending formula, if indeed it is accepted by everybody.
As to the question itself regarding the role of the courts and Parliament, it seems to me that the hon. member is under a misapprehension. What I have said is that both branches of government should be autonomous and should operate autonomously. It is our job to legislate. It is the court's job to judge whether the legislation is intra vires or ultra vires. That is the law of the land and that is the basis of Parliament. That is true in a federal system and it is even true in a unitary system, where it is obvious that parliamentarians do not go around asking themselves if the courts are going to give an okay to what they do.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: They don't?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They don't; no.


Walter David Baker: In a federal system, they do.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I have several interruptions-

April 6, 1981
Oral Questions


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. In order to facilitate matters, the Prime Minister might simply answer the question posed to him.


Charles Joseph Clark: You have insulted the premiers.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it is basic to our system that three judges, five judges, or nine judges, cannot tell us what is right. We are elected by the people. We are answerable to the people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: What about premiers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is our job to pass laws.


Mr. McGrath:: What about the premiers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is the job of the courts to judge whether these laws are intra vires or ultra vires. What the opposition has been doing is saying "We are timid fellows-"


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -"because three non-elected officials have told us that such a thing could not be done."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: And these some 90 elected members are saying "We will wait until we get permission from the courts."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: You should belong to Actors' Equity.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


CIVIL RIGHTS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General, supported not surprisingly by Quebec Liberal leader Claude Ryan, has refused to implement the legislation of the province of Quebec extending the right to vote to prisoners in federal institutions in the upcoming Quebec election.
I have before me a copy of the confidential minutes of the February ministerial conference on human rights at which the Solicitor General promised:
But for those provinces that decide to extend the right to vote in their elections to inmates over whom we have custody-I wanted to indicate that we are prepared to do everything we can to see that your law is given effect in the institutions-
Why is the Solicitor General now changing his mind and reneging on this commitment made to the province of Quebec and denying some 2,000 prisoners their fundamental democratic right to vote, as passed by the legislature of Quebec?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I stand by what I said, as quoted by the hon. member. But I am not satisfied that the system which was put forward by the province of Quebec will work within the institutions in the province of Quebec. I have indicated that I will watch with interest during the provincial election to see whether fair elections can be held with due respect to order and security without violating the privacy of particular inmates. I am not certain that it can be done. If it can be done, then I stand by my undertaking that we would be prepared in the future to accommodate any provincial legislation within federal institutions.
I indicated at the same time that the Parliament of Canada has not extended the right to vote to prisoners. That is a matter for each legislature or for Parliament to decide within the limits of its own franchise. The strong view was expressed by all but a very few of the attorneys general who were present, that inmates did not deserve the right to vote while they were incarcerated, and I agree with that.


RIGHTS OF PERSONS HELD ON REMAND
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, the minister should be aware that in the 1979 B.C. provincial election prisoners were granted the right to vote and there was no threat to security, order or whatever. The Solicitor General should also know that a study for his own department concluded "on an operational level, the problems associated with the enfranchisement of inmates are straightforward."
My supplementary question relates to another group of inmates who were denied voting rights, namely, those who were held on remand in provincial institutions during federal elections. The Solicitor General also knows these inmates are presumed to be innocent. Therefore, why does the federal government deny these inmates, presumed to be innocent, the right to vote in federal elections in violation of the Canada Elections Act?


An hon. Member:: They won't vote Liberal; that's why.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, the problem of voting during remand, when individuals are being held in provincial institutions, would be largely a problem for their custodians, the provincial governments. I will certainly look into the problem about inmates voting in provincial or federal elections when they are under remand. But the problem there is clearly not one that would be my responsibility to account for as Solicitor General.
April 6, 1981


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, as a result of an order of the House, we have settled the business of the House until tonight at ten o'clock. Therefore, is the government House leader in a position to tell us what his intentions are with respect to government business for tomorrow?


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, I will be glad to discuss this with my colleagues, the House leaders, later on this afternoon.


PRIVILEGE
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I rise concerning several notices of questions of privilege of which the Chair is now seized. There was no House leaders' meeting last Friday, but from the response of the government House leader just a minute ago it appears likely there will be one this afternoon. I ask, therefore, on behalf of all those members who have questions of privilege standing in their names, with the same exceptions I noted last Friday, that those questions also be deferred today in order to give the upcoming House leaders' meeting every possibility of success.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member gave me the assurance that he had been speaking to all hon. members who had sent me notices of questions of privilege. Usually I do not accept the statement of an hon. member speaking on behalf of all other hon. members, but if he gives me that assurance and no member in this House rises to tell me anything to the contrary, then in turn, I will say the questions of privilege can be deferred. Therefore, 1 will take them in order when we return to the normal procedure.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I did note three exceptions last Friday morning.


MR. MANLY-TYENDINAGA INDIAN RESERVE-S.O. 43 MOTION OF MR. ELLIS
James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege relating to a motion moved last Friday under the provisions of Standing Order 43 by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis). The hon. member claimed statements regarding the Mohawk Inn on the Tyendinaga reserve that I had made earlier, also under the provisions of Standing Order 43, were false. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings has good reason to be extremely sensitive about his relationship with the Tyendinaga reserve, but that sensitivity has nothing to do with the truth or the falsehood of my statements. The hon. member's statements were unfair and untrue and they affect my privilege as a member of this House. They affect my right and my responsibility to speak for my party on questions regarding Indian affairs. They reflect on the right of every member of my party to speak on issues of national importance.
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82
If I have misled the House in any way, then I believe I have reason to apologize. If I have not misled the House, then I believe the hon. member should be called on to answer my question of privilege.
Since Friday I have checked the facts regarding the Mohawk Inn situation on the Tyendinaga reserve. Andrew Clifford Maracle, Jr., the proprietor of the Mohawk Inn, has been charged under Section 97A of the Indian Act and under the liquor licensing act of Ontario with having intoxicants in his possession on the reserve. Mr. Maracle had already been acquitted on a similar charge on similar grounds by the Supreme Court of Ontario-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I have a good idea to what the hon. member is referring. I must say to him that it seems he is trying to correct some facts. There is a difference of opinion between two members as to what are the exact facts, and I am afraid I must interrupt the hon. member because this does not constitute a question of privilege. He might feel very strongly about the way another hon. member is representng some of those facts, but that is a grievance, a difference of opinion, or something other than a question of privilege. I cannot hear the hon. member further. There is no question of privilege so I must ask him not to comment further.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, April 3, consideration of Bill C-59, to provide supplementary borrowing authority, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and on the motion of Mr. Blenkarn (p. 8463).
Madam Speaker:: It being a little past three o'clock, pursuant to order made Thursday, April 2, 1981, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) at the report stage of Bill C-59, an act to provide borrowing authority.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.
Madam Speaker:: 1 declare the amendment lost.


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)) moved: that Bill C-59, to provide supplementary borrowing authority, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be concurred in.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Is the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) rising on a point of order? Of course, the hon. member knows that this is not a debatable motion. The motion is simply to concur in the bill. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Madam Speaker:: Pursuant to order made on Thursday, April 2, the bill will be read the third time later this day.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Ron Irwin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I have the honour to table the annual report of the Canadian Human Rights Commission for 1980.


PETITION
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, I have two petitions before me from my constituents in Halton. One is from the Holy Rosary parish in Milton, while the other is from Saint Andrew's parish in Oakville. I wish to present these two
April 6, 1981

petitions on behalf of 671 persons as one petition, since both deal with exactly the same subject matter. May I read just part of that petition, Madam Speaker. It reads as follows:
We, the undersigned, members of Saint Andrew's parish, Oakville, Ontario, and Holy Rosary parish, Milton, Ontario, do demand at this crucial time in our Canadian history, that our Canadian Constitution be based on the first and primary principle, the supremacy of God. Because it is God, our creator, who bestows on all mankind the gift of life, we demand that this inalienable right to life be clearly defined in our Constitution granting legal protection to all Canadians, especially the weakest and most defenceless members of Canadian society, the unborn child, and that this legal protection be granted to all from the moment of conception (fertilization) to natural death-
I believe, Madam Speaker, this petition is timely, particularly in view of the threat of closure before us. May I add my compliments to the two parishes in question for being able to collect 671 names over just one or two weekends without any apparent advertising or solicitation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[DOT] * *


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 902, 903, 1,907, 2,122, 2,128, and 2,243.


Mr. Mac Kay: 1.	What was the expenditure by the Privy Council office for the fiscal year (a) 1977-78 (b) 1978-79 (c) 1979-80, for the Commission of Inquiry concerning certain activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?
2.	What was expended for (a) legal counsel (b) non-legal investigative services?
3.	What was the total in salaries and benefits for the commissioners?
4.	What was the total expenses for (a) office accommodation (b) office administration (c) travel (d) hotel accommodation?


David Michael Collenette: 1. (a) 1977-78		$ 732,893
(b) 1978-79		$1,999,065
(c) 1979-80 2. (a) Legal counsel		$2,671,823
1977-78	$ 177,507	
1978-79	$ 577,687	
1979-80	$ 950,393	
Includes fees and expenses. (b) Investigative Services	travelling	
Order Paper Questions
1977-	78
1978-	79
1979-	80


[Stage Direction]
Includes	salaries	and	travelling
expenses.
3.	The following honoraria were paid to two commissioners. The salary of the chairman is paid by the Department of Justice pursuant to the Judges Act.
1977-	78	$	81,8541978-	79	$	168,4251979-	80	$	200,0004.	(a) Office accommodation	is	provided by the Department of Public Works without charge.(b)	Office administration1977-	78	$ 333,1631978-	79	$ 872,5721979-	80	$1,020,052(c)	and (d) Living expenses and hotel accommodation. Expenditures for hotel accommodation are not recorded separately. The figures shown exclude travelling expenses included in answer to 2 (a) and (b).1977-	78	$	58,5271978-	79	$	117,4781979-	80	$	139,446
Mr. MacKay: 1.	For the fiscal year (a) 1977-78 (b) 1978-79 (c) 1979-80, what are the names of all legal counsel engaged by the commission of inquiry concerning certain activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and for whom were they engaged?
2.	How many current and former ministers of the Crown and public servants, who were requested to appear before the commission of inquiry, were accompanied by legal counsel and, in each case, did the government provide such counsel and, if so, what was the total cost?


David Michael Collenette: I am informed by the Prime Minister's and Privy Council offices and the Ministry of the Solicitor General as follows:
1. (a), (b) and (c)
J. F. Howard, Q.C.
A. J. Campbell, Q.C. Pierre Sebastien, Q.C. Louis Leclerc Ross Goodwin John Sopinka, Q.C.
S.	N. Lederman Bruno Pateras, Q.C. Mark Paci Bryan Williams J. J. Robinette, Q.C. W.A. Kelly, Q.C.
Eleanor Cronk
Hon. Angelo E. Branca, Q.C.
Brian Crane, Q.C.
Timothy Ray Richard J. Scott, Q.C.
F. Keith Turner, Q.C.
John P. Nelligan, Q.C.
Allan M. J. Rock Eva Marszewski Yvon Tarte Simon Noel Colin McNairn
All were engaged as commission counsel.
2. Twenty-one current and former ministers of the Crown and public servants, who have been requested to appear before the commission of inquiry, have been accompanied by legal

April 6, 1981
Order Paper Questions
counsel provided for at public expense. The costs associated with this counsel to June 30, 1980 were $1,199,346. It should be noted that this figure includes the costs of the representation of the Government of Canada by counsel before the commission, which representation has been continuous from the inception of the commission.
Former ministers	$443,540.00
Government
(including representation for present and former
public servants)	$755,806.00


Mr. Beatty: 1.	Did the government exhibit Telidon at INTELCOM 80 in Los Angeles and, if not, for what reason?
2.	Was the government aware that the French videotex system, Antiope, would be exhibited at the show?
3.	Has the government any estimates of promotional budgets for competitive systems produced in other countries and, if so, what are such estimates?
4.	Since the development of Telidon, by year, what amount was budgeted for its development and promotion and what is the anticipated budget for 1981-82?
5.	What experience exists within the Department of Communications in the promotion of technological developments, of the importance of Telidon?
6.	Did the government consider transferring the responsibility for promoting Telidon to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce or to another branch of the government with the experience and budget to engage in promotional programs comparable to those of Telidon's competitors and, if so, for what reason was such a course rejected?


Peter A. Stollery: In so far as the
Department of Communications is concerned, the answer to the above question is as follows: 1. The Department of Communications did not exhibit Telidon at INTELCOM 80 because of funding and human resource limitations which restricted the department's attendance to a limited number of important trade expositions and conferences. However, much has been accomplished within the previous promotional budget. For example, there have been approximately 75 distinct promotional activities since June, 1980, including attendance at several international expositions and conferences. In addition, there have been publicity tours in the U.S.A. and West Germany and one recently completed in Australia. The department's Telidon program strategy, in conjunction with the Departments of Industry, Trade and Commerce and External Affairs, is to assist Canadian industry wherever possible within approved budgets to acquire contracts for field trials and operational Telidon systems in the U.S.A., Europe, Latin America and Australia.
2. The department was indeed aware that the French Antiope system would be exhibited. The French government is supporting Antiope with a large promotion budget which permits the exhibition of Antiope in virtually all important trade shows and conferences.
3.	It is difficult to obtain authenticated figures for the exact promotional budgets of the competing British (Prestel) and French (Antiope) systems. However, both countries have specific marketing branches in the U.S.A. called Aregon and Sofratev respectively. The science counsellor of the Canadian embassy in Washington, D.C. has estimated that the British are spending approximately $10 million to $15 million per year for the promotional activities in the U.S.A. alone and the French some $20 million per year. The respected British Organization Communications Systems and Planning Ltd. has stated that British government expenditures to date are in excess of $84 million and annual expenditures are currently running at $42 million. Equal or greater investments are being made by the British industry.
4.	At the time of the INTELCOM 80 exhibition, the department's total Telidon budget from FY 79/80 to the end of the Telidon program in FY 82/83 was $13,241 million. Since recent cabinet approval of the augmented Telidon funding, this figure will rise to $40,341 million. This amount and the portion allotted for promotion (including standards and industrial strategy) is broken down by fiscal year as follows:
FY	Total Program Budget (000's)	Promotional Budget (000's)79/80	3,298	20080/81	6,943	49581/82	19,050	1,50082/83	11,050	1,500
The promotion budget has thus been increased by some $2.35 million for FYs 81/82 and 82/83, thereby ensuring a more vigorous DOC marketing strategy. The above figures have been approved for commitment by the economic development envelope and are subject to Treasury Board approval.
5.	Within the research sector's Telidon program the promotional activities are primarily carried out by the directorate of applications development containing three permanent staff and four term employees. Its functions are to develop and implement promotional activities, to contribute to international standardization activities, to work with other groups for the development and implementation of industrial and marketing strategies, to facilitate technology transfer to industry and to identify new research and development work. Other sectors within the department contribute much to promotion as well. The international telecommunications branch of the policy sector has provided assistance in both international marketing and legal matters. The information services section of the deputy minister's office gives continuous aid in the execution of promotional exhibits. Outside the department, of course, External Affairs and Industry, Trade and Commerce provide continuing assistance. Recently a marketing-promotion committee has been established with representation from all three departments.
6.	The government has not considered transferring primary responsibility for promoting Telidon to other departments although considerable assistance is being given by the Departments of Industry, Trade and Commerce and External Affairs. The reasons relate to both experience and budget. First, the
April 6, 1981

department considers its group of technical experts which invented and developed Telidon in the first place essential for the promotion of what is still a fledgling technology which though recognized as the world's superior videotex and teletext technology is still threatened by the financially massive marketing efforts of its competitors. The contribution of these experts to promotional activities would be hampered were such activities primarily controlled by another department. Secondly, other departments do not have promotional budgets substantially greater than those of the Telidon program. Steps are being taken, however, to set up an organizational structure which will focus both government and private-industry investment in Telidon to a coherent promotional and marketing thrust internationally.


Mr. Herbert: Was a special study commissioned on the terms and conditions of foreign service from the point of view of foreign service officers and their families and, if so, has it been completed and who was responsible for the study?


David Michael Collenette: The royal commission on conditions of foreign service was appointed by order in council of August 27, 1980, PC 1980-2336, but its work has not been completed.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	Did Canada, in 1978, participate in the SEASAT U.S. surveillance satellite experiment?
2.	What were the effects of the ionosphere in Canada's auroral zone and the radar properties of the sea surface on the performance of the synthetic aperture radar being tested in the experiment?
3.	Did the experiment identify any problems which would prevent Canada from using a synthetic aperture radar for surveillance of Canadian territory?


