1981-02-11

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to place a motion before this House for which I seek unanimous concurrence. Whereas Edmonton has been chosen as the site for the 1983 World University Games, and in recognition of the significance of the 1983 World University Games as a symbol of international co-operation and Canada's commitment to the peace and freedom of the world, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga):
That this House confirms its expression of support of the 1983 World University Games by recommending the striking of a special stamp to commemorate the "Universiade Edmonton 83" Games.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, whereas last month the annual meeting of the Ottawa West NDP Association endorsed a resolution calling on the federal NDP to withdraw its support for the government's constitutional proposals, and whereas NDP MPs have been informed by a riding organizer that the resolution will be circulated to all riding associations across the country "if we can get the federal office to, for once, serve the members of this party in performing an essential communications function.", I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That this House recommend to the NDP federal office that a request for such a distribution be granted and, failing that, that the NDP change its name to the "Non-Democratic Party".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FISHERIES
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Gillnet fishermen are alarmed about the prospect of a 1981 closure to protect the Fraser River chinook salmon run. Since river fishermen take only 2 per cent to 5 per cent of the total chinook catch, and since most of their boats are too old and ill-equipped to exploit ocean fishing grounds without the real risk of loss of life, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson):
That the Fraser River, from New Westminster to Mission, remain open this season but that the cost of preserving the chinook be shared with the seiners, trawlers and sports fishery rather than expecting gillnetters alone to sacrifice a year's income in the name of conservation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the government has ignored the public's demand for action to relieve the crippling effects of unemployment, inflation and high interest rates, and since it is the responsibility of the Parliament of Canada to address the very serious concerns of the greatest majority of Canadians, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave):

February 11, 1981
That this House instruct the cabinet to shelve the proposed constitutional resolution until rulings have been made on all constitutional issues now before the courts so that this House may concentrate all its efforts on addressing the difficult and, indeed, frightening economic problems faced by Canadians daily.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the rapidly rising living costs in the province of British Columbia, particularly as they relate to housing, and whereas these rising prices are putting upward pressure on wages by workers forced to meet these costs, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon):
That the federal government do its part in relieving the desperate housing shortage in British Columbia by increasing the community services contribution program and prolonging it beyond 1982 to enable municipalities to develop more land for housing purposes.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


COMBINES
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Hatton):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the threat to independent businessmen by the increased tendency toward monopoly mergers within our economy and the inability of existing laws under the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act to deal adequately with the consequences of such mergers, an example being the present controversial takeover of the remaining assets of Zeller's by Hudson's Bay, which already controls 60 per cent of the department store market at the present time, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn):
That this House instruct the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to undertake forthwith an investigation into the concentration of buying power under the provisions of Section 7(1) of the Combines Investigation Act in order to prevent further monopolistic mergers which threaten the very existence of many independent small business operations.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, especially concerning the working mothers of this country. In view of the fact that a new study by the Economic Council of Canada reveals that the Canada Pension Plan drop-out provision is worth a 21 per cent increase in benefits to working mothers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the Ontario and British Columbia governments be condemned for standing in the way of pension reform worth $2,700 in life-time benefits to working mothers.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the presentation of this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FEDERAL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of extreme urgency. The government has been responsible for literally feeding small businessmen to the lions. Interest rates on Federal Business Development Bank loans have not improved. Depending on the risk of a loan, they are still around 18 per cent, and borrowers continue to be locked in for long stretches of time. In light of this I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That the government allow persons taking out Federal Business Development Bank loans to renegotiate the terms of their loans on a yearly basis, so that they will not longer be forced to pay these exorbitant rates of interest for extended periods of time.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the presentation of this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
February 11, 1981


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43. Whereas Canada now has a budgetary deficit of some $14 billion a year and the government is paying 20 per cent of the tax revenues to meet interest costs on our debt, and our Canada Pension Plan has an approaching deficit that is shocking to think of, therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson):
That the Canadian government smarten up immediately and gather the courage to take the necessary steps to prevent this country and our Canada Pension Plan fund from going into bankruptcy.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the presentation of this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas the Government of Canada has put forward a proposed resolution for a joint address to Her Majesty the Queen which would substantially alter the federal structure of Canada, and whereas that resolution sets out a detailed procedure for making future amendments to the Constitution of Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That the Prime Minister of Canada be required to explain to the people of Canada why he is unwilling to put his substantial constitutional amendments, which are widely opposed in Canada, to the test of his own amending formula, imperfect though it is, before the joint address is submitted to Westminster for ratification.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the presentation of this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. My leader and I have questioned the minister in recent days about the fact that there has clearly been a degree of speculative activity in the shares of Petrofina prior to the announcement of the acquisition of that company by Petro-Canada. At this stage the issue is not whether there is any wrongdoing, but whether sloppy management practices were followed by those involved in the acquisition negotiations. The purpose of posing my question is that it has led to an increase in the price of shares which has resulted in a higher price than what might have been paid, and that price is indirectly paid by the taxpayers and consumers.
[DOT] (M15)
My question to the minister is this: what has he done to ensure that those practices will not be repeated the next time Petro-Canada makes an acquisition? Has he received a full report on this from the present chairman of Petro-Canada? Has he given any consideration to calling on some independent body to embark on an investigation of this matter?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the fact that my hon. friend has indicated that he and his leader are withdrawing any accusations or innuendoes that they foolishly put forward in the last few weeks. He referred to some speculation in the shares of Petrofina. The hon. member knows that over the last year there were rumours to the effect that negotiations were going on between Petro-Canada and Petrofina for an acquisition. Those negotiations were interrupted because there was no agreement between the parties on what would be an appropriate price. I can tell the hon. member that, to the best of my memory, at that time Petrofina was asking for a higher price than the one it got this year in negotiations with Petro-Canada.
As far as the so-called activities are concerned that the hon. member has referred to, I have no indication that anything improper or sloppy was done. Everything done by Petro-Canada in this matter appears to have been done on the basis of the best of business practices. I have to indicate to the hon. member that the premium paid by Petro-Canada is well below the average premium paid for take-overs in the private sector in Canada and in the United States in the last year. I see no reason to call for any kind of inquiry in this case.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, clearly the minister is not dealing with his own money. If he were, he would take considerably more care with what is going on. He has not answered my question about whether he discussed this matter

February 11, 1981
Oral Questions
with the present chairman of Petro-Canada in order to assure himself that there was no wrongdoing.


ROLE PLAYED BY GOVERNMENT IN TAKEOVER
Michael Holcombe Wilson: I should like to put a supplementary question to the minister further to questions that I asked yesterday regarding this transaction. I said that it was reported in The Globe and Mail that Mr. Hopper said that the government played no role in choosing the target or setting the price. He went on to say that Petro-Canada was stretched with debt and wanted to have the Government of Canada finance the entire purchase. Since the government left the negotiations for the purchase of Petrofina to the management of Petro-Canada, and clearly Petro-Canada is not playing with its own money but with the money of the taxpayers of this country, it seems logical to me that the one who is footing the bill should take a greater interest in the negotiations, and that is the minister himself.
Did the minister request a full evaluation report prior to any decision taken by cabinet, if a decision was taken by cabinet? What was the range of values within that report, and was the final price within that range of values that was considered acceptable by that report?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, that is a rather long question but I shall try to give a short answer. As far as the relationship between myself and the heads of Crown agencies is concerned, I have enough confidence in them, they having been appointed to serve Canada, that I do not go on the presumption that they do things in the wrong way or involve themselves in any wrongdoing.


An hon. Member:: No one said that.


Marc Lalonde: I think it would be improper to ask the head of an agency every day if he did something wrong in the last week.


An hon. Member:: No one said that.


Marc Lalonde: With reference to the other question raised by the hon. member, indeed the government did not select the target for takeover. However, as I indicated, on the Thursday night before the takeover, that was about 24 hours before the takeover took place, the government approved the takeover attempt and set up a maximum level for that particular purchase. The head of Petro-Canada and his officials negotiated within that target. They respected the decision of cabinet. The decision to take over Petrofina, to pay the price that was paid, was made on the basis of very extensive analysis by outside consultants retained by Petro-Canada. Incidentally, I might mention to the hon. member that the lawyer who was helping Petro-Canada in those negotiations was the former head of the Ontario Securities Commission.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, we have seen an illustration of vintage Lalonde. He was talking earlier about me casting aspersions on people through innuendo. He is casting aspersions on me, or innuendo on what I have been saying.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Chretien:: Thin skinned.


Mr. Paproski:: Even Johnston is laughing.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: There is not one thing suggested in that question of any wrongdoing on the part of the head of Petro-Canada. I am just searching for where responsibility lies in this transaction. Was it with Petro-Canada, or with the minister who is footing the bill? Let me ask a simple question. Did Petro-Canada advise the government prior to proceeding with the acquisition that Petro-Canada would not be able to finance the acquisition from their own funds and that they wanted the government to finance the entire amount of the transaction through a tax on gasoline and heating oil?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, we know the attitude of the Tory party about Petro-Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: It might help my hon. friend to know that a senior member of the firm to which he belonged, Dominion Securities Ltd., stated on television last weekend that the price paid by Petro-Canada was a fair price for both parties.


Mr. Clark:: Why are you afraid of the question?


Marc Lalonde: I suggest my hon. friend consult with his former partners and they will advise him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: As far as the discussions which took place with the government are concerned, the government announced in the budget that acquisitions would be financed out of a Canadian ownership tax.


An hon. Member:: Who wrote the provision?


Marc Lalonde: When the discussions took place on that particular Thursday with the head of Petro-Caanda it was indicated that we might have to finance this purchase out of the Canadian ownership tax. The exact amount and in what form this sum would be raised were left for further discussion and decision by the cabinet, as it should be.


Erik Nielsen: That is pretty weak.


GOVERNMENT FINANCING OF TAKEOVER
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It is important in view of the statements being made by Mr. Hopper with respect to the acquisition of Petrofina. Ele made it quite clear in interviews
February 11, 1981

that he was going to rely exclusively on the government to pay for this acquisition, out of taxation moneys.
Having regard to the fact that the Canadian ownership charge can earn a maximum of 3.7 billion per year-Petrofina having cost $1.46 billion-and if we assume the purchase will be paid off in one year, he would need 39 per cent of the Canadian ownership charge-39 per cent of $4 per barrel is $1.56 per barrel which equals 8 cents per gallon at the pump. Supplementary to the question posed by the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre, was there an undertaking on the part of the government to finance this fully through taxes, and over what period of time is it the intention of the government to finance it?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, on the first point I wish that my hon. friend would show a little more honesty when he refers to what Mr. Hopper actually said. Yesterday 1 quoted the verbatim transcript of what Mr. Hopper had said.


Charles Joseph Clark: Which one?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Hopper said that the whole of the amount would be financed out of taxes but that obviously this was a matter for the government to decide. If the government was going to insist that some part of it be financed out of debt, obviously it would create problems in terms of cash flow for Petro-Canada, but it was a matter to be left to the government.
As far as the actual financing of the operation is concerned, I would urge my hon. friend at least to read the press communique which was issued. It indicates that the purchase would take place over a period of three years-25 months to be exact-and that the payments will not be required except over that extended period of 25 months. Therefore, it would be ridiculous for the government to raise all the money necessary to make the total payment in one year when we have three years in which to pay it. That seems obvious.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is three metric years.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, it is easy to see why the minister is regarded as the J. R. Ewing of Canadian politics.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


PARLIAMENTARY APPROVAL FOR FINANCING BY GOVERNMENT
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. Maybe we can get some answers out of him.


An hon. Member:: Who?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Yesterday, J. R. Ewing-
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: In response to a question from my colleague from St. John's West yesterday, the minister indicated a tax would be imposed. Will the minister be bringing legislation forward in the near future seeking authority from Parliament in this regard? He indicated he would not be looking toward taxation as the sole source for the required amount. Can the minister tell the House where the money will come from? Will it be exclusively on a tax base and Canadian ownership charge, or did he authorize this transaction with no idea where the money would come from?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, whatever funds will be made available by the Government of Canada to Petro-Canada will be raised through the charge that was mentioned in the budget. That will obviously require the normal parliamentary approval. When the moment comes to seek parliamentary approval, after the amounts are determined, we will proceed in the normal way and probably table a ways and means motion prior to the necessary legislation.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Figures released today show that the sale of imported cars on the Canadian market increased during the past year by 24 per cent while sales of North American or Canadian produced cars dropped by 10 per cent. One of the obvious reasons for this is that for years General Motors, Chrysler and Ford have been overcharging Canadians. Considering that a car produced on the Canadian side of the border in 1981 will sell in the United States at $500 less than in Canada, even taking into account the differences in taxation and the Canadian dollar value, will the minister take immediate steps to have the price of Canadian produced cars sold in Canada the same as in the United States in order to benefit both Canadian consumers and workers?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, there are many reasons why Canadian consumers purchase one model of car rather than another, and I do not agree with the leader of the New Democratic Party that it is because of the cost of some big cars. I believe that the hon. member is simplifying the reasons why some small foreign cars are now more popular with Canadian consumers than the traditional big cars.

February 11, 1981
Oral Questions


CANADA-U.S. AUTO PACT-DISCUSSIONS WITH AMERICAN ADMINISTRATION
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the minister may not think that being overcharged for a product is a reason for consumer preference for something else. I am sure the average Canadian is well aware of the price differential and would like to pay the same price as someone in the United States pays for a car produced in Canada.
I wish to direct a supplementary question on the same subject matter to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. A recent study produced by the government of Ontario shows that within four years one third of all auto workers in Canada will be out of work. The significant point in the study is that there will be a disproportionate drop in the number of auto workers in Canada compared to the United States. Considering that the auto pact is supposed to share "on a fair and equitable basis" the benefits on both sides of the border, did the minister in his recent meeting with the United States Secretary of State obtain assurance that this deplorable situation whereby more Canadians proportionately will be out of work than Americans will be turned around by the American government?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I agree with my friend's interpretation of the auto pact, but that has not been the American position over the years. I have to say that was the one subject which 1 discussed with Secretary of State Haig to which I did not receive a satisfactory response. His view was the typical, traditional American one where the rules of free trade of the market should prevail. 1 did not regard that as a satisfactory answer. In fact, discussions are under way between our governments with another member of the administration and we will be continuing that discussion with, I believe, the U.S. Secretary of Commerce.


PLEDGE TO RENEGOTIATE AUTO PACT
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I have a further supplementary for the Prime Minister concerning the same subject. During the last election the Prime Minister, while speaking in the riding of the Secretary of State, promised the auto workers of Windsor, who make up 45 per cent of the unemployed in that sector of the economy, that a Liberal government would renegotiate the auto pact. I wish to ask the Prime Minister, in light of the rejection by the American Secretary of State of such a proposal by our own external affairs ministers, will the Prime Minister commit himself today in the House to live up to that pledge to Canadian auto workers so that we can get our share of jobs on this side of the border?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, in that speech referred to by the hon. member I made two pledges. The first was to assist in the Chrysler situation, and we have kept that pledge. In so far as the second pledge is
concerned, we have first to ascertain, as the Secretary of State has done, what the American position was going to be under its new administration. That being done now, I have little to add to what the Secretary of State has said. We know their position. We do not know whether it is a negotiating position, but we will have to take it from there. I can assure the hon. member that the party which formed the government which brought in the auto pact in the first place is still dedicated to making sure it works fairly for Canadian workers.


