1981-03-20

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. If Bill C-42 is passed without amendment to its monopoly provisions, serious harm will be done to organizations which provide meaningful and remunerative employment for the mentally retarded who have contracted with private business to hand deliver billings, an example of such organization being N-Tec in my riding. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta):
That this House urge the government to provide an example and a symbol to all Canadians, in the Year of the Handicapped, by excluding groups such as N-Tec from the monopoly provisions of the bill, thereby allowing members of such groups to have a sense of worth and dignity too often denied them.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That the government proceed immediately with discussions that will allow the Canadian rubber industry to rationalize production with all possible speed, so that markets can be secured in an increasingly competitive industry and the experienced labour force will not be dispersed by plant closures which are sure to follow if rationalization of production is not achieved.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, having regard to the government's plans to impose closure once again with respect to the constitutional debate presently before the House, and considering the fundamental importance of this debate to the future of our country, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway):
That, in order to provide an opportunity not only for members of the House but for every Canadian to reflect soberly upon what has so far been said in the debate leading to changes in our Constitution and to free up time for the House to consider other important matters dealing with the economy, any further debate on the Constitution be postponed until such time as to allow the people of the province of Quebec to choose a new government, and to allow all Canadians to become sufficiently acquainted with all the facts connected to the proposal for constitutional reform before we arrive at a final decision.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the Liberal government proposed a massive increase in the provincial and municipal shares of the costs of RCMP contracts, an increase unanimously opposed by the eight attorneys general of the provinces involved, and that this increase, of over 100 per cent in some cases, represents an additional tax burden of over $2 million next year for the taxpayers of Burnaby alone, with no improved accountability, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong):
That this House condemn these massive additional costs for RCMP contract services being imposed upon eight provinces and hundreds of municipalities throughout Canada, and calls upon the government to reconsider this decision or, at the very least, to provide for a phasing in period to help the hard-pressed taxpayers of Burnaby and elsewhere absorb this further federal raid on their pocketbooks.

March 20, 1981


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL PENSIONS CONFERENCE
Mr. Raymond Savard (Verdun-Saint Paul):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on an urgent matter of pressing necessity, that is, the refusal of the Quebec Premier, Mr. Rene Levesque, to attend the national pensions conference which is designed to improve the lot of senior citizens and future pensioners.
In view of his thoughtlessness and his indifference toward Quebec pensioners, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart):
That steps be taken immediately in order to appeal to the better feelings of the PQ premier, so that senior citizens and pensioners in Quebec will not be penalized as a result of their government's absence from that conference.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: 
NEW HORIZONS PROGRAM
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of pressing necessity. Whereas the town of Mount Royal, Quebec, is one of the most wealthy communities in Canada and which has a country club open only in the summer; and whereas the town of Mount Royal Country Club was given money under the federal government's New Horizons program, bearing in mind this government's policy of having members distribute cheques when ridings are represented by Liberals, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That the Minister of National Health and Welfare make a public statement on her policy in allocating grants under the New Horizons program to the town of Mount Royal Country Club, including clarification on the monitoring and supervision standards by her department to ensure proper use of the taxpayers' money; and why Mr. Ed. Byrne, chairman of the New Horizons project for the Mount Royal Country Club, and Jeanne Davies, Montreal head of the New
Horizons projects, both seem to be so very sensitive about having the federal government grant publicized.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker,-


Madam Speaker:: The hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Some hon. Members:: No!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: The mover of the motion has the right to speak.


Madam Speaker:: I want to ascertain if there is a first right for the mover of the motion. I saw the hon. minister first; but I want to see if there is a first right for the mover of the motion.
The hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I should like to thank the Progressive Conservative opposition for giving us the opportunity to clarify an accusation I find very serious, which was published in the Montreal Gazette of March 18, a few days ago, and about which the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay), I think, told the press he would put questions in this House, but unfortunately he did not do so. Obviously, I feel this is serious because it gives rise to innuendos which are prejudicial to the program and make taxpayers wonder whether it is worth while to grant moneys to New Horizons projects. Hon. members will recall that the New Horizons program was established in August, 1972, before myself and many other hon. members were elected to the House of Commons.
U5)

New Horizons is a program which has been in existence for 11 years, and is a universal program-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. It now being 11.15 a.m., I must interrupt the debate.

March 20, 1981



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the government House leader, and it relates to the motion which he tabled last night in the House, which reminded all of us, when we saw it, of something out of the Book of the Month Club. The minister is no doubt aware that there were no House leaders' meetings for two weeks until yesterday at 9.30 in the morning. There was a House business question at 3.15 in the afternoon, and during the period of that question he gave no indication of his intentions with respect to that matter.
Does the minister not have some reservations about his behaviour in this matter, in asking us to believe that this motion was prepared some time between 3.30 or 3.15 and the time it was tabled at six o'clock? Does the minister really believe that he is advancing his credibility as government House leader, and that that is a credible way to deal with the House of Commons? If he does believe that, would he tell the House about it?


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I fail to understand why my learned colleague opposite is so upset. At the press conference last night I explained to the media the procedure we would be suggesting to hon. members, and both my colleague and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre were there. I clearly indicated to the public that I did not want to break the secrecy of parliamentary leaders' meetings. They appeared to approve that assertion.
In the preamble to his question the hon. member is suggesting that I refer to the meeting we held yesterday morning. Since he affords me that opportunity, I will refresh his memory. Yesterday morning I asked the House leader of the Progressive Conservative Party whether he had any kind of counterproposal to make on how to put an end to the third reading debate on the Constitution. I told him that since last October, we have been making suggestions to enable as many members as possible to join the debate. We have made suggestions so that the debate would be as democratic as possible, but never did the Progressive Conservative Party agree to yield one eighth or one sixteenth of an inch on any question whatsoever. I told him that every time the Progressive Conservative Party had made a request we had gone along with it all the way. Twice they asked that the committee be given more time, so we granted them the time extensions they were seeking. They asked that the debates be televised, and we agreed. So far we have been as flexible as we could be, and I told him I did not know what more I could offer him, "Please make me any kind of counterproposal, I am quite prepared to negotiate
Oral Questions
anything." I was told no, they were not in a position to make any suggestion whatsoever. That is the kind of debate you will have, Madam Speaker, that is the kind of approach which clearly shows that they are engaged in a filibuster and that they intend to force us to put an end to the debate.


QUERY RESPECTING GOVERNMENT COMMITMENTS
Walter David Baker: The minister knows full well that they had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to an extension of the period of time for the House to consider the first motion. They had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to television. They breached the undertaking given by the Prime Minister that all hon. members of this House would have a chance to speak, by closure in the first place-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: They are breaching that undertaking again. I say to the Prime Minister, and to the government House leader, that there is a breach of the undertaking.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Walter David Baker: Given this flagrant, absolutely flagrant disregard of the way in which this House should operate, is it now the posture of the government that the government House leader will be just as careless with respect to the facts and to commitments which have been given as the Prime Minister has been, who admitted he spoke to the press with his tongue in cheek, spoke to Margaret Thatcher with tongue in cheek, and has now brought another form of closure before the House of Commons? Is that the way in which this House should operate?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I fail to understand why my hon. colleague is so upset this morning. It is very difficult for me to understand why he is frustrated when we are attempting to allow all members of this institution to be on the record. I fail to understand why the Tory party does not accept that we allow all of the members to speak until the end of the debate and, if it is not possible for them to speak because members who have already spoken want to speak again, the motion would allow members on all sides to be on the record by tabling a written speech. I fail to understand why they are so upset this morning. In reality I am tempted to believe that they are frustrated because we did not use closure yesterday.


An hon. Member:: What do you call it?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

March 20, 1981
Oral Questions


Madam Speaker:: Order, please! Would the hon. minister please complete his answer?


Yvon Pinard: That is what they wanted us to do. Failing to understand that, Madam Speaker, all I can say is that what we are trying to do is to suggest a means that would allow this debate, that has lasted for almost six months, to come to an end and allow as many members as possible to participate. I call on the parliamentary spirit of my colleagues on the other side and on their good faith to consider this motion seriously, to look into it, and to sit around the table and negotiate in good faith.


REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Walter David Baker: Parliamentary spirit, indeed, Madam Speaker! The minister does not realize that with respect to this he has just shoved the knife into Parliament in terms of closure.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: And we are going to wait four more days to have it twisted! That is what the minister has done. This is the minister in charge of parliamentary reform-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Walter David Baker: Is it the intention of the minister to seek a pacified Parliament-a Parliament that will degrade now into tabling the speeches? Are we going to have tabled questions and tabled answers? Are we going to have planted questions? Is this the kind of parliamentary forum we are after? Would the minister-


Mr. Shields:: That is-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order. Order, please. Has the hon. member finished phrasing his question? He was interrupted by someone else who was speaking quite loudly. I would ask him to finish it now.


Walter David Baker: I am going to say, Madam Speaker, that this debate has just begun with respect to this gagging of Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Walter David Baker: I ask the minister right now if he will reconsider this, because I am telling him that what he is seeking here is unacceptable to any thoughtful person with respect to Parliament, and it ought to be unacceptable to him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, before drawing the conclusion that the
Progressive Conservative Party is rejecting outright the proposal we are making, I would still like to hear the views of the hon. member for Provencher. After all, it has been over Five weeks now since we began debating the amendment moved by the member for Provencher, and I would like to have the opportunity to speak to him and ask him why he is letting his amendment stand in the way of amendments which other members might want to move on other important issues. He is not here to reply, but I do hope that early next week we will be able to get together and negotiate. Madam Speaker, he will understand why we on this side want to find ways to enable not only all members to participate in the business of the House, but some of them as well to move amendments other than this one on which the Progressive Conservative Party is stalling and which they are outrageously filibustering.


POSITION TAKEN BY PROVINCIAL LIBERAL PARTY LEADER IN QUEBEC
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, the fact is that there has been no constraint on any speech in this House of Commons. No member has been called to order. They spoke on the full ambit of every aspect of the debate and every amendment on this particular motion. That is a specious argument that the minister puts forward.
The government came forward with this voluminous proposal just after the government House leader spoke on the question of business of the House in the afternoon. At seven o'clock, conveniently after the Ontario polls closed, the government brought in this double closure proposal. This is the first time in the history of Parliament when the rules have been changed with respect to a single debate. In other words, when the government is losing a debate, as it is in this instance, it changes the rules.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: When the government is losing, it changes the rules.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I must ask hon. members to ask questions instead of debating. There will be time at some point to debate this matter. But right now is the time to ask questions. The hon. member for Saskatoon West.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I apologize, Madam Speaker. I was carried away with the arrogance of the government.
I will ask my question now, and it is for the government House leader. The Prime Minister indicated that the matter of the constitutional debate had to be heard in response to the Quebec referendum. Now the leader of the No forces, the leader of the Quebec Liberal party, Claude Ryan, says he will be calling on the government following the provincial election to reopen discussions. Therefore, why is the government House
March 20, 1981

leader rushing this matter through in direct confrontation with the position taken by the Liberal leader in the province of Quebec?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister had an opportunity yesterday to reply to the Leader of the Opposition on that subject. My learned colleague is concerned about the fact that at seven o'clock last night we deemed it appropriate to provide explanations on the notice of motion which appears on this morning's Order Paper. Again 1 wonder why he is so dead set against changes. Granted, this motion features new proposals. It is not in keeping with tradition, but it is not by any means an affront to the parliamentary spirit. The proposed changes which would affect our proceedings respect the parliamentary spirit in every aspect and they are quite simply intended to allow more members to participate and enable us to dispose of more than a single amendment.
Now then, since my colleague is worried about the procedural form, I can tell him that I gave some explanations on this subject last night precisely because I wanted the public to be well informed. I had absolutely no intention in mind other than making the public aware of a procedure which is quite normal and which respects the parliamentary spirit on all counts.


PARTICIPATION OF PRIME MINISTER IN DEBATE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, the government House leader will know that Parliament means to parley, that is, to have discussion, not to table documents. If that is his idea of debate, I am very sorry for the future of this Parliament.
The Leader of the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for Oshawa, indicated during the course of this debate that he would want to have a full and fair debate and not have closure imposed. The House leader for the New Democratic Party has indicated this proposed procedure in effect constitutes closure on this debate. A number of members have not had an opportunity to debate, including the four dissident members of the New Democratic Party. In fact the people of Canada are asking themselves why the person most interested in this whole debate, the Prime Minister, has not spoken in this debate.


Walter David Baker: Hold your breath.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I ask the government House leader why, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister of this country has not seen fit to participate in this debate, is he proceeding with this double closure? Why does the government House leader not allow the Prime Minister to stand up in his place for a change, so that he can participate in a debate in the House of Commons?
Oral Questions


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, so far in this debate we have let several government members have their say. Everybody is free to do so, and I fully respect the freedom of the Prime Minister to join the debate whenever it suits him. Of course, in some instances, we want to accommodate certain members so we agree to let them have the floor at one time rather than at another. As for the Prime Minister, I must confess that I am fully aware of his constricting schedule, and 1 will be pleased to give serious consideration to his request should he want to enter the debate.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In a letter dated February 4, 1981, the minister wrote to the provincial ministers of health, environment and agriculture. The minister said information on faulty and fraudulent tests done by Industrial Biotest Laboratories on many chemicals used in Canada could not be released.
How does the minister expect provincial health and environmental officials to carry out their responsibilities to safeguard the health of Canadians and to safeguard the environment if she refuses to provide technical information critical in determining the safety of products used?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, according to the practices and responsibilities that I have under the act, I have made available, as I always do, to the relevant provincial ministers, including the health ministers and, according to the subject matter under discussion, provincial environmental and agricultural ministers, all the data I can release under the act. I met with some provincial ministers who wanted more technical information which, unfortunately, seemed to conflict with the protection of industrial data which we owe to the producers of some products. I sent my deputy minister and assistant deputy minister to discuss that very question this week. I expect to receive a report from them in the very near future on how we can best accommodate the request of the provinces.


ADDITIVES USED IN TOBACCO INDUSTRY
Simon Leendert de Jong: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is to the same minister. A similar shroud of secrecy covers the tobacco industry. The government is not able to provide the public with information about the additives which cigarette companies put into their cigarettes. Will the minister comment on the position of her department regarding

March 20, 1981
Oral Questions
the obvious conflict between public health and the so-called trade secrets of private industry, and how this conflict should be resolved?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, this matter was not brought to my attention. This is the first time I have heard of it. I would have appreciated receiving advance notice from the hon. member. I am therefore unable to comment at this time. I will have to discuss this with my department. I do not know on what problems the hon. member wants me to comment. I will comment later on the subject.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Madam Speaker, my question essentially was with regard to the conflict between trade secrets and the right of the public to know. I was asking the minister the position of her department.


INVESTIGATION OF BIRTH DEFECTS IN BAY OF QUINTE, ONT.
Simon Leendert de Jong: Madam Speaker, I have one last question concerning the public's right to know. I understand the minister's department is conducting a very important study in the Bay of Quinte in Ontario because of the high amount of dioxins found in the environment and natural life there. I understand the study is concerned about birth defects. Will the minister assure the House that when that study is completed it will be made public?
Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): Madam Speaker, I will look into the matter and report to the House. I will judge whether it is appropriate to make it public.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister be contributing in the House to the constitutional debate, or will he be hiding behind his own direction for closure?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I did not know the opposition was so anxious the hear me speak. I will take it under consideration.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, not only the opposition but I think all the people of Canada would like to hear what the Prime Minister has to say.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Wendele Shields: The people of Canada and we in the opposition would really like to hear what the Prime Minister has to say.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Wendele Shields: It would expose him for what he really is. When may we expect the Prime Minister to speak?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, this debate has sometimes been termed, I believe not euphemistically, by the opposition as "Trudeau's project", "Trudeau's pet peeve," "Trudeau's private project", and so on. I thought I would give all members of this House time to express their views and not identify myself with the resolution. However, if the opposition insists on hearing my point of view, I repeat that I will take it under very serious consideration.


HEALTH CARE
Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Several weeks ago I rose in the House to ask her about the deplorable situation of the James Bay Cree, the health situation there, and the fact that ten small children died last summer due to gastroenteritis. Last week in Mistassini a village of some 2,000 people, a medical doctor discovered ten active cases of tuberculosis and said there are probably a lot more. In response to this, the minister has decided to suspend all health services to the Cree at the end of this month. Can she explain this action to the House?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, every fact and figure quoted by the hon. member in his question is wrong and untrue. I want to make that very clear. This is not a question that can be taken lightly. We are talking of the health and life of human beings. I would like the hon. member to be very serious and check his facts before talking about such a serious dossier.
The agreement with the James Bay Cree includes the transfer of federal health facilities and care to the Cree according to a calendar worked out with them which, by law, I must respect. According to that calendar, some transfers will be made in accordance with the continuity of the movement. They will take place before March 31. That is according to the agreement made by the Cree and I would like the hon. member to understand that. As to the health of the Cree, wherever we have the slightest responsibility, we fulfil it completely. I monitor that situation weekly.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: Madam Speaker, I got these facts from the grand chief of the Cree, Billy Diamond. He will be here to appear next week before the standing committee. I will bring him to the minister's office to give her these facts. I remind the minister that these people are Canadians. I wonder what she would do if, in her riding, ten small children had died last summer and there were ten active cases of t.b. found. Is there a double standard for the people of this country?
March 20, 1981


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, I repeat that ten small children did not die last summer, as the hon. member indicated. That is completely untrue. I would like that made very clear in this House. Second, I would like hon. members to understand the difference between real health problems and situations that we are addressing in which I asked the minister in the province of Quebec, Dr. Denis Lazure, to do his job as well to ensure that everything is all right in terms of health for the Cree Indian. The legal fight which is going on does not have anything to do with health directly per se. By law I must transfer three communities, Great Whale, Waswanipi and Mistassini, by the end of this month. This will be done.
The lawyers for the Cree took out an injunction which was rejected. I can no longer comment on the legal procedures going on in which the federal government is playing a role. However, if the hon. member studies the case and talks with the chief, he will find that their main problem is with the government of Quebec.