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1. Yes.
2.	Auroral activity did not produce detectable effects on the performance of the SEASAT synthetic aperture radar (SAR). However, experiments indicated that the SAR images would be degraded during severe magnetic storms. The radar was optimized to image ocean waves and validation experiments showed the wavelengths between 100 and 500 metres and significant wave heights between 1 and 3.5 metres could be measured. Ships 100 metres long could be detected when moving slowly on a calm sea but even large ships were concealed by the sea clutter from waves during the storm. Often a ship moving at high speed could be detected only by its wake. The radar proved capable of producing usable imagery through rain and snow.
3.	The U.S. SEASAT A experiment and the Canadian surveillance satellite (SURSAT) program have demonstrated the technical feasibility of a spaceborne synthetic aperture radar system for environmental surveillance, particularly of
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82
sea ice. However, small land targets such as those associated with human activity in the Arctic require much higher spatial resolution than that provided by the SEASAT SAR. Also, it is unlikely that rapidly moving or manoeuvring targets such as aircraft would be imaged by the SEASAT radar.


Mr. McKinnon: Did the Department of National Defence place a $29,440 contract with E.A.C. Amy and Sons Limited for the preparation and carrying out of a seminar on effects of an earthquake in British Columbia and, if so (a) on what date and for what reason is the seminar to be held (b) who will be invited (c) will the results be made public?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: The Department of Supply and Services placed a $29,440 contract on behalf of Emergency Planning Canada for preparation and carrying out of a seminar on effects of an earthquake in British Columbia.
(a)	The date of the seminar is yet to be determined. The reason for the seminar is to study the appropriate method of responding to the emergency caused by an earthquake in Canada, using British Columbia as the case study.
(b)	The list of people will include federal and provincial emergency planners from across Canada.
(c)	The results of the seminar will be made public.


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


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Yvon Pinard: that Bill C-59, to provide supplementary borrowing authority, be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to address this body today on the borrowing authority bill. I would particularly like to address myself to the imposition of closure. A rose by any other name is still a rose and closure is still closure, which we know is taking place on this measure.

April 6, 1981
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82
I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that, while this House is considering a bill authorizing the borrowing of $14 billion to run government business, there exists a situation in northeastern Alberta which I can only describe as deplorable. The Bigstone band, in company with their chief, William Beaver, are on a trek from Wabasca in northeastern Alberta to Edmonton to draw attention to their plight. They are asking for financial assistance for their community so that poverty can be alleviated as well as unemployment, which reaches beyond 75 per cent.
I draw this set of circumstances to your attention, Mr. Speaker, because we have a government which has exercised no restraint whatsoever with respect to the economy. It is prepared to borrow $14 billion just to keep operating. A very small fraction of that sum of money could be used in a permanent way to aid in the alleviation of the conditions in many Indian communities, but, more particularly, the Big-stone band in Wabasca. The chief and council, indeed the people of the Bigstone band, decided on this action to draw attention to their plight after a 14-year-old girl, who looked around the community on her birthday and felt that life was no longer worth living, committed suicide. She committed suicide because of the lack of funding, lack of opportunity, lack of jobs and abject poverty that all people in the Wabasca reserve face. I find it difficult to comprehend a government which has set priorities in the way that this government has. It is borrowing $14 billion to run a government when a very small portion of that sum could begin to alleviate the suffering, inequality and lack of jobs which exist on the Bigstone Reserve.
Consider the mortality rates on the Indian reserves in comparison with the national deaths per thousand figures for each age group during the period 1973-76. In the age group one to four years, we find the mortality rate of Indian populations on reserves to be 3.1 deaths per thousand as compared to the national average of 0.8 deaths per thousand. This is over three times the national average. In the age group five to 19 years, the rate is 1.9 per thousand as compared with the national average of 0.7 deaths per thousand. Some of these deaths on Indian reserves are the result of suicide. The figures are very alarming when one looks at the age group 20 to 44 years. The mortality rate for the non,-Indian population in this age group is 1.5 per thousand, while the rate for the Indian population is six per thousand. I would like to point out that this is the age group in which men and women marry and have families.
Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, the total worthlessness a man must feel, day after day, going home to face his family and children knowing that he cannot provide for them? Can you imagine how devastating this can be to a man's or woman's ego? I find it deplorable that we are forcing our native people into this position. The government should take a minute portion of that $14 billion and aim it at alleviating poverty and creating jobs in native communities, a situation where men and women can hold up their heads and where Indian parents are able to provide for their families as every
member of this House can and, indeed, as every Canadian across our nation wants to do. There is absolutely no future for young Indian people growing up on a reserve.
I would like to outline the events of the last six months. Chief William Beaver, a very honourable man who wants to create a situation on his reserve where men can be employed and the children have an equal opportunity to that experienced elsewhere in Canada, says that he wants to reduce welfare and create jobs. The budget on the reserve was cut to a point where they had to lay off 17 workers at the sawmill. This was a project they had initiated themselves. Seventeen men had to be laid off and were forced to go on welfare. More importantly, logs were left in the bush. In northern Alberta you cannot leave logs in the bush over the winter because they rot in the muskeg. Their whole work for the winter is down the tube because there is no way those logs will survive until the summer; they will be rotted.
The doors of the band office had to be closed because there was no money to pay the workers who were all laid off. There is now one girl at the Bigstone band office who is answering the phone. All the economic programs they had designed and were working on to create employment and give a sense of pride to the Indian people of the Bigstone band have been stopped. The Bigstone band members are forced to walk 400 kilometres from their band office in northeastern Alberta to Edmonton to draw attention to their plight. For the past ten days they have been attempting to negotiate with the minister of manpower because he is responsible for such negotiations. He has been appointed as negotiator with the band but he has failed to meet with them.
On Friday the minister indicated that he was prepared to speak and negotiate with the Bigstone band. One half hour after that statement in the House of Commons, the chief got a telephone call from the regional office in Edmonton informing him that the minister was grounded in Ottawa and could not leave. Therefore, he could not sit down with them and negotiate.
I ask, where are the priorities here? The government is prepared to spend $60 million on an advertising campaign, yet a very small percentage of that amount can save lives. This march from the Wabasca area by the Bigstone band was precipitated by the death of a young girl, 14 years old, who decided on her birthday that she did not see it worth while to live in that community under conditions of abject poverty and with no future.
Not one cabinet minister from this government has said that he would be prepared to sit down with the Bigstone band chief and his council. It is a deplorable situation in Canada when elderly people, young people-I am talking particularly about them-people with arthritis, have marched 400 kilometres to bring attention to their plight. However, the very sad thing is that although they are getting some attention from the media, the attention of the government is not being focused on the problem. The government is ignoring them completely. It is
April 6, 1981

warning them: "Do not occupy offices, do not do that sort of thing, or we will not be able to deal with you". I find that to be a very sad situation indeed.
If one looks at the social support expenditures of all federal programs for native people, one finds that they are increasing dramatically in some areas. But support for economic development programs is decreasing dramatically. The Indian people in Canada do not want handouts. They do not want to be on welfare. They do not want to go home at night to face their children, knowing every day that they cannot provide for those children in the same manner as you and I, Mr. Speaker, can provide for our children. Can one imagine the very devastating effect this must have on these people who face their families every day knowing they do not have proper nourishment and that they cannot supply the basic needs of their children because they are on welfare? They want jobs. They are marching for economic equality.
Mr. Speaker, $14 billion, if we say it fast enough, looks pretty good. It is very difficult to equate what $14 billion means and what it will buy. The Wabasca band, the Bigstone band, is asking less than 1 per cent of that amount of money- 0.2 per cent. This would launch an economic development program on this reserve which is completely surrounded by the tar sands and oil companies doing exploration work. They want to be trained so they can take jobs which are now available around their area. They sit on the bridge in the summertime and watch the trucks go by day after day, through the reserve, to the in situ plants, the experimental plants which are working in the area.
They see neighbouring their reserve ranchers who are raising cattle and producing feed for their cattle, and yet they are systematically dropping further and further behind because they do not have the necessary expertise. They need training, and money is needed to provide this training. Some of the men I talked to are still surviving on trap lines and have not used welfare. However, they are now finding that their trap lines are being destroyed by the encroachment of civilization on to the reserve. There is no compensation for that. You cannot compensate a man for the loss of his business and life's work with a settlement of $10,000.
The government is doing absolutely nothing for these people. The Department of Indian Affairs is responsible for them under the treaties. In fact, all governments at the federal level have that distinct responsibility to the native people, who were the first citizens of Canada.
We must examine economic conditions surrounding reserves in Canada. I particularly ask that the government sit down and negotiate with the Bigstone band at Wabasca, the chief, and his council, so that they can do a survey on economic conditions, prepare a minerals inventory, examine job opportunities and draw up a general plan so that the people of the Bigstone band can participate in the economic development which is taking place around them.
Can anyone imagine a 14-year-old girl taking her life on her birthday because she sees absolutely no future for herself? We must address ourselves to this problem. We must develop the
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82
reserves in exactly the same way as we are prepared to support the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to help the have-not areas of the provinces.
On Saturday of last week I met with the chief and council of the Bigstone band. They were amazed that Canadians would allow some of their elderly people to walk 400 kilometers. One arthritic lady, 65 years old, walked with her grandchildren. They were amazed that there is a need in Canada to do this kind of thing before anyone will pay attention to their plight. I say that is a shame on every one of us in this House. We must do something to assist the Bigstone band gain economic equality in northeastern Alberta.
The borrowing authority bill will be passed, Mr. Speaker; and the money will be spent on a number of frivolous programs, such as the advertising program to sell the centralist view on the Constitution and on the energy program to the rest of Canada. It will be used to sell a number of ideas that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) might have. I ask that we, as the representatives of our areas, as legislators, urge the government and the cabinet to consult with the Bigstone band. I ask that the government take just a small portion of the funds being borrowed and redirect them to the Bigstone band. This would allow the band to continue its economic development so that its people can take their place in society, walk straight, be proud of their heritage and so their children can see a future for themselves.


Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) for reminding all of us in this House of the importance of the fact that there are in Canada today, and not only in his constituency, millions of Canadians living in conditions of poverty, ignored by their government and by their fellow citizens.
Since we are discussing today the fact that the government is asking for authority to borrow some $14 billion, it is very important to remember the purposes for which the money is intended and the people who are affected by the programs that have been established. In the last six months that we have been debating the Constitution, we have heard a great deal about the alienation of groups of Canadians from their government and particularly western alienation; in fact, we have heard a great deal from the hon. member for Athabasca about western alienation.
I should like to suggest that there is a deeper kind of alienation in all of Canada, and that is the very real problem that most Canadians do not have a voice in Parliament. When they see what we do here, they cannot recognize this House as a forum in which their views and concerns are being expressed. The government is so preoccupied with one question, that is, the formal arrangements under which we govern ourselves- and that is all a constitution is, the formalities of constitutional life-that it has forgotten about the fundamentals of a society. The questions are, how does a society feed itself and what do people pay for food? How does a society clothe itself and what

April 6, 1981
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82
do people pay for clothing? How does a society house itself and what do people pay for housing? Do people have jobs or not? Do we have an economic policy? When people hear us talk about monetarism and all the other subjects we talk about, they feel very remote from us. The real question is, do we have a government which is as concerned about and determined to deal with the economy and the human problems that face the average Canadian as it is with all the other matters that so obviously preoccupy it?
I say to my western friends in the House, as I have said in my own caucus, that of course there is western alienation, and for very good reason. There is a variety of reasons which go back into our history. Central Canadian financial institutions have played a dominant role and a national policy has been created which has meant that the hinterlands in the east and the west of the country were used as metropolitan centres; and, of course, that has created resentment.
I suggest there is a deeper kind of alienation at work in the country today. It applies not only to people living in Alberta or in the constituency of Athabasca, about whom the hon. member spoke so eloquently this afternoon, but even to those in my riding, which is in the very shadow of Bay Street. From my home I can look across the Don Valley and see the towers lit up at night, yet the people in my constituency are just as alienated from the large economic forces that control them and from their government. When they look to their government or to their Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), do they see a government or a Prime Minister who knows the cost of a loaf of bread? Do they see a government or a Prime Minister who responds to inflation, which is 20 per cent higher than predicted in the budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen)? Do they see a government that is prepared to act with a degree of fairness when it comes to treating the most powerful economic figures and the most vulnerable people on the same terms? Do they see a government or a Prime Minister that can respond to the broader, abstract, structural problems in our economy about which I and many members of my caucus have spoken on the few occasions when we have had the opportunity to speak on the economy in the last few months? Do we have a government which understands what it means to be unemployed, to be living in poverty, to have 60 per cent of our senior citizens living below the poverty line?
Many hon. members speak about Ontario as if it were some vast, wealthy, opulent province-as if no one in Ontario is poor, or knows what it means to be out of work. I have taken the opportunity to travel to and speak in every province, Mr. Speaker. I have talked to people all across the country. I would invite people to look behind the billboards and the so-called image of affluence which is projected from central Canada and see some of the hard realities that face every Canadian, whether they live in Ontario, Quebec, the maritimes, Newfoundland or the west.
The reality is that we have a government which does not understand the basic social and economic problems which face the average Canadian. That was the problem with the Crosbie budget. It was the budget which dealt with abstractions and
not with the problems which face the average Canadian. That is the problem with the MacEachen budget and it is the problem that we face now with the government saying, "Give us another $14 billion so we can borrow and get our house in order."
I should like to deal briefly with some of the basic problems that face the country. The request in this borrowing authority bill for $14 billion is a strange one. As consumers, we frequently face the prospect of going into a bank, a credit union or a trust company to ask whether we can borrow a lot of money, or even a small amount of money. The first question which the bank manager will ask is, "What are you doing with the money you are borrowing?" I have always compared the granting of borrowing authority with that basic question. Of course, the sums are much larger. The amount of $14 billion is almost inconceivable to the average person. It is about 20 per cent of what the government spends in a year. It is a very substantial sum of money.
Let me come back to the basic question, "What are you using this money for?" Instead of borrowing money to invest or to ensure that eventually we will be out of debt, this government's budgetary policy is to borrow money to pay for groceries.


Mr. Mayer:: Yesterday's groceries.


Bob Rae: That is the critical problem facing the government.
There are two kinds of debt. There is the budgetary deficit, money that we borrow, money which the government is asking for now, in order to pay for its own expenditures. Then because of increased imports, our balance of payments with the rest of the world is in a deficit position. That is the second kind of debt that we have.
One would have thought that the intelligent way to run the budget of Canada would be to say, "We have these two kinds of debt, and in order to get out of debt we will borrow money and invest it." That would seem to me the basic thrust of the position, taking for granted, as we do in this party, that there are occasions when it is perfectly appropriate for the government to borrow money and go into debt.
I would remind hon. members that there are times when it is perfectly appropriate for the average citizen to go into debt. For example, it is perfectly appropriate for the average citizen to go into debt to buy a house. I do not know anyone in my party who is in a position to buy a house outright. For example, I do not know anyone in my party who could go to Vancouver, where the average price of a house is $171,000, and pay for it in cash. I see the hon. member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski) is smiling. Maybe he is in a position to do that.


Mr. Paproski:: No way.