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Last week, prompted by the Leader of the New Democratic Party, he gave us a very pious lecture on how diplomats should behave. He went on to say he would order an investigation into what he called "the totally unacceptable conduct of the British High Commissioner." Can the minister tell us the outcome of that investigation?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I will be prepared in several days, probably before the end of the week, to make some comments with regard to the matter. I should correct the hon. member because I did not say that any conduct which had taken place was unacceptable. I said the alleged conduct was unacceptable.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, my supplementary to the minister, who seems to be forever backing away from what he says, is that it is now recorded he has shared this information with the British government. Since he has shared the information with the British government, I find it very surprising he could wax indignant publicly a week ago and now he wants to be quiet or reticent with regard to the public record here in the House of Commons. In view of his reticence today about a matter which has alrealdy been looked into and on which information has been given, I should like to ask him if this reticence of his is because he now considers the statements he made previously belong to those comments which he considers to be rhetorical, or is it becoming more and more the practice of all members of the cabinet to be less than candid with this House?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, if I had to judge from what is said in this House, I would say the rhetoric is from the other side.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark R. MacGuigan: I will be prepared to make some comments in several days on this matter. I said yesterday to the press that I had shared the information which I had at that point with the British government without making any recommendations.
February 11, 1981

When the investigation is finished and I am prepared to speak in this House, 1 will do so.


CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES
Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. In his book, "Federalism and the French Canadians", on page 24 it is stated, and I quote:
It would certainly be an advantage if the federal government consulted the provinces about matters that affect them, even if these matters are entirely within federal jurisdiction. I do not see why we could not establish permanent consulting bodies to ensure that our trade, tariff, customs or monetary policies really reflect the opinions of people throughout the country, and that no province feels undermined by the exercise of central power.


Madam Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows he should not make such lengthy quotations and should go directly to his question.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Madam Speaker, I was only trying to give the Prime Minister a chance to answer. My question to the Prime Minister is, in view of the statement which he made on page 36 of that book, and I quote:
I should be very surprised if real statesmen, given the facts of the problem, arrived at the conclusion that our Constitution needs drastic revision.
-would the Prime Minister explain his drastic change of mind on the Constitution?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member is referring to something I wrote some 15 or 20 years ago, I am not sure if his question meets the rule of urgent and pressing necessity. I do not think it does.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Madam Speaker, at the rear of this book it says a question was asked if the Prime Minister would like to revise his statements in 1977, and he said no. The last time I asked the right hon. leader of the Grits a question he accused me of being a backbencher who spreads falsehoods. I would just like to say that I think the Canadian people now know who spreads falsehoods. On page 37-


Madam Speaker:: Order. It looks as though the hon. member wishes to read the entire book to us. Would he ask the question?


Ronald Alexander Stewart: May I ask the Prime Minister, in his monumental flip-flop of "and so I cannot help condemning-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Even if I smile sometimes it does not mean I want to be facetious. I am serious. I would like the hon. member to ask his question right away.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Madam Speaker, I am trying to ask the question but it pertains to the quote. May I just read a short quote? The quote is from the Prime Minister's book, Madam Speaker, and is as follows:
And so I cannot help condemning as irresponsible those people who wish our nation to invest undetermined amounts of money, time, and energy in a constitutional adventure that they have been unable to define precisely but which
Oral Questions
would consist in more or less completely destroying confederation to replace it with some vague form of sovereignty.
What kind of sovereignty?


An hon. Member:: He was smarter in those days.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I only hope those who could not quite understand the quote will buy the book and read it. The part I heard had to do with consulting the provinces and making sure that the central government was involving the provinces in discussions of policies which affected them. It seems to me that is what this government has been doing, and what the government which preceded it was doing. If we consider the matter of the Constitution, I do not think anybody would deny that between June of last year and September there were endless hours of consultation done on behalf of the federal government by the Minister of Justice.
With regard to the matter of monetary policy, I just have to remind the hon. member that early in the seventies we began the practice of having quarterly meetings of finance ministers so that we could discuss with them budgetary framework and hear their views on how monetary and other policies should be developed. On the question of trade, of course, the provinces were very directly involved in consultation while we were discussing at the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade negotiations in Geneva. In every example I have been able to hear from the hon. member there have been very extensive consultations. I think if we read the book we will find other examples.


GOVERNMENT'S COMMITMENT TO EXPORTATION OF COAL FROM BRITISH COLUMBIA TO JAPAN
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Yesterday Senator Olson committed the Government of Canada to spending some $450 million on a development for the export of coal from northeastern British Columbia. It was also revealed by Stuart Leggatt, a member of the British Columbia legislature, that a B.C. cabinet internal economic planning group had recommended a six-month delay in the project and cautioned that going ahead at this point would be hazardous. Is the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources aware of these documents and is he, to use the words of Senator Olson in Vancouver yesterday, still happy with this deal?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, obviously we on this side of the House do not have access to the cabinet documents of the government of Alberta, but I certainly would be very happy to see a copy.


Mr. Andre:: This is British Columbia.
7124

February 11, 1981
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: British Columbia. I would also welcome those from Alberta, so if my hon. friend has extra copies of all these things we will certainly be very happy to look at them.
As far as the actual commitment of the Canadian government is concerned, the cabinet has taken a decision to co-operate in the implementation of this project. We have insisted on very strict rules in terms of avoiding the national government's subsidizing the export of natural resources. We have held to that very firmly, and we are happy to see that the deal seems to have been made without the federal government's having to subsidize the export of natural resources, which we said we would not do.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I wish the minister would do some reading on this deal and do some work on it, because he is facing another possible sellout like the Columbia River treaty. There is $450 million of federal money involved, and perhaps up to $1 billion including B.C. taxpayers' money.
Is it the policy of the government to subsidize the export of non-renewable resources, and will the minister table in this House the documents the federal government has on this deal? Will the government table environmental studies and financial studies with respect to this potentially quite disastrous deal?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I might try to answer this question. Yesterday a paper was issued in Vancouver by Senator Olson, who is in charge of this matter, in which he revealed exactly the terms of the agreement as far as the federal government is concerned.
The first part has to do with some $207 million which CN will invest in this project. That is on a cost-recoverable basis. It is on a commercial basis.
The second item has to do with a federal guarantee of a $3 per tonne throughput at the port of Prince Rupert until the year 1989, and that is indexed to the consumer price index from May, 1980, to 1989. Then after 1989 the matter becomes totally commercial, and if there was any financial support needed to make the $3 per tonne throughput possible in the period 1983-84 to 1989, then that help would be fully cost-recoverable after that time.
The third element is about $10 million of on-site and off-site services and access roads, and that is the package which was put together in the grain agreement. The hon. member will remember that at that time it was anticipated that the coal project would become a reality at Prince Rupert. This was wrapped up at that time, and this is not on a cost-recoverable basis. Those are the facts.
[ Translation)


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Rosaire Gendron (Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the hon. Minister of the Environment, and as you seldom allow supplementary questions, I would greatly appreciate it if the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources could also make a few comments. In a Canadian Press item released last evening, the Minister of the Environment is reported as having said:
The federal Minister of the Environment, John Roberts, announced yesterday that the Canso Strait area had been rejected as a possible site for a natural gas liquefaction terminal.
Mr. Roberts explained that the decision to reject this site had been made by the private sector and not by the federal government.
The terminal will probably be built in Gros Cacouna, Quebec.
Can the minister confirm or deny this report of the Canadian Press and would he tell us whether he was speaking on behalf of the Canadian government when he made this announcement?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. There is a clear explanation for the statement I made. It was a simple error on my part. I managed to confuse the province of New Brunswick with the province of Nova Scotia. It would be inexplicable to the people of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia that I confused one for the other. Indeed, it is almost inexplicable to myself.
The fact is that the statement was absolutely correct except that I should have said New Brunswick when I said Nova Scotia and Nova Scotia when I said New Brunswick. There has been no change in the situation. The site at Gros Cacouna and the site in Nova Scotia are both under the process of environmental review undertaken in each case by the province with the participation and co-operation of the federal government.


DECISION ON LOCATION OF LNG TERMINAL
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on the same matter, that is, the decision with respect to the location of the liquid natural gas terminal at Gros Cacouna or in the Strait of Canso in Nova Scotia. Let me say first that I am surprised that the press gallery orches-
February 11, 1981

tra did not strike up that famous song "How can I believe you when you say you're sorry when I know you've been a liar all your life".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Howard Edward Crosby: Nova Scotians and people in Quebec were concerned that the decision with respect to the location of the LNG terminal would be based on political considerations, but the Minister of Finance assured Nova Scotians that the decision would be based on the merits and would be reviewed by the National Energy Board.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Howard Edward Crosby: 1 want to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether he will confirm that the decision will be based on the merits and will be decided by the National Energy Board. 1 would also like him to comment on how the Minister of the Environment could even enter into the field when the matter is supposedly before the National Energy Board.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, my first inclination would be to tell the hon. member, "Play it again, Sam".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: Without any hesitation I want to state and repeat what I have already stated in Riviere-du-Loup, Gros Cacouna, and this House. This subject is before the National Energy Board for consideration, and the National Energy Board will hold the hearings it is accustomed to holding on such matters. It will hold public hearings and make a public report which will then be submitted to the cabinet. This is the process which has been followed in the past, and it is the same process which will be followed in this case.
As far as the statement attributed to my colleague, the Minister of the Environment is concerned, he has just answered with respect to that statement.


EXTENSION OF NATURAL GAS PIPELINE TO MARITIME PROVINCES
Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, I think the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources knows that the National Energy Board is also concerned about the extension of the natural gas pipeline east, but the minister has said that if the board does not approve the application, he will introduce a bill in this House. I want to ask the minister whether he does not think he has undermined the judicial exercise of judgment by the National Energy Board in this matter of the liquid natural gas terminal and in the matter of the extension of the pipeline by this interference and by the remarks made inside and outside this House.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, as far as the gas pipeline is concerned, the National Energy Board produced a report last
Oral Questions
year in which it recommended the extension of the pipeline in Quebec but not in the maritimes. That was the conclusion of the National Energy Board. In developing the National Energy Program the Canadian government came to the conclusion that it was essential and in the national interest to have the pipeline built as far as Halifax to serve both New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. This is a national policy decision which has been made by the government in the national interest. We have invited the participants to return to the National Energy Board to pursue their applications. We have indicated quite clearly the decision of the government. We are waiting for the report of the National Energy Board, but the government has indicated that its role is to speak for the people of Canada and the people of the maritimes in particular. We have indicated that we want those people to have access to natural gas on the same basis as people in the rest of Canada, and that is what we intend to provide.


DISASTERS
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for either the Acting Minister of Regional Economic Expansion or the Acting Minister of Agriculture with respect to the very serious fire which destroyed the facilities of Scotian Gold at Coldbrook, Nova Scotia, and the resulting serious blow to the apple and agricultural industry of our province. I am wondering whether either one of these acting ministers can tell us what particular preliminary steps are being taken to come to the aid of that province in this respect?


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, in answer to the question of the hon. member, to my knowledge, from asking in the department, no request has been made yet of the department for assistance.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, would the parliamentary secretary take into account the desirability of using the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, if their budget is a bit strained at this time, to focus the resources of other appropriate government departments, such as the Department of Agriculture or the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, to see what can be done? This is a very serious problem for the agricultural economy; it is of great concern to all members from Nova Scotia, particularly the hon. member for Annapolis Valley in whose constituency it is.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Madam Speaker, I should like to assure the hon. member that if such a proposal is made to the department, certainly the department would review it on its own and in conjunction with other departments.

February 11, 1981
Oral Questions


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Raymond Dupont (Chambly):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State and Minister of Communications. In view of the harsh criticisms made by the Quebec Premier, Mr. Rene Levesque, about the conflict between the French network of the CBC and its journalists, which has been going on for nearly four months, and in view of the reply made yesterday in the House by the Minister of Labour to the effect that the CBC should relax some of its firm positions, can the minister tell the House whether the management of the CBC is planning to make new offers to the union to reopen negotiations and achieve a negotiated settlement as soon as possbile?


Hon. Francis Fox (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, the great interest of Mr. Levesque in the good operation of federal institutions is well known, of course. I also believe that Mr. Levesque is in a good position to comment on the length of this strike since the strike at Radio-Quebec under his government lasted nearly seven months, if not more.
As for the question asked by the hon. member, I was informed last evening by the management of Radio-Canada that new salary offers have been relayed to the mediator of the Department of Labour. Of course, we hope that the parties involved will reach an agreement quickly.


PARLIAMENT
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Over
3,000	employees of Parliament, working in the offices of Members of Parliament and Senators and elsewhere on Parliament Hill, are denied the fundamental freedom of association and denied the right to collective bargaining, if they so choose, rights which all Canadians take for granted. Over two years ago the Liberal government House leader promised the House that these rights would be extended to employees on the Hill. My question is: when will the government put an end to this intolerable situation, with employees being hired and fired at will, and harassed, sometimes sexually, without any appeal mechanism whatsoever?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member knows that questions of this nature, although the employees to whom the hon. member is now referring are not directly under
the jurisdiction of the Speaker, are not to be discussed under the rules of the House of Commons. I believe this should be discussed in another forum.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, on a supplementary question-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, the reason this question was addressed to the Prime Minister was that you, Madam Speaker, said that you were powerless to do anything for the employees on the Hill. So, I ask the Prime Minister again what action is the government prepared-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, what action is the government-


Madam Speaker:: Order. I just want to say that the hon. member is misquoting me in this particular instance, but I should like the hon. member to come to see me in my office so that we can discuss this matter. He should know that matters relating to the employees of Members of Parliament, as distinct from those who are in the House of Commons, are not under my jurisdiction.


Svend Johannes Robinson: A supplementary, Madam Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Madam Speaker:: If it is a supplementary to a question that I cannot allow, I do not know how I can allow it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Svend Johannes Robinson: A supplementary, Madam
Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Grey-Simcoe.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs. It concerns a veteran, a constituent of mine, who applied for a re-board for a possible increase in his disability pension. He received a reply that his re-board would be 12 to 14 months hence. What steps is the minister taking to correct this injustice? I am sure, as he is a veteran, he agrees there is nothing more horrendous than the Department of Veterans Affairs even suggesting that a veteran should wait that long before any action is taken, because he could be dead and buried before any action is taken.
February 11, 1981


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that we are doing everything possible to accelerate the question of allocation or whatever the pension is. 1 do not know the particular case about which he is talking, but I can take care of it if he wants to give me the information. But he must understand that sometimes it is not always the fault of the pension board or the fault of veterans. Sometimes some of the veterans do not know exactly how to get to the proper pension board. We can help them if they want to come to us.


BACKLOG OF CASES BEFORE PENSION REVIEW BOARD-CALL FOR MINISTER'S RESIGNATION
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs. There is a backlog of serious proportions before the Pension Review Board, and many veterans are dying before their claims are processed. As the two previous ministers of veterans affairs were making progress in clearing up this problem, and as things have gone from bad to worse under the minister's direction, is he now prepared to resign and let another minister take his place so that this serious, shocking matter will be cleared up in the department?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Don't answer it.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Vancouver East.


HOUSING
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Recently the minister told a convention of the HUDAC group that there was no need for government intervention because normal market forces would bring forth a balance of housing supply and demand. Will the minister explain what magic market myth will reduce 16 per cent mortgage interest rates and control the exploding price of real estate in cities such as Vancouver?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, in response to the hon. member's question I need go no further than the city in which she resides and has given as an example. Although prices have been very high and have escalated dramatically in the last year in the city of Vancouver, the market has responded and the starts for housing in that city in the last quarter of last year were an all-time record. This is an example of the action of the market responding to internal pressures.
Oral Questions


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, obviously the minister has not checked out the prices of those houses; no person can afford a first house in Vancouver. Will the minister delay his ongoing love-in with the real estate industry long enough to meet with people in northern Newfoundland who have desperate housing conditions and need a decentralized home repair program like the one he just cancelled?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, again I think the hon. member is mistaken; no program was cancelled. 1 assume the reference concerns the change in the delivery agent of the rehabilitation program in the province to which she referred. 1 really think she does no service to the corporation, to the people served, or even to the people we felt were not doing a good job, to put the case in that kind of language.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the importance the government placed on the Canadianization of the petroleum industry in the National Energy Program, could the minister confirm press reports of last evening that at least seven multinational oil companies, including Getty, Murphy, Suncor, Ultramar, Gulf, Shell and Mobil, are all moving rapidly to meet the government's Canadian ownership requirements?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the government has welcomed, as I think most Canadians have, with the exception of a few Conservatives, the moves taken over the last few weeks whereby Dome Petroleum has agreed to become a Canadian company and whereby Petrofina now belongs to all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: I know there are several foreign-held companies which are now having discussions with private parties in Canada in order substantially to increase Canadian ownership in the oil and gas industry, thereby helping Canadians to own and control the industry well before 1990. We welcome those developments. I hope that a large number of companies will, indeed, abide by the objectives set out in the program and that very soon we will have a much larger base of Canadian ownership than we have had in the past.