ENVIRONMENTAL BAN ON WEST COAST EXPLORATION BY OIL COMPANIES
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Yesterday the minister indicated that Petro-Canada will be spending tens of millions of dollars on offshore oil and gas exploration off the coast of British Columbia. That was further supplemented by statements yesterday by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The minister also indicated that a decision to lift the environmental moratorium on the B.C. coast will be made in the next couple of months. Will he give this House a date regarding the lifting of the moratorium?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member was in committee yesterday. I took great pains to explain to him that I knew of no plans of Petro-Canada to spend tens of millions of dollars, that if Petro-Canada had any plans to explore offshore British Columbia in the foreseeable future, they would be minimal. I knew of no such plans yesterday and I know of none today. I indicated to the hon. member in committee that I would have to reach a decision in the next few months as to whether we would lift the current ban on offshore exploration.
I also indicated that until now plans are only in the nature of seismic exploration in that area. There are several months to go. I cannot give a date when the government will reach a conclusion in that regard.
Oral Questions


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is to the Prime Minister. However, I would refer the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to yesterday's minutes of the Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
On January 12, 1981, the Deputy Prime Minister said with regard to the Canada lands legislation:
Before the House today is the oil and gas energy legislation, which will go to committee where hon. members opposite may call all the witnesses they desire-
Is that still the position of the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I do not know what position is being discussed between the Deputy Prime Minister, the House leader, and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


LAW OF THE SEA
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Since the new American administration has asked for a complete review of the treaty proposal submitted at the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, can the hon. Minister tell this House whether he is confident in the success of the negotiations at this United Nations session on the Law of the Sea?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, we have noted the staff changes maybe by the United States government as well as its position reversal. In view of the situation, we cannot be too confident and we shall have to wait for the results.


PENSIONS
Frank Oberle: My question is for the Minister of State for Finance and it follows up on a question I have asked a couple of times, the last time June 3, 1980, when he responded to my question on the reciprocal arrangement with respect to double taxation of pensions which discriminates against citizens who have earned certain pension rights in other countries.

March 20, 1981
Oral Questions
He said that the agreements had been signed and a bill would be introduced in the House almost immediately. Sufficient time has now expired. Will the minister advise me today as to his intentions regarding this matter, particularly concerning citizens who have earned pension rights with the Federal Republic of West Germany, as this agreement is ready to go and requires government action?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is associating two different things, on the one hand the agreements on double taxation, and on the other hand the agreements concerning pension funds. The first item comes directly under the responsibility of the Department of Finance, while the second comes within the jurisdiction of the Department of National Health and Welfare.
As for the question of double taxation, the hon. member is well aware that these negotiations are ongoing. He also knows that this Parliament has succeeded in approving about 15 taxation agreements. I would also like to remind him that another bill concerning two double taxation agreements is now under consideration in the Senate. The negotiations with the Federal Republic of Germany are not yet completed, and I hope that when another group of bills is introduced to ratify double taxation agreements they will include the agreement with the Federal Republic of Germany.


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, it is known that the people dragging their feet with respect to this agreement are in the Department of Finance. I would ask, first of all, what is the difficulty with the West German agreement and when will he be ready to sign the agreement and place before the House the necessary bill for ratification, having regard to the fact that last June he figured it would be almost immediately and now he is more vague on this problem?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I would like to point out to the hon. member that, as to foot dragging, he should consult some of his colleagues who, as I was able to see for myself during consideration of the bill to ratify double taxation agreements with about 15 countries, proved to be champions when it comes to foot dragging and who, unfortunately, allowed this bill to remain in the committee for weeks and weeks, which meant that the officials responsible for negotiating these treaties were busy replying to the same questions day after day. Unfortunately the members in question understood nothing about such treaties. This is one of the reasons why the negotiations have dragged on.


REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. As he has been indicating for some time that he intends to introduce legislation cutting government regulations and red tape, which is vitally necessary for the improved health of the Canadian economy, when may we expect to see the introduction of such legislation which is now long overdue?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, the question of de-regulation and regulatory reform is not only a matter of introducing the bill. I indicated earlier to the House that we would be preparing an omnibus bill to clean up existing legislation by removing obsolete provisions and statutes, basically cleaning up matters which are non-controversial and which should have been dealt with over a period of years. That bill is being prepared.
With respect to actual regulatory reform per se, we have introduced work programs across government, and I think it was several months ago I made a report to this House on the status of that program which is moving ahead across government. I can assure the hon. member that the commitment to regulatory reform is very firm indeed. We are also, of course, awaiting the final report of the Economic Council on economic reform, which I understand should be ready sometime this spring.


George Harris Hees: Madam Speaker, would the minister be good enough to give the House some sort of rough timetable so that business will know when to expect this matter to be cleared up and it may operate more effectively as a result?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I am not sure what the hon. member means by "cleared up", because this is an ongoing process. What we are essentially trying to do is improve the regulatory process. We have looked very carefully at the Peterson report-the hon. member will recall the special committee of this House-and we have moved ahead and accepted the majority of those recommendations. I think we are moving on all fronts with respect to specific legislation which will, as I said, clean up the existing situation in the form of an omnibus bill. To do that, an inventory has to be made of obsolete statutes and provisions of law, which is currently under way.


RECOMMENDATION RESPECTING RAPESEED ACREAGE
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the Wheat Board this week. Not too long ago that minister made his annual statement which did not include the initial price for grain next year, but did contain a suggestion as to the amount of acreage
March 20, 1981

that farmers should plant, and specifically suggested they plant the same amount of rapeseed as last year. Sales of rapeseed are very slow, there is a large amount in the pipeline and on the farm, and there are transportation problems which the transportation agency is unable to handle. In those circumstances could the minister, or whoever speaks for him, justify why this recommendation was made?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: I have a hard time relating "recommendation" to the three or four items mentioned. But Senator Argue gave an explanation the other day of why he did not give an indication of initial prices in his pre-seeding announcement. This is all recorded in the Senate Hansard. At the same time he indicated, as the member intimates, that world grain prices were good, that he was looking forward to an increase of 10 per cent for wheat and barley, and so forth. He explained that the reason why he did not give the initial prices at this time was that last year he was accused of giving them too early, so this year he wanted to avoid the same accusation.


ANNOUNCEMENT OF INITIAL PRICES
Stanley J. Hovdebo: That was not the
question I asked, Madam Speaker, I asked why it was suggested that the planting level of the rapeseed this year was the same as last year. However, I appreciate the minister's answer. Following on it, as a supplementary question on the price of grain, I should like to ask the minister this. Since the senator did not state the initial price next year, most farmers are assuming that it will be the same as this year. My question is whether farmers can proceed with their planning for next year on that basis?


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is exactly what I tried to answer. I said the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board did not give the initial prices. He said, however, that he expected the prices to be strong, to remain as they are now, which is an indication of his views on prices. Then, in two particular instances he said he was looking forward to an increase of 10 per cent in production. So obviously this is debatable but the minister gave a clear indication that he expects the situation to remain very solid indeed.


CHANGE IN POLICY ON TIMING OF ANNOUNCEMENT
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport related to his reply to the First question of the hon. member for Prince Albert when he said the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board has been accused of making his announcement last year too soon. That was not the accusation. The accusation was that he made an inaccurate assumption. I should like to put the following question to the minister. In view of the statement, made in the House in 1971 by the minister's predecessor, Otto Lang, that he would announce the initial
Oral Questions
payments for the coming crop year so as to give the maximum amount of information to producers prior to seeding time, a practice which was carried out by the hon. member for Vegre-ville when he held that portfolio, why is there a change now in government policy?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I am trying to indicate that this is a debatable point. The senator said that last year he had been accused of having made the announcement too early, and that is why it was inaccurate. So this year he wants to be accurate by announcing it later than he did last year.


HEALTH CARE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of her indication that she wants to end extra billing under medicare, which costs Ontario residents $43 million a year, and in view of the strategic importance of Ontario in the whole national medicare program, can the minister say if she has any indication that the government of Ontario will be willing to co-operate in restoring medicare to its original concept of universality without any extra billing?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, in reaching a consensus across the country to ban extra billing under medicare, 1 think that Ontario, because of the size of its population, could take a positive lead, which I hope will happen. However, we have to wait for the appointment of the new Ontario cabinet. It is also a fact that, with its majority, the government of Ontario could do much to bring back integrity to medicare which is a very good program. They know now that the Ontario doctors have started opting back into the program, and I hope that will encourage them to ban extra billing.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture, if I may get his attention. The Canadian Egg Marketing Agency is experiencing the largest build-up of surplus eggs since CEMA was formed in 1972. The surplus is building up at a rate of between 80,000 and 100,000 boxes of 15 dozen eggs a week. Since the formation of CEMA back in 1972, there has never been a prolonged time when supply and demand has been in balance. I should like to ask the minister whether CEMA is contemplating any changes to ensure that the boom and bust

March 20, 1981
Oral Questions
cycles which have been characteristic of CEMA's operations over the past number of years will not keep occurring.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: I disagree with the hon. member's statement about boom and bust cycles because there has hardly been another product that has had more stable prices, either for the consumer or for the producer, than eggs or any of the poultry products that are under marketing boards.
1 met with the new chairman of CEMA yesterday, who is also a farmer, and with the new manager of CEMA whom they have hired, and they told me they have control of the surplus products and they will have control of production. They have made up their mind that at no time will we be importing eggs, such as was done, for instance, at Christmas time when we need more eggs for baking. Just as soon as Canagrex becomes law, we will be exporting eggs to many, many countries which, for instance, pay double the price we do in Canada. We believe there is a market there, and to supply it we feel farmers can actually increase production.
The hon. member knows that we have become so efficient that the hens are laying, on the average, 30 eggs more a year than they did before; they are living longer and laying more.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Burnett Murta: 1 do not know what the Minister of Agriculture means when he says, "we have become so efficient."
The deputy minister of agriculture has indicated that CEMA is making mistakes by rushing into short-term deals "hatched in a hurry", he said, when surpluses are building to perilous levels. He said that one of the mistakes that was made was the recent shipment of eggs to Saudi Arabia with which some problems arose. Since this is a substantial surplus, I should like to ask the minister whether he can assure the House that there will not be any rotten eggs similar to what happened back in 1974 when CEMA had to deal with a surplus. Would he answer the question I asked in the first instance, that is, whether any changes are being contemplated to try to alleviate this kind of swing in egg marketing in Canada.


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that the National Farm Products Marketing Council, under the chairmanship of Mrs. Menzies, reports to me about once a week on what is going on in egg marketing in Canada.
There are representatives on that council from the farming sector, the consumers' sector, and the processing sector, and they make recommendations. They are concerned, as we are, about the production. Consumption is fairly stable but there is a slight overproduction. However, they have also assured me that there would be no waste of the commodity, that the commodity is being sold on world markets. But-and I want to make this clear-it is being funded by the producers who are levied 1.5 cents to put this product on world markets where it can be sold at present, where it will be some good for people in
need of this high protein, nutritious product, one of the world's cheapest forms of protein.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that this Rube Goldberg closure device which has been put before Parliament is designed to cut off debate in the House of Commons just days before the Quebec election, does the Prime Minister not feel that he has an obligation to the people of Quebec to allow them to cast their votes first, particularly in light of the fact that Claude Ryan, leader of the No forces, has stated that, if elected premier, his very first act in office would be to call upon the Prime Minister to reopen negotiations on this very resolution?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I want to remind the hon. member that the purpose of the motion is essentially, as the House leader said, to permit the House to debate other things. It is surely obvious, even to the hon. member, that the House has been debating one amendment for the past five weeks. We know there are other members who want to move amendments to improve the resolution before the House. It does not seem unreasonable to suggest to members of the party opposite that they vote on their own amendment so that we can get on to other ways of improving the debate.


Walter David Baker: Tell us about Claude Ryan.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Of course, Madam Speaker, that is not what this resolution does; the Prime Minister knows that full well. He chose not to answer my question about Mr. Ryan.


CHANGE IN RULES OF PARLIAMENT
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the government House leader. When was the last time in which the government introduced a special change to the rules of Parliament for one debate in order to cut the discussion short?
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the procedure to allocate time periods for different debates is normal. We meet regularly at the House leaders' level, we come to an agreement on various pieces of legislation, various measures and, as a rule, I am happy to say this works well.
But in this case, as I mentioned earlier, from the start of the constitutional debate on October 6, 1980, it was clear the
March 20, 1981

Progressive Conservative Party would never give in on anything nor come to an agreement on the debate to allow a greater number of members to be heard, shorter speeches, and a greater number of hours allotted.
Therefore, this procedure is not new. We should not oppose changes. The changes admittedly are innovative, but they are constructive and this institution can use them to become more efficient, more relevant and better respected by the Canadian public.

Point of Order-Mr. W. Baker POINT OF ORDER


MR. BAKER (NEPEAN-CARLETON)-S.O. 43 MOTION OF MR.
[Stage Direction]
Mcknight
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, with respect to a matter which occurred earlier, the government House leader indicated that his proposed reforms to rules of the House brought in by closure in 1969 were innovative and constructive. I just want him to know that anyone who is an observer of this place would not describe them as anything but sleazy and destructive of Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


MARKET ASSISTANCE PROGRAM-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Walter David Baker: He should know that. I am now coming to my point of order.


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport who answers in this House for the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board in the other place. The minister is probably aware that for the last several weeks members of the Canadian Wheat Board advisory committee have been holding meetings throughout the prairies, flogging the so-called market assistance program which involves some fairly radical changes as far as grain handling and sales are concerned. Could the minister tell us whether or not it is the intention of the government to bring in legislation to cover MAP, or will it all be done under the regulations of the Canadian Wheat Board Act?


Madam Speaker:: I do not feel this is a point of order. Is the hon. member seeking the floor on another point of order?


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, that comment was just by way of preamble to a very serious matter.
My point of order concerns the motion made under the provisions of Standing Order 43 by the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) and what occurred thereafter. I want Madam Speaker to understand that I cannot question and I am not questioning-
[Editor's note: At this point there was a disturbance in the public gallery.]


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, my understanding of the subject of the market assistance program is that it is a discussion which is now being carried on in western Canada under the auspices of the Canadian Wheat Board. Following the consultation, a report will be made by the Wheat Board to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board, and action will be decided then. I think it must be seen in the context of being consultation with interested parties.


Douglas Charles Neil: Madam Speaker, the announcement indicates that the program will be put into effect for the 1981-82 crop year, so there is not very much time. It is very serious and quite a change in the marketing and handling of grain.
Is it the intention of the minister to bring the program before members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture so that they can discuss the program with him, and invite representatives of the farming community to consider the program before it is put into place?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I will have a discussion with my colleague in charge of that particular subject, and I will report accordingly. As far as I am involved in this matter, for the moment it is a consultative process and the decisions have not been made. It should be seen in that light.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton.


Walter David Baker: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am not questioning Your Honour's ruling because I cannot, but I rise to clarify a matter which arose earlier. As long as any one of us can remember, the practice of the House has been that when a motion is made to introduce a bill, when a party introduces a motion on an allotted day, or when the government moves a motion to have a bill approved on second reading, the mover of the motion is allowed to speak first.
Perhaps that is a custom, and if so, I say with respect that we ought not to depart from it. This practice may well be found in the Standing Orders. But I raise this matter because I am concerned. If a member of the New Democratic Party, for example the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), moved a motion in his name on an allotted day, and suddenly Your Honour recognized either a member of the government or a member of the official opposition as the first speaker, there would be no one to explain the motion.
I have not had an opportunity to look at the rules-Your Honour may have-but I wonder if there could be some clarification. 1 do not think there would be any objection to observing this custom, if it is only a custom.

March 20, 1981
Order Paper Questions
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I think my colleague should look up the rules. They are quite clear. 1 see you are ready to refer to it but the Chair recognizes the first member to rise. Allow me to point out that this is not a precedent. Not so long ago, when a member from this side proposed a motion under Standing Order 43, the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) was given the floor while we were waiting to be recognized. Unfortunately, your attention was caught more quickly by the Leader of the Opposition, And today it is the opposite. There has been a precedent. There is nothing improper in all of this. As regards the preamble made by my colleague, out of respect for this institution I will refrain from commenting on it.


Madam Speaker:: I remind the hon. member of the following rule which he knows very well:
When two or more members rise to speak, Mr. Speaker calls upon the member who first rose in his place;-
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) attracted my attention first. I said that quite definitely before I checked on the ruling as to whether the member had priority if another member had risen to speak before that member.
It is a rule-it is not a custom-that the first member who rises on a motion under Standing Order 43 is allowed to speak. 1 remind the hon. member of a precedent during my time in the chair which I remember very well; a motion was moved under Standing Order 43 on the government side and the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) debated it. I saw him first and I gave him the floor.
I should like to read the rest of Standing Order 29:
-but a motion may be made that any member who has risen "be now heard", or "do now speak", which motion shall be forthwith put without debate.
Hon. members on my left did not afford themselves of that prerogative which was open to them; therefore, I gave the minister the floor. I think l did it in accordance with the rules and even in accordance with the customs and traditions of the House.