Bob Rae: He says no way.
April 6, 1981


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was enjoying the speech of the hon. member for Broadview-Green-wood (Mr. Rae), but he has raised a delicate, personal matter.
I have the same problem as any member of this Elouse who is not wealthy. I am wealthy in one way, and that is because I have a wonderful wife and family and I can look after their needs.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member has made his point very effectively.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I was just getting to my point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member about his wife and family. They are wonderful. The best part of his family is his wife and children.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bob Rae: Might I say to the hon. member that my reference was made only in fun.
There are economic decisions which we as individuals make requiring us to go into debt. When we go to the bank, the credit union or the trust company and ask to borrow, say, $5,000 for a $55,000 mortgage on a house, the lending institution will want to look at the reasonableness of the investment being made and of the request to borrow. A mortgage is probably the biggest debt most of us will ever take on, but we are taking on this debt because we want to own something and think that our investment and our equity share in it will grow.
Let us look at what the government is doing in the energy sector. The government's general economic policy does not make any kind of sense. What this government has said, and what the Conservative Party said when it was in government, is that the question of who owns our economy is not an important one. I say the real problem facing our country is that we are in a position of being, as it were, tenants in our own land. We are industrial tenants. Look at how little research and development takes place in Canada, Mr. Speaker. In the automobile industry, for example, we find we are simply tenants. We are trying to get a better deal for our automobile workers, but they work in an industry that is entirely foreign controlled. We are trying to get a better deal for people in other industries, also entirely foreign controlled. But let us not be under any illusions that we are really in an ownership position in those industries.
In the oil and gas industry, Imperial Oil is 70 per cent controlled by Exxon. That company will be totally unaffected by the government's energy policy. In fact, Imperial Oil will probably grow, for a reason which I will come to in a moment. Shell Oil is 70 per cent controlled by the international company. If we go right down the list, we can see that all of the largest actors in the oil and gas sector, with one exception, Petro-Canada, are owned and controlled by outside economic interests and we have become tenants.
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82
The oil and gas sector will grow in value and importance. This sector will be vitally important over the next five or ten years. The price of the resource will increase because of scarcity. All parties agree the price must go up. The only question is how far and how fast, and who will get the revenue. Everyone is agreed that prices are going to rise.
There are various ways, which I can detail, to take over ownership of that industry as Canadians, as provinces, as the federal government, as credit unions, as co-operative institutions and as small businesses. Everyone in a mixed economy will move in this area. The government could have come to us and said it wants to borrow so it can invest in human capital and resources, that it has decided we can no longer survive economically by automatically condemning 10 per cent or 15 per cent of our young people coming out of secondary schools across Canada to unemployment. In some parts of my constituency, the unemployment rate among young people 16 and 17 years old is upwards of 35 per cent and 40 per cent.
This is not the problem the government is going to tackle. It is not going to invest capital in order to reduce and solve basic economic problems, either in the field of human resources or energy. The government has no strategy, plan or organized intention to deal with fundamental problems. It says, along with many members of the Conservative Party, that we cannot afford greater Canadian ownership at the present time, that we cannot afford to take on the multinationals in the oil and gas industry. That is the position of the Conservative Party: we cannot afford it because it will be detrimental to self-sufficiency. Just this past weekend there was a takeover of MacMillan Bloedel by Noranda. I did not hear any member of the Conservative party saying Noranda could not afford to do that. I did not hear them say that takeovers and acquisitions like that are a waste of money.
There is a very simple reason why it is not a waste of money. In fact, the whole logic of the capitalist system is that takeovers and mergers mean a greater concentration in the system. That is one of the problems or diseases of the system. The reason is that you are acquiring an asset of which the value can only increase. Noranda made a decision to acquire the assets of MacMillan Bloedel. Those assets will grow with inflation, and their value will accrue to them.
Two hundred years ago a movement was born in western Europe. It started with the trade unions and co-ops and in the last century grew to a political movement which has spread throughout the world. And it is a movement that says, "If the logic of capitalism is corporate acquisition and there is no longer any competition, and if the only effect of these acquisitions is that a few absentee landlords and absentee shareholders receive the benefit of these assets without having laboured other than staying home and opening the envelopes which had the coupons in them, then why shouldn't the assets, and the dividends that flow from the assets, accrue to the people?"

April 6, 1981
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82


Charles James Mayer: How many dividends has Petro-Canada paid?


Bob Rae: The hon. member asks how many dividends Petro-Can has paid. My answer is "not enough". In the province of Saskatchewan this year, the potash corporation paid a dividend to the people of Saskatchewan.
There is no reason that we should be suffering under a government with no over-all economic strategy and no general purpose and understanding of the structural problems of the economy. The government says it is in favour of Canadianiza-tion. If you look ahead ten years at the oil and gas sector, its policies will leave us with less control and less access to the assets and dividends which should flow these valuable resources to the provinces and to the Canadian people than is the case at present. In 1980 we were in a poorer position to take control of those assets than we were in 1970.


Rodney Edward Murphy: We will own the empty wells.


Bob Rae: I agree with the hon. member. The policy of saying, " we cannot afford it" is a most shortsighted one. This can be put in very simple terms. What this government is asking the Canadian people to do is to build a house on a lot they do not own. It suggests we continue to pay rent, taxes and everything else for a house on a lot we will never own.
The Liberal and Tory parties have the nerve to say to the New Democratic Party that we cannot afford Canadianiza-tion, that we cannot afford any element of public ownership. They say that is communism. It makes the most eminent, economic and basic good common sense for the Canadian people to say we can own, that we cannot afford not to own.
We are being asked to approve the borrowing of $14 billion to pay for a government policy which, in the long run, will bring virtually no benefits to the Canadian people. That is the thrust of Liberal economic policy. Let us look at the problems the Prime Minister took on in 1968 and at those which exist in 1981. The only difference is that the basic, fundamental structural problems in the economy are now worse. Nothing has been done with regard to pensions. The economic relationship between poorer Canadians and other Canadians is worse now than it was in 1968. The problem of foreign ownership is more important now. Control of the oil and gas industry is more difficult now because the value of the resource has increased. We are spending less on research and development in 1981 than we spent in 1968.
Let us examine each and every one of the fundamental problems outlined by members of the Prime Minister's party in the 1960s. Unemployment is worse now than it was in 1968. Inflation has also increased. There is not a single social and economic problem which this Prime Minister took on in 1968 that is not worse in 1981. That is the record. Now the government has the gall to come back in 1981 and ask for another $14 billion.


Mr. Blenkarn:: You moved the motion.


Bob Rae: The hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) says I moved the motion. 1 moved the motion, of
which I am extremely proud, for the simple reason that the policies being put forward by the Conservative government were exactly the same; I am not going to say they were any worse or any better.
With regard to the problems of inflation, unemployment, distribution of wealth in Canada, research and development, tell me how anything the Crosbie budget was going to do would have done anything to solve the problems we are facing.
There was also a little thing called an election which dealt with the Conservative government. That party has gone back to the couch and is determined to relive this period over and over again. I call it the pause that did not refresh, the brief interregnum of Conservative power. It was the hiccup in history. But the basic point is that neither party has been able to focus attention on the basic economic problem facing the country. Neither party has been able to speak to Canadians about the economy in a language they understand.
Economic leadership is to be able to deal compassionately with the deepest anxieties and hopes of the Canadian people. I am sorry to say that in the last 13 years we have had governments of both stripes which have demonstrated that they do not comprehend the meaning and importance of economic leadership; they do not understand the importance of the issues involved.
In order for the government to get the approval it wants from the House to borrow $14 billion, which as I said is an extremely substantial sum of money, the government must demonstrate a modicum of purpose, a modicum of intelligence, a modicum of a sense of direction, compassion and caring.
When we look not only at the structural problems facing the country, with which I have dealt to some extent, but at the human situation in which Canadians find themselves, we find that many Canadians are economically disenfranchised, are turned off and have been so abused by the political and economic processes that they do not care. They have stopped participating or believing that there is any solution to or leadership in the hopelessness of their situation.
I do not think the government deserves the approval or support of the House of Commons. One of the most fundamental, deep-seated and deep-rooted problems facing the country today is basically that we have a government which does not give a damn about jobs, inflation, food, housing or people. The fundamental malaise of Liberalism and Conservatism is that both have failed to respond to the deepest anxieties of the people. When people look to a government, whether it be provincial or federal, for an element of understanding, leadership and an ability to deal with their concerns, or when they look to Ottawa, I am sorry to say they do not find a government of which they can in any sense be proud. They do not find a government in which they have a sense that the government understands their problems and wants Canadians to take hold of their economy. They do not find a government that wants Canadians to share with one another. They do not find a
April 6, 1981

government that wants Canadians to create a humane, civilized, compassionate society.
Canadians are ready, willing and able to participate in such a society. I think Canadians want to regain control of their economy. I think Canadians feel they have been cheated because the government has failed the basic test of leadership. For those reasons we will be opposing this bill on third reading.


Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully to the comments of the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae). I must say that I am more than a bit dismayed by what he said; I think he put forward a series of ideas which were not connected in any logical way. He asked for an increase in investment in Canada by the federal government or by the provincial governments. At the same time he called for major increases in government spending to enhance the social welfare of our citizens, the level of education-


Mr. Miller:: Economic welfare.


John Leslie Evans: I am talking about general social welfare; I think that is what the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood talked about. He talked about increases in spending on education, with which I agree; but as an aside, we must recognize that every time any member of the federal government or any Member of Parliament says one word about education in the presence or within shouting distance of the provincial person, he is immediately told: "Hands off; stay out. We do not want, we do not need, federal presence in education". Yet we are told by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood that the federal government should massively increase its support.


Edward Allan Miller: In research and development.


John Leslie Evans: Hon. members opposite should know that right now we are looking at federal-provincial fiscal transfers and associated arrangements. Hon. members opposite say that the federal government does not do anything for education.


Edward Allan Miller: You just said that; we did not say it.


John Leslie Evans: In the majority of provinces, the federal government is paying 100 per cent, if not more, of the cost of all post-secondary education.
It was very disillusioning to listen to the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood talk about two totally inconsistent concepts in his speech. He said that we were borrowing $14 billion and that it would be spent on things on which we should not be spending money. He said that we should be diverting that money from the expenditures we are now making to a different area of expenditure. I think he mentioned two areas: increasing the well-being of individuals through the social welfare system, as well as increasing the well-being of individuals by investing heavily for the benefit of all Canadians in the wealth base of society.
In passing, I should note that it is very nice to have the Deputy Chairman of the Committee of the Whole (Mr. Ethier) back. It has been some time since I was able to look up
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82
and see a friendly, familiar face from a riding so close to my own. In all sincerity, welcome back and good health.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Leslie Evans: The massive increase in investment called for by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood is desirable. We on this side of the House would say that the investment should be a joint one by the people of Canada through certain Crown corporations and by the private sector in the spirit of the mixed economy which has been developed over many years. I think the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood would rather see much heavier public investment and much less private investment. But if we make this massive investment and do not increase the deficit of the federal government beyond where it is already-certainly hon. members on both sides agree that we want to see the deficit reduced-the only way to do it is by reallocating and reordering our priorities. If we reorder our priorities toward greater investment, it means that the noninvestment or consumption aspects of the federal budget must be the areas in which cuts are made.
That flies in the face of the other half of what the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood was saying. He was saying we have to make sure that a basic social cushion is underneath Canadians so that they are not living in poverty, that senior citizens can have golden years in the true sense of the word, and that that is the area which has to be cut. There was total inconsistency in the comments made by the hon. member. I know he made them from the heart and with great emotion, but I am afraid he did not make them with great intellectual honesty, because what he is promising the people is pie in the sky, which is not possible.
The hon. member spoke only in generalities. Specifics are what we need from hon. members opposite, and there were no specifics as to how our priorities should be reordered and how funds should be made available to increase investment massively while at the same time increasing massively the social welfare system, which is a basic safety net under all Canadians. I think this House could use a lot less of that kind of speech and a lot more analytical, informed and progressive speaking on some positive examples of how these great goals can be achieved.
I was also dismayed by the cry that Canadians today are worse off than they were in 1968. An honest appraisal of the situation indicates that that is just not true in any way, shape or form. Canadians are among the best-off people on the face of the earth. I think the average Canadian understands that and is grateful. I am not saying it is the government which has brought this about, but we live in a great country which has the resources and the people to enable it to put together a society which to my mind is second to none.
The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood said that we have higher unemployment now than we had in 1968. During the period from 1968 to today, Canada created jobs faster than any other country on the face of the earth. That is a

April 6, 1981
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82
statistic which is readily available to hon. members. We now have massive participation by women who have come into the labour force. Jobs have been created. More women work in the labour force now than ever in the history of Canada. More men work in the labour force now than ever in the history of the country. Our participation rate is extraordinary. It is one of the highest in the world, and we have created jobs faster than anyone else.
I agree that our inflation rate now is higher than it was in 1968. It is much higher than any of us in this House would like to see it. The government and the minister are committed to bringing that inflation down to realistic levels in the foreseeable future. That is a commitment.
The real disposable income of Canadians is higher than it has ever been. With respect to the social welfare system, the hon. member certainly chose his statistics carefully. He said that there has not been a narrowing of the gap between the rich and the poor in Canada, but on a real income basis the poor are far better off today than they were in 1968. The economic level of our whole society has been raised. The gap has not been narrowed to the extent to which perhaps some would like to see it narrowed, but certainly the well-being of Canadians is better today than it has ever been. Perhaps our expectations have not been fully realized. Perhaps we were led to expect more than our society was able to deliver in a short period of time, but certainly as a society we have achieved great things over the last 12, 15 or 20 years.


Miss Jewett:: Not true.


John Leslie Evans: The hon. member opposite says it is not true.


Pauline Jewett: What about people over 60 and below the poverty line?


Rodney Edward Murphy: He doesn't care.


John Leslie Evans: The fact is that we live in a country which has offered us much and asked very little.


Pauline Jewett: Stick to the facts.


John Leslie Evans: Hon. members in the New Democratic Party, and especially the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquit-lam (Miss Jewett), indicate that seniors are worse off. We have just completed a pension conference to try to find ways to improve the very good public system we have now.


Pauline Jewett: Don't say they are better off than they were in 1968. It is not true.


John Leslie Evans: They are much better off than they were in 1968.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: There was no senior citizens' housing in 1968.


John Leslie Evans: There are many programs which governments across the board have provided, are providing and will improve upon.
With that said, I would like to deal with the nature of the bill with which we are dealing now, Bill C-59. It deals with the request of the Government of Canada for authority from Parliament to borrow a maximum of $14 billion. This derives from the budget in which the financial requirements of the government for this coming fiscal year were forecast to be $11 billion. I certainly hope, and I am sure all of us hope, that the government is able to do even better than that and that the financial requirements will be less, but the best estimate we have is the forecast of financial requirements of $11 billion. The other $3 billion is being asked for, as I mentioned before, to provide a reserve for possible contingencies in case some unexpected shock hits the system; for example, if world oil prices were to double again, the oil import compensation payments would rise dramatically and the government would have to be in a position to cushion the shock through that program.
The second and, I think, most important aspect of that $3 billion-$3 billion added to $11 billion to make $14 billion-is a non-lapsing portion which can be carried on from fiscal year to fiscal year.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: It will all be spent this year.


John Leslie Evans: On Thursday night when I spoke, I demonstrated-quite well, I think-why that flexibility is important and should be provided to the government. Contrary to what was said by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) on that same night, this is not an unprecedented move. In fact, this was a typical situation in previous borrowing authority bills, except for the one in 1979 introduced by the hon. member for St. John's West and the one last summer which did not have a non-lapsing feature. However, prior to that, non-lapsing features were commonplace and did provide very important flexibility for the government, as Conservative members should remember, because they ran their government for a period of seven months, without calling Parliament, on the non-lapsing authority that was available to them from previous Liberal budgets. That kind of flexibility is important. When hon. members opposite speak, I think they will agree with me that that is important.
I mentioned on Thursday night that I would try to respond to the concern which has been raised by the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) and others with regard to the current cash balances of the government and why those cash balances appear to be large. When added to the borrowing authority, they give the government a great deal of financial flexibility. I would like to say a few words about that. As the hon. member indicated, the cash balance of the government as of March 25 was $6.4 billion. Subsequently, in the last week of the month of March that sum was diminished by $1.6 billion-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: You got rid of a lot of money awfully fast.


John Leslie Evans: -leaving $4.8 billion. There are several reasons for the current cash balance position of the government. First, there are still outstanding liabilities from the 1980-81 fiscal
April 6, 1981

year which are yet to be paid. In other words, there are cheques which are in the system which have to clear. The amounts of many of these cheques are substantial.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: That was the situation a year ago when you got along with $1.9 billion.


John Leslie Evans: The hon. member says we had $1.9 billion at the end of last year, that now it is $4.8 billion and that that is a big difference. The second reason, of course, is that the cash balances of the government in the second quarter of the year will tend to be high because of the anticipated rebates of income tax; in other words, the income tax refunds which come in the first and second quarter of the calendar year, part of which lie in the previous fiscal year and part of which will lie in 1981-82 fiscal year. Those rebates come in at this time of the year and, as a result, cash balances have to be maintained at above normal levels.
Also, over the last six to nine months we have been faced with a rather precarious foreign exchange market because foreign exchange values have changed very rapidly. The Bank of Canada has been known to intervene on both sides of that market from time to time to provide some stability in that market, not trying to maintain any given level of the dollar but simply to stabilize the fluctuations in that market. That has at times required rather substantial sums. For that reason as well, the government's cash balances right now are relatively high.
Given these facts, we would expect that in the very near future the cash balances of the government will return to a more normal level and, therefore, this is a temporary aberration. The moneys that will be in the cash balance position shortly will tend to be of average size, as the hon. member opposite seems to think should be the case at this moment.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a point of order. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary, in explaining the unrealistically high cash balances, could explain why this government has been borrowing money in the marketplace at up to 17 per cent?