February 11, 1981
Oral Questions


FINANCE
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance who is responsible for Canada's policy as it relates to international agreements on tariffs and trade, or to his minister of state.
For one year now the Canadian Institute of Clothing Manufacturers has been making repeated representations to the government, through the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, to emphasize the disastrous situation in which the shirt industry in Quebec finds itself, a situation made even worse by the government import policy on shirts from abroad. Is the minister or the minister of state prepared to explain to the House what representations have been made to the countries involved, either directly or through the general agreement on tariffs and trade, with a view to cushioning the harmful effect of that policy on that industry, or what efforts has he made within the government to change that policy?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, the matter to which the hon. member refers in his question has been a subject of concern for this government for a number of years and the effectiveness of the measures taken by our government dates back to the days when the current Minister of Transport held the industry, trade and commerce portfolio. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is now examining the government's new policy in light of our obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and the hon. member knows full well that our policy must be in keeping with the provisions of GATT Article XIX.


Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, the efforts of the government have led to negative results.
My second question is for the Minister of State for Small Businesses. Bearing in mind that the Yamaska Shirt Company of Saint-Hyacinthe will close its doors on February 15 and lay off 115 or 125 workers, can the minister explain why he is so inefficient within cabinet, or so insensitive to the lot of his fellow countrymen, to the jobs of hundreds of workers in the Saint-Hyacinthe area, to the impending closure of other businesses, and to lay-offs at Trois-Rivieres, Saint-Romuald, Saint-Denis-de-Richelieu, Cap-de-la-Madeleine, Montreal, Saint-Georges-de-Beauce, Lachine-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I suppose there was a question in that long statement by the hon. member, so I will allow the minister to answer.


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State (Small Businesses)):: Madam Speaker, despite the hon. member's inefficiency in asking questions, 1 would like to tell him that we are now actively studying the recommendations of the report on textiles and clothing. We are very concerned about the current situation in the shirt industry and we hope that before the end of March we will be in a position to introduce legislation or to make an announcement on government policy based on the conclusions of the report on textiles and clothing.


PRIVILEGE
Madam Speaker:: I received a notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko). I must tell him that I received it just before the question period and since it does not flow from the deliberations of this House, and since he made no statement with respect to his question of privilege, 1 would ask him to supply me with a more complete statement. I will hear his question of privilege at another time.


Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I wanted to indicate that I was wearing a red rose today because my wife, in collaboration with my staff, decreed that on this day, my fifty-fifth birthday, I was to wear a red rose. I wished to wear blue, but when I look at it it is red.


POINT OF ORDER
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to the government House leader in his capacity as President of the Privy Council. Yesterday he tabled PC 1980-2824, which is a list of acting ministers and second acting ministers. The list does not indicate who will continue in the House to answer for the Wheat Board. The list does not indicate who will continue in the House to answer for the pipeline. May we assume that those responsibilities have not changed?
My second question is, can we place reliance upon this list, in view of the example today in which the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) directed a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) with respect to the economic development portfolio and it was answered by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin)? If that practice is to continue, perhaps the Minister of Transport should be designated to answer for economic development. May we have that clarified please?
February 11, 1981


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, it is the Minister of Transport who answers in the House for the Canadian Wheat Board and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who answers questions on the pipeline.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, there was also my last question, with respect to the question raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). The proper minister to answer was the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, but his question was answered by the Minister of Transport. Can we rely on this list and expect answers from the designated ministers rather than from some other minister?
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, it can happen, in view of our desire to provide complete answers, that we allow a minister whose department may be more concerned by a particular question to answer. So I think we have to be sufficiently flexible on both sides to understand that sometimes another minister than the one to whom the question was addressed is better qualified to answer a particular question, namely on the Canadian Wheat Board or the pipeline. It was because he could provide a more complete answer, and because there was a link with transport with regard to this particular question that the Minister of Transport answered. Now, if the hon. member would rather have his questions answered by the minister to whom they are addressed he may on occasion get answers that are not as exhaustive, and I do not think that is what the hon. member wants.


MR. ROBINSON (BURNABY)-BARGAINING RIGHTS FOR PARLIAMENTARY EMPLOYEES
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I have given the Chair notice of a point of order arising from the question which I attempted to ask today during question period. 1 am concerned that perhaps my intent in asking this question was not clearly stated. My question concerned the matter of legislative policy. It concerned possible changes to federal government legislation in the area of collective bargaining rights for employees of the House of Commons, the Senate and the Library of Parliament.
I recognize your jurisdiction over the administration of the employees of the House of Commons, Madam Speaker but, with respect, this is a separate question. As long ago as 1967 there was a recommendation that collective bargaining rights be extended to employees of the House of Commons. With great respect, only the government and not yourself, can introduce legislation granting collective bargaining rights to employees of the House of Commons, which would give them some form of grievance procedure.
B.C. Telephone Dispute


Madam Speaker:: If I may interrupt the hon. member, I agree totally with what he is saying, if he is asking a question about the legislative policy of the government. But as his question was formulated, it seems to me that it spills over into the responsibilities of the Speaker and confuses the responsibilities of the staff of Members of Parliament with the staff on the Hill. That is why I ruled the question could not be brought up in that form. If the hon. member wishes to bring the question up again in the form in which he has indicated it would be acceptable, although I cannot say so in advance.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I would ask again, with respect, that you examine carefully the question which I asked. In fact, I specifically referred to the government legislation. I pointed out the undertaking of the then government House leader, now the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), that he would introduce legislation to this effect. I pointed out that there were serious concerns over the fact that there is no protection for employees on the Hill, including employees of Members of Parliament. That was the question, and I have it here. I regret that perhaps there was a misunderstanding as to the intent of the question. However, certainly this kind of legislation is long overdue. That was my purpose in addressing the question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) as representing the Liberal government, which has not kept its promise to bring in this legislation.


Madam Speaker:: I would not want to be unfair to the hon. member, but I jumped to my feet because I heard something to the effect that this question was spilling over into the Speaker's jurisdiction and, therefore, the matter should be discussed directly with me, not in the House. If I have been unfair to the hon. member, I apologize. I will recognize him another time in this respect.


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Madam Speaker, my point arises out of the matter raised by the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). In the preamble to his question he referred to members of staff having to suffer sexual harassment. If the hon. member has any evidence to back up his allegations, then I believe he should name names and not smear every member of this House with that kind of accusation.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, I wonder whether the Minister of Labour (Mr. Regan) has a

February 11, 1981
B.C. Telephone Dispute
statement. I will accept a question from the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman).


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Madam Speaker, what proposals does the minister have to alleviate the conditions that caused such tremendous demands. What responsibility does the govern-Union sent the following telegram to Mr. Gordon MacFarlane, chairman and chief executive officer of B.C. Telephone Company, and to Mr. William Clark, president of the Telecommunications Workers Union:
This has reference to the collective bargaining dispute between B.C. Telephone Company; Canadian Telephones and Supplies Limited, and Telecommunications Workers Union. As you are aware, there is a growing public intolerance to the effects of this lengthy dispute which has been made clear in the many representations and expressions of concern conveyed to me by telephone users in the province of British Columbia. 1 am equally concerned over the length of time this dispute has dragged on and am of the view that a settlement can and must be reached at the earliest opportunity in the interests of all concerned B.C. citizens who depend upon the use of this important utility in their every-day lives.
Accordingly, this will advise that I am appointing Mr. William Kelly, senior assistant deputy minister of the department's federal mediation and conciliation service, as a mediator. Mr. Kelly is well known to the B.C. industrial relations community given his involvement over the years in settling major disputes on the west coast. With your co-operation I am confident he can assist in bringing an early resolution of this dispute. Would you and Mr. Wm. Clark, president. Telecommunications Workers Union, please arrange to meet with Mr. Kelly at 2 p.m. on Friday, February 13 in Labour Canada's Vancouver office located at 750 Cambie Street, Seventh Floor.


Hon. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Madam Speaker, I was not aware that the minister would be making a statement on this very serious labour dispute in the province of British Columbia which is putting the citizens of that province to great expense and inconvenience. It is a serious issue. The last word I had on the matter when 1 was in Vancouver not too many hours ago was that there was little to mediate. The last offers were on the table and no move had been made on either side.
With the minister appointing a very well known and very able mediator, Mr. Kelly, who I am sure has the blessings of this House and of God on high, I hope the deadlock can be broken and some kind of sanity brought to bear on this issue. We are dealing with a public utility in the form of a communications system which is under attack. We are dealing with the seizure or the interruption of private property.
We in this House have an obligation to begin discussing the causes of alienation and antagonism which develop between management and organized labour. I am troubled by the fact that people in these highly organized, high leverage positions dealing with large corporations seem to forget all about the 55 per cent to 65 per cent of the workers in Canada who are unorganized and who are being left further and further behind.
Above and beyond the mediation which is necessary between labour and management in this monopoly situation, I believe this House of Commons and particularly the government should begin giving serious concern to the lack of leverage of those in uneconomic positions of leverage in the private, small and medium enterprise sector. A serious social issue is developing; it is the issue of maintaining some kind of standard of
living in what is developing into a double digit inflationary economy. I ask the Minister of Labour to seek the counsel of his colleagues to determine whether the wider sector of the Canadian work force can be considered as these high leverage positions are mediated by his department.


Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, I congratulate the Minister of Labour for not only intervening at this time to settle a long-standing and very serious social and technological squabble, but also for appointing to the position of mediator a very respected negotiator, Mr. Kelly. We in British Columbia realize the severity of this series of lockouts, sit-ins and strikes. It is a disreputable example of what can be described as less than adequate or less than acceptable labour-management practice in our province, and it is certainly nothing to be emulated.
I agree with the previous speaker that we should do everything in our power to settle this and prevent such things from happening again.
This is not just a matter of B.C. Tel versus its workers; it is a revolution in the telecommunications industry brought about by chip technology and the other things that have the potential of displacing thousands of people in that industry and in the clerical industry in the years ahead.
I would say this dispute has poisoned the atmosphere in a dozen or more communities in British Columbia and it is time it was stopped. There has been delay in installation, poor service, bitterness, hostility, all of which cannot be allowed to go unchallenged or unresolved.
I think everyone knows that in previous mediation efforts the union has shown itself to be flexible in that it has reduced demands in an effort to reach a settlement. The same flexibility has not been forthcoming from B.C. Tel, which is a subsidiary of an American giant. An American management is dictating Canadian labour practices and the service that will be given to Canadians. That is an intolerable situation in an independent country.
May I close by saying that even in the provinces of Alberta and Manitoba which have Conservative governments, and in Saskatchewan which has an NDP government, telecommunications and telephone companies are under provincial control, ownership and jurisdiction. That should also be the case in British Columbia.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Madam Speaker, the minister has taken a very direct course of action in this case but once again we are experiencing crisis management. When a situation becomes intolerable to all parties and action is taken, that only treats the symptom. I wish the minister had gone slightly beyond that symptom in his statement.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if the hon. member is going to ask a question. As he knows, only one speaker from each party is allowed to respond to the minister's
February 11, 1981

statement to make on the B.C. Telephone Company dispute, which I raised yesterday.


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, I have this day in relation to the dispute between the B.C. Telephone Company and the Telecommunications Workers ment accept and what is it going to do about the causes rather than just treating the symptoms?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, I thank the three hon. members who participated in the response to this announcement. In particular I thank the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) and the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) for their studied and thoughtful comments on a very serious work dispute. I believe the problem has been a very serious one in British Columbia and that is confirmed by my observations when I was in Victoria and Vancouver in the past few days.
One of the problems is that from the beginning, several months ago until the past week or two, little pressure was put on the union or on the company to come to an agreement. Most employees were still working and the normal operations of the company were continuing. Until then, the people who suffered were those requiring commercial installations in new buildings or those who were moving to new quarters. I am sure all hon. members will have received representations from these people about the inconvenience they experienced. The dispute has escalated, of course.
I think that a utility has a particular responsibility to people who are counting on new installations, to bring a dispute of this type to an end even if in its day to day operations the utility does not feel particular pressure.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) was rather critical in the question he put, and perhaps was also rather political. That is not helpful in this situation. The hon. member must be aware that the federal Department of Labour has a better record than other departments of labour in such matters. This is not just since I have been in the department but was the case under his own government and under former Liberal governments, because of the abilities of such professionals as Bill Kelly. It must be appreciated that not all problems can be settled. There has to be a willingness to settle before a dispute can be resolved.
I believe we have taken a constructive step today and the two hon. members who spoke earlier agreed. That step could not be taken, however, until, on the basis of the advice of professionals, I judged it to be useful. Sometimes if a special mediator is appointed too early in a dispute, nothing is achieved and proceedings are prolonged. Bill Kelly is a top man in his field.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald Augustine Regan: I am confident that if anyone can, he will make progress in this dispute.
The other aspects of the question from the hon. member for Fraser Valley West related to inflation, governmental policy
B.C. Telephone Dispute
and international conditions. I am sure, Madam Speaker, you would be upset if I were to take the time I need to deal with those questions, so perhaps I can discuss them with the hon. members on another occasion.


Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, I have one question to put to the minister but first I should like to join with my colleague the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) in extending our good wishes to Mr. Kelly whose reputation in this particular area is well known. In our view, if anyone can play an effective mediation role in this matter it is Mr. Kelly. There could be no better choice.
The minister mentioned the political comments or criticisms contained in the question of the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman). In that connection I would recommend that the minister read his own comments as reported at page 7071 of Hansard which, in my reading, bear a taint of anti-Americanism. I wonder whether that will make the situation in British Columbia any easier. The minister said that B.C. Tel is owned in the United States and was perhaps not as sensitive to the situation in British Columbia as might be desired. There is a taint in that particular comment. I hope the minister will rectify that to some extent, as it is not going to help in the mediation.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, 1 thank the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) for his question. I do not believe 1 can accommodate his desire in the matter. I certainly want to confirm that I do not mean to imply any anti-Americanism. I believe we are very fortunate indeed to have such a great neighbour as the United States.
In the remarks I made yesterday I was reflecting what was being said by businessmen in the constituency of the hon. member which I had the privilege of visiting just before last weekend.


Erik Nielsen: You had better learn to say it.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Yes, I had better. The hon. member may have heard people in British Columbia who are not members of unions say that the problem is not just that this is a foreign-owned company, because lots of foreign-owned companies make great contributions to the country, but that a monopolistic utility which services all the people is owned outside the country and this may be a problem in the long history of difficult relations. That does not mean it is the only problem, or that there may not be some problems involving the union.
What I said in my remarks, or intended to say, and I hope I can make it clear to the hon. member, is that in British Columbia there is considerable concern. I would best serve the interests of the people of the country as Minister of Labour if I call it like I see it in each and every dispute. If sometimes that means I feel there are certain things a union should do to improve its position, then I should say so; and if there are

February 11, 1981
B.C. Telephone Dispute
certain aspects of management that I feel are of concern to me, then I should also express them.


