1981-02-16

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Lithuania became an independent democratic nation on February 16, 1918. It lost that status in 1940 when the country was occupied by the U.S.S.R. Today Lithuanians who live in the free world celebrate their independence day. Therefore, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche):
That this House recognize the sixty-second anniversary of the declaration of the independence of Lithuania, and join with those Lithuanians who seek an end to Soviet aggression and a return of Lithuania to a free and democratic society.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to seek the unanimous consent of the House on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas 1,200 women met this weekend on Parliament Hill to discuss the proposed charter of rights and to ensure that equality for women is enshrined in the constitution, and since these women represented all the provinces and regions of Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean):
That this House congratulate the organizers of the Conference on Women and the Constitution who mobilized, in less than two weeks, this forceful and effective demonstration of women's determination to achieve full equality in our Canadian society.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PROFESSIONAL STAFF FOR INUVIK GENERAL HOSPITAL-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to introduce the following motion. In spite of the fact that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) has been notified for some time that there has been no anaesthetist and no back-up surgeon at the federally run Inuvik General Hospital since Christmas, thereby not only forcing general surgery patients but also maternity cases to be evacuated to Edmonton some 1,300 miles away, and because the situation remains unchanged and critical, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp):
That a full complement of professional staff be provided for the Inuvik, Northwest Territories, General Hospital, the only hospital within 600 miles, before patients die as a result of the minister's inaction.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HOLIDAYS ACT
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and seconded by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae), I move:
That this House recognizes that this is Heritage Day, and that congratulations are in order to all those who are celebrating it, including schools, local and national groups and the Governor General, and this House expresses its earnest hope that the government will soon call its own Bill C-37, an act to amend the Holidays Act, for second reading, and that it will agree to an amendment thereto so that starting in 1982 Heritage Day will be a national holiday for all the people of Canada.

February 16, 1981


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Given the double whammy dealt to Canadian consumers last Friday with news of the highest monthly increase in the cost of living in six years, coupled with the outrageous proposed hike by Bell Canada on residential telephones, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid):
That the Prime Minister show some concern for inflation's devastating impact on those Canadians who are least able to protect themselves, and appoint a new minister of consumer affairs who will devote full time to the welfare of consumers in this country.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIR SAFETY
Mr. Peter Ittinuar (Nunatsiaq):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Over five years have lapsed since the signing of the James Bay and northern Quebec agreement. Subsection 29.0.30 of that agreement states that Canada and Quebec shall, together with the Inuit communities, undertake studies respecting air services, as soon as possible. The conditions of airstrips in northern Quebec are below standard. The Akulivik airstrip is 366 metres by 30 metres, Beilin 350 metres by 20 metres, and in Port-Nouveau-Quebec the airstrip has been classified by the Quebec government as dangerous. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That the Minister of Transport initiate studies on air services in Arctic Quebec immediately, and that he take responsibility for rectifying the deplorable conditions that exist there.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
*
* *



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Madam Speaker, in conformity with Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity I rise to move a motion which affects the individual members, not the government or the parties, and accordingly I am seeking the unanimous consent of all members irrespective of party affiliation.
In view of a temporary lessening in interest in private members' business, as illustrated by the difficulty in finding members willing to proceed with their public bills or motions, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy):
That commencing next Monday, February 23, 1981, and continuing on those days on which the constitutional debate is the order of business and for the duration of the debate, the private members' hour be suspended.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXPORTS OF BABY FOOD TO THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES- MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. On December 15, 1980, I wrote to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) expressing my concern about Canadian companies marketing baby formulas to Third World countries in spite of the social and economic consequences thereof. In his reply to me the minister stated that the Canadian government has worked to "achieve international agreement recommendations that will bring about voluntary compliance by international companies". I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That the minister state in the House what evidence there is to support his belief that these companies will voluntarily comply with regulations that would reduce their share of the export market.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
February 16, 1981


FISHERIES
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. I have some reason to hope that 1 can get unanimous consent for the following motion. In light of the publication of new regulations governing the fisheries on the west coast, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon):
That the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry be provided immediately with an order of reference that will allow it to examine the new Fisheries regulations for the sports fishery and herring roe fishery on the west coast and report back to the House.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: There is unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