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


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, if it is appropriate for me to respond to the hon. member's question, I will certainly be glad to do so. The borrowing was to build up those cash balances for exactly the reasons I have just given. If the government has a need for higher cash balances at this time of the year, then it should have them at such a level that it will not run into difficulties. That is precisely why the cash balances have been raised, and to do that the government has had to borrow under the borrowing authority which expired as of March 31. We would expect that our borrowing in the next few months will be far below the average level of borrowing we have had in the past-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: So that when the interest rates are lower, you borrow less, and when they are higher, you borrow more.
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82


John Leslie Evans: -because we do have these cash balances. The hon. member seems to be carrying on a debate with me. I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, which one of us has the floor. The hon. member for Mississauga South and I engage in these exchanges quite often on a friendly basis, but when one of us has the floor, I am not sure it is appropriate for the other to decide he will make more comments. I will try to restrain myself when he has the floor, if he will kindly restrain himself now that I have the floor.
I think the hon. member will see that the explanation for the cash balances which will be in the weekly statements will be that the cash balances of the government will drop down to normal levels in relatively quick order and this is not a matter which should be of significant concern to hon. members opposite. We realize that they are abnormally high at this time for the three reasons I mentioned. I assure hon. members that this is not a situation which will last and it is one that was anticipated.
In this debate on borrowing authority we have heard hon. members opposite contend that the federal government is asking for too much borrowing authority and imply at the same time that because the government has this borrowing authority it can go on a spending spree. Hon. members have contended that after Parliament has approved this borrowing authority there will be no checks on government spending, that the government can simply borrow all of that $14 billion and spend and spend. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that is doing a disservice to the Canadian public and it is certainly doing a disservice to the people who are watching us on television.
Also, it is being somewhat dishonest or ignorant, and I am not sure exactly which, because the Canadian federal Financial system is such that that simply is not possible, and hon. members opposite know that. The government, of whatever political stripe it may be, brings forward during the year its estimates which lay out a spending program reflecting the fiscal statement of the minister in his budget. The estimates reflect the expenditure plans of each and every department, and supplementary estimates are brought down when they are needed. The main point is that in every case the main estimates and the supplementary estimates which constrain the spending of government and of every department and agency in government are approved by Parliament. Parliamentarians in this House and in committee scrutinize and approve every dime that is spent by the government. So if those estimates do not show spending above $11 billion or $12 billion in the next year-in this case, the total budget is in the range of $65 billion, if that is the spending level that is approved by Parliament in the estimates-then that is what the government is constrained to spend. It cannot spend any more unless it comes back to Parliament to get further approval.
We have admitted, and hon. members have noted, that the borrowing authority for which we are asking is $14 billion, even though our financial forecasts show that the shortfall between our revenues and our expenditures will be only $11 billion. There is no way that that extra $3 billion-if we are successful in holding down expenditures even further, there

April 6, 1981
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82
will be an excess of $4 billion or $5 billion-will be used frivolously by the government without coming back to Parliament and laying before Parliament its plans for that expenditure. There are controls and constraints on the level of government spending, on what those moneys are spent, and of course there are constraints on the amount that the government can borrow. What we are talking about in this bill is parliamentary approval for the borrowing that will be necessary to meet the approved expenditures which the government has put forward to Parliament.
I suggest that when the hon. member for Broadview-Green-wood and others say that the government's spending priorities are out of line, that is a charge that should be raised and carefully scrutinized when we start looking at the estimates of the department and in what areas hon. members would like to see expenditures reduced, so that perhaps some of the lofty goals to which the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood referred could, in fact, be realized.
I think it must be made clear to the people that there are constraints on the government's expenditures and borrowing, and that those constraints are imposed by Parliament, so there is no way the government can exceed the limit without further parliamentary approval. The government is not, as some hon. members opposite have indicated, asking for a blank cheque, since in the Canadian parliamentary system there is no such thing as a blank cheque. If the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood was here, I would say that there is no such thing as a free lunch either; but that would only make him feel good.
To summarize, I would like to say that the minister started his tenure with a financial statement as to what he believed the future held for the economy. He followed that up with a budget, which for the first time laid out in an envelope the expenditures of the government, the expected revenues, the financial requirements, what will have to be borrowed to make up the difference, a planned gradual reduction in the deficit and an improvement in the spending priorities of the government under the envelope system which was brought down. We examined, debated and voted on that budget.
After that we had the estimates which take our expenditure plans down to the most minute detail. I might say in passing that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) has just brought down a plan which will make the estimates even more useful to hon. members in scrutinizing government expenditures. I think this is a great step forward and I congratulate the President of the Treasury Board for bringing down these measures. I have just seen a report which has been tabled by the President of the Treasury Board with respect to the Lambert commission, which report will improve the operations of the government even more.
The government is working very diligently on improving the efficiency and effectiveness of its operations. It is helping the Canadian people get far more value for the money which is made available to the government to spend on the public's behalf. We now have a complete description of where the
money will be spent and a request in Bill C-59 for the additional funds which will be necessary to finance those expenditures. Given that we now have this measure before us, we would all very much like to see a lesser amount being requested in the borrowing authority, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) have indicated. We would like to have a lower deficit and more growth in the economy. Those are common goals which we all share.
A realistic assessment of the situation indicates that the sum requested is what will be required to do the job. I realize that we would all like to have something better, but when you face the facts, which is what the Minister of Finance must do, then you must ask yourself, "What is my realistic assessment of what I will have to borrow in the marketplace to meet the expenditures which have been approved by Parliament?" That is the amount we are asking for in the borrowing authority bill, with the addition of the amount I have indicated for flexibility, which will not be used unless the government returns to Parliament to ask for additional spending authority.
All rhetoric aside, the bill before us asks for what is realistically required. Yes, we want to reduce that requirement in the future. Yes, the minister has put forward a plan for reducing those financial requirements, reducing the deficit and enhancing the over-all accountability, efficiency and effectiveness of government over the next few years. I think this is a realistic plan. It is one which hon. members on both sides of the House should accept and approve, given that they have already approved the expenditure plan that is to be financed by this particular piece of legislation.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-59 is a very important bill. It asks the Parliament of Canada to approve $14 billion in borrowing-


Mr. McDermid:: All in one paragraph.


Charles James Mayer: As I was just about to say, all on one page and a bit. The amount of $14 billion is approximately five times the total budget of the province in which I live.
This bill is also important because borrowing has come to be a larger part of the government's expenditure. This can be looked at in several ways. In the past it has been pointed out that present government borrowing amounts to more than the total budget of the Government of Canada some 12 years ago. It has also been pointed out that in those 12 years our national deficit has amounted to a sum so large that the interest charged against it each year exceeds the total amount of money spent by the government some 12 years ago. It is an extremely large amount of money. As has been said previously, it accounts for something in the range of 19 per cent of total government expenditure.
I like to look at it in another way. It means that out of each dollar of taxes collected on behalf of the Government of Canada, some 25 cents is used to pay interest on past government debt. I am sorry that the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) did not stay to listen to the debate. I
April 6, 1981

think too many times this is what the NDP does. They do not really care what goes on in the House; they make speeches and run out to make the best possible use of the press that they can.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member has just made a comment about my colleague the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) not being in the House. He suggests that my hon. friend has gone out to take part in some kind of press conference. The fact is he went out to make a speech in the community.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I do not think that constitutes a point of order.


Charles James Mayer: It seems to me, for whatever reason, members of the NDP use the House as little as possible. The critic for the New Democratic Party, once he makes his speech, could at least stay in the House and listen to what goes on. The hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) is our spokesman on this bill. He has been in the House, participated in the debate-


Pauline Jewett: He does not get invited to make speeches outside.


Charles James Mayer: It is amazing to me that anyone would want to listen to them, but I guess it takes all kinds.
One of the points that the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood made-and I will refer to him again, if I may, without upsetting my friends to my left, which is where they should be, to my left-was that he found it unfortunate that the government was borrowing money simply to pay for groceries. I think he should have gone further. I think what disturbs many of us on this side of the House is that the government is borrowing money to pay for yesterday's groceries, which is even worse.
The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood wondered why it was all right for Noranda to be involved in takeovers and why we were being critical of the Government of Canada with respect to takeovers. There is a very simple explanation. We are here as elected representatives and we are voicing our concerns on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada who, in a very real sense, are the shareholders on behalf of the Government of Canada. If we do not have an opportunity to stand up and question some of the expenditures that the Government of Canada makes on behalf of its citizens, then no one else will. It seems to me that if the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood wanted to be consistent, he would have gone further in his analogy and said that none of the shareholders in Noranda should have been concerned about any of the things that Noranda does on their behalf. I am sure that that would not be the case. The next time there is an annual meeting of the shareholders of Noranda, they will be questioning the takeover procedures and the money that was spent on behalf of the shareholders. At that meeting there will have to be some accountability given for the actions of the directors in the past.
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82
That is precisely what should happen in the House of Commons.
To pursue the matter further, if the people who have bought shares in Noranda are unhappy or if, for some reason, they think the directors have done things which are wrong and the shares of Noranda fall in value, the shareholders are in a position where they can sell the shares of that particular company. However, the taxpayers of Canada cannot do that, unfortunately; when the government makes bad commitments on behalf of its citizens, the taxpayers cannot get out and sell their shares in the country. It is incumbent on all of us who are elected to represent our constituents that we question the spending practices of this government. It is then an entirely understandable concept; and I find it unfortunate that the spokesman for the NDP, on behalf of the finance department, cannot see and make that very simple distinction.
There are many things that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Evans) said and to which I would like to make reference. However, I will just mention a few. He mentioned that we should somehow reorder our specifics. He pointed to the fact that the NDP has been inconsistent too often, and that, by implication, we in this party have been inconsistent in that, while asking for increased government expenditure, we also wail away and complain that the government deficit increases. While that does happen I, for one, have not made those kinds of suggestions. I think that many of us who are interested in the financial affairs of this country on behalf of our party have tried to be consistent and have not asked for increased government involvement in government programs while complaining about increasing deficits.
That brings me to some of the concerns that I have with the bill. I do not see anything wrong at all with the government's coming to Parliament and asking for the authority to borrow more money. I think it is an entirely legitimate activity to be engaged in. However, what I do object to-and I think it is a legitimate objection-is the fact that we are being asked to give authority to the government to borrow $3 billion as a contingency.
The parliamentary secretary said, rightly so, that the Parliament of Canada scrutinizes the estimates. If it wants to spend an additional $3 billion, the Government of Canada must come back with supplementary estimates to ask for authority to spend this $3 billion.
Given that fact, I see nothing wrong with the intent of the amendment of my colleague the hon. member for Mississauga South that we not give the government this contingency borrowing authority. If it is necessary to come back with supplementary estimates to spend the $3 billion, I see nothing wrong with the government's coming back to Parliament for additional borrowing authority at the same time. In that way we who take ourselves seriously as legislators and try to do the best we can on behalf of our constituents would then be in a position at the same time to examine supplementary estimates, vote, and

April 6, 1981
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82 give the government authority for the additional $3 billion that it claims it needs for contingencies.
The parliamentary secretary said that one of the reasons the government may require the additional $3 billion is that world oil prices could double. Heaven forbid that we should get ourselves into that kind of a scenario. However, I think that points out some of the problems that the government has gotten itself into, because it has not developed secure Canadian supplies which would be more predictable in their price.
We can see the folly of the National Energy Program as it is presently being used by the government. In fact, it is not encouraging increases in domestic supply. If anything, it is discouraging Canadians from developing their own sources of supply, and not only conventional crude. We have seen the cutbacks in production from the province of Alberta. We have seen that heavy oil and tar sands plants have not gone ahead, and in some cases are as much as two years behind schedule. If the government was serious about making the country self-sufficient in energy, it would have gone ahead and reached a price agreement so that we could be in a position to be more self-reliant with our own supplies of oil. If that is one of the contingencies for which the government needs to borrow the $3 billion, I submit that if it would spend more attention and time on developing our own sources of supply it would probably not need that kind of money for that kind of contingency. 1 find it unfortunate that this type of contingency is considered in additional government spending.
One of the other interesting phrases that the parliamentary secretary used was to call a surplus of money-I think, $4 billion or $5 billion-a "temporary aberration". I would think that that is exactly what it is, based on the spending habits of this government. It is unfortunate that because of past spending habits, and because we have been in the hole, we look at a surplus position as being a temporary aberration. That gives us an idea of the attitude of the government to spending the dollars of taxpayers.
The parliamentary secretary referred to "putting all rhetoric aside", and then he went on to say that the government should be accountable, it should be efficient, and it should be- another four or five-syllable word; I cannot make out my own writing here. However, it seems to me that if we are going to put all rhetoric aside, we should talk in simple, straightforward and honest terms and not get into these long four or five-syllable words. I would be very happy to see the government put rhetoric aside and get down to brass tacks in considering government spending.
My hon. colleague the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) talks about bread and butter issues. That is what we understand in this country, and that is what has made this country great. Bread and butter issues will make this country great again if those issues are allowed to make gain of some importance in the future.
I would like to talk about how I believe the massive borrowing that the government has been engaged in for the past number of years has affected the farming communities in the country. We all know that, by and large, the farmers in this
country serve the citizens as well as any country in the world, because we spend on food a smaller proportion of our take home pay-our gross national product, for that matter, too- as individual citizens who feed ourselves, than any other country in the world with the exception of the United States, and we run a very close second to the Americans. We spend something like 18 per cent of our disposable income on food. This also takes into account the fact that we eat something like 40 per cent of our meals away from home. That tells me that the agricultural industry in this country has served the people of Canada very well.
To give an example, there is now a saying that it will not be very long before the potato will not go into a modern kitchen unless it has somehow been prepared, is already peeled and baked for the consumer, for the homemaker, because we have come a long way from the time when we simply bought potatoes in stores, brought them home and cooked them. A very large percentage of potatoes eaten in Canadian homes are now prepared or pre-processed in some way.
What has happened is that, in order for the farmers to be this productive, they have had to make use of very large amounts of capital so that the amount of capital required to create a job in the agricultural industry in this country is larger than in any other industry. What happens when the government gets involved, the way it is, in borrowing large amounts of money is that there are strains on individual farming operations in terms of their ability to borrow at reasonable interest rates, and this drives up the interest rate.
I can give some examples, and I have three ways of looking at it. I took the figures from the Bank of Canada Review. The total borrowing-this is non-equity security borrowings in Canada-for the calendar year 1980 was $21.8 billion. Of that amount, $11.4 billion was borrowed by the federal government, and it accounts for 52.2 per cent. Over half the nonequitable securities issued in Canada were taken up by the federal government. The provinces accounted for $7.7 billion, and the municipalities accounted for $.6 billion. Out of the figure I have quoted of $21.8 billion, approximately 90 per cent was borrowed by three levels of government.
It is no wonder that we see interest rates on loans to farmers increase. The three levels of government have become such large borrowers that there is a limited amount of money available for the private sector, and when the private sector goes to the market, it finds interest rates have been driven up by the activities of the three levels of government.
I have an article from The Globe and Mail, dated November 18 which points out that:
Federal financing of $8.19 billion accounted for 41 per cent of the nine-month total. Provincial and agency borrowing amounted to $3.73 billion (19 per cent of the total). Municipalities raised $1.06 billion (5 per cent).
This set of statistics includes borrowings made out of the country. Previously when we looked at borrowings within the country only, the three levels of government accounted for something like 90 per cent of the total. If we include borrowings from outside the country, then the three levels of governments account for 65 per cent of the total. It seems to me when
April 6, 1981