Walter David Baker: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,843, 1,862, 2,022, 2,047, and 2,078.


CONSOLIDATED REVENUE FUND
Mr. Blenkarn: 1.	In (a) 1977 (b) 1978 (c) 1979, what amount was contributed to the Consolidated Revenue Fund by public servants through deductions from their wages at the source for their pension fund?
2.	For the same years, what was the total amount paid from the fund to retired public servants?


Donald James Johnston: 1. In the fiscal years 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80, the following amounts were contributed to the Public Service Superannuation Account and to the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account by public servants and employees of Crown corporations subject to the public service pension plan.
1976-	77
1977-	78
1978-	79
1979-	80
Public Service Superannuation Account $247.5 million $285.2 million $296.1 million $314.9 million
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account $26.7 million $49.2 million $51.0 million $55.7 million
2.	(a) In the same fiscal years the amounts paid to retired public servants or their surviving dependents who were entitled to annuities were as follows:
1976-	77
1977-	78
1978-	79
1979-	80
Public Service Superannuation Account
$218.0 million $254.9 million $297.2 million $351.2 million
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account and Indexation Payments Charged directly to the Consolidated Revenue Fund $ 88.9 million $113.1 million $139.9 million $178.7 million
(b) In the same fiscal years, the total amounts* paid to former public servants or their surviving dependents were as follows:



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
1976-	77
1977-	78
1978-	79
1979-	80
Public Service Superannuation Account
$280.4 million $287.3 million $344.2 million $422.8 million
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account and Indexation Payments Charged directly to the Consolidated Revenue Fund
$ 91.4 million $116.3 million $145.3 million $187.0 million
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following
* The total payments listed in 2(b) include amounts paid by way of both annuities and lump sum payments such as cash termination allowances, residual amounts, returns of contributions and transfers to other pension funds, whereas the payments listed in 2(a) reflect annuity expenditures only.
March 20, 1981


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	(a) In each of the past five years, how many representations were made by the Export Development Corporation, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce or any other department or agency, to secure for Canadian registered ships, all or a portion of the cargo to be moved specifically, coal, grain, lumber, northern ore concentrate and with respect to importations, oil, bauxite and liner conference cargoes (b) what were the results of such representations?
2.	Will the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce undertake a study to determine the net cost to Canadians for imports and exports, which Canada's dependency on foreign registered shipping has contributed towards, particularly in 1970 and 1975, as well as the best estimate for the current year and, if not, for what reason?
3.	Will the government ascertain the tonnage by commodities, and the cost in dollars, of Canadian exports and imports through U.S. ports, as a result of Canada's dependency on foreign registered shipping?


David Michael Collenette: I am informed by the Departments of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Transport as follows: 1. (a) The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce advises that assistance is provided to Canadian-incorporated and based shipping companies without specifically requiring that companies utilize only Canadian registered vessels. Quite apart from referrals and the provision of market information, Industry, Trade and Commerce makes representations specifically at the request of, and in collaboration with, Canadian shipping companies and shippers. Requests for representations on behalf of Canadian registered ships exclusively are summarized:
Requests for
Government Representations
Commodity	Year	Representation	Made(i)	Grain, lumber, bauxite	1975-80	Nil	Nil(ii)	Coal	1979	1	1(iii)	Oil	1980	2	2(iv)	Northern ore	concentrate	1979	2	2(v)	Liner conference cargo	1979	2	21980	4	4
(b) The results of representations are:
(ii)	Coal-coal sale did not materialize, consequently no opportunity for Canadian ships.
(iii)	Oil-remains under commercial discussion and investigation with some prospect for participation by Canadian registered ship.
(iv)	Northern ore concentrate: participation by Canadian registered ship.
(v)	Liner conference cargo (1979): participation by Canadian registered ship.
Liner conference cargo (1980): in one instance participation by Canadian registered ship scheduled for early 1981; other three instances remain under commercial discussion and investigation with some prospect for participation by Canadian registered ship.
2.	A study will be included in IT&C work program to estimate the net cost of using foreign registered shipping.
Order Paper Questions
3.	The routing of Canadian trade through U.S. ports and the converse routing of U.S. trade through Canadian ports result primarily from commercial and competitive forces other than dependency on foreign registered shipping. Some statistics are presently collected and made publicly available by Statistics Canada (Exports: Merchandise Trade 1979, Tables 9 and 10 Catalogue No. 65-202), and Revenue Canada through the Canadian ports and traffic development committee ("Transborder Container Movements"). The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce will approach the agencies producing these statistics to explore the possibilities for expanded and refined data concerning Canadian trade through the United States.
In so far as Export Development Corporation is concerned:
1.	(a) None. (Such representations, if any, would be referred to IT&C.)
(b) N/A.
2 and 3. To be answered elsewhere.
In so far as Transport Canada is concerned:
1.	(a) Transport Canada has taken every opportunity to promote Canadian flag participation in deep-sea shipping. In this regard, Transport Canada is assessing the possibilities for Canadian flag participation in the shipment from Canada of aid and commercial grain cargoes.
(b) N/A.
2 and 3. To be answered elsewhere.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Has construction started on the enlargement of the St-Jean, Quebec, Research Station as announced by the Minister of Agriculture on April 9, 1980?
2.	What will be the total floor space at the facility?
3.	Has a construction contract been awarded and, if so, to whom and in what amount?
4.	What form of heating (a) is being used (b) will be used?
5.	Are there similar research stations in other provinces and, if so (a) in which provinces (b) how many scientists work at each?


Eugene Whelan: 1. No. However, the preliminary design has been completed and a design consultant appointed. A revised t.b. program authority is required.
2.	6,318 m2.
3.	No.
4.	(a) Oil;
(b) Electric for the whole station. It is being proposed as the best to meet environmental and energy requirements.
5.	Yes.

March 20, 1981
Order Paper Questions
(a)	Newfoundland	Ontario
Nova Scotia	Manitoba
Prince Edward Island Saskatchewan New Brunswick	Alberta
Quebec	British Columbia
(b)	See list below.
Scientists are employed at Research Institutes, Stations and Experimental Farms as follows:
Institutes-(Ottawa)	Number
of
Scientists
Research Program Services	3
Engineering and Statistical Research Institute	26
Land Resource Research Institute	64
Food Research Institute	26
Chemistry and Biology Research Institute	35
Biosystematics Research Institute	50
Research Stations
Province	Location	
Newfoundland	St. John's	6Prince Edward Island	Charlottetown	ISNova Scotia	Kentville	28New Brunswick	Fredericton	26Quebec	St. Jean	20Lennoxville	14Ste-Foy	24Ontario	Animal Research Centre (Ottawa)	46London Research Centre	26Ottawa	35Harrow	30Vineland	17Delhi	10Manitoba	Winnipeg	43Brandon	15Morden	15Saskatchewan	Saskatoon	35Melfort	9Swift Current	27Regina	14Alberta	Lethbridge	68Lacombe	18Beaverlodge	IIBritish Columbia	Summerland	23Kamloops	6Agassiz	13Vancouver	20Sidney	6Experimental Farms	Province	Location	Nova Scotia	Nappan	3New Brunswick	Buctouche	1Quebec	La Pocatiere	4L'Assomption	5Normandin	2Ontario	Kapuskasing	1Smithfield	2Thunder Bay	1Saskatchewan	Indian Head	2Alberta	Port Vermilion	1British Columbia	Prince George	2


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is there a discrepancy in the answer to question No. 1,963 that the Minister of State for Science and Technology did not use a government-owned private railway car on or about September 2 or 3, 1980, and the information received in writing in the office of the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville in January, 1981, as follows: "Car no. 43. Roberts. September 2, 3. I have to inquire about where the trip went and will let you know." and, if so, what is the explanation for the discrepancy?
2.	If the Minister of State for Science and Technology did not use the railway car, what minister did make use of the car and (a) on what dates in question (b) for what purpose (c) what were the names of all persons on board at any time (d) what was the point of departure and the point of termination of the car?
3.	If the answer to question No. 1,963 is an error, will the Minister of Transport give a correct answer?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. Yes. The Minister of State for Science and Technology advises that he had made tentative plans to use a government railway car during the period of August 30 to September 2 or 3, 1980, but decided not to make use of the car.
2.	No other minister made use of the government railway cars on or about that period of time.
3.	Not applicable.


Mr. Blenkarn: 1.	Are Canadians in western Canada considered to be more fit than Canadians residing in eastern Canada and, if so, is it the government's intention to do a study to find out the reasons?
2.	What is the (a) anticipated cost (b) importance of the study?
3.	In what way does the government propose to influence the fitness of Canadians in eastern Canada, if necessary, as a result of the findings?
4.	How many persons will be employed under the study?
5.	To the knowledge of the government, what are the political party affiliations of the persons that will be involved in the study?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of Labour):: 1. A study of the lifestyle and fitness habits among Canadian workers undertaken in 1977 by the Canadian Public Health Association, at the request of Fitness and Amateur Sport indicated that statistically, western Canadians could be considered more fit than their eastern counterparts. These small statistical differences, however, have little practical significance and the government will not be investigating these differences in any special studies.
2. At the present time, Fitness and Amateur Sport is sponsoring a general Canada fitness survey from its share of Provincial Lottery revenues. The anticipated cost is $2.9 million over three years. Because the Canada fitness survey is an in-depth study of the fitness levels and recreational patterns of Canadians, it will provide a benchmark on the fitness status of Canadians, including their interests, preferences and participation in recreational activities. The information obtained from the survey will help governments, professional associations, voluntary agencies and leisure-related companies to evaluate
March 20, 1981

existing programs and to better plan for future activities and facilities to ensure that future needs of Canadians are met.
3.	Until the results of the Canada fitness survey for 1981 are available for analysis, it is premature to suggest any strategies which the Government of Canada will implement as a result of the findings. Preliminary results are expected by April, 1982.
4.	One hundred and seventy-five persons have been employed with the Canada fitness survey. Except for national office staff (five), the term for 170 employees expires in July, 1981.
5.	Political party affiliation was not a criterion in the hiring of individuals involved in this survey. Advertisements were placed with all major newspapers in each test centre and individuals hired after interviews were conducted.


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


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, as you may recall, I have risen in my place two or three times with respect to question No. 1,851. I see that in Hansard for March 19, 1981, it is marked: "DND-Expenditure Differential on New Fighter Aircraft, question No. 1,851 (Revised)".
The question is not revised at all, Madam Speaker. The answer has been revised-and high time it was. I hope that the Department of National Defence will not eventually have to pass these things through for me to check out the answers to my own questions before they misprint them in Hansard. I hope there will be a future duplication of this question put on the order paper showing the answer has been revised and not the question.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, it is the custom of this House that when a correction is made to an answer already given, the reply is given in the House by the parliamentary secretary to the House leader stating the number of the question and using the word "revised". This in no way differs from any previous practice of this House. I am not sure the hon. member's point is well taken. Everyone knows that the question has not changed, that he was seeking a correction to the answer, which was done in conformity with the rules and procedures of this House.
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-59, an act to provide supplementary borrowing authority, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South) moved:: That Bill C-59, an act to provide supplementary borrowing authority, be amended in clause 2
(a)	by striking out line 18 at page 1 and substituting therefor:
"eight billion dollars, as may be required"
(b)	by striking out lines 25 to 27 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"expire on March 31, 1982."
He said: Madam Speaker, my motion before the House today with respect to Bill C-59 really involves two amendments. I had only intended to introduce one amendment, which was the second one, in connection with removing the government's right to extend borrowing into the next calendar year, that is, the year commencing March 31, 1982, and the amount that it might require under its budget as borrowing authority for the next fiscal year, that is, the year commencing in March next.
Since Bill C-59 was first introduced into this House two or three things have happened. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the debate with respect to the bill was terminated by closure. I want to outline to the House why we in this party are not prepared to go for S14 billion in further borrowing. Nor are we prepared to allow the government the opportunity to carry $3 billion worth of the borrowing authority over into another fiscal year.
The debt management of this government is probably the most inept, incompetent and unconscionably stupid of any debt management program of any government for some very considerable period of time. Only last Friday the government, in desperation, increased the interest on Canada Savings Bonds from 11.5 per cent to 13.75 per cent to stem the tide of redemptions of those bonds. At that time the government should have known that interest rates were likely to fall off. The government could observe what was happening in the American market. Indeed, on Tuesday of last week the government had foreseen that interest rates were falling off and it was able to place a half billion dollar bond issue on the public market at 13.25 per cent.
Suddenly last Friday we saw a government, desperate, worried, upset and sick, increase the interest rate on Canada Savings Bonds from 11.5 per cent to 13.75 per cent to prevent further redemptions. On Tuesday last the government had no problem marketing a half billion dollars worth of bonds at 13.25 per cent. On Thursday, when the government sold its treasury bills, it did so at a 50 basis points reduction. Clearly, if it had worked a little harder it might have even brought the

March 20, 1981
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82 interest rate on its debt down further. What we have seen is a government incompetent, inept and unable-demonstrably unable-to manage the public debt. If there was ever a reason for limiting the government's borrowing authority, then it is its inept performance.
The House will recall that early in January we suggested to the government that it raise the interest rate on Canada Savings Bonds to 12.5 per cent from 11.5 per cent. At that time we knew, and the government ought to have known, that it would be subject to massive redemptions of these bonds if something was not done. So what did the government do? Nothing. Since January 1 approximately $1.5 billion worth of Canada Savings Bonds were redeemed because the government chose to offer the savers of the country 11.5 per cent on their money. The government took a loss of $1.5 billion of money borrowed from the treasury which had cost a great deal to place. It cost more to place Canada Savings Bonds than any other form of borrowing.
The government watched the drain on its Canada Savings Bonds continue week after week. Finally, last Friday, in absolute desperation and shaking in their boots, the government increased the rate to 13.75 per cent. By Tuesday of this week the bond rate was 13.25 per cent. By Thursday interest rates had dropped on treasury bills even further. As a result, what has the government done? It has lost all sorts of investment in Canada by the small savers. They were not treated fairly. It is not hard to understand how frustrated anyone looking at the management of money must feel in view of the inept and incompetent debt efforts of this government.
In the committee we got into the question of the management of debt money. No less than the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) appeared before the committee. In talking about the government's total ineptness it would be improper of me if I did not read into the record an exchange between myself and the minister. 1 asked the minister:


Donald Alex Blenkarn: How much new borrowing do you intend to place in March before your borrowing authority expires as of the end of the month?


Mr. MacEachen:: We have not determined any borrowing yet.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Minister, are you seriously telling me that on March 3 you do not know how much you are likely to want to borrow, or are going to borrow or intend to borrow by March 31 ?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That has not been determined yet, Mr. Blenkarn.
I asked the minister when he determines it. I asked him if he determines it over coffee in the morning. He jokingly said, "Well, it is not champagne at night." I asked him one more question:
1 am just wondering where the fiscal end of this country is going. You have requirements in your budget for money, you have some borrowing authority here, and you cannot tell me what you are going to borrow this month.
The minister replied:
No, we cannot tell you that today, how much and when. But do not feel that somehow things are not being attended to, because these proposals are made and approved quite quickly, very quickly.
The decisions of this government with respect to borrowing and the interest rate to be paid are made very quickly. I settle
for coffee for breakfast. The minister denied that. He said it was not even over champagne. It was probably over martinis at lunch.
Here we have a government coming to us to get a blank cheque, the right to borrow $14 billion-fourteen thousand million dollars. This is more money than this government even contemplated spending in 1969 or 1970 when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was made leader of the Liberal Party. The government wants a blank cheque. When it was asked) on March 3 what borrowing it was going to place on the public markets or elsewhere during the month of March, it did not know. The minister could have said to me, "I am sorry, I am not going to expose that intimate financial knowledge to you; it might affect the markets." But he did not say that; he did not offer that as an excuse. The fact of the matter is that the minister was being very honest with me. He did not know; he had no idea. Yet this minister asks this House to approve the borrowing of $14 billion.
The Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) filed the report of the Bank of Canada earlier this week. Page 12 of that report reads:
From the point of view of dealing with inflation, this was an uncomfortably large deficit for the Government of Canada to have at a time when the level of economic activity relative to the economy's demonstrated capacity was as high as it then was. I am pleased that in the last budget the government recognized the need to reduce its over-all deficit in the years ahead.
We all remember the minister saying that he was going to reduce the over-all deficit in the years ahead, yet in this current fiscal year we have had supplemental estimates (A), (B) and (C). The spending estimates of the government were shot all to the devil; they did not mean a thing. It kept coming to the House for more and more money. Its final levy against the people of Canada for this current fiscal year will probably be rammed through on March 23 next. So where are we? Pious statements made by the minister to the Canadian Club and to this House will reduce the deficit and control expenditures?
It was very good that the government produced an outline of the new spending, its government expenditure plan, Part I. I looked at it and thought it was a sales program rather than a realistic outline of expenditures. I looked at some of the estimates of the government which it says will restrain expenditures. Look at what it did to the CBC, which had an estimate of $577.5 million for this fiscal year; and for next fiscal year it increases to $649.4 million, an increase of only $71.9 million. Probably this will finance CBC 2, despite the fact that Members of Parliament appeared before the CRTC to try to prevent that further expansion of government service. We can look at one department after another. Employment and immigration estimates are up $259 million. We can look at the increased spending on public archives and national museums, and all these very wonderful things, film development and the rest, which will restrain expenditures! I do not know what restraints are all about.
Last week the President of the United States spoke in this chamber and outlined a course of action he was going to take in his country. The President talked about a possible $80
March 20, 1981

billion deficit in a country ten times more profitable, on any economic base, than our country. He said that it was impossible for the American people to live with this situation any longer and he was going to slice expenses. Today the President has programs before his Congress which will slash expenses by cutting back on programs which are no longer important or absolutely necessary.
What does this government do? The minister mouths fine words, but he only gives us blue books and many spending estimates, with one supplemental after another, which demand more and more money. Eighty per cent of people surveyed by public opinion polls have described inflation as their number one problem. This week Statistics Canada says the new inflation level is 12.2 per cent, which is the highest level in years. It is much higher than it was when this government introduced wage and price controls. However, there is no effort being made by this government to come to grips with inflation. The Bank of Canada in its monetary policy, has legitimately tried to keep the growth of money supply down.