Madam Speaker:: I just heard a no.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The Leader of the New Democratic Party is alleged to have told a Montreal audience on the weekend that a vast majority of his NDP caucus would vote with the government on the Constitution proposals but that a few would follow their conscience and oppose the government. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie):
That the leader of the socialists be asked to clarify the innuendo that those who do vote with the government may be doing so at variance with their consciences, that their illegitimate relationship with the Grits may have fuddle-duddled their thinking.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to remind the House that this is the one hundredth birthday of Canadian Pacific. In view of the fact that CP Limited made $582 million profit last year resulting from assets given to it by the Canadian people, and since the CPR claims that its side of the bargain, including the Crowsnest Pass agreement, is a burden too onerous, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That this House wishes CP Limited unhappy birthday and calls upon the government to bring Canadian Pacific Limited under public ownership, return its assets to the people of Canada, and retire its board of directors, including old blue eyes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question would have been to the Minister of Justice had he been here. In his absence I will direct my question to the Prime Minister.
The Minister of Justice, on several occasions this weekend, was reported as saying that he will not be considering new amendments of substance to the charter of rights. The Prime Minister will be aware that at a conference this weekend hundreds of women from across the country put forward proposals for major changes to the charter. What I would like to ask the Prime Minister is a very simple question. Was the minister ruling out in advance, on behalf of his government, all the changes that have been proposed to the charter by the women who met in Ottawa this weekend?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I have not seen the statement by the Minister of Justice, but it seems, from the quote given by the hon. lady, that he is saying the same thing as I said, that we are not considering any amendments. However, we know that some amendments may be moved in this House. Of course we will see if they are an improvement to the resolution or not, and we

February 16, 1981
Oral Questions
will make our judgment in consequence. For instance, I have not seen the particular resolutions from the meeting held over the weekend, but I am prepared to tell the hon. lady that if she supports the resolution, I would probably be ready to support the amendments.


An hon. Member:: He's for sale.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, knowing that the government derailed the conference that would have taken place in the first place, I really am surprised at this point to find that the government is not sensitive enough to have found out what took place at that conference during the weekend.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I would like to put my supplementary question either to the Prime Minister or to the Minister of Justice, now that he is here. The minister or the Prime Minister will know that the weekend conference urged that if the government was not prepared to consider in total the resolutions put forward by the women's conference, then the total package should be separated and the bill of rights dealt with separately here in Canada by a constituent assembly. I would like to ask the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice if they are willing to consider that proposal.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Madam Speaker, I just answered that. I have not seen the resolutions adopted over the weekend in any detail, but I am prepared to gamble that they are probably very sensitive and worth-while additions. I tell the hon. lady and her party that if they will support the resolution as it is before the House, provided we accept these amendments, then I think we have a good bargain. Would she do it?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


QUERY RESPECTING GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR AMENDMENTS
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, my further supplementary question is to the Minister of Justice, now that the Prime Minister has given that reply. As I understand it, these resolutions that have been put forward-


An hon. Member:: Weaseling in.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -by the women's conference will now be considered by the Government of Canada. I would like to ask the Minister of Justice if, when he rises in his place tomorrow afternoon in 24 hours' time, he will say to the House which of those resolutions the government will be prepared to support.


An hon. Member:: Take them one by one.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, I think the Prime Minister put it very well. If the hon. member thinks
these amendments are important for women, she should be ready to say she wants them to be incorporated in the Constitution, and not vote against them in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am not very impressed with that kind of argument because we have had the same problems with respect to aboriginal rights. Hon. members opposite were all in favour of enshrining aboriginal rights in the Constitution, but after the Indians had gone they said there should be no entrenchment unless all the premiers agree. Some of the premiers have already said that they do not want to have any charter incorporated in the Constitution.
If the opposition want to have those rights entrenched in the new Canadian Constitution, they should make up their minds and say they will support our activities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR RESIGNATION OF MINISTER
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, quite obviously there is a division of opinion. At one moment members of the government vote against a motion under Standing Order 43, and then the next moment we are told that rights are negotiable.
My question arises from the conference at the weekend, and it is directed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will know that this conference was representative of every province, the regions, the territories, and all political persuasions. In light of the fact that the meeting was virtually unanimous in demanding that the minister responsible for the status of women be relieved of his duties and, second, that the advisory council report directly to Parliament, will the Prime Minister now act on the wishes, of the women of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I understand that the wishes of the women of Canada have been expressed in the resolution to which the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands referred.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The resignation of your minister.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If hon. members opposite are serious, they should support the position of the meeting at the weekend. That position was that this group of women would support patriation with an amending charter if we put certain amendments in. So I tell the Tory party, come on, listen to the women, help us get the charter as they want it and help us put these amendments in.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter Franklin McLean: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister will know, once he is briefed, that the conference dealt not only with the provisions of the charter and the constitutional proposals but that it also addressed itself to the credibility of the instrument which advises the government on matters relating
February 16, 1981

to women. My question was not answered. Will the Prime Minister act to request a change of ministerial responsibility, and will he respond with respect to whether the council will report to this chamber? Will the Prime Minister agree to the provision of a review group to report to Parliament by July 1, telling how the credibility of the council can be restored?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I say let us get the charter first. Let us entrench the rights of women, and let us have the support of the Tory party.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Chicken.