the government is involved as heavily as it is in the capital market, that leaves precious little money with which private industry can operate.
Another way of looking at the federal government deficit is in terms of percentage of the gross national product. I have in front of me a recent issue of the pamphlet Business Review issued by the Bank of Montreal, for February, 1981. It contains a graph which shows that in 1978 the federal government deficit, shown as a percentage of the gross national product, came to almost 5 per cent. In 1979, when this party formed the government, so we can take some of the credit or blame, the figure dropped to about 3.4 per cent of the gross national product. Last year, with the Liberals back in power, it reached 4.2 per cent. It is evident that when this government is involved, the borrowing, as a percentage of the gross national product, becomes too large and this does not leave enough money to enable the private sector to borrow at reasonable rates.
The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood pointed out that there are different types of borrowings in which we may become involved. Whether we are farmers, whether we run a household or a small business, I think we all know it is possible to borrow money for investment so that the investment will return the initial amount of money borrowed. If the borrowing is for capital projects, it would not make any difference whether we borrow the money outside Canada, from individuals, or from banks; as long as the money regenerates itself, we would be in a position to pay it back. Once the money was paid back, then the facility or whatever was established would be there, creating jobs and wealth in the country.
In too many instances, that has not been the case where this government is concerned, however, and that is why we ask that they give some indication of the purpose of the borrowing. The parliamentary secretary objected to the use of the words "blank cheque" but, in effect, the request for $3 billion is a request for a blank cheque because we have not seen the supplementary estimates to establish that the government needs to spend that money. If we were sure the money was to be spent on capital projects which would make the country more productive, then I am sure we would agree that the money should be borrowed. We hav- not been given that indication, however. The examination cf estimates in committee is often a very frustrating, time-consuming and non-productive exercise. I think we would all agree that this examination is not adequate in view of the amount of money we are being asked to approve on behalf of our constituents.
If the money borrowed were spent on capital projects which would finance themselves, then it would not make a great deal of difference who it was borrowed from because we would be in a position to repay it from the earnings. That is not the kind of borrowing this government is asking the Parliament of Canada to approve, however.
It is interesting to note that amount of interest on past government debt, which is to be paid this year, is about the
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82
same as the amount we are being asked to approve in this borrowing bill. This reminds me of a statement by John Stuart Mill, the famous economist, who said something to the effect that you cannot make a storekeeper rich by stealing from him and then using the money to buy goods from his store. It seems to me this is the kind of situation the government is in now; it borrows money to pay for yesterday's groceries and then, in returning the interest payment to the taxpayer, it turns around and taxes the taxpayer on the interest it is paying back to him and recovers the money in that way.
I do not think we can speak about generating wealth in the country unless we are planning to spend some of the borrowings we are being asked to approve on some legitimate capital projects.
I would go further, Mr. Speaker. Three or four weeks ago the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) tabled his estimates in this House. We all know the procedural hassle we got into then. I had the opportunity to ask him if there was any provision in the estimates for the western development fund. He pointed out that there was a provision in the estimates for spending $350 million of the $4 billion which had been promised in the throne speech. He did not indicate where the money would be spent. Several members from western Canada suggested it should be spent on capital projects which would make that part of the country more productive. At that time, however, there was no indication how the $350 million was to be spent.
Questions put to the minister when he tabled the estimates and further questions put to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) in committee brought forth no indication that guidelines had been set for spending the money. That belies some of the points made by the parliamentary secretary about the necessity of having the estimates approved in the House before the money is spent. When we on this side of the House attempt to find out in committee what the government's spending plans are, we do not receive adequate answers.
I do not think farmers and operators of small businesses are very different, Mr. Speaker; they operate on six, eight, or nine-month production periods. This is particularly so in the cattle business. A farmer has to commit himself to buying feeder cattle which will be fed over a period of six or eight months. In that time-span, interest rates may go through the roof to a point where it would cost in the neighbourhood of 20 cents per pound to put a finished animal in position to be slaughtered and show up as meat on a supermarket counter. At today's prices, that 20 cents per pound is 25 per cent or 30 per cent of the total market value of the animal. Faced with that kind of arithmetic when deciding whether to produce additional beef, buy additional cattle or put the grain through livestock as a marketing tool, a lot of producers have already decided against it, and in fact have cut back on the number of animals available for slaughter. This has a negative effect on the supply of beef.
High interest rates discourage cattle producers from making additional supplies available to the consumer. We all know that as supplies contract, prices go up. That hurts the very

April 6, 1981
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82 process which the government is trying to make work in this time of inflation. It holds down the money supply and drives up interest rates. As I pointed out, as interest rates go up in the beef business, that hurts the supply of cattle. The whole exercise has exactly the opposite effect to that which the government and the Bank of Canada would like.
Last week the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) announced an increase in the Farm Credit Corporation interest rates from 12.75 per cent to 14 per cent, an all-time high. I fail to see how an increase in the interest rate will help inflation. Instead, it will drive producers out of business and the supply of products to the consumer will decrease. In turn, this will drive up the price.
One of the things that disturbs many people in western Canada is the way our transportation system for grain is being taxed to the limit. This will have an adverse effect on the movement of all the products we are capable of producing in western Canada to an export position. It applies to bulk commodities which are in demand around the world; sulphur, potash, grain and coal. In the past year we have heard a lot in this House and in the country about the Crow rate. This is a very emotional issue because it is an historical rate in western Canada. Some people claim it should not be touched, while others say it should be abolished.
I think everyone agrees that the railways are not deriving enough revenue from the movement of grain to cover the actual moving costs. There is a separate argument as to how much loss of revenue the railways are suffering. Some people say the actual charge is only covering one fifth of the cost of moving grain; some say it is more like one third. Others argue that the railways are being compensated adequately, but most people agree the railways are not receiving enough revenue from the movement of grain to cover the actual costs incurred.
Unless some solution is reached quite quickly on this impasse, then the railways will not be in a position to move all the bulk commodities we will have for export in western Canada two or three years hence. I think most people would feel comfortable if the Government of Canada were borrowing money for capital improvements to the railways.
I know the railways would much rather see an increase in the rates they charge in order to generate their own revenues to spend on their capital projects. I think it is incumbent on the government to show some leadership in this important issue. If it does not, we will find ourselves unable to earn the kind of foreign exchange of which we are capable. We know that the more we export, the more foreign exchange we earn. This results in less pressure on the Canadian dollar. As well, the Bank of Canada would be able to lower interest rates, benefiting everyone. The government of the day would not have to come to Parliament to ask for as much money as it is now, because Canada would be earning more money on foreign exchange and that money would find its way into the economy through what is called a multiplier effect. More taxes would be generated and the whole country would benefit. On behalf of
the people in my region I want to say that this is an area in which I would like to see some leadership and emphasis. We will then be in a position to contribute, not only for our own region but for the whole country.
I have one more concern. It deals with the way the Bank of Canada operates in this country. As we all know, the Bank of Canada has become a very large part of our financial lives. In the annual report of the Governor of the Bank of Canada to the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), we find this statement:
The responsibility of the bank is to discharge its Parliamentary mandate "to regulate credit and currency in the best interests of the economic life of the nation".
The phrase in quotes is from the act. The responsibility for the bank is a very large responsibility and one which I am sure everyone involved with the Bank of Canada takes very seriously. I think one can make the argument that the Bank of Canada today has in some instances much more to do with our economic life than the Minister of Finance. I find this unfortunate in some ways because the Minister of Finance is accountable to the House of Commons and, therefore, to those of us who are elected to represent our constituents. Yet the Bank of Canada, through its board of directors, makes some very important decisions on our behalf almost every day of every week. I suspect very few Canadians know who serves on their board of directors. These people determine at what level the money supply will be increased. They determine, in effect, by regulating the amount of negotiable securities put on the market each Thursday of every week by the Bank of Canada at the treasury bill auction, the interest rate that chartered banks charge.
As a matter of interest, I would like to read into the record the names of those who serve on the board of directors of the Bank of Canada. I think it is important that all Canadians know who these people are. The Governor of the Bank of Canada is Mr. Gerald K. Bouey; the deputy governor is Mr. R. William Lawson. The governor and the deputy governor are both full-time directors. They spend all of their time on issues relating to the Bank of Canada. There are 12 directors who work on a part-time basis. They are as follows: Robert W. Campbell, Calgary, Alberta; William Dodge, Ottawa, Ontario; D. Michael M. Goldie, Vancouver, British Columbia; Sol Kanee, Winnipeg, Manitoba; Spencer G. Lake, Ramea, New-foudland; Alie A. LeBouthillier, Caraquet, New Brunswick; J. William E. Mingo, Halifax, Nova Scotia; Mrs. Yseult Lefebvre-Richard, Montreal, P.Q.; Joseph H. Potts, Toronto, Ontario; Donald Smith, Charlottetown, P.E.I.; John A. Stack, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and Jacques Taschereau, Quebec, P.Q.
I am sure few Canadians know very much about the fourteen people, I have just listed or know much about their business backgrounds. Yet a very good case could be made that they have as much to do with the monetary and fiscal policy of this government as the Minister of Finance. In my opinion, I do not think this composition should be allowed to continue. I would be in favour of seeing the addition of two
April 6, 1981

Members of Parliament to the board of directors of the Bank of Canada, not necessarily because they should have a lot of input and should make drastic changes, but simply so they could have a better understanding and could have some input when the occasion arises in terms of the way the Bank of Canada is administering the monetary policy in this country. As I have said, monetary policy is very important. Anyone who thinks otherwise has only to look at the level of interest rates we have experienced for the last year to realize that it is extremely important.
I hope the day comes when we do have Members of Parliament on the board of directors of the Bank of Canada. I do not believe it would make the board unduly political. On the contrary, I think it would make it much more responsive and accountable to the people of Canada for whom it is set up to serve. In addition, it would go a long way to seeing that the Bank of Canada does in fact regulate credit and currency in the best interests of the economic life of this nation.
I find it unfortunate that the government is asking for so much money in the form of the borrowing authority. I see nothing wrong with the government accepting the amendment moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Mississauga South to the effect that if the government does need supplementary borrowing authority it can come back to the House. We should not be in the position of voting to give the government blanket authority for an additional $3 billion after the beginning of its next fiscal year in April, 1982. I will have no trouble at all, in fact, my conscience will not allow me to do anything different than to vote against this bill.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, the suggestions made from the other side that the government should come back more often, and that we should have smaller borrowing bills is perhaps desirable. The problem is that we have a lot of business to deal with in the course of a year in this House of Commons. If the government came back twice as often, we would have a lot less time to do a lot of other things. What has been going on in this House during the last few weeks is a good example of how House time is used up, in what I term a disreputable sort of way, and how we are unable to get on with the business of the House.
It seems to me that members opposite always want to spend more time doing this and more time doing that. If we did not bring in such things as closure, we would not be able to manage the country, nor could we get the business of the House done. If there were some evidence that we could have a smaller borrowing bill and get it through in one or two sessions of the House, it might be possible, but the constant necessity of bringing in closure is caused basically by the fact that we cannot seem to move things in the House.
On Friday last, I spoke on the borrowing bill at report stage. I had only 20 minutes and I did not finish everything I wanted to say. Today I would like to go somewhat further, but first I want to review some of the comments I made earlier. I will then approach the fiscal powers of the federal and provincial governments which I think are the keys to the whole surplus-deficit situation.
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82
First, the reason for borrowing, that is the debt, can only be expressed in an intelligent manner when related to the gross national product. It does not make sense to talk about personal debt as an absolute number. For example, I may owe $10,000. That does not mean anything unless I relate it to my income. If my income is $100,000, the $10,000 is manageable. If my income is $ 10,000, it is a lot less manageable.
The same can be said about the net national debt as a function of the gross national product. Most of these matters have to be measured in that fashion. Whether the gross national product is a relatively small amount or is, as it is today, close to $300 billion, that has a very definite effect on the amount of money that can be borrowed.
In 1951, we talked about the net national debt being 50 per cent of the gross national product. That was very meaningful. It was not expressed in absolute terms. In 1981 the national debt as a function of the GNP is around 30 per cent. I will not go into that in detail, but it is important. We should relate these things, and the GNP is a simple way of doing it.
I looked at government expenditures on which this borrowing is based. Transfers to the provinces, to people and to corporations in terms of subsidies amounted to 48.9 per cent, almost 50 per cent of all federal government spending. Payments of the public debt came to 19 per cent. Transfers to people and provinces, including those who hold government bonds or have loaned money to the federal government, such as banks, totalled 68 per cent of all government spending. The cost of operating the government is 32 per cent; basically the cost of subsidies to Crown corporations, running the RCMP, the military, post office and so on. The 68 per cent is the transfer portion.
A lot has been said about cutting the fat from government expenditures. That must come out of the 31 per cent. There is obviously some fat, but it cannot be cut in any significant way. If we want to seriously cut back, it must be from the 68 per cent.
What concerns me today is the transfers to the provinces. Straight dollar transfers and tax point transfers are in the order of $18.9 billion, or 28 per cent of the $67.5 billion government expenditure. In other words, 28 per cent of federal government expenditures is transferred to the provinces and municipalities. The sum is transferred directly to the provinces and then to the municipalities, and a relatively small amount direct to the municipalities. It is that very large transfer that is getting us into trouble.
When we talk about the borrowing bill, we get to the heart of what the whole Constitution business is all about. We have to face up to the federal-provincial fiscal arrangements. On Friday I referred to the way governments have grown. I stated that in 1943, in the height of World War II, the federal government revenues were 22.3 per cent of the GNP and 3.3 per cent for the provinces. If we include municipalities, it would probably raise the figure to 5 per cent or 6 per cent. By 1960, the federal portion of the GNP in revenue terms was 17

April 6, 1981
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82
per cent and 6.1 per cent for the provinces. In 1970 the federal portion was 16.1 per cent and the provinces 12.3 per cent. In 1979, the last year for which I have figures, the federal portion was down to 16.6 per cent and the provincial portion up to 15 per cent.
Since World War II, there has been a decline from 22.3 per cent to 16.6 per cent. Since 1970 there has been a decline from 17 per cent to 16.6 per cent. In that same period, provincial revenues increased from 6.1 per cent to 15 per cent of the GNP, a tremendous growth in the provincial share.
I think it is worth making a comparison with the United States. I will do this on an expenditure basis because I only have approximations for revenue. Federal government expenditures in the United States represent 60 per cent of all government expenditures in that federal union. State and municipal expenditures represent 40 per cent.
Some on this side are very strong proponents of provincial rights and others of federal rights. I am a strong proponent of the federal government having more power. In Canada, federal government expenditures represent 45 per cent of all government expenditures, and the provinces and municipalities represent 55 per cent. We have a very interesting concept. Which is the more powerful? In the United States it is 60-40 federal, state and municipal, and in Canada it is 45-55.
May I call it six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, before I launch into the basis of my speech on third reading of the borrowing authority bill, I should like to make one last point. It concerns government expenditures on goods and services. Many economists would look at government expenditures in two ways. One way would be to look at goods and services and then the balance, which would basically be transfers.
Looking at the goods and services side and speaking in relation to the gross national product-and this is information taken from a book entitled "Unemployment and Inflation" by Barber and McCallum-in 1953 we find that the total federal expenditure in fixed dollars declined from 10 per cent of the gross national product to about 6 per cent in 1978. This is really what the federal government absorbs; it is not the transfers, which would be the balance. This includes federal defence and non-defence spending. So, there was an actual decline in what the government takes out of the economy.
Basically we find the opposite situation in the provinces. The provinces absorbed something like 6 per cent in 1953. This rose to about 10 per cent or 11 per cent in 1979. When one
adds in the local governments and hospitals, it rises from approximately 10 per cent to 15 per cent, 16 per cent or 17 per cent.
This business about government spending being the main cause of inflation is highly distorted, when one considers that the federal government's share of goods and services has declined significantly since 1953; there has been a steady decline.
I should like to go back to the real crunch of the constitutional debate, that is, the second phase; where we are going and why we are doing it. It has a great deal to do with the fiscal arrangements between the provinces and the federal government. Previously I indicated there was a very large growth in provincial revenues relative to federal revenues. In 1960 the federal government revenue was 17 per cent of the gross national product and the revenue of the provincial governments was approximately 6.1 per cent. In 1979, the latest year for which I have figures, it was roughly 16.6 per cent to 15.5 per cent. Then I indicated that 60 per cent of all government expenditures in the United States was by the federal government and that 40 per cent was by the states and municipalities. In Canada it was 45 per cent federal and 55 per cent provincial and municipal. If fiscal power is what counts, then the American federal government is much stronger than we are. If we turn to the revenue side, the federal government's revenue is about 40 per cent and the provinces' and municipalities' is about 60 per cent. We have this particular problem.
I should like to go back and deal with the fiscal history of the country very briefly. I heard some speakers on the other side who did not realize that the Fathers of Confederation looked at the American system when they were setting up this country. At the time they indicated that the American system was not working and that they wanted a much stronger federal government. This is what Macdonald and Brown were concerned about. They set up a fiscal system which gave the federal government a lot of power. In those days indirect taxation, customs duties and so on were the major sources of government revenue. They considered this to be a prime system.
Actually, from 1867 to around 1914, and even later, there was a great decline in the fiscal power of the federal government. It was not what Macdonald and others had expected. Then World War I increased federal government power. There was a much greater increase in provincial power between 1919 and 1930. Then the provinces almost collapsed. They reached their heights and then collapsed; bankruptcy was avoided by federal government assistance. Then there was a growing increase of federal government power during the 1930s and the period of World War II. Afterwards there was a recession in federal power and a growth in the power of the provinces and the municipalities in terms of fiscal arrangements.
Now we have a situation which is extremely acute. I should like to talk about surpluses and deficits. Today the federal deficit is approximately $15 billion. I should like to refer to the
April 6, 1981