An hon. Member:: Sabotaged by the Minister of Finance.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: My friend says sabotaged by the Minister of Finance. It has been more than sabotaged by the Minister of Finance; it has been destroyed by the Minister of Finance. We must know where we are going in Canada, and this government must get onside and do something to restrain its growth and cut back on some services and give-away programs. This must be done, whether the government likes it or not.
We may want to increase our foreign aid commitments; and that may be desirable. However, if you told Canadians that they could borrow money at 13 per cent, 14 per cent or 16 per cent, but future generations of Canadians would be saddled with the interest costs of carrying that gift, I suggest that Canadians would say, as the Americans are saying, that we should get our House in order. When we have our House in order we will be able to help the Third World and people who are less well off than we are. But if our money has lost purchasing value, if our economy is shaky because of massive inflation and if we are to suffer the unsettling effect of inflation, then we will not help anyone, least of all ourselves.
The government brought down a budget on October 28 last year but, Mr. Speaker, I could not call it anything but a fairy tale budget. That is what it was.


Mr. Evans:: A fairy tale budget?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) says it was not a fairy tale. It calculated that the exchange rate of the Canadian dollar against the U.S. dollar this year would be 87 cents but it has been 82 cents, 83 cents and is now 84 cents. Perhaps it will reach 87 cents toward the end of the year and perhaps not. The budget forecast that the inflation rate would reach 10.2 per cent but at present it stands at 12.2 per cent. The budget forecast that interest costs would remain approximately the same, even though the Department
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82
of Finance should have known that they were escalating. It was a fairy tale budget. It projected the increase in petroleum products at about 20 per cent, but the increase in the price of fuel oil alone has already reached 36 per cent for the year. It was a fairy tale budget-a budget of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. I do not know who the dwarfs are over there but they are not competent, capable dwarfs and they are certainly not large in the mind. They are great at spinning yarns, however, and this budget was a yarn, not a budget. It was an effort to grab oil revenues and we know that.
Now let us look at what has happened since October 28. Mr. Speaker, the budget has been panned by every economic agency in Canada, from the Economic Council of Canada, which is the creation of this government, the Hudson Institute, the C. D. Howe Institute, the Ontario Economic Council, every major bank, the Canadian Association of Independent Businessmen, to the little fellows and the big fellows such as the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. We could understand if it had only been panned by the oil companies lobby, but when everybody panned it, that was an indication that the projections were incompetent and wrong.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) speaks about going to Alberta-or maybe it is Winnipeg-for a new round of talks to see if he can do something with this pancake. It is not working and it will not work. It is no good and yet we are being asked to give the government the authority to borrow money to put the budget through. The budget is not right and it has never been right. The requirements set out in it are not right; the spending suggestions are not right; the inflation figures are not right; the interest figures are not right; the exchange figures are not right. There is nothing right about it.
The matter can only be handled properly if Parliament acts responsibly. Parliament is the place where the government, the Crown, must come to apply for the right to levy taxes and to borrow money. The one control that this Parliament has over the incompetence and ineptitude of this government is its control over the right of the Crown to borrow money. The amount of that borrowing must be restrained.
I am not totally against borrowing, Mr. Speaker. If the purpose were to establish solid, new capital acquisitions, that would be one thing; if the object were to issue a debenture in order to build a pipeline, to build more rail track or to enclose harbours, that would be all right; if the purpose were to issue a debenture in order to build better bridges, that would be an intelligent suggestion; if the purpose were to improve the environment by building new sewage plants and so on, that would be pretty important. Anything done to improve the economy of the country would be important. But to borrow in order to pay interest-in effect, to pay off the Chargex card expenditure of last year, which is what we are doing-is not good enough.
One has only to compare the budgetary figures to see what is being done. This government claims that it will have to borrow $10.98 billion for this fiscal year. The interest on this amount was calculated at the rate in effect last fall, not today,

March 20, 1981
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82 and even at that it is calculated to cost $12.35 billion. Not all the interest has to be borrowed, but the interest is still in excess of the borrowing. The deficit which is forecast is $13.7 billion and the interest on that will be $12.35 billion. We are now spending more money than we receive in taxes. We must go again, and again and again, to the market to borrow the money just to pay the interest on what we have overspent in the past.


An hon. Member:: And we compete against Third World countries.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: My hon. friend says that we compete against Third World countries for money. That is how we help them; that is our foreign aid program; that is how we borrow and hand out the money. We help to raise interest rates so that anyone else who borrows has to pay the higher rate. That is how we help the Third World improve conditions.
The government must bring in the new financial program called for by the Bank of Canada in its report. New policies must be introduced that will attack inflation. We must get things in balance. We simply cannot go on this way, Mr. Speaker.
The amendment would give the government $8 billion in borrowing authority. Even with the present spending plans, that amount would carry us through until the end of October. If the government has not changed its fiscal stance by the end of next October, it will have to come back to Parliament. But if it is sensible, it will be able to reorganize its affairs and get by on $12 billion next year. That means a cut of only $3 billion, Mr. Speaker, and I do not think it would take too much effort on the part of Parliament to slash $3 billion. We could do that and the government could get by on a great deal less money than it is asking for. It hopes to have that $3 billion as a carry-over, or, if you want to put it another way, it wants the right to have more slush in the 1981-82 fiscal year.
The government does not say the $3 billion has to be carried over; it says it may carry over the $3 billion. The real essence is that the government wants the right to borrow $14 billion in 1981-1982. If the government does not use the amount, it wants to be able to carry the $3 billion over so that it does not have to come back to Parliament until perhaps June or July, 1983. But if the government wants to come back to Parliament, it figures it can, and that it would be all right to do so.
What the government is asking us to do is give it the authority to borrow $14 billion. The government's own budget has been proven incompetent in all aspects. The fairy tale budget said the government would need $11 billion. We say the government could get along with $8 billion. The government could trim its cloth, change its spending plans, and cut down on some programs without doing any serious harm to anyone. We could get along on less. We would not have to borrow as much. By doing that, we could turn this country around. We could also come to grips with inflation. But to give the government $14 billion, $3 billion more than it says it
needs for the next fiscal year with a fairy tale presentation proven wrong on every account, would be a disgrace. It is wrong. On this side we stand up and say it is wrong. We expect members on the other side to say it is wrong, but Liberal members may be embarrassed to do that on the floor of this House. They are under a terrible whip. Surely Liberals can get tough with their ministers or work something out in their caucus. Surely they have some respect for their children and their grandchildren. Surely they do not want to saddle Capada with impossible debt.


Mr. Thacker:: There is no future with the Liberals.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: We were dealing with this borrowing bill in the finance committee the other day. We were pleased to have Michael Walker, director of the Fraser Institute, before us. He gave us some analysis of how borrowing affects us, our children and, indeed, our country.
The government likes saying that the borrowing is only a small percentage of GNP. The government says its borrowing is only 4.4 per cent of projected GNP, that it was 5 per cent last year and so on. If we add up the fours and the fives, we eventually get to 100 per cent. But that is not what I am talking about. When we increase borrowing, we ought to look at the increase in our GNP. If the GNP increases, then perhaps we can afford to increase our borrowing. That is another way of looking at it.
What was Canada's GNP last year? On a per person basis, our GNP slipped 3.3 per cent, perhaps 3.5 per cent. What will the GNP be this year? Will we possibly have a 1 per cent increase in our GNP? I doubt that; the forecasters doubt that. Most of them are talking of no increase in the GNP. Some say perhaps there will be a 0.1 per cent increase. We cannot justify, on the basis of increasing productivity in Canada, the increasing need to carry greater debt. That cannot be. Yet that is what this government is asking us to do.
Let us look at this in another way. How much of the real savings of Canadians is being absorbed by government debt? The Fraser Institute tells us that in the year 1970-1971 the percentage of real savings absorbed by government debt was 2.2 per cent. By comparison, in 1980-1981 real savings absorbed by government debt was 19.4 per cent. Next year it will be virtually the same. Imagine nearly 20 per cent of the savings of Canadians being absorbed by government debt. That is unconscionable.
Canada has had a great problem dealing with inflation. People are saying increased productivity is the only solution. The only way we can have increased productivity in a modern industrial society is to have more machinery and more equipment to do things more efficiently. We have to do things more efficiently to build and create. To do that one needs money. What we have with this government is massive borrowing. The Fraser Institute tells us that the government is taking very close to 50 per cent of all the debenture and bond money available in Canada. Where is the money for industry? Borrowings should not be used to pay old interest bills, nor should they be spent on current living expenses. Money should be
March 20, 1981

available for worth-while, new, hard-nosed, hard-surfaced development which will create and build on the productivity which Canadians are capable of.
This government's borrowing plans suck up the available savings of Canadians making it impossible for industry and business, and in particular small business, to borrow. These borrowing plans drive up interest rates. They drive up interest rates for home mortgages and for farmers. The government's planS are causing interest rates to be driven up right across the board, crowding out legitimate business and paying instead for bigger and bigger government. This practice must cease.
This bill must reduce the government's requirements to $8 billion this coming year. We should not allow the government to have a hangover on its borrowing authority.


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I hesitated to rise because I fully expected at least one representative from the government side to rise and attempt to defend the borrowing position on which the government is asking the House to vote.
My colleague, the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), has suggested that the $14 billion request is unduly high. He suggested that there be a lowering of that figure to $8 billion, an amount he set out in his amendment. I hope before we go too far into the debate today that the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) will give us some explanation why the government presumably wants to resist this amendment. Perhaps he would like to speak now?
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I always find amusing and amazing the lack of logic of some hon. members, in particular of the official opposition. They constantly complain about their being allotted too little time to speak in the House; yet, when they are given the opportunity of doing so, they would like to see us speak. The hon. member knows full well the bill was explained on second reading, and again, when the bill was studied in committee, the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) gave other explanations; he knows full well that I still have time to give more details. So, I see no cause for complaint: let him be patient.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure the Minister of State for Finance knows that the minister never gave any explanation in committee. He now says there will be ample time to give an explanation. Frankly, this government is making no preparation that I can see to give us an explanation. To suggest, after the comments which have been made by various members of this caucus on this bill, that somehow or other it is wrong for us even to ask that the government try to justify this type of borrowing, I find most shocking.
What happens is that the government gets almost immune to what it is doing. It becomes insensitive. I do not believe it realizes the magnitude of what is $14 billion. The government
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82
can no longer borrow at 12 per cent. Only last week the official government rate on long-term bonds went over 14 per cent. I reminded hon. members that even at 12 per cent the debt doubles every six years. Therefore, we are not talking of $14 billion. With interest, that will amount to $28 billion in six years, in 12 years it will be $56 billion and six years after that $112 billion.
The reason I mention that figure is that I find the situation absolutely ludicrous when we are faced with 12.2 per cent inflation in this country. The government is aided and abetted by the little group to my left, which I hope will disintegrate completely. Up until now they have been exciting these fellows opposite, telling them to spend more, not to worry about debts or borrowing. On inflation day, they have the audacity to turn around and ask what is causing it.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) speaks often in this House on behalf of the pensioners and senior citizens. I wish he would go hat in hand and apologize to them for the fact that his party has supported and propped up this government. In fact, they have almost encouraged the government to spend, spend, spend and run into greater and greater deficits, which are the very thing creating the inflationary forces in this country which are crippling to the very people the hon. member so often speaks on behalf of, the pensioners and those on fixed incomes.
It is easy for the minister to gloss over and flub off this $14 billion borrowing. Let us put a billion into perspective. When we talk about billions, I do not think any of us, certainly not myself, can relate to what is a billion dollars. A billion minutes ago Christ was walking on the earth. A billion hours ago our ancestors literally lived in caves. A billion dollars ago in Ottawa is last week, a billion dollars is being spent this week and there will be another billion dollars spent next week. In fact, for the total year spending will be up to $60 billion.
It is bad enough to have such a growth in spending. I remind hon. members once again that that $60 billion compares to a total spending budget, when the emperor first took control of this country, of $10 billion. He has run up our spending sixfold. As I say, that is bad enough, but what is totally unforgivable is that the government estimates the total revenue it will have to offset that spending is about $46 billion. That is what we are dealing with, a $14 billion deficit which the government is contemplating. It is asking for parliamentary authority to borrow that $14 billion.
We must bear in mind that that is not the whole story. There are supplementary estimates before this House that are getting short shrift in the committees, barely being reviewed. By a guillotine rule introduced by the emperor himself, those supplementary estimates are deemed to be passed next week.
The estimates include 34 $1 items which cover almost $800 million of borrowings, guarantees and expenditures of varying types. The government is pretending that because we passed 34 $1 items in the estimates, somehow that is sufficient authority for it to obligate Canadians through borrowings, guarantees and other types of expenditures to the tune of

March 20, 1981
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82
almost $800 million. Talk about sleazy treatment of Parliament; that is the ultimate.


William James Kempling: Sewer politics.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: We learned this morning that under one $1 item alone the minister is proposing to guarantee loans to a wholly federal government-owned subsidiary called de Havilland. We also learn when we review the audited annual statement of that company that, contrary to what the government has been representing, they lost almost $9 million last year. We learn that, even on the government's own figures, in the coming year they are going to lose $5 million to $8 million.
1 draw the attention of hon. members to this because over and above the $14 billion the government is requesting authority to borrow, it is going to whip through next week a $450 million guarantee to allow it to guarantee $450 million of de Havilland borrowing, a company that lost money last year and will lose money in the coming year. In fact, ever since the government has owned it, on a proper accounting basis it has done nothing but lose money.
When will this government come to its senses? For example, another $1 item contemplates the guaranteeing on behalf of Massey-Ferguson of $130 million, up $5 million since last February when the minister said he was proposing to lend $125 million. Another item gives back-up to Eldorado for approximately $150 million. Surely people should get a little excited.
That is not the whole story. We find that the government- and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) is telling us to expect more of this-is now resorting to the net-out principle where it takes revenue and instead of putting it into the Consolidated Revenue Fund, as is usual, it nets it against an expenditure. They say, "It is off the budget. We won't call it an expenditure. We won't call it a revenue." In short, the expenditures then look lower.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. When the House rose at one o'clock p.m., the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) had the floor.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall that in my introductory comments I was asking that some spokesperson for the government try to explain why they feel the amendment proposed by my colleague, the hon. member for
Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), is unacceptable. If we have agreement, if they are willing to knock down the borrowing level from $14 billion to $12 billion, fine, let us hear it. However, in support of what I am saying I was trying to emphasize the point that the government, in asking for the $14 billion, is not telling the whole story because, as I indicated, contained in the $1 items in supplementary estimates (C) there is something approaching $800 million of other guarantees it hopes to ram through Parliament under the normal guillotine provision that applies to supplementary estimates. I find that deplorable.
Hon. members will recall that I pointed out the government proposes a $1 item that would allow it to guarantee loans up to $450 million to de Havilland Aircraft of Canada Ltd. It does that after having doctored the de Havilland statements. The annual report of de Havilland showed there was an income before taxes of $288,000. That is what the government sort of ran around boasting about, totally ignoring the fact it has something like $40 million in sheer equity investment; but on the basis of all that it had a statement prepared showing the company made $288,000.
Then we read the qualified report of the auditors, and I would emphasize that such a report is very rare. I have certainly never seen even a qualified report on the part of auditors dealing with a Crown corporation or a wholly federal government-owned subsidiary before. But when we read the statement of Deloitte Haskins & Sells we find the following:
As more fully described in note I to the consolidated financial statements, certain Dash-7 program charges are deferred to be recovered from future sales.
And note this:
The recovery of these deferred charges is dependent upon receipt of future orders significantly in excess of those received to date.
When you check note 1 to which they referred, you find this startling revelation:
Estimated sales proceeds from undelivered aircraft of a 250 aircraft program exceed the production and tooling costs in inventory and deferred charges at May 31, 1980, plus estimated additional production and tooling costs to be incurred. However, if fewer than 250 aircraft are sold or if the sales proceeds are overestimated, or if the costs to complete the program are underestimated, substantial amounts of unrecoverable costs may be charged to expense in subsequent fiscal periods.
Then they go on to say:
In the fiscal years 1978 and 1979, as a matter of prudence and reflecting the early program circumstances, the company adopted the practice of amortizing deferred production and tooling costs rateably over the first 100 aircraft deliveries. In 1980, due to the increased level of orders and options received, the company revised the amortization base to 250 aircraft deliveries.
This should also be noted:
The change in the rate of amortization had the effect of increasing income before income taxes by $8,950,000 in the current year. Had this rate of amortization prevailed in 1978 and 1979, income before income taxes would have been increased by $560,000 and $1,400,000 respectively.
That is the end of the note in the de Havilland statement.
March 20, 1981