Mr. Clark:: Nothing is important but your own obsession.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, I wish to preface my question by saying that I was delighted to hear the Prime Minister say that he would accept these amendments. All the amendments but one were proposed by the New Democratic Party in the constitutional committee. All but two of the amendments suggested at the weekend, the Tories voted against.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Pauline Jewett: I would like, therefore, to pursue another matter with the minister responsible for the status of women. Has the minister now seriously considered a matter which was discussed broadly over the weekend, that is, the restructuring of the advisory council? Has he considered asking for the resignations of the three vice-presidents? Has he considered restructuring the council and having it report directly to Parliament?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, I plan to meet with a number of representatives of women's organizations this afternoon.


Mr. Nielsen:: Lots of luck.


An hon. Member:: Keep your back to the wall.


Lloyd Axworthy: I thank the hon. member for his good wishes. We plan to meet with representatives of these groups to talk about different recommendations and points of view concerning the advisory council, and I am looking forward to their constructive recommendations in that regard.


Pauline Jewett: Would the minister also look into the question of giving us the assurance that the council, as restructured, will be a permanently funded body and will be created by statute rather than order in council?
Oral Questions


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, there has never been any question in the mind of this government about the continuation of the council. Some question has been posed by certain former members of the council concerning that, but it has never been a question so far as we are concerned. We think that the council plays a very important role in this country. It represents women's points of view and it puts out some very good research to which this government has responded over the last several months in bringing about practical accomplishments rather than a lot of rhetoric. So we have a very high regard for the council, we think it could be improved, and we are meeting with women's groups to see that it will be improved.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Jewett: The minister responded to the wish of the Canadian women by getting the council to cancel or postpone a conference. That is how he responded. I should like to ask the minister a final question. Since the council was not representative of all Canadian women, will he ensure that all groups of women in Canada-and I am, in particular, looking at women in the labour movement, immigrant women and native women-are going to be represented on the restructured council?


Lloyd Axworthy: It would certainly be my interest to see that the broadest range of points of view is represented on the council but, as the hon. member recognizes, in many cases there are hundreds of points of view. There is no monolithic point of view so far as women are concerned, as we have seen. There is a wide variety of points of views concerning all kinds of matters. What we are trying to get is those individuals who can apply the best judgment possible. But the council has been reflective of a pretty broad range. We will see if it can be improved, and if there are ways in which we can do that, then we will respond to the recommendations we hear this afternoon. But I would say, Madam Speaker, that I would like to listen to those points of view before I make any definite commitments, because the point of holding these consultations is to hear the points of view before making up our minds.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The minister, in a press conference following his recent visit to Washington, stated that the U.S. administration was being kept closely informed of the progress of the National Energy Program and was quite satisfied with the way things are going. Subsequent to that, a U.S. official is quoted as saying that the United States administration is not satisfied with the National Energy Program and has made representations to that effect. Would the minister clarify for the House today who was
7252

February 16, 1981
Oral Questions
speaking the correct words on this, was it himself at his press conference, or was it the U.S. official?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, in my comments 1 was referring to the process of consultation which had been established-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I am fully aware that this is provided for under the bill, but the point of the matter is that the United States is concerned it will be implemented contrary to our obligations under GATT, as stated in this press conference. How will this be implemented in a way which will not contravene our treaty requirements under GATT?


Mark R. MacGuigan: -and the fact that the U.S. government seemed to find it very satisfactory. In fact, my understanding up to the present is that, so far as the substance of the legislation is concerned, there are no offsetting difficulties. Their concern, as I understand it, is about what may happen in the future as a result of the regulations. When we are dealing with the imponderables in the future, there cannot be much dialogue about it at present.