annual review entitled "a climate of uncertainty" of the Economic Council of Canada.
Looking at this chart we see a deficit which continues right through the eighties and into 1990, perhaps slightly less in terms of gross national product, but we see the opposite situation with the provinces and municipalities which move well into a surplus situation. This is particularly so with respect to the province of Alberta, but also to some extent in the other two western resource-rich provinces. However, there is a basic surplus at that stage of the game. If we put all levels of government together, as the Economic Council of Canada has done, we see that by about 1984 all governments have a zero surplus and a zero deficit, and then as we go on for another year or two we find that all governments have surpluses, except the federal government, which has a very large deficit. This will create some very serious problems in this country. The problems will become greater as the resource revenues, particularly of Alberta, increase.
I was appalled this past weekend to hear the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) say that Alberta need only hang tough to win the energy pricing fight. To Alberta he said, "Stand firm". Alberta is trying to raise the price of energy from $17 or $18 a barrel to about $32 a barrel. I calculate that the hon. member who was responsible for that 18-cent budget would like another 43 cents added to the cost of each gallon of gasoline. I suppose that is what he was talking about. Do hon. members know what that means in terms of inflation? It means about a 4 per cent or 5 per cent increase in inflation. That is not just an increase for a short period; it is an increase forever. When hon. members are talking about these things, they should remember that our constituents back home are not particularly happy about that. My constituents in Thunder Bay would not be very happy to see another 45 cents added to the cost of a gallon of gasoline. They are not anxious to see a 4 per cent to 5 per cent increase in inflation. That is what the hon. member was talking about, but he was also talking about a massive transfer to one province, which basically means that the wealth of that province-or other provinces; perhaps one, two or three-will increase while at the same time we continue with this very large federal deficit.
I think the real issues this nation will face in the next five or ten years will be energy and inflation, but at the heart of them will be the very basic problem of the fiscal arrangements between the provinces and the federal government. I think we as a federal government must maintain a firm hand in this matter.
Let us examine some of the arrangements we have with the provinces. Let us examine medicare, for instance. Six years ago the federal government put up 44 per cent or 45 per cent of all of the medical costs in the province of Ontario, and the province and the individuals who paid premiums were putting up the balance. Something is happening to that arrangement. Something has happened over the years. The federal government is now paying 50 per cent of this, and Ontario is
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82
supposed to be a "have" province. The share of the province of Ontario is down to about 30 per cent, and the individual users of the service pay the premiums, which make up another 20 per cent.
There is a special task force on federal-provincial fiscal arrangements, but if in the next few years we decide that the federal government has to cut back then can we be sure the services this country has come to expect-medicare and so forth-will continue to be provided and can we be assured that the provinces will keep their part up if we cut back our share to perhaps where it was? I do not think we can because many of the provinces have not shown themselves to be honest or forthright in maintaining these services.
When we come to deciding whether we should increase federal revenues or cut back federal expenditures in terms of cutting off some of these services, I think we must look to see whether these services can be continued by the provinces. If we feel, as I think I would, given the evidence before me today, that these provinces will not maintain these services, then I think I would have to opt for an increase in federal revenues in some way so we can be sure someone is maintaining the services that we believe all Canadians should have, and some of the areas where we will find those revenues happen to be in resource areas where there is this tremendous transfer.
I am not anticipating what all our reactions will be, but I am saying these are the issues which must be put before this House. These are the issues which are really germane to the constitutional issue. It seems to me there has been a growing increase in the fiscal power of the provinces. It seems to me that as a nation, we have come to the point where we have to start turning that around so the federal government has sufficient power and sufficient fiscal resources to do the job Canadians expect to be done.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to listen to the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae). This is the second time he has given the same speech in two business days in this House. I enjoyed listening to it last Friday. It was not too bad today. I hope he will not give the same speech again the next time he stands up.
The hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan is a gentleman who proclaims that hon. members opposite should rule with a firm hand. I do not know whether they have a firm hand, but I can say they surely have sticky fingers.
The whole proposition the hon. member put before us can be torn to pieces in just a few short sentences. The hon. member pointed out that at the time of the Second World War a certain percentage of the gross national product represented federal government expenditures. It seems strange to me that at that time Canada was able to fight a major world war with probably a smaller proportion of the gross national product of the country than what is used now just to keep the normal functions of government going.
The hon. member made a comparison of the national debt of this country in terms of the percentage of the gross national

April 6, 1981
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82
product. It is quite right to point out that since the end of the last world war this has consistently gone down. That is right, it went down in fact until about 1968 when the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) took office and then, instead of continuing to go down or levelling off as one might expect- because it is quite natural that it should be very, very high, in wartime, and one would expect that 20 or 25 years after it would reach a steady levelling off-this has not happened in the last 12 years or so. It dipped, and now it is climbing up again. We are not fighting a war. We are not engaged in any major capital expenditures or any major public works projects in this country. All we are doing is running faster and faster on the same treadmill.
The hon. member says, and it is true, that provincial expenditures have increased considerably compared with federal government expenditures. But at the same time we must look into the nature of provincial type expenditures. We must remember that prior to the Second World War, expenditures on health services, education and social services by federal or provincial governments were pretty limited. They were normally the responsibility of a parish or of a local school district, and it was not required of any provincial or federal government to expend money on that type of activity. What has happened over the last 30 years or so? In the last 30 years or so, government expenditures for health, welfare and education grew so much that now it is probably the biggest area of total government spending. Because that is primarily an area of provincial authority, the provincial share of total government expenditures has had to rise during that period. I do not think it is a nefarious plot on the part of the provinces. Rather, it has occurred naturally. The people of Canada have wanted government at one level or another to engage in this type of social expenditures.
I would now like to get back to the bill before us, namely, Bill C-59, which would authorize the borrowing of $14 billion. It is a pleasure for me to be able to speak on this subject tonight instead of continuing the debate on the Constitution. I am pleased that a truce, as the newspapers have called it, took place a couple of days ago. I am glad hon. members opposite have dropped their obsession with this matter for a limited period of time, and I would like to urge them to drop the constitutional issue for another couple of weeks or so to allow us to take a breather. We could then come back and take another look at the issue after some things have a chance to happen in the next couple of days. There is the Quebec provincial election, for instance, which is to take place in a few days. It seems that the premiers at long last have been able to get their act together. It would be my idea to let the constitutional issue lie for a few weeks so that we could come back to it with fresh minds.


An hon. Member:: Don't hold your breath.


Dave Nickerson: It is because of the government's obsession with the constitutional issue that we have to look at bills such as Bill C-59. That is why the government is in so much financial difficulty and why the economy of the country is nowhere near as healthy as it could or should be. I suspect the Prime Minister thinks that dealing with the economic issues of the country is rather below his dignity. He wants to be way up there someplace talking about the Constitution, rather than here in the House talking about interest rates, unemployment and all the other issues of such great concern to ordinary Canadians. We can see this reflected in his choice of ministers to conduct the financial affairs of the nation. We see, for instance, the rather weak President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston). The present incumbent in that office is nowhere near like the strong personage we had in the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) some months ago.


An hon. Member:: The slasher?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Dave Nickerson: Let us get back now to the borrowing authority for $14 billion requested of us by the government. In my estimation, this comes to about $700 from every man, woman and child in Canada. If I take my family comprised of six people and multiply that number by $700, it comes out that the gentlemen opposite are contracting a debt on my behalf of some $4,200. Quite frankly, I think that is excessive and I wish they would not do it.
If we looked at it in another way, it would appear the government is contracting debts on behalf of each taxpayer in the region of $1,500 to $2,000, and I think it should stop that, especially when we consider that the interest payable on that $14 billion amounts to some $2 billion a year. Surely this is excessive. I had no difficulty at all in voting this afternoon in favour of the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) who suggested that the borrowing authority should be for only $8 billion. As a matter of fact, some government members themselves stated that in all probability that is all they would really require. The additional $3 billion or $4 billion was just in case they needed it. They could not present a case for why they might need it and they themselves said that $8 billion is something which would be much more reasonable if they could get their act together and stop mismanaging the financial affairs of the nation. Borrowing $15 billion a year surely guarantees that inflation will continue and that interest rates will have to be maintained at the present high level.
I find it hard to understand when the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) on the one hand and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) on the other rise in their places and talk about the plight of the old age pensioner, for instance. It is the old age pensioner, the person on a fixed income, who is suffering as a result of the government's inflationary programs, and its inflationary policies, and the type of bill we have before us today makes it quite apparent that the government has no real interest in preventing inflation or in allowing those people who have saved up for their old age
April 6, 1981

to look after themselves. What the government is doing to the elderly people of Canada is drive them to government welfare schemes, the taps of which they turn on and off at will.
With the ever-increasing debt loads on this nation, there will be no incentive to cease borrowing and to prevent inflation because, quite frankly, if I were the deputy minister of finance or the Governor of the Bank of Canada, with the knowledge that inflation is of benefit to the debtor and that the government is the biggest debtor in the land, it would be hard for me to advise a policy of rapidly decreasing inflation. I would not be able to do it and perhaps I would have to suggest a policy of bringing down inflation at a fairly slow rate. But I would not say: No, we are tired of inflation, we have to turn it off because of this accumulated debt. In fact, what we have here with this continuing borrowing and continuing deficit financing, is a self-perpetuating inflationary engine.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I want to delve into history for a little while. I want to go back to the time before the eighteenth century when governments borrowed mainly for the purpose of financing their wars. That was the usual reason the sovereign of the day would go to Parliament or to whatever body had the legislative or taxing authority in the country. Before that period, borrowing was done mainly through private lenders. The idea was always there, although it was not always carried out in fact, that at some point in time the sovereign should pay that money back. In the period from 1700 to 1750, mainly in the most developed countries of that day, England and France, the concept of a permanent debt was born.
At the time this happened there was the development of national banking institutions, the forerunners of the central banks, most of which, if not all in the world, are now nationalized banks. There was the establishment of a system of national credit. It was found that the establishment of these institutions and the establishment of a system of permanent debt did much to facilitate trade and the savings of citizens in those countries. It is quite possible that the establishment of this financial system was a prerequisite to the coming of the industrial revolution some 25 to 50 years thereafter.
This permanent debt concept is not seriously questioned today. Once in a while there are members of this House who get up and say they would like to eliminate government debt altogether; but 1 do not think those of us who have really considered the matter would propose such a course of action. The question is not whether national debt should exist but what is the desirable level of that debt? What is equally important is how that debt is to be managed.
We see public debt managed in several ways. For instance, foreign borrowings are used not only in the normal course of our borrowing activities but also as a means of controlling the value of our currency. Occasions not too far in the past can be cited to illustrate where this device has been misused by the government of the day. However, it can be agreed that it is a useful mechanism for keeping steady the level of the Canadian dollar vis-a-vis other world currencies.
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82
Most of our debt in this country is domestic, as I guess it is in most developed countries. There are three ways in which domestic borrowing can be accomplished. It can be done through the general public by way of Canada Savings Bonds and other such instruments. It can be done by borrowing from the chartered banks. It can be done by borrowing from the central bank, the Bank of Canada. These three methods are usually used; one in conjunction with the other, and each has certain good points and certain dangers associated with it.
The least inflationary method of borrowing is probably that from the general public, which will not unduly increase the money supply, although it can have the effect of taking so much of the savings out of the citizens' pockets that there is not enough left for private investment in worth-while activities, as was pointed out this afternoon by the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko). For instance, sufficient funds are not left in the economy to finance energy projects in this day and age. Undoubtedly, the form of borrowing which will cause the most excessive inflation is borrowing from the Bank of Canada, which is tantamount to the printing of money. I would urge the government to be a little more careful in the future when it comes to the way in which it manages the debt of this country and the sources from which it borrows.
I would like to address the question of what is the desirable level of debt in Canada. As the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan Pointed out, it has fluctuated over the years. It has generally been very high during and immediately after time of war. It has been high at other times in the history of Canada, a good example of which is the time at which the construction of the Canadian Pacfic Railway took place. At the time of the construction of that great project the debt of the Government of Canada rose considerably in terms of the gross national product.
1 have pointed out before that over the last few years, since the present Prime Minister took office, the national debt in terms of gross national product has been creeping upward. It seems to me that a prudent government might have a target for the national debt, not in terms of the gross national product of the country, but in relation to the income of the government, roughly in the order of $50 billion a year.
In peacetime, and at a time when there are no Canadian Pacific railways being built, it seems to me a total debt of about twice the income of the government would be a reasonable figure to aim at. That would give us a level of debt of about $100 billion in total. I understand that presently our total debt is somewhat in excess of that. What we see here is a situation which today has been reasonably manageable in total terms but which is now sliding out of control, that is, in terms of the debt we have built up over a period of years.
What should be the additional debt in any one year in terms of the income of the government? It seems to me a reasonable figure a prudent government would try to achieve would be no more than 10 per cent of the public income for any one given year, assuming that there were no national emergencies to deal with. This indicates that a reasonable figure for today is in the region of $5 billion for total annual borrowing. With that figure in mind, $14 billion is clearly out of line.

April 6, 1981
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82
I stress what I said before-up to now the situation has been reasonably manageable, it has been handled sensibly. But what happened this year, last year and what will happen, presumably, next year and in the years to come with the gentlemen over there forming the government is that what has been manageable in the past will not longer be so. The financial affairs of this nation are swiftly becoming unmanageable through the incompetence of a government which is more concerned with ramming through its constitutional ideas rather than addressing the fundamental financial and economic issues which need to be addressed.
I would now like to look at the use to which these borrowed funds might be put. If we examine the use of these funds the ineptitude of the present gouvernment becomes even more apparent. To my way of thinking, the peacetime use of borrowed funds should be limited to those things which will benefit future generations, primarily benefit the people who will eventually have to pay those debts. As an example of what could be described as good borrowing, I pointed out the funds borrowed by the Government of Canada to assist in the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway. As another example, one could cite the St. Lawrence Seaway. We can cite uses of what we might be described as social capital, building of hospitals-


Erik Nielsen: The Pine Point railway.