What is significant, as all members who have been following what I have read into the record know, is that they literally doctored the books between 1979 and 1980 to present what was going to be almost a $9 million loss in the case of de Havilland as a $288,000 profit. Surely this House should become alarmed when we are then asked in a $1 item to rubber stamp a guarantee of $450 million on behalf of that company, which has not been examined by any committee of the House. In fact, we requested the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) to attend the finance committee twice, but he ducked out of the first meeting and today was there for only slightly over an hour, during which most of the time was taken up by planted questions asked by government members on that committee.
I cite this as an example only because, while we are asked for borrowing authority for $14 billion, we are not being consulted.
In those figures no account is taken of borrowings made by the Consolidated Computer Company, about which we are going to hear much more in the coming days and weeks, or by the Export Development Corporation, for which the government may borrow in the coming years hundreds of millions of dollars, thus binding the people of Canada. Eldorado's borrowings are not included, Canadair's borrowings are not included, and also the Post Office is not included because, as soon as it is made into a Crown corporation, the government intends to slough off to the side the $400 million loss sustained by that entity at present so that it will no longer be reflected in the government's accounts. Certainly there will be no reference to the money borrowed to sustain the corporation or to the operating loss.
Then the activities of the Enterprise Development Board have not been included in these figures. I think around $2 billion in total is to be granted to various people in the form of guaranteed loans, and this also is not included in the $14 billion requested. The CNR, of course, is not included. Then there is, of course, that real dandy, the one that our friends to the left love so much and for which they have taken credit for foisting on the Canadian public. I am referring to Petro-Canada. As we know, that entity alone is proposing to borrow $1.4 billion to pay for Petrofina. Not only will Petro-Canada borrow that amount, but it proposes to have what it calls the ownership tax put in place so that every time we go to buy a litre of gasoline we will have to pay as much as 4 cents per litre simply to cover the interest of the $1.4 billion and help retire some of the principal.
That is what is in the cards for us. Let every member who tends to go along with the government and acquiesce in what the government is asking us to do bear in mind that it is not just $14 billion but probably several billion dollars more of indirect guarantees or related amounts that the government is proposing to borrow for the coming fiscal year.
To suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this amendment should not be given serious consideration is an affront to the Canadian public. It is something on which every member in this House interested in the ongoing economy of Canada should speak and
Borrowing Authority Act. 1981-82
explain, if he chooses to vote against this amendment, why he wants to do so. But above all, I hope hon. members will stand up, including members on the government side, and point out to the government-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members for giving me some additional time.
I was going to draw to the attention of the House how tremendously this borrowing authority has increased. What I think is often overlooked is that when we are asked for $14 billion worth of authority, the request is made totally out of context. We are never told in an open way what is the over-all borrowing authority of the federal government at present, the aggregate or ceiling. All we are told is that there are many separate authorities. In the United States, as hon. members know, the borrowing level is limited, and when the administration want it increased periodically they have to go through Congress; but there is always an over-all ceiling. They do not have our piecemeal system where the government is coming to the House constantly with requests.


John Leslie Evans: We deal with it every year.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I am always pleased when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Evans) speaks from his seat because he demonstrates the fact that he is ignorant on the subject.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Leslie Evans: If you deal with additions, you must deal with the total.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: That is the very point. I challenge the hon. member to stand in his place and tell us what is the total borrowing authority of the federal government as of this date.


John Leslie Evans: It is whatever we pass in this bill.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: That is not right. What we pass in this bill is interim authority; it is $14 billion additional borrowing authority. The government cannot tell us exactly what authority it has before we pass this bill. We know that after we have passed the bill the government will have to use whatever amount it currently has on top of which it will have $14 billion. My point, and I think the parliamentary secretary has helped me make it-


John Leslie Evans: So you put a ceiling on it.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -is that the American approach is to have a ceiling. They do not deal with the incidental pieces. I think that would be a much more meaningful approach for the government to adopt. 1 believe that the reason they shy away
8470

March 20, 1981
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82
from it is that they know it is embarrassing. They do not like to talk about the 1956-57 $1 billion level. That is why it is very nice to be able to fudge it and say, "How about another $14 billion while we are running the show?", without making it clear that the gross debt right now is $137 billion and that the net debt will exceed $100 billion next year.
We must bear in mind that when the emperor took power, not that many years ago, the net debt was $20 billion. His legacy is $80 billion of added net debt on the shoulders of not only the present generation, but every generation to come. He has mortgaged the future to preserve himself in power.
I was pointing out that this has been done in a piecemeal fashion. For example, he came to us in the fiscal year 1971 and received authorization for a $3 billion borrowing authority. In 1972, it was another $3 billion; in 1973, it was $3 billion; in 1974, it was $3 billion; in 1975 it was $5.5 billion. We can see how greedy he became, how much more he started to crave and to request from Parliament. In fiscal 1976, it was up to $6 billion; in 1977, it was $6 billion; in 1977, 1978 and 1979, that jumbled-up period, it was another $28 billion; in fiscal 1980, it was $7 billion; in fiscal 1980 again, it was another $12 billion; and now it is $14 billion.
Surely the time has come for someone, hopefully on the government side, to become a little concerned. To put it another way, the government allowed the gross debt and the net debt to grow to the point that today 23 cents of every revenue dollar coming into Ottawa is spent to service previous debt. It is the fastest growing cost with which government lives; it is the cost of servicing the debt.
I do not know what value the government puts on $1 billion, but I would have thought that some minister could have stood up on this amendment and at least spoken for 14 minutes. That would be only $1 billion per minute! Surely some minister could afford that courtesy to the House, without expecting us to rubber stamp this bill without even a 14-minute speech.


John Leslie Evans: You should have been here at second reading.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The parliamentary secretary is helping me out again. He should remember the government's argument at second reading-"Let us not delay it now; let us get it before the committee for a thorough examination." Of course, the government used closure to get it there. It said there would be an opportunity for a thorough review in committee. But in committee we were told, "Well, of course, you will have time in the House to debate it at report stage and third reading", which is what we are doing. We were told to expedite it out of committee and, of course, that we could speak on it in Parliament.
I have referred to the tremendous increase in our debt. It is not by coincidence that that increase is reflected also in the spending levels of government. We must not forget that in 1975 the government increased spending by 22 per cent. In 1974, it was 28 per cent; in 1973, it was 11 per cent; in 1972, it was 15 per cent; in 1971, it was 13 per cent; in preceding years
it was 10 per cent, 11 per cent, 12 per cent and 14 per cent. Those were the increases of the late 1960s and the early 1970s.
If we take a look at the current spending plans of the government, and somehow adjust the fudging of the government, as the President of the Treasury Board admitted in committee the other day, we will find the spending increase for this year is 16 per cent. That is the trouble we are living with. This is a government without discipline, a government without any sense of responsibility. Unfortunately, the price does not come out of the salaries of its members. They do not get a reduction for their inefficiency and their bungling. It comes out much in the form of a mortgage on this generation and future generations, who will have to live with tens of billions of dollars of needless borrowing for years to come.
Hopefully many other members plan to speak on this amendment. I will not take any longer; I hope to speak later on the bill itself. But the time has come when the House must start dealing more seriously with a government which has lost all sense of responsibility. It is a runaway government which has lost control of the Canadian economy. Let not any minister over there-certainly not the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen)- stand up and claim in the future that they do not understand why there is inflation in the country. They are the cause of inflation; they are manufacturing inflation. If there is any industry for which Ottawa should be known currently, it is the great manufacturer of inflation with which the country must live.
I should like to touch on another point; I hope the minister will respond and somehow try to clarify it. Bill C-59 authorizes the government to borrow $14 billion in fiscal year 1982. Last May, the government requested and received authority to borrow $12 billion for the current fiscal year which ends this month.
At page 19 of his printed budgetary statement on October 28, the Minister of Finance said the following about government borrowing:
We have been able to raise the large amount of funds we need through the sales of marketable bonds and treasury bills without hampering the Bank of Canada's ability to keep money supply growth within the target band. I am conscious of the risks we have run, however, in such a heavy reliance on borrowed money and I have referred already to the burden which it creates in the form of rapidly rising interest costs. The planned reduction in our financial requirements will be beneficial on both counts.
He predicted that financial requirements would decline more rapidly than the budgetary deficit, going from $12.2 billion in fiscal 1980-81 to $11 billion in 1981-82, to $8.4 billion in 1982-83, and to $7.2 billion in 1983-84.
If the financial requirements were to follow the line he indicated, why are we being asked for $14 billion, for example, for fiscal 1982 when just last October the minister said that it would be $11 billion for fiscal 1982? There seems to be a $3 billion overrun. I know the government lives very comfortably with overruns, but that seems to be a very, very large one.
This is the reason I think my colleague's amendment to reduce the total borrowing authority is justified. Certainly it is
March 20, 1981

justified, unless we receive better evidence as to why the government needs these funds. If we take seriously the statement of the Minister of Finance, it appears that he does not need the $14 billion borrowing authority he is now requesting. Bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that when you borrow amounts of the magnitude the government is proposing to borrow, it will have repercussions in the marketplace. This will be so if the government continues to print counterfeit money, if you like, to create the wherewithal that it in turn can borrow back. Clearly, the more borrowed the smaller the pie becomes for everyone else. This is what tends to drive up interest rates. This is what makes it so difficult for a person who is either having to live with a renegotiated interest structure on his home, or who wants to borrow money for his business. This is why he is finding it so costly to borrow money today. It is because of the government's greed. More and more the government is taking an undue portion of the total available funds which may be borrowed.
[DOT] (M30)
In short, I think my colleague's suggestion that this borrowing authority should be cut down is most appropriate. I hope the government will give consideration to reducing it or, at least, give us a more satisfactory explanation of why we are faced with a $14 billion request for funds, since the Minister of Finance told us last October that all he needed was $11 billion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I was aware that the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) is an expert juggler and again this afternoon he has given us a fascinating show when he juggled with figures the way a circus juggler does with balloons. It seems to me we ought to show more moderation because nothing is more alien to the House of Commons than a circus. Fortunately, the figures he was tossing around were not plates, otherwise we would be picking up the pieces because his balancing act was shaky enough to scare the daylights out of us.
We also knew the rhetorical talent of the hon. member and again he has given us an excellent demonstration. One thing I did not know, however, is that when the hon. member quotes from a document he does so only partially because he lacks patience. I thought he was a persistent man and that when he set out to read a document he would read it to the end. The last question he put proves to all hon. members that he failed to continue reading the budget documents tabled by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). Indeed, Mr. Speaker, he queried the amount of $11 billion, but he forgot to read a little further on in the budget and the budget documents tabled by the Minister of Finance where he would have found the minister's explanation about the additional requirement for $3 billion to make up the total amount of $14 billion sought under the borrowing authority bill now before us.
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82
Since the request to borrow $14 billion is justified in those budget documents, in the budget and in related documents, the government is opposed to the first part of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blen-karn) who wants to reduce the government's borrowing authority from $14 billion to $8 billion. Mr. Speaker, we are opposed as well to the second part of the amendment under which-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister has stated that I did not fully read the quotation of the Minister of Finance in the budgetary document. I ask the indulgence of this House to allow the minister to read into the record what he thinks I did not refer to, or what he thinks I did not properly quote. I am making this request because I cannot see the reference on page 19.


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the budget speech before me. The hon. member is urging me to read page 19. What I am suggesting to him is that he ought not to dwell on only one page but read the full text of the budget documents. For instance, he will find out that the $3 billion margin we are seeking matches the margins which have already been used; these are balance margins which can serve for other borrowing needs or for requirements concerning our exchange rate.
I should like to get back to the second part of the amendment of the hon. member who wants to eliminate the possibility that the remaining borrowing authority on March 31, 1982, be used after that date. Anyone reading the borrowing authority bill will realize that if on March 31, 1982, the unused portion of the $14 billion borrowing authority is in excess of $3 billion, that unused portion will automatically be cancelled. However, if the remaining over-all borrowing authority were to be less than $3 billion it might continue to apply to the period after March 31, 1982. The hon. member is against that provision.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister accept a question so that we can better understand his explanation?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the minister accept a question?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would allow me to make my statement, we will have a lot of time to answer questions later.


An hon. Member:: He might have an answer.


Pierre Bussières: Yes, and since I intend to speak for 20 minutes, it is quite possible that he will get an answer.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Agreed.

March 20, 1981
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82


Pierre Bussières: We are all aware of the repeated support given by the hon. Minister of Finance to the policy of the Bank of Canada to reduce progressively the money supply by reducing the M-l bracket, an approach which will allow us in the long term to gain on inflationary pressures. The determination expressed in the budget papers to reduce the deficit and government spending over a certain period confirms and supports the monetary policy followed by the government bank by restraining government spending.
During a recent lecture, the Minister of Finance also mentioned an extremely important question, that is the need for a collective will to fight inflation. This will must be reflected in concrete efforts by every sector of the economy showing that they also want to reduce inflationary pressures and finally win the fight against inflation. There are many ways in which to show such a will. For instance, it is necessary to increase our productivity as a producing country, and this need does not concern only the workers. It also affects capital and investments. We need to make our business sector more productive in order to become more competitive, to set much lower prices and thus succeed in increasing our capacity not only on the domestic market, but also and mostly on foreign markets.
The budget speech of the Minister of Finance therefore outlined how the minister intended to fight against inflation, how he planned to reduce government expenditures, how he intended to reduce the government deficit over a certain period, and by setting out the financial requirements of the government, he outlined the need for borrowing authority, which resulted in the bill now under consideration that requests this $14 billion borrowing authority to balance the financial requirements of the government. During consideration of the budgetary estimates, the House had the opportunity to examine the use made of government expenditures, and I am convinced that it will now grant the government this $14 billion borrowing power.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the minister would be prepared to answer the question at this point. I see the minister is nodding his head.
Is it not true that this bill allows the government to borrow $14 billion in fiscal 1982, to spend the whole $14 billion in fiscal 1982 and that the hang-over provision of $3 billion is not necessary? Indeed, on the face of the bill the government could borrow the whole $14 billion in fiscal 1982 as suggested by my colleague, the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens).
[ Translation}


Pierre Bussières: I wonder if I understand the hon. member's question properly. Is he asking whether under the Borrowing Authority Act the government can borrow the full amount that it is entitled to for the fiscal year 1981-1982? Is that the hon. member's question? Yes, it can but it does not have to. So
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82 according to the provision, if there is a surplus of less than $3 billion it may be carried over to the fiscal year 1982-1983. If, for example, the House was in such a position that it could not deal with a bill to provide supplementary borrowing authority, in May or immediately after the end of the fiscal year the Minister of Finance could then avail himself of the opportunity to use the carry-over so that the Department of Finance would have more latitude concerning the borrowing authority and the House to deal with other matters.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which I think is a very serious one. In his remarks the minister indicated that I had misled the House in my reference to the statement made by the Minister of Finance when introducing the budget. He referred to the fact that I had read into the record that there would be a decline from $12.2 billion this year to $11 billion in 1981-82, in the fiscal requirements of the nation. I cannot remember his exact words, but he indicated that I had very cleverly fiddled the figures and had not referred to other tables, and that if I had put the whole record into proper perspective, the House would have understood the need for $14 billion.
I cannot allow the minister to say that I have misled the House in this way, without his backing up his statement. I have had a chance to go through the tables in the budget. On page 21 the financial requirement of the government in 1982 is shown as $10,980 million. On page 25 it is stated that for 1981-82 the financial requirement will be $11 billion. On page 39, under the heading "Fiscal Projections-National Accounts and Public Accounts Comparison", the financial requirements for 1981-82 are shown as $10,980 million. On page 41 in the table entitled "Summary, Extended National Accounts Presentation", total financial requirements for 1982 are also shown as $10,980 million. For fiscal 1981 on page-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has listened to the hon. member with some attention. This appears to be a matter of argument and debate. If the hon. member feels he has been misrepresented, let me just say that it is a complicated misrepresentation. The question of privilege should be stated clearly so it is understood. If the hon. member would care to restate his question, the Chair will listen.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Oh, no, not a speech!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) says, "Oh, no!" That shows how little he has-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the hon. member please state his question of privilege?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: My question of privilege is that as far as I know, I accurately reflected the statement of the Minister of Finance in this House that the financial requirements for fiscal year 1982 were to be $11 billion. The Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) has indicated that that was not accurate, that I had chosen to leave out certain items reflected in the budget, and that I had, in effect, misled the House. I