Mr. Knowles:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I cannot allow this debate to go on too long. As hon. members know, there is a rule of thumb that we take into consideration the length of the initial statement and then allow for questions in that time.
I will allow the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway to ask a question. 1 am afraid the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) has had a chance to make a statement. I think 1 will have to draw a line there and recognize the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Of course, under Standing Order 15(3) the Chair has absolute discretion in determining how much time can be spent on these proceedings. However, would the Chair take into account the fact that there are no British Columbia members on the other side? They are all on this side of the House; five of them in this party, and some to my left. Could that not be taken into consideration? 1 know my colleague, the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) has a question to ask and I know that my friend, the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) has one. Perhaps the Chair could extend the determination of the time to include at least those two members.


Madam Speaker:: No member had risen except for the hon. member for Capilano and the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway at the time I said I had to end debate. The hon. member is now saying that several others have questions, but they had not so indicated. I do feel the length of this debate has to be reasonable. It seems to me several questions have been asked on this side. I will now recognize the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. I am afraid I must stick to the rule that debate should not be extended too far. Taking into account that the statements were all brief, I think that suggests something to me about the briefness of the following question period.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, of course, I am not going to question your ruling at all. However, I would draw to your attention also the fact that there was no notice given of the minister's intention to make a statement, which is customary. Obviously that gives rise to more questions, than if such notice had been given.
All 1 am pleading is that the hon. member for Capilano and the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River be recognized for a short question.


Mr. Collenette:: Madam Speaker, 1 do not want to prolong this discussion, but the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) knows that while notice may be given very often, it is not required by the rules.


Erik Nielsen: It is courtesy.


David Michael Collenette: In some cases it may not be possible, and the minister has not had the opportunity to explain why he did not give the customary notice.
Although, as the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has said, you have absolute discretion under Standing Order 15(3) about the length of the question period, I for one would object if any member spoke twice in this brief question period. I would support your original intention, which was to allow no other member to speak more than once.


Mr. Oberle:: Madam Speaker, I just want to refer to what the acting House leader has said. There was an arrangement yesterday between the minister and the member of the NDP party to bring the question to the House. As you will recall, I rose on a question of privilege following the question period to remind the minister of the responsibility that he has outlined this afternoon. You did not allow me to continue with my question of privilege, Madam Speaker. I did not think yesterday that the minister was serving the cause at all in asserting himself in the manner he did, clearly taking the side of the union, and having made a prior arrangement with a member from the NDP party, which, incidentally, carried over to this day.
The minister had no intention of making a statement on motions. He had an intention to answer a question from a member of the NDP party. Madam Speaker, you will recall that you did not have notice from the minister that he had intended to make a statement on motions. Therefore, it would not be fair at this point to stop the debate. There was merely an arrangement between two members of the House, totally ignoring that there are some valid comments that need to be made on this subject by members on this side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: The Chair is not aware of any kind of an arrangement. It is not the concern of the Chair.


An hon. Member:: It should be.


Madam Speaker:: It cannot be the concern of the Chair.
I will recognize the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. I will not recognize anyone who has already spoken once. I will recognize a few others who might rise following that hon. member. I had a feeling that everyone who had any intention of asking questions had asked them. That is why I arrived at the decision to end the debate.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I have a short question. First, I wonder whether my friend, the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle), would note that it is the New Democratic Party, not the NDP party. That is a double; NDParty, party.


Madam Speaker:: The question should be addressed to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Regan).


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Has the minister received representations over a period of the last year from union members and others from
February 11, 1981

British Columbia which generally have three points to them: first, they regret that the ultimate control of the company is in the United States and is basically a foreign company; second, they regret that labour control is really through the Canadian Labour Relations Board which, while not foreign, is some
3,000	miles away from British Columbia-British Columbia has very progressive labour legislation-and third, some people who have made submissions want the labour board in British Columbia to have control? In other words, they want the province of British Columbia to have regulatory control and that the company be taken under public ownership in British Columbia.
Would the minister confirm that those have been, the three points of many of the submissions, especially from union members in British Columbia? Would the minister briefly give us his view on the last two matters?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, I think the able young member from Vancouver-Kingsway wants to lead me a little astray or on certain tangents in this matter. Let me say to him that it is true that I have, from time to time, received representations from some people in British Columbia who feel it is unfortunate that jurisdiction over labour matters in B.C. Tel is under federal jurisdiction-under the CLRB-rather than the British Columbia board. It is true that British Columbia does have some very progressive labour legislation passed by the former premier.


Mr. Kilgour:: Go and shake hands.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Whatever turns you on.


David Kilgour: You might as well go and give him a big kiss.


Gerald Augustine Regan: But these matters do fall under federal jurisdiction, and we also have very good labour legislation. We have an excellent labour relations board. We have a regional office in Vancouver which is very ably staffed. I think problems in the area involving a number of unions which are under that jurisdiction are well looked after by that staff.
It is also true that there have been some representations about foreign ownership of the utility, but I have already commented on that. I do not believe I have had particular representation on the subject of public ownership. In this country we have a history of utilities which are publicly owned and those which are privately owned, and as long as there is good regulation-I do not think that in essence presents a problem.


Frank Oberle: Once again the minister is clearly siding with those people from the left. He is saying it is a matter of opinion whether there is excellent, leading and progressive labour legislation in British Columbia. The fact is that British Columbia has disproportionately more labour problems than any province in this country. We wonder whether the labour legislation in the
B.C. Telephone Dispute
province of British Columbia could be somewhat responsible for that.
My colleague, the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington), warned the minister that before taking sides in this dispute, he should make sure he does not dig himself in any further than he did yesterday and again today. Certainly I have faith, as does everyone else, that Mr. Kelly will come up with a report and recommendations which both sides will seriously look at.
We hope Mr. Kelly will look at other issues in this dispute having to do with technological changes which will create serious problems for the work force of this country. We on this side want to encourage these improvements while at the same time accepting some responsibility for those directly affected. We hope Mr. Kelly will look at it in that sense.
Who did the minister meet with when in British Columbia? Did he meet with anyone from the telephone company? Did he look at the regulatory structure? Did he look at the obligations placed on that company? Being a representative of a large northern constituency, I speak with some authority when I say the company has done an exemplary job of bringing telephone service to the most remote areas of the province. This creates an incredible burden on the resources of such a company. Did the minister speak with company officials? I can evaluate both sides, and I agree there has been stubbornness on both sides. Why would the minister come into this House after a two-day visit to British Columbia, knowing all about this dispute and having appointed a mediator, clearly having his mind already made up?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, I know the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) would not want to say anything that would be interpreted as criticism of the way in which I have discharged the responsibilities of my office and used my judgment as to when a mediator should be brought in. That is a heavy responsibility 1 must discharge.
I think upon reflection, if the hon. member will consider what I have said, and if he goes back home and talks to some businessmen in Prince George-


Frank Oberle: I do that all the time.


Gerald Augustine Regan: -he will find they are expressing the same sort of concern I mirrored in this House. I do not think we should hide things under the table. If there is such a feeling, and that is a factor in the problem, it should be mentioned. However, I recognize the hon. member's genuine concern and the fact that he is as anxious as anyone that a fair settlement be achieved.
I believe the course I am following in outlining what the problems may or may not be on both sides, and in appointing a mediator of this calibre, will bring the most likely prospect of progress toward a settlement. The hon. member knows, for example, that by using judgment as to when and how quickly to intervene, we in my department were able at the last instant to avoid a threatened strike of flight attendants which would have interfered to a very substantial degree with Christmas travel plans of Canadians. Our record over the past year has

February 11, 1981
B.C. Telephone Dispute
been a rather outstanding one. I hope the hon. member will continue to have confidence in the path we are following in attempting to settle this very serious dispute.
1 have not talked directly with officials of the telephone company. A message has just been placed on my desk indicating a telephone call from the chairman of the board of B.C. Tel, Mr. Gordon MacFarlane. At this moment in time, I have not talked directly with him. I did not think it was my role to do that, but rather to follow the course of action that I have followed. I hope upon reflection the hon. member will find that this is a fruitful course for us all.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Madam Speaker:: Because the hon. member was not given notice of the statement, which is not required of course, but which is a courtesy usually given to the House, I will recognize him.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Thank you, Madam Speaker, I appreciate that very much. I seek this opportunity to clarify an impression left by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Regan) in his remarks when replying to my colleague for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro). He mentioned that ownership of B.C. Tel is American.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Not totally.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: That is correct. That is the point I wanted to make. It is probably American controlled. There is a great deal of American investment in it. Many people in British Columbia feel it is the tail end of the whole communications system, that all the discarded equipment ends up in the west. They believe we are dealing in obsolete equipment while other parts of North America have modern communications equipment.
In his answer to the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, was the minister implying that the American interests, which perhaps have control of B.C. Tel, are interfering with the management-labour relationship? Is he implying that instruction is coming from a foreign board of directors to the management of B.C. Tel that it not get on with the business of settling this dispute, because in the past that has been one of the problems in British Columbia? We have been the laboratory for labour-management disputes where the unions are controlled from the U.S. as well as the management. If a settlement comes about, it has a spillover effect on the industry and unions, not only in Canada but in the United States.
In his answer, is the minister telling us that the American board of directors is giving instruction to the management of B.C. Tel, which has very capable management, Canadian trained and educated? In most cases, they are all Canadians. Are instructions being issued to obstruct progress and a settlement in this? If so, that is a very serious issue which must be addressed here.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, I am not telling the hon. member any such thing. If he reviews my words, he will find
that is not the case. 1 have said there is some area of concern in the province; that since the ultimate control of the company rests in the United States, the people who have the ultimate responsibility for the company may be in the position of not having the same level of sensitivity to labour relations as they are practised in this country as have people here. As to what the relationship may be between the parent company and the Canadian management, what level of responsibility is exercised in Canada, how much latitude management here have, whether there is any communication and what the nature of that communication is, I have no knowledge whatsoever. If the hon. member reviews my words, he will find that is essentially what I have said on the matter. I believe he will also find on his return to the province that the views I have outlined are the views and concerns of businessmen in British Columbia.
*
* *


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4, 1,651, 1,747, 1,759 and 1,766.


Mr. Cossitt: What was the amount of business, in each of the past three years, received by the Canadian National Railways and/or Canadian Pacific Railways for express services operated out of Brockville, Ontario?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows:
Canadian National Railways
Shipments forwarded Revenue-related to forwarded shipments Shipments received
1977	1978
80,184	98,283
$1,206,400	$1,270,000
67,149	65,414
87,034


[Stage Direction]
Transportation companies generally do not record revenue(s) related to shipments received. These figures, therefore, are not available.
Information concerning express services for the Canadian Pacific Railways is not available.
February 11, 1981
Mr. Herbert: In the past five years, have reforestation or forestry research programs been funded by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and, if so, where applicable by province, which ones?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows:
Newfoundland
Reforestation: establishment of a nursery; site preparation, stand reclamation; planting and cone collection.
Research:	harvesting and utilization studies; experiments in sawmill
design, wide tree chipping, wood fuel, integrated logging and new harvesting techniques.
The above programs were carried out under the forestry subsidiary agreement at a total cost to DREE of $4.2 million.
Prince Edward Island
Reforestation: seed gathering and preparation; seedling production; planting on private and Crown lands; greenhouses and ancillary equipment.
Research:	adaptation of research studies to island conditions; growth
studies associated with development of superior seedlings; diseases and pests; stump culture; shelter belts and windbreaks.
The above programs were carried out under the comprehensive development
plan at a total cost to DREE of $2,562,278.
Nova Scotia
Reforestation: site preparation, planting, tree acquisition and seedling; tree nursery, tree breeding centre.
Research:	new uses for hardwood.
The above programs were carried out under the forestry subsidiary agreement at a total cost of $3,577,715.
Various small reforestation projects were carried out under the third agriculture and rural development agreement at a total cost to DREE of $ 122,557.
New Brunswick
Reforestation: construction and operation of three tree nurseries; site preparation; tree planting; plantation tending.
Research:	applied research into the control of the spruce budworm;
study of the ecology of the Nashwaak watershed; plantation growth studies; various investigations into the control of fish and wildlife species as an element of forest management.
The above programs were carried out under the forestry subsidiary agreement at a total cost to DREE of $14.2 million.
Quebec
Reforestation: silviculture projects on public forests; aid to provide forest production; reforestation; seed production; seedling production; purchase of potted plants; planting on public forests; planting on private forests; sowing by air and on the ground; upkeep of reclaimed land; mechanization development; arboretum; vehicle management; internal management.
Order Paper Questions
Research:	studies of the development of efficient timber allocation.
The above programs were carried out under the forest development subsidiary agreement at a total cost to DREE of $32,533,972.
Various small silviculture and reforestation projects were carried out under the third agricultural and rural development agreement at a total cost to DREEof $335,718.
Ontario
Reforestation: resource assessments and inventories; hardwood forest renewal; forest access; silvicultural camps; nursery expansion; soil survey; development and marketing; private land forestry assistance; forest improvement of Crown lands and lands under control of the Crown; expansion of county and conservation authority forests; management program in Treaty No. 3 area; forest survey of Indian reserves in northwestern Ontario; management and reforestation on Grassy Narrows Indian Reserve No. 21 and Eagle Lake Indian Reserve No. 17.
Research:	hybrid poplar technical development, nursery and research.
The above programs were carried out under the community and rural resource development, forest management, eastern Ontario and rural development subsidiary agreements at a total cost to DREE of $4,803,545.
Manitoba
Reforestation: resource development.
The above program was carried out under the northlands subsidiary agreement at a total cost to DREE of $1,316,600.
Saskatchewan
Reforestation: opportunity identification; management, silviculture; small scale forest development; reforestation; forestry operations; harvesting study.
The above programs were carried out under the forest development, interim northlands, northlands and interim planning subsidiary agreements at a total cost to DREEof $2,330,446.
British Columbia
Reforestation: reforestation.
The above program was carried out under the intensive forest management subsidiary agreement at a total cost to DREE of $1,751,257.


Mr. Stevens: For the current fiscal year, what are the estimated expenditures of the Department of the Environment for (a) advertising (b) free or subsidized publications (c) other information conveyed to the public?


Mr. Roger Simmons (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: For the current fiscal year (1980/81), Environment Canada's projected expenditures are: (a) $328,400; (b) $3,893,550; (c) $591,400.


Mr. Stevens: For the current fiscal year, what are the estimated expenditures of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion for (a) advertising (b) free or subsidized publications (c) other information conveyed to the public?

February 11, 1981
Order Paper Questions


Pierre De Bané: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: (a) $1,626,204; (b) $587,633; (c) $389,000.