Dave Nickerson: The Pine Point railway. I do not know if one would call that social capital, but the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) thinks it is a very good example of the good use of public funds, borrowed funds, and I certainly agree with him on that. However, schools and other things will be there in the years to come and will benefit people over the long term, and will benefit those who will eventually be called upon to repay those debts.
Is the present government using money, borrowed funds, for that type of purpose? I suggest it is not. The main uses to which the government is putting the money borrowed today is for the payment of our interest on existing debt. With the high interest rates today, we will find ourselves caught in a trap where we will have to borrow more money each year to pay the interest to amortize previous debts. We are on a treadmill, as has been pointed out by many speakers on this side of the House during the course of this debate.
Let us look at some other uses to which the government is putting borrowed funds. It is subsidizing the price of gasoline in much of Quebec and eastern Canada. Can hon. members think of a more wasteful use of borrowed funds? One puts it in a gas tank, drives down the road and burns it up, and it is gone right now. We are not building anything for the future with that type of borrowing and expenditure. This is politically motivated spending, and it is detrimental to the long-term national good.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Dave Nickerson: Another use to which these funds are being put is in the takeover of private corporations, particularly in the energy field. I do not know what good this will do. It will not result in one additional barrel of oil being produced. It is again a politically motivated expenditure which, in my opinion, will not prove to be in the national interests in the long run.
I am trying to find something here to say about fisheries. Unfortunately, I did not bring any notes on fisheries tonight, but we will get back to that on another occasion.
In conclusion, I think all hon. members of this House should vote against this measure. I certainly will, and my colleagues on this side of the House certainly will for the following reasons. It is undeniably excessive; the government is asking for too much; there is no need to borrow that amount of money and it can get by quite well without that amount. It is excessive, and nobody can deny that. The funds will not be used for legitimate and long-term purposes. They will be squandered, thrown to the four winds, and we will go back next year and borrow another $14 billion-it will probably be $20 billion next year.
The government is not making any real effort to put its affairs in order. Had it followed the lead given by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) a little over a year ago, one would have seen that there was a real effort to address the financial needs of the country. However, the government has reversed that, and nothing is really being done. There is a lot of lip service about putting the financial affairs in orders, but in fact nothing has really been done.
The fundamental policy of the government is wrong. We know it is faced with hard times occasioned by years and years-decades of Liberal mismanagement. We know that even if we on this side had still been in office, we would probably have had to come to the House and ask for $7 billion or $8 billion. However, we certainly would not have come and asked for a $14 billion borrowing authority. In my opinion, the request for $14 billion is simply an indication of the policy of wanton profligacy on the part of the government, and it is completely unsupported.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Garnet M. Bloomfield (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to take part in this debate on Bill C-59. Fiscal matters have always intrigued me. Back in my earlier days when I was involved in municipal politics, I certainly enjoyed the piecing together of the annual budget. I realize that we in this House are dealing with much greater sums of money, but the decisions are still basically the same; who gets what, how much do they get and who pays for it?
What the federal government is asking for is $14 billion, $11 billion of which is provided for in the budget and in the
April 6, 1981

estimates as expenditures and financial requirements to cover that expenditure. The other $3 billion will be set aside for contingency purposes. Since, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) has already explained, it is not always possible to predict whether or not Parliament will be sitting at the time this money may be needed, this provision will allow the federal government some flexibility in the future. It is very possible that this $3 billion will not be spent. 1 certainly hope it is not. But if, for example, there is another drought in western Canada like the one experienced last year, or some other such national emergency, we will have the funds available to provide the necessary emergency assistance.
As with any legislation that deals with government financing, the opposition parties want to know what the money will be used for. That is their right, as it is the right of every Canadian to know where their tax dollars are being spent. It will allow all the people in Canada to understand that the federal government turns over a large part of its revenues to the provincial governments. Of the total federal budget for
1981-82, roughly 20 per cent will be turned over to the provincial governments in transfer payments. Established program financing, which includes medicare as well as other cash payments such as equalization payments, and the Canada Assistance Program, are but a few of the many programs under which the federal government transfers expenditures in payments to the provinces. This is, in my view, quite a sizeable sum, and I do not see it getting any smaller in the coming years.
Many times I have heard various people across this country calling on the federal government to curb its spending habits. I would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight, Mr. Speaker, in terms of federal spending.
Over the past five years, total federal expenditures have increased at an average annual rate of 13 per cent, compared with 15 per cent for the provinces as a whole. Serious efforts by the federal government to limit spending on goods and services have borne fruit over the last few years. However, the cost of the public debt has risen sharply and the transfers to the provinces have continued to increase dramatically. Generally speaking, the sudden increase in the federal deficit cannot be attributed to a surge in spending. Spending has increased at a more or less normal rate. What has happened is that federal sources of income and revenue have dropped substantially over the past five years. This type of spending is extremely difficult to reduce, especially in the case of transfers, since they are indexed to inflation.
How do we in the federal government rectify this deteriorating situation? At present, we are locked into a number of federal-provincial cost-sharing programs which are draining our coffers. We have been repeatedly warned by the provinces that we cannot increase our take of revenues from the petroleum industry, even though the multinationals recorded an average after tax profit increase of 54 per cent in 1979.
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82
Newfoundland has continuously argued that offshore mineral rights in the Hibernia belong to them, not to the federal government. There is no question that the federal government's revenue sources are decreasing more rapidly than the provinces' but no one has any clues as to where we can go to obtain more revenues.
I believe the time has come to take a good long look at what our priorities are. If we want to bring down the deficit, then let us see what we are spending our money on. As I stated earlier, $13.4 billion is going to be paid to the provinces this year. Now we are told we cannot look for any revenues in their areas of jurisdiction. But if we do not maintain our provincial transfer payments, which are always going to rise because they are indexed to inflation, again we get slammed by the provinces. How do we ever get ahead?
After doing a bit of background research into this matter, I learned that two out of every three federal dollars go toward non-federal programs of one type or another. Many Canadians are not aware of this. Many federal-provincial cost-sharing programs are up for renewal next year under the established programs financing cash payment system. I suggest we look at them very closely to see if some money could be saved there.
I want to see that deficit reduced just as much as any other member of this House. If the provinces want us to continue to spend 20 per cent of our revenues in transfer payments, then they had better get together with us and help to come up with a more rational formula of cost-sharing. It is time to separate our wants from our needs.
In our attempts to keep up with our payments to the provinces and to other levels of government, other important areas of federal concern have had to take a back seat. Twenty-five years ago, the federal government received the equivalent of 17.6 per cent of Canada's total gross national product in revenues, compared to 4.8 per cent for the provinces. As of 1979, the federal share had slipped to 16 per cent, with the provinces jumping up to 25 per cent. I ask, Mr. Speaker, where has that money gone?
When talking about fiscal responsibility, let us call a spade a spade. The federal government has seen its revenue sources increase marginally, while its expenditures continue to grow, especially in terms of its payments to the provinces. On the other hand, the provinces have increased their percentage of the GNP by about 300 per cent while allowing services in many areas to decline. That is partly why there is a federal deficit. That is where we should look for answers to our economic problems.
If the provinces want more power and recognition, then they must be prepared to shoulder more fiscal responsibilities. They cannot have it both ways. This is evident in the housing sector, for example. The federal government builds senior citizens' homes in co-operation with the provincial governments. The federal government funds 90 per cent of the construction costs, with the provincial government paying the other 10 per cent. When it comes time for the official opening of the facility,
9014

April 6, 1981
though, the provincial government is always the first to take the credit. If the provinces want all the glory, let them take it, but they should be prepared to pick up most of the cost of the projects too.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I wish to state categorically that a large amount of federal expenditures is in the form of transfer payments to the provinces. If we want to substantially reduce the federal deficit, as everyone knows we should, let us start by getting the provinces to pay their way. In doing so, we will ease inflation, bring down the deficit and get Canada on a more solid footing for the future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POINT OF ORDER
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, concerning motion No. 36 in the name of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), I give you notice that tomorrow I will move a motion that the debate on the amendment of the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) not be further adjourned. Therefore, notice having been given, I should now like to elaborate on this.
I should like to advise you that at the next sitting of the House, immediately before the order of the day for resuming debate on motion No. 36 in the name of the Minister of Justice related to the proposed Address to Her Majesty the Queen concerning the Constitution of Canada and on the amendment thereto introduced by the hon. member for Provencher, I will move a motion that the debate shall not be further adjourned, pursuant to Standing Order 33.


Erik Nielsen: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I arrived half way through the reading of the proposal by the government House leader. I wonder if either he or the Chair would repeat it in English for my benefit?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: For the convenience of hon. members, perhaps the Chairman might read the order. I shall alter the personal pronouns where it seems suitable.
The notice of motion put by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) is that, pursuant to Standing Order 33, he indicated that he wished to give notice that at the next sitting of the House, immediately before the reading of the order of the day for resuming debate on the motion in the name of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), Government Orders, Government Business No. 36, regarding a proposed Address to Her Majesty the Queen respecting the Constitution of Canada and the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), he, that is to say the President of
the Privy Council, shall propose a motion that the debate on the said amendment shall not be further adjourned.


Mr. Knowles:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I had earlier recognized the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). Perhaps I should see him in case he wants to continue on the point of order, then I will recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Erik Nielsen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to place immediately before the Chair for its consideration, the propriety of the acceptability of the purported motion by the government House leader being moved at this time when there is still a motion standing in his name-I believe it is No. 41- which is in itself a form of closure.
My submission is that it may very well be that the Chair might come to the conclusion that before a motion under Standing Order 33, a motion of guillotine closure, is moved, of which he is giving notice now, there must first be removed from the Order Paper the motion now standing in his name which purports the slow strangulation method of closure. That is what is proposed in motion No. 41.
The government House leader has already put motion No. 41 on the Order Paper, proposing limited time for speeches, and limited time, four days, for debate. The matter is then concluded. It is a radically new procedure which he was developing by that motion but there it is on the Order Paper, moved by himself. Now he comes along and moves a second closure motion. I believe it is his right to do this under our Standing Orders, although I will reserve on that point in order to make argument at some subsequent time while Your Honour is considering this point of order. I am sorry, he has given notice to move a second closure motion.
He might clarify that by rising in his place and telling us what his intention is with respect to the motion now standing in his name on the Order Paper. It would be illogical to think that he would be proceeding with the motion standing in his name if he is serious about his intention to proceed with the Standing Order 33 closure motion of which he has given notice now.
Before I proceed further in developing my point of order, perhaps he might express his intention with respect to the motion standing in his name. Is it the government's intention to withdraw that motion, leaving us only with the notice he is now giving of his intention to place on the Order Paper a Standing Order 33 closure motion tomorrow?
We are interested in the fate of the closure by strangulation motion now on the Order Paper in his name, motion No. 41.


Yvon Pinard: 
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, now that we have that clarification, it is my submission it is not within the competence of any member under our practices, procedures and Standing Orders to move Standing Order 33 closure on an amendment only. It has to be either the whole motion or nothing at all. There is no competence in the House to debate a Standing Order 33 motion of closure on an amendment only.
I am not admitting the legitimacy of the notice which the government House leader has given tonight. There will be an opportunity when he comes to tabling his motion under Standing Order 33 to debate the propriety of it. However, I am giving notice now that I intend to very vigorously debate the propriety of the position of the government in its capacity to move Standing Order 33 on an amendment only. It is my submission that it cannot be done. I will be developing that point further at the appropriate time.
In any event, I give the Chair and the government House leader notice of that intention now. The government House leader obviously thinks he is well within the rules in doing that. I do not believe he is, In my opinion, this is a rather startling and shocking action on the part of the government House leader during a debate I might add, on a bill which in itself is being debated now under the guillotine of closure. I do not know how many variations of closure the government can dream up, but it is certainly-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I respect the point of order which the hon. member has sought to make. I also note that he has indicated he wants to develop the point further at an appropriate time. The Chair is not unfamiliar with the argument in any event. I want to thank the hon. member for bringing it forward. However, I think he has now reached the point where he is entering into other discussion.
I ask the hon. member to take the opportunity to complete his remarks with respect to this point of order, perhaps briefly. As I understand the rules, points of order ought to be brief and there are other hon. members who want to be recognized.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly be brief because I know there are other hon. members who wish to participate on this matter. As I was saying, I do not know how many variations of closure this government can dream up; I suppose as many as their twisted little minds will permit them to do. I see the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) nodding assent while chewing on his life saver.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There is a great spirit in this House.


Erik Nielsen: I knew it was a life saver.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Great spirit.


Erik Nielsen: It will take more than that to save his hide; as fast as he has been back-pedalling in the past few days.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is great spirit.


Erik Nielsen: Nevertheless, 1 will develop my point at the appropriate time. I will develop my formal objections to the motion which I anticipate the government House leader will be tabling tomorrow.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We will throw you a life saver.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: In my position, Sir, I do not need a life saver. A life saver is certainly needed over there, though.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the point of order on which I rose a few moments ago has been answered. Some hon. members might say: well then, why do you not stay in your seat?


Mr. Jarvis:: Some might.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In the meantime, another issue has arisen. I simply want to be clear that the motion of which notice has been given tonight referred only to the amendment by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp).


Erik Nielsen: That is what he said.


Stanley Howard Knowles: After that the discussion on the main motion would still be open. Since the government House leader made the original announcement, he has made it clear that that is the case. As I said, I might have accepted that as the answer and held my peace, but I suppose I have had more experience with closure than any other member of this House, just from being around here for a long time.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The Grits do too.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Never before have I heard an opposition member raise a point of order against the use of closure where the government was using it to a lesser extent than it could go.
My experience with closure, especially in 1956, is that every time the government has used it, the government has abused it, and the government went further than the rules permitted. I can say to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) that if he had brought in a notice tonight closing off the whole debate, I would have argued the very reverse-


Erik Nielsen: You are agreeing with this closure, are you?


Stanley Howard Knowles: -to what the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) said, namely, that what is before us is a debate on the amendment put by the hon. member for Provencher, and that is all that can be closed off by one motion. However, if there are any points of order on this, they will have to come later. As the hon. member knows, the rules do not permit any debate on it.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: We were just putting you straight.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Let me understand where we are going. Notice of motion has been given. The hon. member for Yukon rose on a point of order. He indicated he

April 6, 1981
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82
had some remarks he wanted to bring to the attention of the Chair as to whether that notice of motion is in order.
The second point he made during his observation was the question as to whether such a notice of motion is divisible as between the amendment and the main motion and the amendment together. That is what the current procedural debate is on. 1 do not think it is necessary to hear the same points again and again. 1 will recognize the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) if it is on that same point of order. If it is on a new point of order, I will ask him to wait while 1 determine whether the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) wishes to address the same point of order as that raised by the hon. member for Yukon.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I have had some discussions. I would move that the debate speech time from now until the appropriate time for a vote under Standing Order 75c be limited to ten minutes per speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are on third reading. We are not under Standing Order 75c.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Sorry, third reading.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 1 understood that the hon. member is not making a motion under a point of order but rather he was advising the House that there may be some agreement to shorten the debate to ten minutes per speech per member who would now be recognized. Do I understand the hon. member correctly?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The House has heard the suggestion made by the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). Is there unanimous agreement to that proposal?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: From now on, the Chair will recognize members for a duration of ten minutes within the same proportion and ratio.


BORROWING AUTHORITY ACT, 1981-82 SUPPLEMENTARY BORROWING AUTHORITY
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pinard (for the Minister of State for Finance) (Mr. Bussieres) that Bill C-59, to provide supplementary borrowing authority, be read the third time and do pass.
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I was discussing the subject of Bill C-59, and trying to relate to $14 billion, with my son this morning before I left Peterborough to come to the House of Commons. He asked me exactly how much $14 billion is. My son is 14 years old. I do not suppose there
are very many people in this House who have had the opportunity either in their personal lives or in their businesses to relate to $14 billion in today's terms. I want to relate a couple of things which came to mind this morning.
My son and I tried to discuss the seriousness of the necessity by the government to borrow $14 billion today. I wonder how many people in this House realize that during World War I and World War II, we borrowed less to finance those wars than we are borrowing annually now to finance the deficit spending of this government. This government continues to spend 25 per cent more each year than it takes in.
In order to get an idea of what $14 billion is, perhaps hon. members could picture $10 bills. If we put $10 bills end to end, do hon. members know how far those ten-dollar bills, which we all use in every day trading, would extend? It is 24,000 miles around the world. If you were to put $10 bills end to end, they would travel around the world five and one half times. This government is proposing to borrow 132,000 miles of $10 bills in order to finance its deficit budgeting.
I would like to refer back to the last federal election. In the release that came from the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) substantiating the need for Bill C-59 and the borrowing of this excessive amount of money, it reads:
As honourable members will recall, the budget of last October clearly set out this government's strategy of reducing the deficit through restraint in the rate of growth of expenditures.
During the election one short year ago, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) told Canadians what they could expect if they returned him to power. He made five basic commitments during that campaign which he said made up the Libera! party's economic strategy.
This is a good time to look back at that five-point program to see how it relates to today and the need to borrow $14 billion in order to finance this government's spending. When you are running for office it is easy to say you are going to turn things around as soon as you get into power. However, the reality is that things do not change rapidly in government and the economy and the promises of yesterday become the embarrassments of today. The Prime Minister said a year ago, and I quote his words:
The Conservatives have failed miserably in managing the economy, in creating jobs, in controlling inflation, and heading us toward energy security.
These failures would be reversed, he said, by the five-point plan.
The first item in that plan of the last federal election was that the Liberals would "manage more rigorously the nation's finances in order to make more effective use of the taxpayers' money". The Prime Minister made that pledge and he made it very specific. He said "We will hold the line on government expenditure growth under the rate of GNP".
That was the promise in 1979. What is the performance today? The finance minister's budget for the coming fiscal year calls for an increase of 12.8 per cent in total federal
April 6, 1981