March 20, 1981
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82 should like him either to explain his position or retract the statement.
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member thinks that I was hinting he tried to mislead the House, I apologize for not phrasing my intervention properly. This is not at all what I said. What I said, is that I agree with him that the financial requirements in the budget amount to about $11 billion. However, I told him that if he read a little further on he would see that we are asking for a supplement of $3 billion in order to borrow in foreign currencies if need be. That was the meaning of my presentation, and I never meant that the hon. member was misleading the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: After hearing the arguments on both sides, I rule it is not a question of privilege.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me as we go along that the borrowing authority requirements go higher and higher. One reason is that there is a misleading impression given again and again in the presentation of the estimates that public spending by the Government of Canada is being kept within certain limits.
At the finance committee the other day I pointed out to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston), to the deputy governor of the Bank of Canada, and my colleagues that, as responsible writers have indicated very clearly through newspapers, in the preparation of the estimates a practice has developed of presenting them on a selective net expenditure basis. Regardless of how much is to be spent, if there are moneys coming in from another source for these expenditures, the two sums are netted and that is all that is shown as the expenditure. A classic example is unemployment insurance. We know employees and employers make contributions to that fund. Those amounts are brought in on the one hand. Then the government, because of the level of unemployment, spends perhaps $5 billion or $6 billion more on unemployment insurance, but the contributions deducted from the government contribution appear in the estimates on a net basis.
As reported in Hansard for February 26, 1981, at page 7716, the President of the Treasury Board said:
Total spending of $67.6 billion in 1981-1982 is 12.8 per cent higher than last year's level. This rate of growth, while somewhat higher than over the past few years, is below 1980-1981 growth. Total spending is forecast to increase by about 10 per cent in the two planning years beyond 1981-1982. I would stress that these increases meet the government's continuing commitment to expenditure restraint.
We know that part of the government's electoral campaign promises in 1979-1980 was to contain the growth of government expenditures to within the increase in the gross national product. This is an attempt to hide the fact that the government has failed miserably to do so. One of the principal reasons is that idiotic sort of "bread and circus furnished to the Roman mob" denial of an 18-cent increase in the price of a
gallon of gasoline. On the other hand, to charge to national revenues an additional $3.5 billion to meet the increase in the price of offshore crude so as to pay a subsidy or to subsidize increasing consumption of petroleum products in Canada at a lower price, means in itself that we live in a fool's paradise.
The public of Canada was treated with contempt by the Liberals, and the New Democratic Party who went along with it, because anyone's intelligence is boggled by the absurdity of subsidizing increasing consumption of a non-renewable resource at much lower than world prices. This is a price even lower than 75 per cent of the world price which the producing provinces were prepared to accept. I say quite frankly in examining the estimates this year that they are not $67,625 billion, they are much closer to $80 billion.
Why do we want borrowing authority for $14 billion plus the carry-over of $3 billion from the previous year? The minister was quite candid and admitted this was the practice, and it is in this bill. There is a provision for a cushion to carry-over of $3 billion. Therefore, $17 billion is the size of that cushion, if it is all spent. There is a $3 billion carry-over and $14 billion in additional authority. The parliamentary secretary looks in amazement from behind the curtain. But I tell him that is so. The minister indicated that the $3 billion carry-over was a standard practice. In paragraph 2 of Clause 1, the explanation is only as to the excess over and above the $3 billion unused authority. The clauses are the same as they were in the previous year. In essence, this bill makes available to the government $17 billion in borrowing authority this year. Again, the parliamentary secretary is shaking his head, but I ask him to read Clause 2(1). 1 will read it into the record as follows:
The Minister of Finance, with the approval of the governor in council, may, in addition to the sums now remaining unborrowed and negotiable of the loans authorized by any act of Parliament heretofore passed, borrow,-
That is up to $14 billion, in addition to that which remains unborrowed. If the practice is to have a carry-over of $3 billion, that makes $17 billion available to the government. It need not spend it all. The government hopes some miracle will happen.
Why does the government want to borrow that much? First, we are dealing with inflated figures, and second, there is the prolTlem in respect of oil prices. The government does not know whether domestic supply is going to increase sufficiently this year, let alone overcome the cutbacks imposed by the province of Alberta. Nor does it know whether there will be other substantial increases by OPEC. If that is the case, then hang on to your hat, because the size of the compensation for offshore oil will require a great deal more money. The Government of Canada will have to borrow in order to pay for it.
The government fails to recognize that the Alberta and Saskatchewan oil producers are entitled to a far more substantial price than they are getting. The domestic price for energy is artificially depressed. As the foreign price goes up, so does
March 20, 1981

the quantum of the subsidy and the government requirements are that much higher.
I know the budget provided that there shall be a levy on gasoline for the compensation account, but that is not the figure in the estimates. All that money going offshore is not an expenditure to the extent that there is money in the compensation fund. What a fine way of accounting to the people of Canada! It is for that reason the minister justifies the sort of misleading statement he made on February 25.
The government's priorities are wrong. Since October we have been involved with the question of patriating the Constitution. The question of patriation of the Constitution could have been dealt with long ago but, as we have shown in the other debate, there is a fanatical obsession on the part of one man who wants to put the provinces in their place. By devious and dubious means, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is trying to get the British Parliament to breach its responsibilities as a trustee, something not recognizable to our Prime Minister.
A much greater problem is that presented by inflation. The Bank of Canada is attempting to cope with it through its policy of high interest rates. However, it is powerless to cope with the inflation we face today; it is like a small boy trying to spit into the wind. There is far more involved in the setting of interest rates by the Bank of Canada to control the monetary supply than just the relation to that control of the interest rate. The bank cannot touch the worldwide level of increasing inflation. We have seen what it has been on the continent in the common market; 135 per cent in Israel, 300 per cent in Brazil, and equally as high in the Argentine. The Iron Curtain countries are facing this problem and we see re-evaluation of the ruble and other coinage. This is a world wide phenomena. That is one slice of inflation the Bank of Canada cannot do anything about. It cannot do anything about the increasing government expenditures, yet this is a fundamental domestic cause of inflation. The government is cheating at the federal level. Instead of $68 billion, the true expenditures amount to $80 billion. There is the same excessive spending at the provincial levels. They cover it in some ways, but it is there.
The Bank of Canada works on the M-l factor or classification which is money in circulation, money in the hands of banks and bank accounts. What about credit cards? That credit card in the pocket of each member here is the same as a bank account on which a person may write a cheque in so far as the potential demand on goods and services is concerned. They must be taken into account in determining the state of the money supply.
Cartels also have an inflationary effect on prices. There are artificial restrictions on the market supply of any commodity or service, including marketing boards, supply management and artificial quotas. There are other reasons for marketing boards and quotas, whether in foods or goods. One must remember the price that has to be paid. If the producer is to be protected, the consumer has to pay more. Those are all things that go into the inflationary spiral. It is the old bugaboo of the low-cost unit productivity in Canada. This may be the result of
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82 improper training in the labour force, and this applies not only to the blue collar worker but the white collar worker and, ultimately, management through lost time at work and strikes. We have an inglorious reputation over the past few years as far as strikes are concerned. Strikes and loss of production must also include absenteeism at the management level, such as the stolen, afternoon for a game of golf or stolen time for curling. It is all time and comes down to the bottom line. The unit cost of production is high.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired. Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to continue?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I do not need it, Mr. Speaker. I just want to say I am opposed to the bill and will vote against it.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, just so we have the facts straight before we start I should indicate that I will be voting against the bill and supporting these amendments.
In the dialogue that has taken place today between members of our party and the government, in the questions and the speeches I keep hearing the word "may"; we may borrow it; we may have $3 billion left; and if we do, we may use it in the fiscal year 1982 because there may be something that comes up that makes it awkward for the government to try to ram through another borrowing bill to carry on the governments business. That is not obstruction by the opposition parties. That is why, back when Parliament was first established, there were opposition parties to examine the King's purse and the expenditures which I am sure seemed very large to the people of the day, just as it seems unimaginable to myself and my constituents when we talk of $14 billion borrowing; not total expenditures, Mr. Speaker, but $14 billion in borrowing.
There is one point that has always bothered me since my election to this chamber, and that is with regard to financial planning, to estimates placed before committee by the government, particularly the $1 votes. When my accountant and I look at my books and we see $1 on the ledger we presume it means exactly that, the expenditure of a dollar. However, when we get into supplementary estimates, which are included, I am sure, in these "maybe" figures presented to us in the last few days, and when this bill was originally brought into the House, we also have $1 figures included in the $14 billion.
The use of $1 items by the government to accomplish a variety of things is not all bad, but some of them are outrageously bad. We have 34 $1 votes in the supplementary estimates (C) 1980-81. There are 12 votes which authorize the transfer of funds from one vote to another; five votes which authorize the payment of grants; eight votes which authorize the deletion of debts; four votes which authorize payments and guarantees; and there are five other votes for $1 which authorize reimbursement of a Wheat Board pool account, amend a previous appropriation act, increase borrowing authority and

March 20, 1981
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82
authorize transfer of an asset, ratify payments made in previous fiscal years and authorize an increased pension.
These $1 votes, Mr. Speaker, are actually used to circumvent Parliament. The question is: How can Parliament control government expenditures when a $1 vote is presented which represents expenditures considerably higher than $1? It takes dollars from one department and one program in a department and transfers the money that is left to a program other than that which it was originally presented for. On the transfers between $ 1 votes Parliament is asked to authorize the relocation of funds; thus we do have some control over spending but Parliament may scrutinize the reallocation of the spending priorities only between these votes.
1 would just like to give an example from Supplementary Estimates (B), 1980-81 where we had operating expenditures in the marine program to authorize the transfer of $3,989,999 from Public Works in the main estimates. We transferred that money by putting $1 in the figure when it came back to estimates.
The second way the $1 vote is used under the rules of this House is by modifications to existing appropriations, where a dollar vote is required to repeal the existing spending authority. You can see this in the 1979 supplementary estimates where a dollar was issued to cancel the authority to spend $1,350,340 in the Department of National Health and Welfare. Canadians are deceived when they look at estimates that are not a true reflection of how this government is spending taxpayers' money.
The third way of using the $1 vote is by grants and contingent spending authorities. In the case of a simple grant or contribution the $ I vote is used to specify a new recipient of funds, not the one mentioned in the previous estimates of the year. Although no new appropriation is required, the vote is needed to reallocate an unspecified purpose. In effect, the government receives a blank cheque for contingent spending authority because the vote in fact reads "not to exceed" a certain dollar value. Once we have approved a $1 vote there is no way of further examining the expenditures.
It seems to me that Parliament, having given up this authority, has lost some control over financial management and has not been able to get it back. I hear the hon. member on this side saying it is sloppy management procedures. I also heard him say some other things but I will not repeat them.


An hon. Member:: They are unparliamentary.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: A particularly objectionable instance of this happened in the 1976-77 supplementary estimates (D) where a single $1 vote was used to write three blank cheques, and I would like to read them into the record. In the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the trade-industrial program, $1 was used:
To authorize notwithstanding Section 5 of the National Design Council Act, the payment of remuneration to members of the National Design Council for their participation in committee meetings, planning sessions, and other related services in the course of the implementation of Design Canada programs to improve and
promote design, beyond the three mandatory council meetings, the specific amount of such remuneration to be subject to Treasury Board approval.
They wanted money from the people of Canada but they could not even tell us at that time how much. In the same program the $1 vote was used in an:
-agreement with Bombardier/MLW to purchase at a cost not exceeding $9 million the two LRC trainsets leased to Amtrak-
I am not too sure why we needed $9 million to purchase a train that was leased to an American railroad.
Again, the same $1:
to indemnify and save harmless the Canadian National Railways, from any loss up to 30 million bolivars which it may incur under the terms of the bid bond guaranteed by it in support of the bid made by the Canadian consortium Canaven Limited to participate in a railroad project in Venezuela, notwithstanding that such loss may exceed the equivalent in Canadian dollars which is estimated as of January 1, 1977, at approximately $7,500,000.
By putting in $1, Mr. Speaker, the government of the day borrowed $83,386,000 for one department in one year.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: This is why I believe the people of Canada are concerned and would be appreciative of the amendments made in the bill by the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) to eliminate expenditures made without scrutiny, explanation or input from the elected members who do not happen to sit on the government side.
This method is also used for amendments to non-money legislation and regulations. It is used to change the legal status of a government entity; to exempt a government entity from the application of a law; and to amend legislation without recourse to a bill. These methods are used to circumvent Parliament. These changes could be accomplished by bringing forward a bill for debate; but no, you can use a $1 item to circumvent the elected members of the House of Commons. By the use of the $1 vote in place of a bill, the government eliminates debate, it hides the workings of government from the people of Canada. In my opinion, this is probably one of the most repugnant uses of the $1 vote.
Now I should like to come to the other part of this amendment on non-money legislation and regulations. I am pleased to see the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) in the House because the example which comes to my mind is the one of a Crown corporation which was set up for $1, and this concerns the minister. All it said was:
Supplementary Estimates (D), 1976-77 TRANSPORT
A-Department-Surface Transportation Program
Vote 52d-Surface Transportation-with respect to surface transportation:
(a) to deem VIA Rail Canada Inc., a railway company incorporated pursuant
to Section 11 of the Railway Act,
I am not saying there is anything wrong with VIA Rail, and I know the minister understands this. We on this side have supported that program, although we would like to see it
March 20, 1981

operating a little more efficiently for the people of Canada and giving a little more service, as it was set up to do.
Already we have a proliferation of Crown corporations. Under this government, we continue to see more Crown corporations established. By establishing a Crown corporation for $1, as VIA Rail was established three years ago, the people of Canada, through their government, borrowed $854,111,698, or over three quarters of a billion dollars in three years. When a $1 item is used, we in the opposition find we have something over which in most instances we have no control. A $1 item is meant to circumvent elected members of Parliament. We find that although a form of parliamentary democracy has survived and can survive, the government's poor expenditure planning and changes in government policy can be effected by the use of $1 votes. There are no particular accounting practices; blank cheque expenditures or loan authorities continue to be hidden from the people of Canada in a devious way by the use of $1 votes.
When we come to the $14 billion borrowing authority, I wonder why it is necessary for the government to borrow that amount of money. It is something I do not understand. I cannot visualize that amount of money in my mind, nor can my constituents, 1 am sure. However, I should like to mention that while the government is asking for authority to borrow $14 billion, it is taking in revenues over the next three years under the National Energy Program about 49 per cent or $24 billion more than the government proposed to take in the budget of the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie).
When we see what the government will do with this money it is borrowing we find that, in its kindness and generosity, it has allocated $4 billion toward western development. I am sure the government will not have that cash on hand when it is needed, so it will have to be borrowed.
When we go through the budget papers, however, we find there only $2 billion. But I cannot find the $2 billion in new money. Most of the $2 billion over the next three years will come from already existing programs. We had the WEOP conference; the Western Economic Opportunities Conference in Calgary. All we had was the conference, and I am sure it did not cost $2 billion. We heard the Minister ofTransport put forward the suggestion that perhaps we could use the economic development fund, however big or small it will be, to do away with the Crow rate and to make up for it through funds from the $2 billion. There are arguments about the figure, but 1 think most of us will agree that approximately $300 million a year accrues to western Canada from the Crow rate. When you take the $300 million which western Canada now has from the Crow rate, and you add the money allocated to the Prince Rupert project, toward which this government is contributing funds under western development, and you add a few other programs, you are not even left with $1 billion; the money is in the millions.
We keep hearing about the $4 billion. I would be very curious to see whether it is part of the funds we borrowed. We are told in the House that perhaps the $4 billion will not come from borrowed funds but from the National Energy Program.
Borrowing Authority Act, / 981-82
That money comes from western Canada, it is there now. I do not quite understand why we should be pleased that the government, in its generosity, will take $37.5 billion in three years and, as they say, leave $4 billion, although my figures say $2 billion. I really do not see why we should authorize this government to borrow $14 billion for the fiscal year 1981.
One of the reasons the government has to borrow money is for government expenditures. Part of the reason for having to borrow money to cover government expenditures is that the government has not expended its money in the proper fashion.
1 should like to list briefly two or three items under government spending. Recently we discussed in the House the cost of government advertising. The government advertising budget is three times that of General Foods, which is only the second largest advertiser in the country. How does the government spend its money in advertising? The unity information office costs are about $15 million, and the energy advertising cost is about $10 million. The increase in the budget of the unity information office exceeds the total spending by the Government of Canada in the first year of confederation. That is when we did have unity in our country. The cost of last summer's campaign was $4 million. I am sure the constitutional ad campaign cost was covered by borrowed money. The original budget of that campaign was $6 million, but the final cost will probably only be $5 million.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief in my closing remarks. There is another reason the government is requesting $14 billion when it could just as well survive on $8 billion. It is requesting a $3 billion slush fund to go into fiscal 1982. This could well represent the cost overruns incurred in government departments.
The President of the Treasury Board released a list of 471 projects with cost overruns of $823 million. This list was prepared by Treasury Board at the request of the Conservative government which fell in December, 1979. Virtually every overrun occurred under the administration of the current government prior to 1979. The worst department was the Department of the Environment in which 153 out of 223 projects had cost overruns totalling $238 million. The cost overruns in this department were equal to 35 per cent of the original budget. Budgets do not mean much if departments can overrun them by 35 per cent. The list indicated that 66 projects experienced overruns. The Lachine canal project was for $45.9 million; its overrun was 90.4 per cent of budget. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development had overruns on 42 of 76 projects, or 55 per cent. There were 14 overruns in excess of $10 million and 19 overruns which exceeded 100 per cent of the original budget. Some other large