Mr. Stevens: For the current fiscal year, what are the estimated expenditures of the Department of the Solicitor General for (a) advertising (b) free or subsidized publications (c) other information conveyed to the public?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: (a)	(b)	(c)Advertising	Free or Subsidized Publications	Other InformationS	$	$Ministry Secretariat	Nil	281,000	36,150Correctional Service of	Canada	31,000	3,000	NilRoyal Canadian Mounted	Police	275,900	282,000	NilNational Parole Board	Nil	85,000	15,000306,900	651,000	51,150


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


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I would ask that the notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall all those notices of motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: They will stand.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, February 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bussieres (for the Minister of Finance) that Bill C-59, to provide supplementary borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, when I began my speech last night I was reviewing briefly the contents of the bill, which consists of four paragraphs intending to achieve something which is not new. This is not the first time it has been done in this House of Commons. We go through this exercise every year, or at least we have been doing it under the Liberal administration since 1970.
In 1970 we had a surplus of $493 million. Sine then it has progressively worsened until the last election when we had a very serious commitment from the Grits that there would be no additional deficits, that the government would make every effort to hold the line and that we would not have to go through this exercise much longer of the House being presented with a bill for borrowing authority without really having it supported by estimates or a budget or any kind of statement on how this money is to be spent. The truth of the matter is that since the election promise the deficit has increased by $2 billion.
This bill now asks permission from Parliament to go and borrow, a sum of $14 billion, not just from conventional sources or from domestic sources but from foreign sources as well. The reason it is somewhat different this year is, first of all, because of this lie which stares one in the face, this lie which was uttered in the election campaign, this broken promise that there would be no further increases. More importantly, this year's borrowing bill is different in the sense that it is money which is being spent in much different ways than it has been spent before.
We have been very critical of the government in previous years about the manner in which it has brought in these make-work programs, these schemes which would keep young people employed just long enough to qualify for unemployment insurance. There is an incredible cost associated with these schemes and there has been no major effort to create permanent employment for young people, to encourage them to begin their careers and help them in doing so. That is one kind of criticism. This time it is different as it is associated with another type of spending. This time it is associated with the kind of government takeover spending.
One cannot separate this particular discussion from the takeover. An example of what I am saying is the takeover by the people's oil company, Petro-Canada, of a company called Petrofina. Before I concluded last night I related to my friends
February 11, 1981

in the House a short dialogue which I saw on television during which the head of the people's oil company, Petro-Canada was asked how the idea to take over this particular company came about. He was musing, and said it was a matter of meeting over a cup of coffee and a drink and somebody saying, "Would you be interested in selling your oil company?" The response was, "Sure, for $150 a share we might be looking at it." The discussion concluded there. After a few weeks there was a telephone call and whoever it was said to the head of Petro-Can, were you serious when you talked about the takeover of our company? The answer was, well, yes, we are always looking around. We have a mandate under the government's program to assert ourselves and to assume a higher degree of Canadian ownership, and that of course is government ownership. He said, we are interested but it would not be for $150 a share. That was something which was kicked around over a cup of coffee. Why don't you make us an offer? I have been paraphrasing what went on in those discussions. I suppose the directors met and they came up with their offer of $120.
As I said last night, it would be the same way you would sell your son's motorcycle which had not been used since he left for university. A person would ask if you were interested in selling the motorcycle and you would agree. This went on, and there was not really any valuation of the assets of this particular company and there was really not any valuation particularly of the assets this company has in the area of production, in the area of development of new sources of energy. If there had been an assessement of that, surely the conclusion would have been reached that this is not one of the companies which should be the first or the next to be taken over by the government.
I have taken a critical look at the company's portfolio and its financial statements. It is true it has a small interest in the tar sands activities. Its main activity in our country is in the retail field. It has a refinery in Montreal which will add to the refining capacity of the people's oil company. Reports tell us that the refinery is rather antiquated and is out of date in relation to new and modern facilities.
What we are buying is a number of service station outlets in Quebec and other parts of eastern Canada so we will have the opportunity to put the Petro-Canada sign on a number of properties to show Canadians we are in the oil business.
There should be a response by both the minister of energy and the chairman of the board of Petro-Canada as to why this acquisition is being made and how it will advance the government's strategy.
You know, Mr. Speaker, there is this myth that we are opposed to government's energy policy. We all agree that energy self-sufficiency is a laudable goal. In fact, it was a main component in the Speech from the Throne and the budget speech of the former government, energy self-sufficiency by 1990. That is where the phrase came from. We are also interested in achieving a higher degree of Canadian ownership. Where we drift apart is in the area of how we define Canadian ownership. In the minds of the people over there it is not Canadian ownership unless it is government ownership, unless
Borrowing Authority
the cabinet can say directly how things are managed in a particular Crown corporation. Our scheme was something much different than that, because of our firm belief that freedom of choice is an important component in a democratic society such as ours.
Canadian ownership would have been the ownership by Canadian citizens and not directly by the government. That is a very important distinction.
Apart from that, how will this particular acquisition help achieve these two serious objectives with which we all agree? Mr. Hopper said that Petro-Canada would take over this company, that it has made significant profits and that all these profits will be plowed right into Petro-Canada's exploration efforts in the north and particularly in frontier areas. Let us take a look at what are these profits which will be plowed back into these efforts. As I said, I have looked at the financial statements of Petrofina. We have interim unaudited figures for 1980, but after taxes in 1979 the company made $61,587 million in profit. That was from its Canadian operations. That is a significant amount of money which could be plowed into exploration and development. The company paid $39,441 million in income taxes. Of course, if we just took over the company and operated it as it is, that amount could be added to that $61 million. Or it really should be deducted because the government already had $31 million, and it is now after that other $61 million which the company kept for itself at the time.
Before we get all excited about re-investing these profits, let us look at what actually has to happen as a result of the acquisition. We know that the government does not have the $1.47 billion it takes to acquire the company. It has to borrow that money. If it had the money, we would not have a borrowing bill before us asking us to give the government permission to borrow $14 billion from foreign and domestic sources. The money has to be borrowed. Even at preferred interest rates, to which the government would certainly be entitled, we have to figure on at least 15 per cent interest, and for a loan of $1.47 billion that would require an annual interest and debt charge-hold on to your seat, sir-of $220 million. That is what it would cost us to acquire this company in the first year. We are getting $61 million in profits. That leaves $159 million which we will not have next year to plow into research and development. We would have had that $159 million-or at least that much borrowing power-to put into research and development.
The minister says we will not give these people a cheque, that we will not pay for this in one year, that we will not pay for it right away.
When we talk about foreign companies and multinationals, we usually refer to companies which have their base in the United States, such as Exxon, Standard of California and all those big multinationals which have asserted themselves in such an aggressive way throughout the world. This little company, Petrofina, was actually started by Canadians right

February 11, 1981
Borrowing Authority
here. They had to go to Belgium to get the money to finance their schemes because Canadian banks, the Canadian government and Canadian institutions were not interested. They did not have any faith in our energy future, so the money had to come from Belgium. The company eventually ended up being a Belgian company. The Belgians have no great design with respect to managing our energy future. Belgium is a country just like ours. The Belgians have problems with bilingualism. They have had them much longer than we have, and they have not found any better solutions than we have. Belgium is just a small country.
Not all the shareholders who will receive that $61 million are Belgians, many of them are Canadians. Somehow the whole thing does not make sense. If I were a shareholder of Petrofina, I would say, "If you want my company, pay me cash because I do not trust you to pay me over a period of time." However, I assume that if the government takes control now-and this is what the minister says is happening-then he has to pay the owners of Petrofina interest if he does not pay it to foreign banks or if the money is not being borrowed to give to the shareholders. The investors are the only people who will profit from this scheme. It will do nothing whatever to find any new oil or bring any new oil onstream. It will do nothing to enhance our Canadian control position, particularly in the crucial area where we must assume control, that is, the area of development and exploration.
We do not need more service stations, surely, and we certainly do not need a refinery at which the pipes are rusty and in danger of blowing out at any time. It has already been said that the refinery is in need of some very major repairs or modifications to bring it into line with what is, in today's concept, considered to be a modern refinery.
We have talked about this takeover in the question period for the last couple of days. All of us who have been critical of the government since the energy statement was tabled in the House have been very diligent in watching the newspapers to see what was happening to oil stocks and oil shares. I personally do not have any, but I have been interested because I travelled to my constituency and was told that all of the major companies drilling in the area I represent in northeastern British Columbia have been making plans to leave and move to the United States or spend their money in other areas in the world where there is not the type of government intervention which is now being experienced in our country. The minister denies this is happening. He says there are actually more rigs drilling this year than last year. That may well be true in a small corner of Alberta or Saskatchewan.


Marc Lalonde: It is true all over.


Frank Oberle: It is certainly not true in northeastern British Columbia.


Marc Lalonde: It is true all over.


Frank Oberle: If the minister says it is true, I of course cannot call him a liar, but he is a stranger to the truth. It is not true in northeastern British Columbia. Rigs are moving out.
We were watching what was happening to the oil economy, and in almost every instance the value of oil shares was dropping, with the exception, curiously, of the shares of Petrofina. They were increasing from $70. They were listed at that price on the market at the time the first telephone calls about the possibility of a takeover were exchanged. When that happened, Petrofina's shares increased in value from $70 to about $85 per share. In the opinion of most experts $85 would have been a good price to pay.
If one wants to make sure that a takeover does not run aground or afoul about half way through, one usually offers a premium. My analysis of the situation would have been that the premium was already paid in that the value of the shares had increased disproportionately with other companies, from $70 to $85. However, I will give the minister the benefit of the doubt and say that $100 would certainly have been a windfall profit to the people who owned Petrofina shares. But the price was not $100; it was $120. The government paid that amount for the shares without-and I am getting back to that- making a serious assessment or commissioning a serious analysis of the real assets of this company.
The minister sits over there and shakes his head. He has been asked about this, and he has admitted to us that the cabinet discussed it. Yes, the members of the cabinet had a thumb sketch assessment of what was happening, but they really did not know what they were buying or how this particular acquisition would help them achieve some of the objectives laid out in the national energy package. There is a lot of anxiety in the industry, and there is good reason for it.
We are saying that the government energy package is just barely catching up with what is happening throughout the world. We are comparing ourselves with Great Britain, the United Kingdom, Norway, and with companies which operate, under government rules and regulations, in the North Sea and in other parts of the world. Also there have been some interesting discussions in committee as to these comparisons.
Since the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) is present, I should like him to reflect on what I am about to say. If he is really out to smooth the troubled water and to relieve some of the anxiety of industry with respect to the government's future intentions, he should reflect upon this. I am referring to an exchange between a member of the New Democratic Party and the minister. The member referred to the Norwegians insisting on participation in all areas. That is not true at all. I would say they are insisting upon that in some areas. They are not necessarily, as a government or through their national oil company, participating in all ventures. We are insisting upon participation in all ventures on federal land. The member said that in some areas the Norwegians go in with at least 85 per cent public or government ownership. He asked the minister of energy why it would be only 25 per cent here, and the minister said, "We are only just beginning; give us a chance". Certainly these comments are not very prudent or well-designed to ease some of the anxiety and fear of the oil
February 11, 1981

industry with respect to the government's intentions concerning the future of private industry.
Then we criticized the minister and his policy in committee over the business of confiscating the assets of private companies. As far as we can determine, there has never been a precedent in the western world where a government has moved in and confiscated assets retroactively. There cannot be any other interpretation. As a result of the government's energy package-and the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) agreed on the night the budget was presented-from now on Petro-Canada or the government, through its agent Petro-Canada or some other agent, will own 25 per cent of any lease on federal land. There is nothing wrong with that. It is quite true that most countries in the world, except the United States, insist upon some government or public participation in the oil patch. It would be strange if the government, with its particular political orientation, would not follow that precedent.
We would not be as upset with the minister saying that they wanted 25 per cent of the oil patch from here on in; but the minister said, "We are not just insisting upon 25 per cent of what happens from here on in, we are now taking ownership and control of 25 per cent of everything in federal lands." That is not just money paid out for leases or money already spent in terms of exploration, exploratory drilling and those kinds of things. This is money spent and assets put in place to improve these leases. Now the government is in there and is confiscating 25 per cent of these assets, and there is no precedent for that in the western world. So, it does not come as any great surprise that the oil rigs would be lined up at the border. If the minister and his government insist upon following the disastrous course of the energy package, by 1990 there will be not only 50 per cent or 75 per cent government ownership of the oil patch, it will probably be 100 per cent. But it will be 100 per cent of nothing, because the government oil company and Canadian taxpayers do not have the required resources to make us energy self-sufficient by 1990. The conservative estimates range from something like $300 billion to $350 or $400 billion to recapture energy self-sufficiency in the country.
Is the minister saying that the government will bring in a borrowing bill next year for $60, $70 or $80 billion? If that is what he is saying, where will the money come from? What difference does it make who owns our energy if, in order to buy it, we have to sell our souls to foreign owners and bankers? The bankers, to which the government go to mortgage our children's future, profit from this incredibly dangerous scheme.
One thing which really offends me about this bill is that the government is asking for permission to borrow in a currency other than that of Canada and to repay in the currency in which it was borrowed. This means that again government members will be in their executive jets flying to New York, to Zurich or perhaps to the Middle East to see if some of the petrodollars could be recycled.
As I have said many times in the House, these bankers will be asking the same questions a banker asks an individual
Borrowing Authority
applying for a loan; what is your ability to repay, what are your assets? The answers are obvious: our assets are our resources, and our ability to pay is our ability to tax and to pass these monstrous costs on to Canadian consumers. I wonder whether government members ever go shopping? Do they show up at supermarkets other than when they are campaigning? Have they ever seen senior citizens walking along the aisles, turning over certain items on the shelves and looking at the prices?


Marc Lalonde: I do that every weekend.


Frank Oberle: Have they ever seen what is going on? Are they too heartless to realize that there are people in the country who cannot afford decent shelter or nutritious food for themselves and their children? Those people are now partners in Petrofina. In the very near future when they go to gasoline stations they will pay another 13 cents a gallon because of the purchase of a number of service stations in eastern Canada and a refinery in Montreal.


Marc Lalonde: Nonsense.


Frank Oberle: It has been said that the promises of yesterday are the taxes of today. When we talked about the borrowing bill last year, we said that it could not go on like this any longer. Of course we were right then-it did not go on any longer, it got worse.
What will be the end result? What is the limit to which the government will go to mortgage the future of our children and to mortgage our resources? It will cost us $220 million in debt charges to acquire this oil company. Can one imagine what $1.4 billion is, what amount of money that is? It would be literally mind-boggling to calculate how many Canadians would have to spend a lifetime of work to amass that amount of money.
We talk about constitutional reform and we look at other countries in the world for our models. These countries limit their governments through their constitution in the way in which the taxpayers money should be spent.
Since we are writing a new Constitution I think it would be interesting to look at a provision whereby a government may do some deficit financing but only with the consent of Parliament and the people. In a sense, I suppose the government is asking us for our consent here in this bill. They will not receive it from me because, as I said last night, 1 would be afraid to go home and face my children if I were to stand up in this House and vote for this measure. But since they have the majority they will be getting consent from Parliament to go out and borrow this additional money.
I think what we should be seriously looking at in the future, as we talk about constitutional reform, is the limitation of government borrowing to domestic sectors. There are only so many places from which a government can borrow money and, of course, it only borrows money when the tax collector has worn out his welcome and the population rebels, not wanting

February 11, 1981
Borrowing Authority
to pay more taxes. This government wore out its welcome long ago. Canadians would not stand for another increase in income tax.
1 would like to make this point, Mr. Speaker. We are faced with so many hidden taxes today the government really does not have a choice at all but to borrow from banks. It has exhausted the pension funds, the domestic and conventional sources and the domestic banks. The government must now go to foreign banks to beg for more money. That, Sir, should be outlawed in the constitution. It takes money out of the country. It takes resources out of our country. These are resources which are sorely needed in the energy field and which are needed to train our young people to prepare them for the twentieth century and the excitement associated with it. These are resources which are needed to maintain and manage an enlightened domestic program.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about Bill C-59, which, if enacted, would authorize the government to borrow S14 billion for 1981-82.
I begin my remarks by noting, Mr. Speaker, that there is not a single member of the New Democratic Party present in the chamber.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You know better than that!


David Kilgour: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has come into the chamber, but he has had a chance to speak on this bill. I believe no member of the NDP is participating, at least this afternoon, as far as I can see.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Were you here last night?