spending. It forecasts an increase of 11.1 per cent in the gross national product, including inflation. Therefore, government spending is definitely not being held in line with the GNP.
I wish to quote from an article which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen, written by Charles Lynch:
It's unparliamentary to call people liars, so let's just say that when it comes to talking about spending, it's a wonder the skies don't open to admit a bolt of lightning that would strike the Liberals dead-
Thus we have those wonderful people who brought us the record-breaking deficits and interest payments that have the country reeling, telling us in Johnston's words that "our objective has been, and continues to be, to ensure that taxpayers' dollars spent by the federal government are well spent, and that taxpayers do indeed receive value for money."
I would like to refer to the present government's record of spending in years gone by. Mirabel airport had a cost overrun of $201.7 million; Place du Portage a cost overrun of $92.7 million; the CN Tower in Toronto, $40.5 million; the Pickering airport, $69.3 million; the C.D. Howe building in Ottawa, $45 million; the Paris chancery, $4.4 million; and the discovery train $14.5 million.
In 1976 the Auditor General charged that the government had lost effective control of the public purse. The Lambert royal commission report was released on April 3, 1979. The Liberals responded by announcing a task force to study the report of the task force that had studied the Auditor General's report. The Lambert report observed that:
-the serious malaise pervading the management of government stems fundamentally from a grave weakening, and in some cases an almost total breakdown, in the chain of accountability, first within government, and second in the accountability of government in Parliament and ultimately to the Canadian people.
In conclusion, I will try to complete my 20-minute speech in ten minutes. Overruns in certain departments are very serious problems. The worst department is environment where 153 out of 223 projects were experiencing cost overruns, to a total cost of $283 million. Overruns in the department are equal to 35 per cent of original budgets with 66 per cent experiencing cost overruns. Indian and northern affairs experienced cost overruns on 42 of 76 projects, or 55 per cent of their endeavours.
No government, no family, no business can continue to spend 25 per cent more than it takes in year after year. The taxpayers of Canada are the ones who will lose, the people who put this government in office. I maintain that as soon as we hold government accountable for the money it spends in relation to the money it takes in, the sooner our economy will become sound.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, we heard rather a lot of dramatic statements this evening and on Friday about the borrowing authority bill. It may be useful to reiterate, as a number of members on this side of the House have done, that the money for which authority is sought to borrow is all money that will be well accounted for. The budget passed by this House last fall was for approximately $11 billion. Borrowing authority is being sought for that amount plus approximately $3 billion in contingency funds which will be non-lapsing.
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82
One member of the official opposition said earlier that the introduction of the non-lapsing amount was new. However, this has been done often in this House before. It was the existence of those non-lapsing funds which allowed the Conservative government to carry on the business of the country during a period last year when Parliament did not meet. Therefore, it is not a new invention but an established way of proceeding.
The moneys expended by the Government of Canada are based on the estimates which are passed by this House. After the event, there is the Auditor General's report which is increasingly becoming an in-depth report. The public accounts committee of this House examines expenditures after the event to ensure that they conform with what was proposed and approved by Parliament in the estimates.
Increasingly the largest portion of moneys spent by the Government are in fact spent in transfers to the provinces or to people. At least 68 per cent of the expenditures of the Government of Canada are transfer payments to the provinces, to the territories, to the municipalities and to people.
Transfer support programs take several forms including grants to support provincial legislatures, hospitals, hospital insurance, medicare and post-secondary education. Transfers to individuals include old age pensions, family allowances, payments under the Canada Pension disability fund and so on.
An earlier criticism was made that the three levels of government borrowing and going into capital markets so extensively was reducing the amounts of money available to the private sector. But I wonder why members of the opposition concentrate only on expenditures of the federal government, when in fact expenditures of provincial and municipal governments have grown at a tremendous rate in recent years, at a rate in excess of the expenditures of the Government of Canada.
About 68 per cent of the total expenditures of the Government of Canada are transfer payments to the provinces or to individuals. The payments which can be controlled directly by the Government of Canada are by far the smallest of the budget. We care very much about having an orderly approach to bond markets but, perhaps even more, we care about transfer payments which are a big part of our social policies directed at assuring that the young who cannot take care of themselves are protected; that children can be educated; that children have access to good medical care; that the old who have small pensions are protected; that by education and programs such as rehabilitation for the disabled and manpower training, we increase the opportunity for Canadians; that Canadians as far as possible have equality of opportunity. These are important programs.
It is important to remember, in the course of complaining about government expenditure, that the government is not spending money for the most part on anything except services to people. Equally, our social policy has been part of the policy on which we were elected. Probably the most important social

April 6, 1981
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82
program which exists is related to unemployment and to job creation. Most healthy people, given reasonable jobs, can provide for their own social security to a large extent. For this reason, managing the economy efficiently and fairly is a very big part of the Liberal program, as is our commitment to help those who are unable to help themselves-the young, the old, the sick.
Furthermore, we have heard a lot of talk in the last few days about government intrusion into the private sector. Nobody wants to see the government intruding into the private sector unnecessarily. The private sector should be allowed the freedom to do well what it can do well. But we must face the fact that the record of the private sector in matters such as occupational health and safety and care for the environment has not always been such as to inspire confidence. There is a point where the government must intervene in order to provide fairness, decency and a reasonable quality of life for citizens. It is in this sense that expenditures by government must always be looked at as expenditures on the individual, expenditures concerning which those individuals have a voice and a vote.


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to draw a parallel between Liberal spending leading up to the federal election of May, 1979, when the main issues during that campaign were a matter of fiscal irresponsibility on the part of the government of the day, wrestling inflation to the ground, a commission finding truth in the statements that spending was out of control and that there was a lack of accountability, and the introduction of Bill C-59. Within a year of the election of the government in February, 1980, the deficit jumped from $12 billion to $14 billion. Now the government talks of tackling inflation. It is completely obsessed with a program of legislation which has no relativity to the persons on the street looking for jobs, seeking homes and social legislation, and finding some outlet to which they can relate.
In my remaining time I would like to deal with two simple matters which affect southern Ontario. A number of times I have spoken in the House about the budget introduced in October, 1980, and the regressive discriminatory tax application of excise tax on grape growers and the wine industry. I have indicated that the excise tax, related to the consumer price index, is not in the interests of the Canadian wine industry, the primary grape producers on the Canadian economy. Such automatic quarterly adjustments indicate the defeatist attitude of the government. It also indicates that the government is completely helpless to do anything about the situation. Now taxes are growing and the rate of inflation is out of control.
The consumer price index for the 12-month period ending September 30, 1980, was the base figure for the calculations on which indexing would take place. Thus, we have watched the CPI climb to record levels, as well as the excise tax. Already primary grape growers and wine producers are called upon to make contributions to the revenue departments of both the province and the federal government, far in excess of the normal relationship to their take home pay and the profit margin of the wine industry.
Out of some sympathy and concern for the industry, the government reviewed this tax imposition and made some changes. In the interests of continuing a viable wine and brandy-producing industry, the government should review its program once more as part of its Canadianization program.
Another area of the Canadian economy, that is the marine industry, is being prejudiced by the rigidness of the government's energy policy. As was stated by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), the real reason for the imposition of a marine and aviation charge was that foreign fleets and foreign aircraft were purchasing our fuel products. As a result, they were being subsidized by Canadians. Instead of making a practical assessment of its energy policy, the government chose to penalize Canadian flagships engaged in international trade. This government and Canadians should be proud of the record established by the Canadian Great Lakes merchant fleet. Through the efficiency and productivity of its operations that fleet has captured over 93 per cent of the across the border movement.
It is not difficult to understand the importance to our national economy of bulk cargo shipments between Canada and the United States in the heavily undustrialized regions bordering on the Great Lakes. In 1980 the Canadian merchant fleet carried 95 million tonnes of cargo of which over 50 per cent was made up of U.S.-Canada trade generating over $300 million of revenue to this country.
This Canadian industry which provides jobs for Canadians and revenue for Canada should receive treatment equal to that accorded other Canadian industries involved in manufacturing, supplying and the exporting of goods from Canada. To impose the export charges as proposed by forcing Canadian flag ships to pay world prices for fuel oil used in deliveries of iron ore from Labrador to Lake Michigan ports and to pay world prices for fuel oil or coal brought from the United States to Ontario Hydro or the steel mills of Hamilton goes much further than preventing foreign vessels from purchasing bunker fuel at Canadian domestic prices. It imposes a burden on Canadians generally. The proposal as made will add a further $30 million to the operating costs of the Canadian merchant fleet, costs which must be passed on to the consumer. We are those consumers; we will be paying that excess cost. In many instances the imposition of this export charge will likely result in the transfer of shipments to other routes and a diversion of routes which would be less direct and less efficient.
Any federal policy should support and encourage the competitiveness of Canadian industry and promote the exports of this country, but this export charge has just the opposite effect. It will mean a disruption of efficient fleet fuelling and trading patterns. It is difficult to rationalize why the government should provide yet another advantage to railroads and the trucking industry, forms of transport not subject to this fuel cost penalty and less fuel efficient than the Canadian merchant fleet.
April 6, 1981

If it is neither practical nor possible to introduce a two-price fuel policy. If the government has any concern for the marine industry, then it should introduce a rebate system similar to that which is already in effect in other parts of our economy so that Canadian flag carriers will be in a position to maintain the levels of service and the degree of competitiveness they have attained on the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence waterway.
I suggest consideration be given to further delay in the implementation of this export charge so that consideration can be given to a review of the allocation of the moneys.


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to my colleagues for their support. I am very glad to have the opportunity to speak to this bill concerning the borrowing authority requested by the government. Whenever the borrowing authority issue comes before us, we always hear the same old and yet surprising refrain from members opposite. They claim that a $14 billion borrowing authority is much too much, that a borrowing authority of just $8 billion would be enough. They say there is enough money in the coffers of the state. As a matter of fact, they say all sorts of things, so that after a while we cannot help wondering whether the official opposition is really serious. Everybody is aware that under our federal system, the Government of Canada is called upon to transfer huge amounts of money to the provinces. It is a fact that this year $17 billion will actually be transferred to the provinces by the central government.
The money we want to borrow is always urgently needed, especially at a time when the central government has not yet collected its main revenues. Indeed, when we ask for $14 billion, some people will normally ask for what purpose. Suffice it to say that the federal government assumes half of the medical costs throughout the country by subsidizing hospitals, the purchase of medicine and physicians' fees. Need I add that the Government of Canada also pays old age security pensions and guaranteed income supplements to senior citizens. Need I add that the Government of Canada is even involved in the provincial educational systems through its assistance program for second language instruction, technical training and university research? Need I point out that the Government of Canada helps to build some of our highways? Need I say that, through a public body, the Government of Canada finances the construction of low rental housing? Need I say that the government of Canada pays half the deficit of all low rental housing projects throughout the country? This is where the billions of dollars that we need today are going! They are going to Canadians! No one here is asking billions of dollars to send them outside the country.
Why should a party mess about taking up our time and lead the Canadian people to believe that we are asking for money just to waste it? And what is even worse is that this money goes to the most underprivileged, as anyone can see by looking
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82
at the main requirements and the major expenditures of the government. These requirements are those of the Department of National Health and Welfare, which looks after senior citizens, social affairs, health matters. Where else does all this money go?
Unemployment insurance represents a major part of our budget. Why do we have unemployment insurance at a reasonable price? To allow Canadians, and especially our young people, to at least keep their dignity in spite of current economic problems. But why, Mr. Speaker, and I am asking this of the opposition parties, why would the official opposition have Canadians believe that we want additional funds?
According to the official opposition, we are asking for $6 billion too much, when $8 billion would be enough. Is there anyone here who can imagine that the average government expenditures are $5 billion a month, and even more in certain months, especially during winter, when the economy is slower? Why is the opposition playing this game which is not worthy of Canadian parliamentarians? I sometimes ask myself very serious questions concerning the role of the members of this House. Are we here to represent the provincial governments? Not to my knowledge, as no provincial government has ever elected federal Members of Parliament. Our role here is not to bring the good news as suggested by a provincial premier, any more than to defend the positions of a province; our role here as members is to meet the needs of our people.
As member for the beautiful riding of Lac-Saint-Jean I represent 80,000 people here. My duty is to speak on their behalf, to represent them, and to see to it that the government of Canada meets its commitments as set forth in legislation adopted by previous governments, and if that means I have to force the government to borrow money or authorize it to do that, then I give my authorization. But my role is not to come here and claim that perhaps it would be better if the provinces had their say either in this debate or in the constitutional debate. It is extremely easy to adopt the position of a provincial premier and defend it here, even if it is a question of borrowing money. Some premiers take the Government of Canada to task for spending too much, of course, they blame us for spending in the wrong places, of course, and they also say that we are not doing a good job, constitutionally or otherwise. There are others who congratulate us. I agree, I am not here to make representations for those people, I am here to do my duty as a citizen on behalf of other citizens who freed me from my work and told me: You will represent us in the House of Commons, you will have to make sure that the Government of Canada fulfils its obligations toward me because I pay taxes, I live in this country where I was born and where I will likely die some day. That is my work, and that is what the members of the opposition party ought to understand.
When the Government of Canada year after year requests the authority to borrow money in order to manage the affairs of the state, its request should be granted automatically. I

April 6, 1981
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82
wonder how long we will have to consider year in year out the same stupid arguments about blank cheques, the same stupid arguments about the government borrowing too much, the same stupid arguments which are always brought up at the same time by the same people and which contain nothing new. It is always the same story.
After wasting three, four, five and up to six days, at a cost of $300,000 a day to the taxpayers, discussing the matter, the authority is finally granted. Why not simply say: you tabled the estimates, they were approved, now the government has to borrow money, so let us give it the required authority. That is all, let us stop wasting time on the issue. The expenditures to be made with the amounts borrowed are all contained in the estimates. My colleagues opposite need only refer to the estimates, where they will find all they want to know. The borrowing authority bill contains nothing new. It is but one way to make money available to Canadians, each in his own home, and what income is earned, one pays back what one can. Some hon. members opposite seem surprised. There is no surprise there. Clearly at some point in the year, if receipts came regularly, month after month, there would be no problem.
There are times when I wonder how constipated the official opposition party will get. We had an example when questions of privilege and points of order on the constitutional debate followed one another for 15 days. I was quite simply discouraged with the role played by hon. members for certain constituencies. I heard for 15 days hon. members raise questions of privilege and points of order. Members opposite are making gestures I will not emulate, Mr. Speaker. Gestures cannot be unparliamentary, whereas words can be. Unfortunately, those people often make gestures instead of speaking their minds.
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, and I say this with satisfaction, I sometimes ask myself if the party opposite, instead of being called Progressive Conservative, should not really be called Permanently Constipated Party.

It is unthinkable that in 1981 Members of Parliament supposedly elected by a majority of their constituents come here to abuse the government, and on top of that, they obstruct the whole proceedings in this chamber for a while. As I said last week, Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that the official opposition in particular will see the light-


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if you could rule on whether the remarks of the hon. member are relevant to the borrowing authority bill before us at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The problem for the Chair is that if I were to rule specifically on those remarks, I would also have to do so in respect of the remarks of other hon. members, and this would be difficult. Perhaps I could say that the hon. member's time has run out, and I will now recognize the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling).


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have two or three minutes left.


An hon. Member:: One minute.


Stan Darling: I have two or three minutes left in which to speak on this very important bill.


An hon. Member:: Four minutes.


Stan Darling: As we are all aware, we are debating this bill-


Marc Lalonde: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Stan Darling: The minister wants to cut me off again.


Marc Lalonde: My hon. friend has just indicated he has four minutes left, but I believe the order was that the bells should start ringing at 9.45 p.m.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Marc Lalonde: If I were to look at the precedent established about time-and I am now referring to a debate in which my colleagues on the other side took part in the last two days, only about ten seconds are left to them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Your time is up.


Stan Darling: I appreciate the comments of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). When he is here, he is usually speaking a good deal of the time. The last time I spoke here, he interrupted me, and let me repeat what I said then. I said he would do a hell of a lot better for the good of the country if, instead of sitting here, he were in Alberta making a deal on energy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I thought the hon. member might appreciate being interrupted only at the end of the point he was making.
It being 9.45 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Thursday, April 2, 1981, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the bill now before us.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
April 6, 1981


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those in favour of the motion 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 yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


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


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.


Madam Speaker:: It being past ten o'clock, the House now stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 10.17 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, April 7, 1981