March 20, 1981
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82 overruns were $43 million for VIA Rail contracts and $26.4 million for a major postal facility in Montreal.
These are some of the reasons those of us on this side of the House feel the government should be held in check and should not be granted carte blanche to borrow more money than is needed at any time. This is why I will certainly support the amendments.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on report stage of the borrowing authority bill. I will try to answer some of the questions, as did the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) previously, and try to expand on some of the areas which hon. members opposite have indicated they still do not understand.
The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) made a comment relating to the size of the borrowing authority. He indicated it was not $14 billion, but that in fact the government would have $17 billion at its disposal should this borrowing authority bill pass. That is incorrect, as I indicated during second reading debate. In fact, the Minister of State for Finance and the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) indicated that as well.
The confusion arises from a belief that borrowing authority will be carried forward from previous years into fiscal year 1981-82, and when that is added to the $14 billion we are now requesting it will result in a substantially larger amount. The fact of the matter is that there is no remaining borrowing authority that could be carried forward into the coming Fiscal year; there will be no non-lapsing borrowing authority available as of March 31, 1981. All previous non-lapsing borrowing authority was used up by July, 1980, when we approved the previous borrowing authority bill. The borrowing authority obtained at that point was designed to lapse as of March 31, 1981. As a result, there is no borrowing authority to carry forward into the fiscal year 1981-82. The only borrowing authority which will be available to the government is the borrowing authority now being discussed in Parliament. I urge the hon. member for Edmonton West to listen more carefully when we explain that this $14 billion is the borrowing authority which will be available to the government in 1981-82. There is no more; that is all there is. 1 hope we get that point across this time.
The difference between the $11 billion financial requirements of the government shown in the budget papers and the $14 billion we are requesting in this borrowing authority was well explained by the Minister of State for Finance earlier today. The reason we are requesting that additional $3 billion is for contingency purposes. As the hon. member for Edmonton West indicated, if world prices were to suddenly rise by 50 per cent, the impact on the oil import compensation program would be substantial. This would have to be funded, so that possibility is being included in the $3 billion for contingency purposes. In addition, part of the borrowing authority, as has been the practice-not in the last two years but in the prior
years-is designed not to lapse. It can be carried forward into coming fiscal years.
When the government came into power in February of 1980, it was faced with a problem. Parliament was called, but we could not get a borrowing authority bill through the House by the end of March, 1980. Had it not been for the fact that at that time we had some available non-lapsing borrowing authority, the government would have been effectively in a position where it could not borrow or it could not finance itself during the period between the end of March, 1980, and the time when the borrowing authority bill was passed in June or July.
We are asking for that same flexibility for our government and governments in the future. Normally we would intend to bring in a borrowing authority bill in January or February, as we have done this time, to be debated in the House for the fiscal year 1982-83, and to have this non-lapsing borrowing authority carry on as a flexible, contingent emergency measure, not to be used as is indicated by the financial requirements in the budget.
The estimates which were brought down clearly indicate the financial requirements. They will be approved by Parliament. Those are the spending authorities for the government. The borrowing authority is being requested to finance the difference between the revenues of the government and the expenditure plan, which is the financial requirement. It is quite proper and right; it is the way things have been done for many years. I expect it to be that way in the future.
The hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) indicated earlier that because of the government's borrowing, it is crowding the private sector out of capital markets. All the evidence I have seen indicates that crowding out is not taking place. First, crowding out is not a very relevant concept. It assumes that the amount of available money for lending and borrowing in the economy is static, that it does not grow, that it does not expand and, as a result, if the government takes more there must be less for the business community and the business community must do with less. That is not the way in which the market system works.
In the market system there is the real rate of interest, which is the rate of interest paid, minus the inflation rate; it is the real gain people obtain from saving. If the real rate of interest goes up, then people will be induced to consume less today and save more. That expands the quantity of loanable funds. So, as the real rate of return goes up the supply of loanable funds increases. Therefore, there is a very clear test to see whether or not the federal government borrowing is crowding out-to use that phrase again, albeit improperly-or squeezing the private sector. The simple test is to look at whether or not the real rate of interest in the economy has been going up over time.
It just so happens that in the latest annual report of the Bank of Canada for 1980, which was tabled just a few days ago, we see on page 18 a diagram of the real rate of interest from the period 1970 to 1980. We find that the real rate of
March 20, 1981

interest all during that time-frame has stayed below the average real rate of interest in the period 1956 to 1970. In fact, there is no trend, as shown by this document, which would indicate an increase in the real rate of interest. If there is no increase in the real rate of interest, that implies that the volume of loanable funds in the economy is sufficient to meet the demands of both the private sector and the public sector, without putting undue pressure on that supply. As a result, the crowding out theory put forward by the hon. member for Mississauga South is totally fallacious. I would suggest he go back and do his homework again.


Mr. Malone:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have noted with great interest the points just made by the parliamentary secretary. I wonder if he would entertain a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the parliamentary secretary entertain a question?


John Leslie Evans: Yes, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact I will.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I have heard the description the parliamentary secretary is using to explain how interest rates might be quite different by using his calculations of averaging. As a Liberal Member of Parliament, would the hon. member say that if a person had his head on a block of ice and his feet in the firebox that, on the average, he would feel pretty good?


John Leslie Evans: Given that most of the members opposite have their heads not on a block of ice but elsewhere, I would suggest that, on the average, that is not the case.
The document I have here from the Bank of Canada indicates the average annual rate. I would not want to mislead the hon. member. The figure is there, as is the diagram, for the hon. member to see. I suggest he look at the document. I know the hon. member for Mississauga South has a copy of it because when the deputy governor of the Bank of Canada appeared before the finance committee these documents were distributed at that time.
I would like to deal with another point, Mr. Speaker. We heard earlier with regard to the borrowing authority that the government was spending massively and that the government's forecasting abilities in the October 28 budget were very bad, according to members opposite. I would like to indicate that we have dealt with this subject before. Apparently, hon. members opposite are trying to leave the impression that their ability to forecast is much better than the forecasting ability on this side of the House. The figures given in the 1979 budget of the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) were drastically different from the figures showing what actually happened in that fiscal year. The increases in world oil prices, which took place subsequent to the submission of that budget, and the increases in interest rates, which were not anticipated by the hon. member for St. John's West, and the recession which was worse than he had anticipated, have all been admitted to by the hon. member for St. John's West. I see hon. members opposite are shaking their heads, Mr. Speaker.
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82


Arnold John Malone: That is right, because the recession took place after the Liberals came back.


John Leslie Evans: As a result of those three factors, the deficit and financial requirements of the hon. member for St. John's West were understated in his budget by anywhere from $2.5 billion to $3 billion. This notion of fiscal responsibility and the ability to forecast so well is a total ruse being put forward by hon. members opposite.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. For the record, 1 think we must clear the misimpression that the parliamentary secretary has left. When he says there is any overstatement, what he is totally ignoring is the restraint program we had put in place with respect to spending. The truth is the government has ignored that restraint program and the trend line that we are now on for expenditures is exactly the same line that we knew we had to face, but had the courage to do something about.


Some hon. Members:: Right on!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This appears to be a matter of argument.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I agree with you, it is argument, and not a very good one.
The fact of the matter is that the budget of the hon. member for St. John's West reflected that wonderful restraint program which the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) was about to bring into play. What I am saying is that even with that restraint program, changes in world events would have increased the financial requirements of that government to an amount that is higher than our forecast financial requirements for the fiscal year 1980-81. I will show the figures to the hon. member for York-Peel if he would care to see them.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Table them!


John Leslie Evans: If the hon. member will look back to the debate on the borrowing authority at the second reading stage he will find that those figures are tabled.
There have been some discussions by the hon. member for Edmonton West with regard to oil prices. I think we all agree that the oil import compensation program is costing the government, and the taxpayers, a substantial amount of money and, in fact, oil prices will have to go up. I want to clarify my understanding of what the hon. member is saying, which is that he would like to see oil prices increase much faster. If I am incorrect I hope the hon. member will correct me. I see he is nodding his head in agreement.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: They should, have gone up a long time ago.


John Leslie Evans: He wants to see the prices increase faster than would have been the case under the program of the hon. member for St. John's West. I just thought I should put that on the record, Mr. Speaker.

March 20, 1981
Remuneration Tribunal
With regard to spending control, Mr. Speaker, we have talked about the ceiling on our borrowing authority. It is a case of six of one and half a dozen of the other. If you put a ceiling on the total amount you can borrow, and if you put a ceiling on the amount of increment that you can add to your total borrowing, you are controlling. We come before Parliament every year with that kind of control figure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, thanks to the parliamentary secretary I am left with only a minute to speak. It does not give me much of an opportunity other than to throw out a few lines. I would just like to mention the minister's-


Yvon Pinard: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With the hon. gentleman agreeing that one minute is a short time, maybe he would agree that we deal with the report stage now and third reading?


Some hon. Members:: No!


Yvon Pinard: 1 just wanted it to be clear, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, I just want to get my one line in. The Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) talked about circus jugglers. I would like to congratulate his government for being the greatest among circus jugglers. It is amazing that they are able to accomplish this with the number of clowns they have on their benches.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 4 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills, private bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all orders preceding No. 42 stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PARLIAMENTARY AND SENIOR PUBLIC SERVANTS' SALARIES AND ALLOWANCES
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of establishing a Remuneration Tribunal composed of at least three full time members who shall occupy their posts during good behaviour, and whose duties shall include the annual review and report to Parliament on remuneration, allowances of all natures, entitlements and pensions payable to ministers, senators, members of Parliament, office-holders of the Parliament, holders of office at the executive level of the public service and the equivalent holders of public offices.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I sometimes feel that there are days when the fortunes do smile upon us. Rarely can an hon. member put forward an idea contained in a notice of motion four times within the period of one year, but such has been the case. I am grateful to the fates that have allowed me to do this. Today I want to speak about something to which I adverted at length during the second reading on Bill C-34, an act to amend the salaries of judges. We looked at this in some considerable detail in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, I was able to speak about it on another occasion earlier this year, as well as at the time of the adjournment debate last year. It is singularly apposite that we are discussing it today.
In April there were changes in some of the salaries of senior public servants. Judges have just received increased salaries as provided in Bill C-34. I accepted the level of pay with some reluctance. There did not seem to be principles contained in that bill upon which the salaries related to those of other persons in senior public service. We should be able to bring these together on some sort of rational basis.
As I have indicated before, the salaries and entitlements of deputy ministers at the executive level of the public service are based on what the cabinet considers to be acceptable as a result of the report of an advisory committee which has been known, for the past few years, as the Lambert commission, named after its chairman. There are those who hold privy council appointments through the office of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I fail to discern any real and objective principle for determining their scale of pay and benefits. I suppose, as a rough rule of thumb, it may have some bearing on their senior executive level in the public service.
There are those people who are most underpaid in the country, starting with the Prime Minister, cabinet ministers, Members of Parliament, and senators! People may say some are overpaid, but that is a global criticism. Those who raise this question are usually jealous. That is from where the chief criticism comes. It is natural, and we expect it.
During the nearly 25 years I have been in the House of Commons, I have seen scores of cabinet ministers leave here with their health burned out due to excessive pressures of office. Not only must they do a terrific job of administration, but they must also relate to other Members of Parliament, and they must always proceed at full bore. They must also be politicians, looking at their constituencies; they are always
March 20, 1981

under the constant microscope of the people. The classic example of underpay and non-reward in this country is found in the office of the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It is a great honour to be Prime Minister, but, when we consider that presidents of corporations receive up to $300,000 in salary and benefits and that presidents of Crown corporations can make well in excess of $100,000, why is it that the Prime Minister gets a measly $80,000-odd? This is just a total reversal of the scale of values. That is the toughest job in the country. The amount of abuse which has to be taken by the occupant of the office is something to behold. Regardless of that, if you cannot stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. But on the other hand, he or she who levels that undeserved criticism or that blasphemous language, or what have you, is not thinking of that relationship in terms of the man who occupies that office.
Some people say, "Well, look, judges got $70,000 as of April 1, 1980, or $67,000 if they were in the county court." However, that is their sole source of income. As a lawyer, I would be the first to admit, that a corporate lawyer who earns maybe $125,000 or $150,000 before taxes might be the worst judge in the world. On the other hand, the man who makes only $45,000 or $50,000 from a small town practice could be one of the better judges because he may combine common sense with a sense of justice. He may learn how to be a good judge.
In justifying high rates of pay for lawyers, leaders of the Canadian Bar Association and other administrators of justice all too often ask how we will get the quarter million dollar man down into a court. Again, I would say that the quarter million dollar man is not necessarily the man who will be the good judge.
I was part of a large law firm, the senior earning partner of which said he would make the world's worst judge. He was the first to admit that. He would refuse to hear certain kinds of cases. He could not abide going into court to listen to what he called "domestic squabbles." He never felt comfortable with a case which involved personal injury. So the presumption cannot be made that a man who earns a big salary as a lawyer is qualified to be a judge.
1 think we should compare the relative positions of these people. More than 20 years ago when I came to this House, a parliamentary secretary earned the same salary as a county court judge. Perhaps in total the judge earned more because he was given a surrogate allowance for handling the chancery side of the court, but the basic salary was the same. As of last April, that judge would be earning $67,000 per year and in a number of provinces would be receiving surrogate fees as well. This is particularly so in Alberta where there is only one level of court and the judge's salary is $70,000. On top of that, those who do surrogate work are paid the relevant fees.
The question is, what determines that level and the size of the increase that should be given? At the moment, there is
Remuneration Tribunal
built into the Judges Act a provision for a 7 per cent per annum increase or an increase equivalent to that which pertains to industrial wages. With all due respect, industrial wages have as much relevance to the salaries of lawyers and professional people as cheese has to oranges. It is not an appropriate scale to use for comparison, nor is it appropriate that it be applied to Members of Parliament.
As my studies indicated, with a 7 per cent increase for 15 years, by 1995 the salary would be $194,000. That is mind-boggling. If we all have to face inflation on that scale, then senior citizens will draw about $500 per month in old age security, by 1995! That will not mean they will be any better off, of course.
Not long ago the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) produced a 20 billion mark note from the old Weimar Republic, issued before the balloon went up in 1923. Imagine, a little piece of paper being worth 20 billion marks. The government does not even use that kind of figure in its inflated budgets. All these things must be brought together.
I propose that we should follow the Australian example and adapt it where need be. We should establish a remuneration review tribunal composed of three persons. In Australia such people are appointed for five years but I would suggest that in this country they be appointed "on good behaviour."
In Australia the persons involved must not be connected in any way with government; must not have served elective office for seven years; must not be part of the public service and the chairman must be a judge of a state court or one who is entitled to be appointed to a state court. The equivalent in Canada would be a provincial judge. The review board places annual announcements in the national press that it will receive representations with regard to a number of stated offices. It then hears representations and the government must appear before the board as a party. The board examines all the relevant data and in some instances representations may be passed over. The judges may appear before the board but not seek an increase for a particular year, or the government may rule that as the industrial increase in a certain year was 4 per cent the judges are entitled to the same increase. The government may also hold that certain categories should receive an increase. In any event, everything is out in the open.
The review tribunal makes its findings with regard to all the categories of persons upon whose salaries it must adjudicate. The report is tabled in Parliament and within 15 days the recommendation goes into effect unless more than 50 per cent of members of the House of Representatives and the Senate sign a motion to oppose it. When I was in Australia in 1975, that is precisely what happened. All the salary increases were deferred for one year.
In addition to salaries, the tribunal sets emoluments; for instance, such privileges as transportation for the wife or children of a Member of Parliament or a senator. Overseas travel is ruled upon by the tribunal but, strangely enough, pensions are not. In some states, the remuneration of the premier and cabinet ministers are also ruled upon.

March 20, 1981
Remuneration Tribunal
In this country this thankless task could be removed from Parliament and the public would feel that not only had justice been done for this whole category of people but that it would appear to have been done. I think that is one of the difficulties with the present system. I do not subscribe to the argument that it is morally wrong for Members of Parliament to set their own salaries. That happens all the time in the business world. In many instances, people adjudicate upon matters where one might think there would be a conflict of interest. For instance, in this House members who are farmers assist in setting the level of subsidy to be paid on a particular crop or set the price of wheat or cattle. There are other things to be determined by members as groups. We see that at all levels, the school board, the city council, the county council level or what have you. It is the nature of the beast that it has to be done. Sometimes it is a difficult thing, but I hope this proposal I have made will be accepted.
I hope a House committee will take up this matter and carry it further to see whether or not it is practical. It is practical enough for the Australians. Since 1973, when the system was implemented there, it has worked well and it has been copied in New Zealand. New Zealand now has a body dealing with high level salaries. New Zealand pretty well deals with salaries all the way through to its tribunals. New Zealand has this higher level, and I am told by parliamentarians and diplomats that the system seems to be working well and has a degree of acceptability by the population.
I commend this resolution to hon. members for further consideration. I hope that rather than just talking it out, we might be able to handle it in some way so it could be given further consideration. Maybe we can get around to doing it now. The Senate and House of Commons Act, as it provides for the salaries of members of this House-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must interrupt the hon. member because he has exceeded his allotted time. The hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne).