David Kilgour: We have a new baby at home.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Kilgour: I am grateful for the applause, which I am sure is not meant for me. I am also glad that members opposite heckle me now because, believe me, by the time I have finished they will probably have left. They will not like what I am about to say.
I would like to discuss what $14 billion really means. For most of us it is a number with nine zeros, which is completely beyond our comprehension. Let us use a three-bedroom detached home which costs $80,000 as an example. This is obviously more than the average price of homes in some communities and possibly less in others. Unfortunately, it is not an unrealistic price for most people to pay for a home in many parts of Canada today. By my arithmetic, $14 billion would buy 175,000 such homes. Incidentally, 175,000 single family homes, and I stress that, is enough to house eight out of ten people in a city with a population the size of metropolitan Calgary. It would house three out of four people in a city with a population the size of metropolitan Edmonton. It would house eight out of ten people in a city with a population the size of metropolitan Winnipeg, Quebec City or Hamilton. It would house almost 40 per cent of the population of Vancouver. Mr. Speaker, just think how much money that represents.
What we are really talking about in this bill is inflation. An increasing number of Canadians realize that is what we are talking about when we talk in terms of $14 billion. That is why I believe more than 20 state legislatures in the American union have passed proposed constitutional amendments outlawing budgets for their federal government. The people in the United States and in Canada are beginning to realize that deficits resulting from bills such as the one before us are the reason for inflation.
I suggest that a large portion of this $14 billion being asked for by the economic lunatics on the other side of the House will be ultimately printed, or, as they prefer to call it, "monetized", by the Bank of Canada. This will simply push the "on" button for the printing presses of the Bank of Canada. This is how the government covers its deficit. Euphemists call it the monetization of debt. This is what members opposite will do, if they follow their practice of the last eight years. I believe that had the majority of Canadians known what had gone on for the last year, in terms of printing money, they would not have elected a single Liberal MP in any riding in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Kilgour: Of course, members opposite know that up to this point in time most Canadians do not know what printing money means. The government continues to rely on the fact that most Canadians do not know what it has been doing to the purchasing power of hard-earned money over the past eight years. What the government prefers to do is say that inflation is the fault of California, Japan, labour unions, business, opposition, and the fault of the member for Winnipeg North Centre. It prefers to blame anyone who is at hand.
I would like to show you what inflation can do to a country. I wish to refer to what happened to the German mark during the Weimar Republic in the 1920s. Many of my constituents are Canadians of German descent and I believe they know I am a strong admirer of what West Germany has done since the Second World War and the lessons it has learned from the kind of economic management members opposite have been giving us for many years.
In my hand, Mr. Speaker, I have a 100 mark note issued in 1908. The next one in this book is a 1,000 mark note issued in 1922. The next is a 5,000 mark note issued in November, 1922. The next is a-


Marc Lalonde: A five million mark note?


Frank Oberle: Do you want me to read it for you?


David Kilgour: I wish you would.
The next note is dated November, 1922, and is for 50,000. It is getting more interesting. Here is one for February, 1923, which is for 100,000 marks. On October, 1923, a note for 100 million marks was introduced. The next one, dated December, 1922 is-what is "milliard"?


Frank Oberle: Billion.
February 11, 1981


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It may be useful for the hon. member to refer to certain documents, but there are certain limits in terms of how much others can participate to assist in an hon. member's speech.


David Kilgour: Very well, Mr. Speaker. My friend tells me that the word means billion. My friends opposite will be happy to know that this is the last bill. It came out in October, 1923, and is for 20 billion marks. I hope it is clear that there is not much humour to be found in what I have just said. If the government continues with what it is doing, this same situation could result in Canada. Hyper-inflation destroyed Germany's economy, its middle class, and we all know to what it led.
A West German economist who had studied the period between 1963 and 1973 said that of 40 countries which had inflation rates exceeding 15 per cent, 38 had abolished their democratic institutions in one way or another. This is a recent study. The big winners in a period of economic inflation are the speculators, those who are lucky, and rarely is it those who work hard. Home owners win and renters lose. People who own gold win while those who own dollars lose.
On January 5, or January 6, it was announced that the Bank of Canada had no choice but to borrow $900 million in the previous year to prop up our dollar. The interest on $900 million runs to about $400,000 per day. I maintain that the bank could have taken a different route by allowing the dollar to slide. Perhaps Canada would have imported fewer vegetables from Florida or California, but by doing this it might have cost Canada less than $400,000 per day, which is only the interest on the loan.
I believe it can be safely said that the government will simply print a good portion of that $400,000. This will have the ultimate effect of adding to the deficit. In other words, when the anti-energy policy of the government-and I see that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) has left, although I had not expected him to stay long-runs up bills, buying oil on the world market the government will simply pay them by printing additional money.
Having regard to what I call the anti-energy policy introduced by the government on October 28 it will mean the loss of 40,000 jobs by spring, according to the Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors. This association believes that 11,360 jobs have been lost since the introduction of this infamous anti-energy policy, and that by March it will mean the loss of 28,000 jobs in steel mills and auto plants found mainly in central Canada. Let us look at the cost of carrying
40,000	people on unemployment for one year. I am told by my deskmate, the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), that the maximum UIC benefit is $180 per week. If we multiply $720 per month by 40,000 jobs, we arrive at the figure of $336 million.
This expense is the direct result of the policies of the government. Canadian oil producers estimate that the budget will cause a reduction in oil drilling of 35 per cent in 1981. In other words, instead of 9,000 wells being drilled, as was the
Borrowing Authority
case last year, the figure will drop to 5,800 wells, a drop of 35 per cent, and will result in the loss of 30,000 jobs.
I was informed by a person in the oil industry that as of January 15, 38 rigs had left Canada for the United States. It requires 30 trucks to move one rig. One rig generates about $1.4 million per year in spin-off revenue. I was also informed that 134 rigs are not working. This means that only 400 of a total of 600 rigs are now active in western Canada. The minister of energy tries to tell us day after day what his figures show. I do not know what his figures show, but the word for describing what the minister tries to tell this House day after day is the word "show" in the context the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) used it the other day.
Canada takes up half a continent and is compromised of 24 million people. This country buys approximately 430,000 barrels of oil per day on the world market. It is obscene that Canada must outbid Third World countries for oil at a time when the Prime Minister is so devoted to his North-South dialogue he is travelling about discussing the problems of the underdeveloped world. I recently had the good fortune to attend a United Nations Congress on Crime. A speaker from the Third World made the comment that he felt it was a crime the so-called developed world would outbid Third World countries for oil on the world market.
I do not believe there is a person in this country who does not realize the government's policy will increase Canada's dependency on world oil. This can only have a detrimental effect on Third World countries. So when the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) said, I believe, on January 12-and the crocodile tears were flowing from his eyes-that Third World countries would be required to spend all their hard currency on oil instead of development, it made me, with respect, Mr. Speaker, want to vomit.
Hon. members opposite clearly worship John Maynard Keynes as an idol. They have followed his demand-stimulus policies for many years, policies which I submit have been shown to be no longer workable. It is time hon. members opposite revised their thinking.
In the recent budget statement the Minister of Finance spoke of Fighting inflation. The budget statement was clearly based on the premise that most Canadians would not notice on the one hand the causal connection of rising prices and interest rates, the increased budgetary deficit, more unemployment, loss of investment-obviously in the energy industry-the worsened over-all trade deficit, the falling dollar and on the other hand the new oceans of fresh currency the government will continue to force the Bank of Canada to print in order to cope with its ever-increasing debt.
The free world's most successful economies have made the transition from the realities of the post-Keynesian energy conserver age. Ironically, the three that have no oil whatsoever, West Germany, Japan and Switzerland, are experiencing, on a relative basis today, the least inflation, the least unemployment, the lowest interest rates and the greatest sue-

February 11, 1981
Borrowing Authority
cess in coping with the balance of payments problems and the other economic problems that hurt many Canadians so acutely.
In January, 4,500 Swiss residents were unemployed, or .2 per cent of the working population. That country has taken a strong stand on inflation for many years and, as a result of its monetary and fiscal policy, inflation stands at 3.6 per cent compared to approximately 11 per cent in Canada.
The government proposes to spend $1.4 billion or $120 per share to buy Petrofina. As I understand it, Petrofina owns
1,000	service stations; a 5 per cent interest in Syncrude; a slightly larger interest in the Alsands plant which, of course, has been suspended because of the unacceptable energy policy, and it also has some unexplored frontier land. Incidentally, Mr. Pierre Nadeau, chief executive officer of the company, has resigned because he will not work for a Crown corporation. That is one example of unemployment as a result of the energy policy. The founder of the company, Mr. Alfredo Campo said that the price is so far beyond what any other company would pay for it or what the market is indicating, that he wondered how it made sense. It only makes sense if you are using other people's money, or money printed for the purchase, over and above what can be taken from the Canadian consumer.
The budget mentioned inflation but had absolutely nothing to say about solving the problem of the steadily rising deficit. It is predicted that the deficit for next year will increase by $3.5 billion to a total of $15 or $16 billion. In the west we call that sucking and blowing simultaneously. It is a hard thing to do and it will be even harder for the Minister of Finance to do it. In the east it may be called walking both sides of the street, but in the west we call it sucking and blowing simultaneously.
A request to this House for authority to borrow $14 billion is just another indication of the government's bankrupt economic policy. It is, I believe, the reason there are more than one million unemployed Canadians; it is the reason that inflation is in the order of 11 per cent; it is the reason our dollar recently stood at a 50-year lowpoint; it is the reason that investment capital is leaving the country and has been leaving for the last two or three years at a substantial rate; it is the reason for many people leaving Canada; it is certainly the reason for the oil industry being invited to leave, and I maintain it is the reason hon. members opposite constantly talk about things such as the Constitution. They know perfectly well that nothing can be done about the economy while they try to tear the country apart.
Just yesterday I received a phone call from someone in Quebec telling me that two stores had closed down in the community, presumably because of insolvency or bankruptcy. This is another reason the country has so many economic and social difficulties. Diluting or inflating the currency is not a good place to start and we should recognize that.
I should like to refer to an article which appeared in the November 4, 1980, issue of The Canadian Journal of Economics by Thomas J. Courchene, a professor at the University of Western Ontario. At page 559 he writes:
Moreover, with the decline of the market system as a co-ordinating institution, the regulation of social and economic activity becomes progressively more personalized and paternalistic. The logical culmination of the protected society scenario is aptly captured by Edward Gibbon's comment, albeit in a different context, in the fall of Athenian democracy; "in the end they valued security more than they valued freedom, and they lost both".
He gives an example of what inflation does to people on page 569. Referring to 1974, he writes:
Yet the bank rate remained at 7.25 per cent. Individuals began to scramble in order to hedge themselves against the ravages of inflation, and not surprisingly, the most obvious and convenient hedge was the housing market. As a result, housing prices jumped precipitately in the first quarter of 1974. Dreams were shattered, substantial wealth transfers occurred, and the market as an allocative mechanism was called into question.
Further down on the same page he writes:
There is no question in my mind that experience with inflation has convinced a goodly number of Canadians that political rather than market allocative mechanisms are preferable across an increasingly broad range of goods and services.
It is my belief and it is, I believe, the view of an increasing number of Canadians that there is not enough difference between the economic policies of the federal Liberal Party and the federal New Democratic Party to stick in a very small thimble. I maintain that the present government is more irresponsible in terms of economic policy than is the New Democratic Party, for instance, in the province of Saskatchewan. Hon. members may ask why. The New Democratic Party in Saskatchewan does not run a deficit-I believe there was a minor one last year-at least not in the magnitude of $15 billion or $16 billion, which we are talking about next year. The New Democratic Party in Saskatchewan has some sense. I do not think they are financially responsive, to the kind of policy we are getting from this government and have had from this government for many years, or what it is doing to the least protected members of society. I am, of course, including the pensioners. They are the readily identifiable group.
A constituent came to see me about a month ago. He was a pensioner from the CNR. He and his wife receive a small pension from the CNR, the old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. Between the two of them, after paying rent in a city-owned house, light, gas and so on, at the end of every month they have $108 left to pay for their transportation, food and clothing. There is not a member in this House who does not know what government created inflation does to people on low incomes and unprotected members of society. It is an outrageous situation and more and more Canadians are becoming quite desperate about it. I submit it has to stop.
We hear people asking why Canada is becoming so deindustrialized. Professor Innis pointed out sadly that Canada is one of the few countries in the world to go from being a colony to a nation to a colony. That is a tragedy for this country. I believe it is a tragedy created by the economic, fiscal and monetary policies of the present government. May I ask how much time remains, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has 12 minutes.
February 11, 1981


David Kilgour: I submit that unless we do something about inflation some of our basic democratic institutions will be in considerable danger. People lose confidence in those institutions during a period of inflation. In 38 out of 40 countries it was demonstrated that democracy is endangered when the purchasing power of the dollar is eroded.
My plea to the government is, start listening to people who have a sense of contact with ordinary Canadians who suffer because of inflation. If the government speaks to those people, virtually without exception, they will hear that unless something is done about fiscal and monetary policy, Canada and its very future as a country will be endangered. As a small act of protest against what has gone on in Canada for so many years, when this bill comes up for a vote, I intend to vote against it and I urge others to do likewise.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, on the one hand, I am pleased to have an opportunity to debate Bill C-59, but on the other, its contents raise a number of concerns in my mind.
I have spent the last few days in my home riding touring a variety of municipalities and travelling throughout some of the rural areas. I have spoken to people from various chambers of commerce, to people in the trade union movement and to individuals at various community functions. A number of questions kept coming up. Some people referred to the state of the constitutional debate and some referred to the general state of affairs in Ottawa. Inevitably, people would ask what we were debating in the House of Commons these days. They asked what the topic was before us and what the government was asking us to support. When I told them that we would be debating Bill C-59, an act to provide supplementary borrowing authority, an act asking for authority to borrow $14 billion at this point in time for a variety of public works and general purposes, the response was predictable. It was the same, no matter the source whether it was a chamber of commerce meeting, a trade union meeting or whether it was from folks on the streets in the various small towns.
People always asked what on earth the government was going to use the $14 billion for. There was some embarrassment on my part because I had to tell them that it was not clear what the government was going to be using it for or how the money would benefit men, women and young people in the constituency. Worse than that, I had to say that out of this request to borrow $14 billion, $3 billion of it was to be set aside as a contingency. In other words, the government would have to wait and see what will happen. Probably the $3 billion would be required, but at this time the government could not account for it. As for the remaining $11 billion, there was some rather vague plan provided on behalf of the government. I want to emphasize it is a "vague plan" at best.
Then a thought occurred to me. What would happen if an individual from any part of Canada were to walk into his bank and ask to borrow $14,000 for a new luxury car or perhaps to start a business of some kind? The banker would probably ask how the money would be used. What if the individual said he had some vague notions about $11,000 of it, which are not
Borrowing Authority
very sophisticated or profound? He might think that a lot of people would not support the request. As for the $3,000 he would tell the banker that he was not certain what he was going to do with it, but he wanted it standing by in case of some contingency. It would be some banker who would say, "That is the kind of thing we like to support. That is the kind of request that we would like to honour." I suspect the individual would be going to a variety of bank branch offices and ending up at the FBDB, and he would probably be rejected by them as well.
Last July I believe we were asked to give the government authority to borrow $12 billion. Again, it was without any clear indication of how that $12 billion would be used. Needless to say there was reluctance on this side of the House to endorse and support that request. It is perfectly clear that Canada is facing some serious economic, social and political problems.
The social fabric of this country is being torn apart; west against east, new Canadian against the traditional Canadian, provincial parties against federal parties and French-speaking against English-speaking. There are social problems in the fields of housing, pensions and health care let alone the economic problems which are becoming increasingly more serious every day. This is what alarms many of us who have spoken during this debate. There is the tragedy of a changing economic world and what appears to be the inability of this government to come to grips with it.
With all due respect to my colleagues on my right, I am not encouraged by much of what I have heard and read in their speeches up to this point. They seem to be living up to the last half of their name, conservative, living with principles which perhaps were applicable a number of years ago, but are difficult to apply to the rapid changes occurring in the world economy today and with what ought to be happening here in Canada. Similar serious concerns can be levied against the Liberal government. What indication do we see that the government is coming to grips with inflation and the serious unemployment situation in this country? I will stay with the unemployment situation for a moment or two.
One of the tragedies of Canadian society of late is that the Liberal government has been able to convince a large number of Canadians that an unemployment rate of 6 per cent, 7 per cent and 8 per cent is acceptable. The government believes that is something we must live with. Many times members across the way and others in the Liberal party have said that we must bite the bullet. That is an unfortunate attitude for a government, and especially for a country. A country as rich as Canada should not have to accept such a high rate of unemployment.
The situation is very grave in many parts of Canada. In some constituencies, many represented by Liberals, the unemployment rate is in the 35 per cent to 40 per cent range. In some communities in my constituency, the rate is reaching 12 per cent and 12'k per cent.

February 11, 1981
Borrowing Authority
We hear talk about one million Canadians being unemployed. Most of these people would love to have a job. They would love to work and be part of the productivity of Canada. However, they do not have the opportunity to do so, largely because this government is not keeping step with the economy as it moves along. As a result, our competitive edge in world markets is declining. Our productivity is declining and jobs are evaporating on a daily basis, and with those jobs go the hopes of many Canadians.
I have been attached to the school system in a variety of ways over the years. I am not pleased with the attitude of our youngsters who are graduating from vocational and technical schools of one kind or another. There simply are not jobs for them. It is a very serious situation.
When discussing unemployment in this House, we often do so in terms of percentage points, 8 per cent, 10 per cent or 25 per cent, or in terms of absolute numbers such as 987,000 or 1.4 million people out of work. It is very easy to speak of unemployment in those terms. What about the social side of the unemployment equation?


An hon. Member:: The human cost.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Yes, what about the human costs of unemployment in this country? Studies in Ontario indicate that in 80 per cent of families experiencing wife beating, it can be related directly to unemployment. The increasing phenomena of child beating is related to unemployment, as is a percentage of suicides and the number of those entering our mental institutions. A certain percentage of alcoholism problems and family breakdowns can be attributed directly to the increasing unemployment in this and other countries.
No one will say it is a causal relationship, but when measuring the costs of unemployment we must measure more than the unemployment insurance cost and the cost of welfare. We should start measuring the costs of alcoholism, family breakdown and hospitalization of those with a variety of ailments, including those in mental institutions. We simply cannot afford to ignore these costs any longer.
What is the cost of unemployment in terms of young people being caught up in the lack of opportunities for Canada's future? Cynicism is growing among our young people today. That will not do any good for this country. It is not news that there are serious problems in Canada. We are well aware of the serious ailments in various sectors of our society. Members have offered a variety of solutions.
One approach suggested by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) a number of months ago bears repeating. As financial spokesman for the NDP, he said it is time that we in Canada clearly differentiate between two kinds of government spending. With all due respect to my colleagues on the right, they seem to have a blind obsession with the deficit, that the ideal is to balance the books and have no deficit at all. While that may be a fine ideal, it is not an acceptable approach. It is too simplistic. It is not in tune with the financial world of the eighties and nineties. Perhaps to give
them credit, steps must be taken to reduce the deficit in Canada.
We must begin to reduce government spending in a variety of areas. I suspect we could lop off hundreds of millions of dollars in a variety of areas and no one in Canada would notice. Some time ago members received notice that a game was available which they could send to their constituents. The motivation was good. The game was to introduce young Canadians to the fact that this is not the only country in the world with two official languages. Others have many more than we do. However, spending millions of dollars on that project at this time makes one wonder whether that is wise government spending.
One could identify some of the big errors such as Mirabel airport. It is an obvious white elephant that must be an embarrassment to the government. The motivation may have been correct, but it was an error. The guaranteeing of massive loans to firms like Chrysler, is an error, again recognizing positive motivation, but surely when we have seen the mismanagement associated with Chrysler, the irrational structure of that industry, to simply shore that up as a simplistic way of achieving any resolution to our serious economic problems in Canada is rather irresponsible government spending, I would suggest. One looks at many of the dollars spent in parts of Canada on DREE projects, and I do not wish to criticize DREE per se because the motivation is a positive one and people are obviously trying to improve the situation. What is often created are vast sums of money going into provinces, mainly in central and eastern Canada, resulting in economic enterprises which are not viable, rational and economic enterprises, but they do create jobs in their artificial way. They give the illusion of a sound economy. They give to the people of the communities in which they are located the sense that indeed the economy is emerging and is growing.
After looking at these jobs we find they are created in an extremely artificial and forced way. There is also the question of how long they last? They keep people's interest, they keep their hopes up often only to have them dashed later because a project cannot maintain itself in any realistic way at all.
Then there is the government spending on the constitutional proposal, and hopefully the government will not foolishly spend taxpayers' money in an effort to propagandize one party's position on this very crucial matter. If they do, again we will have to say that is not the responsible way to be spending the budget of Canada.
If one goes back, we recognize that the government spends money in two ways. One is government spending, often irrational but sometimes, however, necessary. We are committed to medicare, we are committed to paying pensions, we are committed to a variety of areas to maintain the basic services and quality of Canadian life. Perhaps there are a number of other health areas, more assistance to seniors and so on, which would be appropriate in the 1980s. Let us also recognize that there is government investment.
February 11, 1981

I think it is important that, during these times when we are under a great deal of pressure, we reduce the deficit and cutback on government spending. Let us not blindly cut back on government spending for the sake of cutting back. Rather, let us look and see where we can invest in the future of this country.
When a businessman invests his money, it is not called spending, it is called investing. When hon. members purchase a home they are not spending money, they are investing their money. They are investing in the future for themselves and their families. I ask the government to consider what we would advocate on this side of the House, namely, serious strategies, serious plans which would result in a productive Canada and in real jobs rather than artificial job-creation programs which we too often see-the "blips" and "flips" and so on, which again create an illusion of jobs and prosperity but nothing in reality.
What are some of these investments which we on this side of the House would like to see the government consider seriously? One, of course, which is required in a country like ours, with a society like ours living in the competitive world as we do, is research and development. University presidents across the country, principals of trade, vocational and technical schools and the school system per se are saying the same thing; we should invest in the future of this country. One of the ways to invest in the future is to provide more money, more support and more encouragement for research and development for both the private and public sector.
What frightens us is when we hear from reliable sources that the cabinet is not considering spending for the development of Canada but is actually considering cutting back. There is a cutback of $1.5 billion in the field of post-secondary education. If that would not be a backward step, I am sure none of us would be able to identify one. I guess we are confident that sane heads will prevail in Canada, that no cutbacks will occur and perhaps more money can be spent in the field of research and development to assist our institutions and businesses across the country to expand and explore new ways and means of making Canada better.
It is a sorry sight when we look at our track record up to this point. The goal is an admirable goal, to shoot for a 1.5 per cent of the GNP for research and development. That is honourable and respectable and I hope we can see that very soon. Now we are hearing cautionary remarks that this might not be attainable before 1985. That is a long way off in many respects. We are also considering cutbacks in the field, and this is not the kind of encouragement the scientific and technical communities of Canada want to hear. The problem regarding this entire matter is that if the government was to make a commitment today to spend an additional half a billion dollars on research and development we would not begin to receive the results of that for a number of years. If that decision is made today it will take five or six years before we begin to see the benefits of that investment. This makes it clear that haste is in order and that an early decision and an early commitment is in order. I suppose it is the difference between planting small seedlings
Borrowing Authority
for an orchard and collecting the fruit seven years later or seeding a crop of potatoes and collecting the crop a few months later. When we speak of research and development we are talking about sometime in the future. Therefore, the earlier the decision the better.
We could speak of and identify a whole variety of ways for investing in Canada's future. The kind of components we would like to see built into an industrial strategy as a blueprint for Canada's economic future and some guidelines and some parameters, electrification for Canadian railroads. Surely if there is a country in the world which should be utilizing its hydroelectric potential to the utmost, it has to be ours. A similar country in geography and in size is the Soviet Union. The U.S.S.R. surely has taken advantage of its edge in this energy field and has now begun and is well into a vast program of electrifying its railroad system. The cheapest kind of power and the most efficient way to move goods is surely the kind of thing Canada needs at this point as well.
Then there is the whole matter of small business. I know the hon. minister opposite is serious about Canadian small business, but he does not seem to act very quickly or to take the necessary steps to show the Canadian small business community that he is serious.


An hon. Member:: What about the bond?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Yes, indeed that is one small step for small business. Indeed, there is a study being undertaken now to examine financial possibilities for the Canadian business community. The motivation, as always, is positive and good. The study has been underway for a number of months and presumably will continue for some months. It will then come back for analysis and study, and then presentation to the House. Therefore, we are looking at many, many months down the road before anything can possibly come from that. However, I recognize and admit that it is a step in the right direction. That is why I listened with some horror. Perhaps "horror" is too strong a term for colleagues to my right. They refer to the need for government to extract itself from the business and financial world and to let the private sector do it on its own.
They are quick to point out where problems exist. Problems do exist; one would be silly not to admit that, but let us look at some of the most progressive countries in the world and at their economic systems. One of the most successful countries is Japan. Are my friends to my right, the Tories, prepared to say that the government of Japan has a hands-off approach regarding business in that country? Of course not; there is a relationship and a liaison between those two sectors which is extremely sophisticated. Business in Japan does not move without the recognition, concurrence, support and co-operation of government. Japan is not a socialist country by any stretch of the imagination, but it is an example of a sound economy. The private and public sectors work co-operatively in the best interests of the Japanese and Japan.

February 11, 1981
Borrowing Authority
When we think of the business sector of Japan, we ought to think of large firms such as Honda, but when we look into the fabric of business in Japan, we find that eight out of ten businesses in Japan are classified small and medium-sized businesses. Eight out of ten businesses in Japan are run by small entrepreneurs. These businesses include small shops and small plants, not the large and grandiose operations most of us probably think about when we think about Japan. Yes, in Japan it is in the small business sector where jobs are created. That sector responds to the needs of society quickly and in an innovative and creative way with the support of government. This is a very important phenomenon which my friends to the right must accept. They simply must not abandon that whole concept in their discussions.
We should look at other prosperous countries such as West Germany which, again, is a country with a long tradition of government participation. We would be hard pressed to identify operations in that country which are not going very well, indeed. It is a successful land with a successful and stable economy. That is the type of country we should be looking to as a model for the type of industrial strategy and productivity building we should have in our country.
My hon. colleagues to my right hold up as an example that bastion of free enterprise to the south, the United States, and point out that the economy of the United States operates without government participation and government involvement. I suggest if they look closely at the United States economy, large business and small business alike, they will find that government and business are extremely closely interwoven.
There is a military industrial complex in the United States. The military plays a very crucial role in what is happening in various parts of the United States. I listened with interest when Ronald Reagan spoke about the wonderful world the military will create. He is a leader who is obviously catering to more growth in armaments, and the result will be a "better" society in the United States! That is a sorry comment, perhaps, but nevertheless I think it demonstrates very clearly the very close relationship government, industry and business have even in that bastion of free enterprise called the U.S.A.
Some serious problems exist. The thought of going out and in a sense blindly borrowing $14 billion poses many questions. It certainly must cause some concern.
This is a small item, perhaps, but one notices in various publications across the country these days reference to a Government of Canada bond issue valued at $1 billion or $1.2 billion. The Bank of Canada has agreed to acquire a minimum of $315 million of this particular issue. Government bonds are being sold to the Bank of Canada. When we start looking at some of the implications of that kind of financial transaction, it becomes very clear that if we are buying our own bonds, we are in serious difficulties financially.
Many previous speakers have outlined the problems associated with foreign borrowing, the extent to which we are becoming indebted to foreign banks and foreign lending institutions and the obvious problems that will create in a country like Canada.
We in the New Democratic Party appreciate the need for government to work co-operatively with the public and private sectors. There is a need for government to work with the private sector to ensure that investment is made in the best interests of Canadians. In Canada we are essentially encouraged-and perhaps even required-to do that more than in other countries.
Let me give a couple of reasons for saying that. One of the growing industries in Canada today is the tourist industry. Tourism is a growth industry. Many provinces are now saying it will become their number two industry very quickly in terms of generating dollars for their populations. The Government of Canada too has recognized the role of tourism and what it can mean to the Canadian economy. The federal government is taking a number of steps to move positively in that direction.
One of the problems the tourist industry faces is climate. There is a number of ski hill operators in my constituency and, if it does not snow in the wintertime for one or two seasons, they have serious problems. Large capital investments are made on lift gear, chalets and so forth, and if there is no snow for just a few weeks of the year serious problems arise.


Charles Lapointe: Is the Liberal Party responsible for that too?


Nelson Andrew Riis: 1 would not say the Liberal Party is responsible for the weather. I certainly would not blame the Liberal Party for that.
Let me go on to other tourist-related industries such as holiday resorts, beaches and so forth which depend very much on the weather. Various fishing camps and recreation areas in the north depend on weather to a crucial extent. In other words, risk is extremely high. I suspect that often the traditional lending institutions of Canada are not enthusiastic about supporting high risk tourist-oriented projects. Therein lies the need for government programs at both provincial and federal levels. There is a need for risk and venture capital for entrepreneurs who are prepared to try new ideas for attracting tourists into Canada and for creating new jobs in the tourist sector. The traditional conservative lending institutions are reluctant to participate in such ventures. If we are to see growth in this very sensitive and risky area, there will have to be co-operation between government and the private sector to see that this evolves in a positive way.
Difficulties are also created by the vast Canadian geography. It is often necessary to move goods and services over vast distances in order to develop difficult resource deposits and to move finished and unfinished products over vast distances. My friends in the Tory party would say that the private sector can easily take care of all that. Quite frankly, I doubt that. I doubt if we could find many countries in the world which are making serious breakthroughs in resource development today in which there is not serious government participation with the private sector.
February 11, 1981

I listened with interest the other night to an hon. member saying that Brazil is making a tremendous breakthrough in resource development. Indeed it is, but I know enough about Brazil to know that the private sector in Brazil is not doing that on its own; it is certainly depending on the participation of the Brazilian government.
In Canada we have an economic system which has always been colonial in structure. It was designed to provide raw materials for manufacturing and finishing elsewhere. By and large that same phenomenon exists in Canada today.
Earlier today during question period I listened with interest when the government, in a sense, was proud of its arrangements with the province of British Columbia to extract coal from northeastern British Columbia to be sent away for processing into coke and used as a power source in the generation of finished products. It is the perpetuation of the old tradition-get it out of the ground, get rid of it as quickly as possible, hopefully get some half-decent return, and we are happy. It is the hewers of wood and drawers of water syndrome.
This begs the question: could we not as Canadians, with our iron ore and coal, the ability for coal liquefaction and a variety of other options, develop those coal beds in a more sophisticated and economic way, rather than simply digging it out and shipping it out as quickly as possible, and perhaps even paying more for it than we are asking the Japanese to pay?
There is a need for an industrial strategy. Some people will like it a bit more than others, but some people will abhor the idea of government participation in the economic system. Yet, it is a reality today in Canada and in virtually every other country. The best thing the Government of Canada could do today is bring into the House as quickly as possible a serious and sophisticated economic strategy which, once and for all, would be a dynamic document. Of course it would have to be a dynamic document because of changing times. It would point out to business, to industry and to individuals across the country a blue print of how we would like to see Canada develop within the next number of years; it would take advantage of our strengths.
We have immense and considerable strengths and advantages in the country. We have accessible and relatively inexpensive energy. This must be a crucial factor as we attempt to become competitive in a number of ways with the rest of the world. We have a well-educated and skilled populace and the ability to improve easily upon that.
We talk about some of the major resource projects being planned for western Canada. These projects ought to be occurring right now in western Canada, but they are not, for political reasons. We lack the appropriate skilled work force, but we have the system in place. We have the schools-the trade schools, vocational schools, technical schools and universities. If we had the will and commitment, we could provide skilled workers, scientists and artisans. This goes back to the
Borrowing Authority
research and development commitment, the commitment to move in that direction.
We have available capital. Capital does not flow easily into other countries of the world, but it does in Canada. People in all corners of the world know that Canada is a safe, stable and good place in which to invest money. We need a strategy to focus that capital into the most positive areas. We have the expertise, the wealth, the size and the resources.
We do not have something which many of the countries have, but it works to our advantage. Many other countries are hindered by old cultural, language, work, family and political traditions. They really hinder creative and innovative economic development. Canada is a youthful country. Most of us can trace back our families only 100, 200 or 300 years, compared to the people in many countries who can trace back their families thousands and thousands of years. We are fortunate that we are not hindered by these old traditions.
In closing, let me say, we have to oppose this particular bill because we do not have faith that the government knows what it is doing at this point. It does not have a blue print for the future, nor can it tell us with any assurance how it will spend that money in the best interests of Canadians. The opportunity is there. All we need is the will to do it. At this point in time we have difficulty supporting Bill C-59.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to participate in this debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, what is this?