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate this afternoon. First, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) for putting this motion on the Order Paper for debate. I think it is a very worth-while motion. It is something on which we should focus as Members of Parliament. However, I have a few questions which I will outline. I am not questioning this in any critical sense, only in a positive way. The motion says, in referring to the duties of the tribunal, the following:
-shall include the annual review and report to Parliament-
But the motion does not say that Parliament would have authority to alter the motion or whether it would simply have to accept or reject it, as is the case in Australia.
The motion also lists several groups whose salaries the tribunal would review. They are as follows:
-ministers, senators. Members of Parliament, office-holders of the Parliament, holders of office at the executive level of the public service and the equivalent holders of Public Offices.
1 wonder whether the hon. member would wish to include in that category judges for whom, as he noted, this Parliament had recently granted increases in salary? He did not mention what qualifications he would like to see for members of this tribunal. For instance, would he want a member of that tribunal to be a judge? Would he want a former Member of this Parliament to sit on that tribunal? Would he ask a former member of a provincial legislature to be a member of the tribunal? Those are the kinds of questions I would like him to address. I realize, of course, those questions can be addressed in committee. I am not criticizing the motion, I am simply pointing out some of the questions I have about it.
I agree with the hon. member in his assessment that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), ministers of the Crown, members of this House, and I believe of provincial Houses-in some cases at least-are not being adequately paid for the time they put in. I know it is a difficult matter for members to talk about. Personally, I do not have a lot of difficulty with the argument of some people that we should not be increasing our own salaries. The major argument I have, which I suppose could be a bit embarrassing, is that this matter is dealt with so unexpeditiously by this Parliament. When it is dealt with, usually a fairly significant increase is granted. This makes it look as though all of a sudden Members of Parliament have become very greedy. If this matter were reviewed on an annual basis, and maybe if we had not tampered with the formula which was enacted in 1975, we might not be in a position today where we are discussing this kind of motion.
As the hon. member for Edmonton West pointed out, it would be useful to look at some of the methods used in other countries. He referred to Australia and New Zealand. As 1 understand it, the situation in Australia is pretty much the way the hon. member described it. However, I want to add to what he said, that the act in Australia contains provision for Parliament to accept or reject the actions of the commission, but not to modify them. On the other hand, in New Zealand, there is a higher salaries commission. It has declaratory powers with respect to the compensation of senior public servants, heads of Crown corporations and Members of Parliament. It also acts in an advisory capacity for judicial salaries. There is no provision for review of its actions by Parliament. In other words, it is supreme in its recommendations. Whether we would want that in Canada is something which would require a considerable amount of reflection and debate.
In the United Kingdom there is a top salaries review body which is advisory in nature to the prime minister. I would judge from that that the prime minister or the government of the day would still have to bring before parliament a bill to implement the decisions of the top salaries review body. It consists of various panels and it deals with the compensation of the senior public service, the heads of nationalized industries, the judiciary, senior military ranks, Members of Parliament- and hon. members will note that Members of Parliament are in the list of priorities-doctors and dentists of the national
March 20, 1981

health service and other ranks of the armed forces. Those are three examples of what is done in other systems with the British parliamentary system of democracy.
It might be useful for us as well to take a detailed look at what some of the provincial legislatures in the country do. I will not go into that in detail, except to say it is my understanding that in some of the provinces members of provincial legislatures are earning more in salaries and benefits than Members of Parliament at the national level. That tells us something regarding our position, vis-a-vis other levels of government in Canada. Even at the municipal level, some mayors are being paid, if not more, at least on a level equivalent to cabinet ministers and, in some cases I believe, equivalent to the Prime Minister. That situation raises some questions in my mind.
The hon. member for Edmonton West spoke also of the comparability between salaries of Members of Parliament and county court judges. He recounted that when he came here the salary of a parliamentary secretary was comparable to a county court judge. That is no longer the case. However, what I would be more concerned about is the disparity in salaries between Members of Parliament and members of the public service. I do not say that in any way to begrudge civil servants their salaries.
It strikes me as rather odd that some deputy ministers earn more than their ministers. If the figures I have are correct, the Clerk of the Privy Council earns more than the Prime Minister, as do the heads of Crown corporations. If we are to have good people to head our Crown corporations, obviously we must pay them good salaries. If we are to have good deputy ministers, the managers of our public service, we must pay them comparable to what they would earn in the private sector, or that is where they would go.
I do not suggest that a Member of Parliament should earn as much as a deputy minister. It is not that I do not think a Member of Parliament is not worth as much, but if we are to have good deputy ministers, the major managers of our public service, the business of the country, they must be well paid. If they are not well paid, they will go to private industry. We are lucky to have the calibre of people we do at the senior management level of our public service.
I believe it says something for our system when information officers in departments of government earn the equivalent salary of a Member of Parliament. That seems to be getting down fairly well in the pecking order of the various departments. If a position is at the level at which a Member of Parliament is paid, that is the level of importance that will be attached to the role of a Member of Parliament.
It is often forgotten by those who write facile commentaries about the salaries and benefits Members of Parliament receive and the role they play what the workload is and the number of hours actually worked. We constantly hear the charge that there are very few members here in the House. There are not many here right now. I am not critical of that situation on
Remuneration Tribunal
most occasions. While there may only be a relatively small number in the chamber, 80 or 100 members may be required for committees. On a Friday afternoon most members head back to their constituencies where they have to work the other two days of the week. For most members, their work week is seven days, almost every day of the year. If members were to determine the hourly rate for the number of hours they work, some would be receiving only the minimum wage. Long before I was elected, I believed that Members of Parliament should be paid a reasonable salary and that all expenses incurred in the performance of their duties should be covered from public funds. I would apply that principle to members of provincial legislatures and those serving on municipal councils.
1 would object to Members of Parliament, members of legislatures and municipal councils being paid exorbitant salaries. I do not believe anyone should become wealthy by serving in public life, but neither should he be poverty stricken. Their children should not be denied a good education and as good a life as their contemporaries. That has happened with some Members of Parliament in the past and is happening now.
In some cases widows of former Members of Parliament have suffered grievously from financial instability. There are cases of members being defeated before accumulating significant pension benefits. In fact, some accumulate no benefits at all. Some have been unable to find other employment quickly. There are employers who consider service in the Parliament of Canada a detriment to employment. That situation should not pertain because someone has served in public life.
There are numerous ways in which the problem can be resolved. It should not be left to Parliament. In the past six and a half years Parliament has been reluctant to deal with the issue of members' salaries and services. While I do not have that reluctance, I can understand it. We owe the public an explanation of what we are doing and some justification for the level of our salary. I repeat it should be a salary that is defensible but not exorbitant.
We recently gave final approval to a bill which provides for a triennial review of judicial compensation by an advisory panel which will report to the Minister of Justice. Perhaps we should have a similar arrangement for Members of Parliament. In his motion, the hon. member suggests a tribunal of three. I feel there should be more members, but that may not be necessary if they are full time. It would be interesting to see the level of remuneration paid to that tribunal.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The same level as judges.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: The hon.
member says the same level as judges. That would seem to be a reasonable level for that kind of important position. They would have to be in a comparable range with others doing the same kind of work. They should not be overpaid. The public must respect their judgment and not call them into question every time they bring in a report. I would like to know whether their report would have to be judged in Parliament, imposed, or whether it could be rejected.

March 20, 1981
Remuneration Tribunal
Those are my basic views on the motion. 1 compliment the hon. member for bringing the motion before the House for debate. I hope it will go to committee for detailed study and a report back to the House.


Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 1 suspect there is nothing more predictable in this place than the view I shall express with regard to the matter being discussed during this private members' hour. The matter before us in the motion presented by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has to do with the appointment of a tribunal to review salaries of Members of Parliament and various other categories. But I think it is fair to say that most of the discussion by the two members who have spoken thus far has been in defence of higher salaries for Members of Parliament. As I say, I imagine that my view on this is thoroughly predictable, in fact 1 hope it is. I also know it is not exactly a popular view in this place, but I have said many times and still feel that one of the ways we can demonstrate to Canadians that we have come here to serve them is to be much more careful about what we think should be our emoluments, benefits and pensions.
It is easy for us to say that those who criticize our salaries, benefits and pensions are just people who like to criticize or they are jealous, but the fact is that this institution exists to serve the people of Canada and that phrase "the people of Canada" includes millions who are having a tough time; not just the pensioners, widows and veterans on whose behalf 1 speak most often, but many working families, including those where both parents work, and I think in some way we need to demonstrate that we are concerned about them first.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, there is something wrong with me, but that is why I came here. It is a story 1 have told on occasion and I may have occasion to tell it again, but not today. I came because I was concerned about what was happening to people. 1 know that 1 speak about the 1930s and early 1940s when I came here, but I have the feeling that every time we get up and defend higher salaries and better benefits for ourselves we widen the gulf between ourselves and the people out there.
As the two hon. members, I am not advocating that we should be at the poverty level or that our salaries should be much lower than they are now, but I do not think it would hurt us to try and establish the proposition that we come here to be of service. I would hate to see the day when the salaries paid here are so attractive that men and women would be encouraged to come here just because it is a good paying job. It would be far better for us to emphasize the proposition that what this place needs is men and women dedicated to the service of their fellow creatures and the well-being of their country, those who are prepared to sacrifice a little bit to render that service.
I find it difficult to use that word because it is not a sacrifice at the level of pay we receive even now, and it goes up by 7 per cent every year. It is not, as one member said, a case of
waiting a long while before there is an adjustment. That used to be so, but for the last several years it has been 7 per cent each January, and to use the comparison made by the hon. member for Edmonton West at that rate our pay will be way up in the stratosphere before long. I plead that we establish the principle that you come to Parliament to be of service, and prepared to work for a little less than you might be able to get somewhere out there.
Mind you, I think that is a bit of a myth. It is so often said that people are working here for a lot less than they could make elsewhere. Well, maybe that applies to some of the lawyers and doctors who are here. I certainly never said that. I have had more pay in this place than I ever had in the jobs I had before coming here, and you can laugh at that because the salaries at that time were nothing compared to salaries today.
I thought it was touching for the hon. member for Edmonton West to be concerned about the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I respect that office and its occupant but we are paying him something in excess of $80,000 a year, we provide him with a very nice house, everything found, and he makes lots of trips. If the day comes when he retires, and there are people in this country who hope that day is not far away-


An hon. Member:: Not too many.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -he will have-Well, my hon. friend says "a small pension." Having been a member for at least six years, he has his parliamentary pension; having been Prime Minister for more than four years he will have a prime minister's pension, equivalent to a judge's pension. He will also have his old age security pension and Canada Pension Plan, and all of these pensions will be indexed. Say all you want about that not being much compared to what Ian Sinclair of the CPR can get, or even some of the benefits that may accrue to public servants, but to the Canadians who vote for us that is pretty good.
As for ourselves, some members complain about the level of salaries and so on. However, we should take into consideration all the other things that come our way. I suppose I am more conscious of them because when I came here I could not get something mimeographed unless I got Arthur Beauchesne's signature on it. Telephone calls and the like were not even on the list, and as for travel we had a railway pass good at any time, but we got our out of pocket travelling expenses only twice a year. So we have come a long way. Then there is the help we get with constituency offices, the literature we can send out and one of the best pensions in the country. I know it takes awhile to get it up very far, but as long as you have six years you get the pension for life, no matter what your age may be.
1 suppose this is a debate we may have on some other occasion if a certain proposal comes in, and I do not expect members to agree, they never do, but I want to put the damper on this notion that Members of Parliament are hard done by. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, 1 was a little surprised the debate took this turn. When I looked at the motion of the hon. member I assumed we would be debating the creation of a
March 20, 1981

remuneration tribunal in strictly relevant terms. I said to myself: I wonder if I can veer a little bit from that and start talking about our salaries. 1 did not have to; the whole debate has been on that subject. I just want to say, if you will, it is the same old view I have always had. Maybe you can pick holes in it, but I want to put a damper on the idea of higher pay. I would like at least one voice in this place to say to the people out there that I think it is a privilege to serve in this place. You cannot pay us for it.
My hon. friend is quite right in talking about the hours, 14 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year. You cannot pay for that. All of us know, too, that there is another price we pay, and that is the difficulties of family life, being away from one's wife and children and so on. The sacrifices made in that area around this place are tremendous. Even if you raise the salary to $100,000 or $200,000 a year, you cannot pay for that.
This brings me back to my feeling that the main purpose in coming here should be to serve the country. I do not want it to be established that you try to get here because it is a good job with good pay, good benefits, and all the rest. Rather, this is the place where people are needed because they are dedicated.
Having used all this time to talk about what is not in the motion, having been prompted to do so by the last two speakers, I should like to say a word about the motion itself. I think the idea of an independent tribunal which would look at all these salaries has merit. However, I attach two conditions to it. First, the recommendations of the tribunal should be subject to parliamentary approval. One or perhaps both hon. members said what they would like to do is get away from raising our own salaries. Mr. Speaker, we cannot divest ourselves of that responsibility. Even if we merely set up a tribunal and never have to pronounce on what it has done, the fact is that we set it up and give it the authority. We will not be able to say in the future, as the children of Israel said to Moses-my knowledge of the Scriptures is becoming somewhat rusty-


An hon. Member:: Shame.


An hon. Member:: Just when they have become important.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is right. Moses had been away and the children of Israel produced the golden calf so they could worship it. He chided them for it, and they said to him, "It is not our fault; we just put in the gold and out came the calf". We cannot divest ourselves of that responsibility. We can say that we passed it to someone else, but it does not work that way.
The second condition I would attach to this committee is that the terms of reference for that tribunal should be drawn up very carefully. I do not want it manned or womaned by high-priced judges, high-priced lawyers or high-priced corporate executives, as we have done in the past. I can think of some who have brought down reports that were tremendous. I
Remuneration Tribunal
think there would have to be, on any such tribunal, some pretty good representative Canadians like workers, farmers, school teachers, and maybe even a pensioner or two. On that score I would want more than three members. I think somewhere, in whatever legislation there might be to set up such a tribunal, there have to be words, even if they are words that are in the nature of a preamble, which would remind the tribunal that its purpose is to keep in mind why people come to Parliament, why they become cabinet ministers or judges. The answer to that is that they come to these positions, not to get oodles of money, but to serve the country. I think the rewards for that service, even though it may be tough and you may have to stay at it for years and years, are tremendous; you cannot match that with pay.
I expected just to say 1 support the idea of a tribunal with the two provisos, one that Parliament should be responsible, and two, that it should have the necessary terms of reference, but I am grateful to my colleagues for having made the speeches they did in order that I could express once again the views every member in this House knows I hold.


Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) I had anticipated we would be speaking about the splendid recommendation of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). The problem we have faced around here is not only in dealing with our own salaries but, as the hon. member has -indicated, in coming up with some principle that will guide governments, the tribunal or us in our deliberations about comparability and what is appropriate in the circumstances with respect to salaries.
I have not been here as long as the hon. member for Edmonton West or the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, though a little longer than the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne), but it seems to me in the 12 or 13 years I have been around here it has been like trying to grab a handful of fog when trying to determine what would be the appropriate compensation for a Member of Parliament. I know it has been said there are too many lawyers in Parliament, the fact is that the kind of work to be done here requires, in many cases, a certain degree of education or ability to do a specific job. Everyone who comes to the House brings necessary talent or a skill. But if there are so many lawyers and if they form a nucleus, it seems to me that compensation somewhat comparable to that of the legal profession might not be too far out of line.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says he came here to serve. I think every Member of Parliament can stand in his or her place and say exactly the same. The hon. member said that the cut in pay he took was not really all that great; that, as a matter of fact, he is doing very nicely, thank you. I believe at one stage he was a United Church minister. 1 know how hard my father fought to increase the salaries of United Church ministers because, like everyone else, United Church ministers not only have the opportunity to serve, they also have families to look after and children to put through university. There may be a vicarious thrill for the spouse and children in

March 20, 1981
Remuneration Tribunal
the fact that their husband and father is in the United Church ministry or in the House of Commons, but that does not pay the bills when it comes time for university education or some other kind of necessary training.
We did make financial sacrifices to come here. That is true of many of us who came to this chamber. To try to determine the degree of financial sacrifice we were asked to make or the degree of compensation to be paid to someone who never made that much money before in their life, is extremely difficult. Do we measure it in terms of hours spent, in terms of our dedication, or in terms of the length of time spent here?
One of the great things about the House of Commons and the pay scale here is the fact that all Members of Parliament are paid the same. By that I mean backbench members are all paid the same. We recognize the importance a member on the government side brings to his portfolio or to his job. We say it is equally important that we have a strong and effective opposition. So, very clearly, those particular tasks are the same and should receive comparable compensation.
I like the idea of a tribunal and I think all the questions asked by both the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi should be dealt with at committee stage. They were both very careful not to say an MP should get "X" number of dollars a year. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said the compensation should not be too high, and the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi said it should not be exorbitant, beyond that which is reasonable. Neither of them put a figure
on it, but somebody has to do that. The responsibility is ours. Surely when a tribunal such as this has to make a decision, it has to go into the background of MPs and what we are required to do. Only in that way can its members come up with a figure which, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said, not only is just but is seen to be just.
1 do not wish to talk this out, Mr. Speaker, because I believe it has considerable merit. The questions which have been asked here are questions which should be asked in the committee, if the recommendation is referred to the committee.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, unlike my friend, the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen), 1 am prepared to talk out this motion for one good reason. The fact is that the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) is, through his motion, embarking on an unprecedented course of action which could cause a great many problems. The motion would set up a commission which would deal not only with MPs' salaries but with public service salaries. So far as I am concerned, there is a dangerous link-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.
It being five o'clock, the House stands adjourned until Monday at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, March 23, 1981