Yvon Pinard: I should like to say a few words on Bill C-59, to provide a supplementary borrowing authority. A tradition has developed over past years, and it seems that to succeed in approving such a bill at second reading stage the government has been required to give notice of limitation of debate under Standing Order 75c. This was also true with the former government in which my good friend, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), was the government House leader. Even if I am a reformist by nature, sometimes I follow traditions.
We have already spent five days on second reading of this bill, and we will have to spend at least one more day. As I said previously-and I want to be consistent-with the heavy workload we are facing, it is impossible to allot more than five, six or seven days for this bill if we want to assume our responsibilities to the people of this country.
Therefore, I wish to inform the House that there have been consultations among the representatives of the parties and it has not been possible to reach an agreement under the provisions of Standing Order 75a or Standing Order 75b in respect of the proceedings at second reading stage of Bill C-59, to provide a supplementary borrowing authority. 1 wish to give notice that at the next sitting of the House I shall propose a motion, pursuant to Standing Order 75c, to allocate one additional sitting day for second reading stage of the said bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

February 11, 1981
Borrowing Authority


Stanley Howard Knowles: Shame.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Shame.'


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my first notation for use in this speech was to discuss the House going downhill. It is rather ironic that my contribution should be preceded by another movement of closure by the group opposite. One could not have dreamed that the House of Commons could be demeaned in the way the government has managed to do it in the last few months. It has seized every opportunity to deny the privileges of members of the House with its consistent refusal to co-operate or to afford the usual respect members generally have for each other. It is symptomatic of what is wrong with the House and the country.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. Since the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) inferred that we are not respecting the right of hon. members to speak and that we are refusing to negotiate the length of time for this debate, I must intervene to invite him to read carefully Standing Order 75a and Standing Order 75b.
I had an obligation to negotiate a reasonable length of time with his House leader. It was impossible to agree on any reasonable length of time, therefore I had to give notice of limiting the debate. I wanted to reach an agreement on a length of time which could have been more than one day, but it was impossible to reach such an agreement. I am not blaming his House leader for that; he may have his reasons. But I want the hon. member to be fair. He must understand that this is not closure, as he said. It is a limitation of time which came after a serious effort to reach an agreement on what would have been a reasonable additional length of time. I invite the hon. member to read carefully sections 75a and 75b. If he wishes to be honest, as he has always been in the past, he will recognize that our intention is not to limit his own right of speech-in fact, he is speaking now-but it is to try to have this place work in an orderly fashion.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I will be glad enough to read 75a, b and c. Perhaps the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) will read the meaning of the word "negotiate". We have run into' that word quite frequently recently. This government was going to "negotiate" with the provinces. Unfortunately for the provinces, they were given a document which showed what the government's idea of negotiation was; it was to set them up so that a sham conference could be held which would end in failure. That is this government's idea of negotiating. The negotiating always seems to end in closure. Whether it is called time allocation or by any other name, it still means closure.
I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) on his speech. I thought he spent a great deal of time preparing it. 1 am sorry he fell prey to the NDP paranoia about the United States. Coming from B.C. I have become quite accustomed to that. I think his speech, and the bad case he had to present, was very well presented.
Before I go back to my original remarks, Mr. Speaker, I intend to talk for a little while about the situation in the House. Some of the things which have happened lately have caused me a certain amount of distress. I wish to say something about the way this government spends money, about Bill C-59, of course, and the purchase of Petrofina. Then I wish to talk about the expenditure of money in the Department of National Defence.
Yesterday I had lunch with a very distinguished journalist of some 30 years standing. I believe he told me he had been through some 11 election campaigns. His name is Vic Mackie and I believe he has a great many friends on all sides of the House. He is a competent, reliable and well-regarded journalist. He said that in his 30 years he had watched the gradual decline of the House of Commons to its present level, which is lower than it has ever been. I am sorry to say that I have only been here eight years but certainly it has been downhill all the way in so far as parliamentary procedures, debate and the importance of this chamber is concerned.
The mistrust between the sides of the House is of concern to me. There are many new synonyms for not telling the truth. Other people call this lying but we are not allowed to do so. We now have "tongue in cheek", which is a synonym for lying. "Less than candid" is another synonym for lying. "Putting on a brave front" is another synonym for lying. "Being on show" is another synonym for lying. These are all phrases which have been used by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when it has been found that he is saying things which are quite the opposite at different times.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Mac-Guigan) came up with a new one yesterday. I believe it had to do with whether or not he had asked the Prime Minister of Great Britain to lay on a three-line whip, or maybe it had to do with whether she had decided she would. But it turned out that she had not said any such thing. The Secretary of State for External Affairs said that he was being "rhetorical". This kind of sleazy deception goes on until the whole place loses in reputation.
I often think that we are very careful about deceiving the House. I think it was the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate of several years ago who argued with then Speaker Lamoureux about whether he should be banished from the House or punished in some other way for saying that a person had deliberately deceived the House, or lied to the House. It appeared all right to say that an hon. member had deceived the House, provided he did not do it deliberately. Of course, sometimes you can forgive a guy for deceiving the House because no one believes him any more. We are probably reaching that stage with this government.
I would like to point out something that happened here last week in this regard. The hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) asked the Prime Minister a question about nuclear weapons. The Prime Minister in his response said:
February 11, 1981

-the hon. member knows the government's position on atomic weapons of any kind and we have stated that we would not use them and they would not be deployed on our soil.
That is a fairly simple statement, Mr. Speaker:
-we would not use them and they would not be deployed on our soil.
The only problem is that it is untrue. That remark would clearly leave the impression that we do not have any atomic weapons of any kind on our soil.
I managed to get in a supplementary question a little later that same day. I asked the Prime Minister:
Does this mean that nuclear weapons have been removed from Comox, where they have been on our soil for over a decade?
Listen carefully to the Prime Minister's answer, which follows:
Madam Speaker, I thought the policy was made clear when we were discussing F-18. The F-18 will be the new fighter aircraft in Canada, and it is not designed to carry nuclear weapons.
This does not answer the question, Mr. Speaker. It leaves the House still in its deceived state that there are no atomic weapons on our soil. As a result of that, I had to ask another question, which was:
Is he now informing the House, or did he, a few minutes ago, that the nuclear weapons which are on site in Comox at the present time have been removed?
The answer finally came from the Prime Minister:
We have stated repeatedly that our policy is to remove the nuclear weapons, but until the F-18 is in place they will not be removed.
This is the kind of cheap, sleazy little trick that gives this place a bad name.
A great many people who did not see the House on television before, are seeing it now. They did not know what was going on. They are puzzled by this lack of ability to give a straight answer. Why not give a straight answer? Eventually it comes out. 1 think there is an advantage to the government in not giving a straight answer, in that it usually requires another question and one uses up the allotted time. It is rather like a football team trying to maintain possession when they are one point ahead, by using up time. Sometimes I think that is why this government loves to give so many deceptive answers.
I would like to mention another item with respect to this issue which rather concerns me because it happened with what had been up until now a fairly good minister, in terms of replying to questions. I asked the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) on February 5, 1981, just six days ago, about the F-18 fighter contract, which is a matter of great concern in this country for a variety of reasons. One of the reasons is that there is a strong suspicion that McDonnell Douglas are not fulfilling the terms of the contract. The contract said they would provide $83 million worth of new work in 1980 and also in 1981. These were calendar years. When I asked the Minister of Supply and Services if they had fulfilled it he said:
-I am not in a position to advise the hon. gentleman if the specific commitment relating to the KC-10 and the DC-10 in terms of the time frame envisaged by Milestone 6 would entitle the full payment at that particular time. 1 will review the question of whether the payment has been made, and advise the hon. gentleman.
Borrowing Authority
This matter is really of concern to me since here is a minister who is in charge of that contract. It is his responsibility to oversee it. It is a contract that runs into billions of dollars. McDonnell Douglas were supposed to supply $83 million of new work. Everybody in the area of the plant in Toronto is unhappy about the lay-offs which have occurred there. We have had paraders on the hill, yet the minister says he does not know whether they have fulfilled their obligation, whether they have paid the money or what they have done. In that same response the minister goes on to say:
I will advise him as well about the conditions that were met. I can tell the hon. gentleman that, to the best of my knowledge, the payments that have been made are in accordance with the terms of the contract-
That reply was given six days ago. The last time I asked this question was three months ago. These milestones seem to come up about every three months. When I asked the question three months ago the minister was back within the hour. Six days have now elapsed and he is not back with an answer this time. Of course, that makes me suspicious that there is something even worse going on with that contract than we had thought up until now.
I rather enjoyed the talk from the member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) and with respect to Bill C-59 and the German marks. I have one of those bills from 1923 which illustrated inflation. I picked it up in Germany in 1946. I believe it was a note for 10 billion marks. Of course it was worthless. Before us we have one of the smallest bills imaginable. It is reputed to have four clauses, but there are really only two main paragraphs in it-actually only one, given the short title which reads:
This act may be cited as the borrowing authority act, 1981-82.
Then there is the clause with respect to borrowing authority. Then tucked away at about line 15 are the words "such sum or sums of money, not exceeding in the whole, fourteen billion dollars, as may be required for public works and general purposes." This bill does not get very particular about anything else. It just says that whenever the cabinet needs it they can borrow $14 billion. That is a terrible amount of money.
It would be interesting to compare the amount of money the government is asking to borrow with the number of words in the bill. This very short bill enables the cabinet to borrow $14 billion, although it takes only one column of a page and five lines on another page. The last bill with which we dealt from the Department of Finance was Bill C-54, "An act to amend the statute law relating to income tax". The bill consisted of 225 pages and has the purpose of closing loopholes which taxpayers might use to avoid paying their taxes. It takes 225 pages for the government to close these loopholes, but it only takes two paragraphs on one page to borrow $14 billion. It is no wonder it has taken the borrowing route.
What is the government doing with this money? I do not suppose any of it will go directly to the purchase of Petrofina by Petro-Canada because I understand the financing for that project will come from an increase in the price of gasoline, fuel

February 11, 1981
Borrowing Authority
oil and other energy sources of a liquid nature. I have listened over the past few days to the questions with regard to the purchase of Petrofina. It reminds me of an Abbott and Costello show. These gentlemen would flummox each other and neither ever understood the other. They had a famous routine of who was on first. It would be appropriate to change the names to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) and Mr. Hopper because they did not know for sure who would buy the company or who would pay for it, but they went out and bought it anyway at a somewhat higher price. Given this higher price and the confusion between those two gentlemen, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the minister was bidding up shares in Montreal while Mr. Hopper was bidding them up in Toronto. In any case, they paid far too much for the company.
Petrofina is merely a row of service stations. Dian Cohen described the situation as well as anybody. She said:
The purchase of Petrofina will do nothing to further the goal of security of supply, since supply is not what Petrofina is concentrating on.
She went on to say:
It makes sense if your priority (as the government's seems to be) is to be visible-what better way than to buy a string of service stations that will fly the Canadian flag?
The hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap kept saying that the government would work with industry. I believe industry would have a different word to describe the actions of the government as, for example, when the minister of energy tries to dictate the terms of working with the oil industry. The purchase of these service stations will do absolutely nothing except shorten our cash availability in trying to obtain what we desperately need, a secure source.
However, when the government gets the desire to become bigger and bigger, the cost is borne by the taxpayer. While I suppose Petro-Canada is a success story to its top echelon of management, it is not to many other people. It does not mean that the people of Canada have gained anything. I heard the minister say that Petro-Canada belongs to the Canadian people. If it belongs to me, then I would ask the government to sell my share so 1 can invest the money myself. I would certainly not buy shares in Petrofina at the price which the government is willing to pay.
I would like to turn my attention to the way in which the government spends money on national defence. I am concerned that the defence expenditures which were projected to be made will not be made for the main reason that the government will not have sufficient funds for the capital expenditures it described. Perhaps I should go into the background. In 1971, the government published a white paper on defence. It was the last such paper published. That document identified the major roles of the Canadian armed forces as; first, the protection of Canadian sovereignty; second, the defence of North America in co-operation with the U.S. forces; third, the fulfilment of such NATO commitments as may be agreed upon, and fourth, performance of such international peace-keeping roles as we may assume from time to time.
Since 1971 many changes have occurred nationally and internationally which have affected the structure and role of Canada's armed forces. External pressures to increase our defence effort in a variety of ways and internal pressures to assign more and more tasks to our forces have all worked to spread what little we have even more thinly. There has been no attempt to review those changes and to produce a new white paper. Without a policy statement, the military's long-range planning is thwarted and the public is left in the dark regarding the defence plans and policies.
The importance of this latter fact should not be overlooked. I have an example of what happens when the government leaves the public uninformed about the defence policy. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne) has stated on various occasions that the Canadian forces' priorities remain the same, but the emphasis has changed. He has not enlightened us as to what is the new emphasis. A poll completed on behalf of the Department of National Defence showed that 37 per cent of the respondents thought that the main role of the Canadian forces was peace-keeping, which happens to be the last priority according to that 1971 white paper.
The Minister of National Defence has stated that he does not want to produce a new white paper, that he would prefer to issue an annual statement on his department's activities and policies. This idea in itself reflects the Trudeau government's attitude toward defence. Instead of the government putting time and effort into producing a clearly defined and coherent departmental statement of direction, we are to be treated to an annual report, much like a company might distribute to its shareholders.
Listening to the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence, one might get the impression that much is being done to upgrade the state of our armed forces after years of neglect. They speak at length on the subject of a 3 per cent real increase in the defence budget and new equipment programs. I would like to discuss these and other aspects and then hon. members can decide if the government is fulfilling its obligations to our military.
In 1968-69, 16.4 per cent of total federal expenditures were on defence. In 1978-79, ten years later, the expenditures had decreased to 8.8 per cent or approximately half of what they had been ten years before. In 1978 the Canadian government agreed with the NATO decision to increase defence spending by 3 per cent in real terms each year for five years. Whether or not the government has met and will continue to meet that objective depends on with whom one talks. According to the Minister of National Defence, the DND budget has increased by 3 per cent in real terms for the past six years, if the increases are averaged over that time. I disagree with that. The average is 2.85 per cent.
1 also disagree with the premise of the minister's argument. The 3 per cent rate was agreed to in 1978. Therefore, we should be looking at the defence budget since that time to see if Canada has lived up to its commitment. From that perspective, we see that in 1978-79 the DND budget increased by 2.79 per cent and that in 1979-80 it decreased by .23 per cent. In
February 11, 1981

1980-81, it is expected to increase figures were provided by DND and costs.
May 1 call it six o'clock.
by 3.5 per cent. These	[Translation]
do not include statutory Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, February 12, 1981