PROCUREMENT POLICIES-POSSIBLE CONFLICT WITH GATT
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I do not think it was at all clear at the minister's press conference that what he has said just now is, in fact, the accurate way of stating it.
I should like to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. U.S. officials are quoted as saying that they were told by Ottawa that the National Energy Program proposal in relation to procurement was expressed in language which was directed for domestic consumption only, and that the government intended to abide by its treaty commitments under GATT. I should like to ask the minister if this is another means of saying one thing to people in Canada and another thing to people in other governments. What is the basis on which the government is going to implement the procurement policies under the National Energy Program in a way that will not be contrary to the agreements which Canada has under GATT?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I am surprised that the hon. member is raising this question since he is a member of the parliamentary Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works which is currently considering the bill on the Canada lands. In that bill there is a very, very specific reference to the fact that in the future, in order to get leases on Canada lands, the applicants will have to give very firm commitments that they will undertake certain work commitments and, in addition, that they will take into account Canadian suppliers and people who can provide Canadian services. This is right in the act itself. There is nothing wishy-washy about it. It is quite clear; it is on the record. As a matter of fact it is in legislation which has been before the House and is now before the parliamentary committee. So, it is all there for everybody to see. Once more, I am surprised that my friend has not seen it yet.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, we have already had discussions about this with American officials. We stated very clearly that we believe our policy in this regard to be in accordance with our GATT commitments, and that, as concerns this particular question, the then minister of finance had tabled in the House agreements which clearly indicated that Canada was reserving the right to implement special policies for natural resources in view of the particular situation of Canada in this regard. Indeed, this was also stated at the international conference on this matter.


PROGRESS OF COLD LAKE PROJECT
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Recently in Calgary the minister indicated that the Cold Lake project in northeastern Alberta would go ahead in probably one, two or even three years. Later in northeastern Alberta the minister indicated that there would be an energy agreement within months, thereby allowing the Cold Lake project to proceed within months. Which statement may we accept as the truth?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, if it depended only on the Government of Canada, the Cold Lake project would go on tomorrow, but unfortunately it does not depend only on the Government of Canada.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: That is not true.


Marc Lalonde: I have indicated our position in this regard. Our view is that the Cold Lake project and the tar sands project at the present time are being unnecessarily suspended, delayed, or even threatened. It will not be helpful to the people of Alberta, it will not be helpful to self-sufficiency in this country, and it is not needed by Alberta to reach an agreement on energy with the Government of Canada. We feel this particular decision by the government of Alberta is not one which is necessary in the circumstances, and we regret it-


Mr. Andre:: Nor is the National Energy Program.
February 16, 1981


Marc Lalonde: -but there is not much we can do about it. I indicated that as far as we are concerned we certainly hope to have an agreement very soon.


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, obviously the minister did not answer my question. Fie made two separate statements, and I just wanted to know which one we could accept as the truth. I should like to ask him a supplementary question. Is the federal government now willing to sit down with the producing provinces and truly negotiate? In other words, is it prepared to negotiate the export tax on natural gas? Is it prepared to negotiate the wellhead tax on the production of petroleum? Is the federal government prepared to show a real willingness to negotiate by indicating that these two items in the national energy policy are indeed negotiable?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the federal government indicated soon after the budget that we were ready to negotiate in good faith with the governments of the producing provinces, particularly the government of Alberta, and that we were not setting out any ultimatum or any pre-conditions. There seems to be an attitude on the other side to set pre-conditions. We are not setting any pre-conditions, we are not eliminating anything. But I must say that the negotiations up to now have been proceeding at an extremely slow pace. There have been only two meetings of deputy ministers, and I think a couple of meetings of middle management officials. I read in the press a statement by senior Alberta officials saying that they would not be in a position to make any report to their provincial government before mid-March and that, therefore, it would be unlikely there would be any serious negotiations before then. We indicated that we were ready to start sitting down at any time the government of Alberta was willing to start negotiations seriously. Up to now the government of Alberta has indicated that it wanted those discussions only at the official level. We respect that wish, although we feel it is indeed proceeding very slowly.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. In December Mr. Bouey, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, said:
We do know that we don't want interest rates as high as those in the United States.	.
Just ten days ago the deputy chief economist for the bank indicated that the Bank of Canada rate was staying high, above 17 per cent, and that the bank was keeping it there in order to return rates to what he described as the traditional levels above the United States rate. Is this the new policy of the government, to maintain interest rates for an indefinite period of time above those in the United States? I remind the minister that they have been at 17 per cent for over ten weeks
Oral Questions
and that there is no sign of them coming down. If that is the policy of the government, would he please tell us whether the government is reconsidering the possibility of carrying out tax policies and tax concessions which would lessen the impact of high interest rates on the average consumer and on those people who are so hard hit by the rates which apparently have become a permanent policy of the government?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, in reply to the first part of the hon. member's question, to my knowledge it is certainly not the policy of the governor of the Bank of Canada to proceed in the way described by the hon. member, namely, to keep the rates higher than those prevailing in the United States. As the hon. member knows, for considerable periods of time rates in Canada have been considerably lower than those prevailing in the United States. Certainly that trend was not bucked or opposed by the governor of the bank, let alone the government.


Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, the fact remains that American rates have started to come down, Canadian rates have stayed exactly where they have been for a very long period of time and, as the minister knows, the American tax system is different than our own; they provide concessions which our system does not provide.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bob Rae: On Friday the bank announced that it would turn the screws even tighter on the money supply. This policy has been continued since 1975, and I remind the minister that since that time inflation and unemployment have gone up. So, clearly something is not working the way it is supposed to work. In light of those facts, my supplementary question to the minister is: would he not agree that the effect of these tighter monetary policies in other countries-and indeed in our experience in Canada in the last five years-has been that we have been able to squeeze real growth and jobs out of the economy but we have not managed to squeeze inflation out of the economy? Would the minister agree that this has been the experience not only in Canada, but also in Britain, France, and other countries which have attempted this policy as well?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, that is quite a large question on the orders of the day. I will attempt to answer it by saying that if the hon. member wants a simple one word answer, it would be no. His conclusions are not right.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment, I should like to direct my question to his parliamentary secretary. It is based upon an article which appeared in a Toronto paper yesterday

February 16, 1981
Oral Questions
under the heading "Act On Niagara Pollution". In view of the fact that the International Joint Commission which oversees the Canada-United States Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement has pinpointed the Niagara River as a dangerous contributor to the levels of organic, chemical and metal wastes in the Great Lakes, would the parliamentary secretary share with the House the attempts of this government and of the government of the United States to clean up known sources of contaimination and to prevent new ones?


Mr. Roger Simmons (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, the IJC released its report last Wednesday, February 11. It is interesting to note that the report follows rather closely the position which the minister and I have taken in so far as the Niagara Peninsula pollution is concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roger Simmons: I invite hon. members to read the report and the minister's statements.
To respond to the member's question, as far as action is concerned we have made our views known to the United States, especially in regard to the proposed discharge of effluents from SCA of New York. We have taken the position that effluents should not be discharged until certain problems upstream have been remedied.
With respect to the subject of studies, which the commission also addresses, we have already put in place a federal-state-provincial committee which met last week in Burlington on this very subject.


NORTH-SOUTH RELATIONS STATEMENT BY NON-ALIGNED NATIONS-DEVELOPMENT OF CANADIAN POSITION
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It is now one month since the Prime Minister returned from his world trip in which he examined North-South questions. In that time he has made no statement to the House, nor has he said in this crucial year of summits on the North-South question what the Canadian policy will be. Will the Prime Minister respond, in his capacity as host of the economic Summit in Ottawa next July, to the charge made by the non-aligned conference of 94 nations in Delhi, as reported in the New York Times yesterday, in which they denounced the industrialized countries for a "negative and intransigent attitude" on the North-South question?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, obviously that is a blanket charge made by a block of nations. It certainly cannot apply in any detail to different members of the North-South countries. They all have different
performances, and some are better than others. I do not think the blanket charge is one which can be accepted.


Douglas Roche: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister neglected to indicate to the House whether he intends to make a full statement on the North-South question so that Members of Parliament can understand where Canada is going with regard to this question.
With respect to the North-South task force report, which was tabled in this House exactly two months ago today, is it the intention of the Prime Minister to take that report, which has 38 recommendations, and make it the basis of a Canadian policy which can be pronounced and acted upon in this year of summits on the North-South question?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I stated before that this was an excellent report and that its recommendations were being considered very seriously by the officials, the minister and myself. Certainly many elements of that report will influence this side of the House toward the kind of action we would like to see come to a head at the time of the Ottawa Summit, or perhaps before the North-South Summit. I only hope that the hon. member's party will be as supportive of it as we on this side of the House will be.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. John Gamble (York North):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It arises as a consequence of some of the apparently conciliatory statements which were made earlier. The Prime Minister will know that the constitutional resolution now before this House again contains a provision with respect to a referendum. Will the Prime Minister divide the various items of his constitutional package, namely, the patriation, the amending formula, and his alleged charter of rights and freedoms-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


John Albert Gamble: -and submit the same to the people in a referendum so that, indeed, the people of Canada can have an input in determining this very principal and fundamental law of the country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I apologize, since there was some noise, but if I understand the hon. member correctly he is suggesting that we hold a referendum in order to justify the government's action. Is this his suggestion?


John Albert Gamble: Madam Speaker, it is regrettable that I must repeat my question for the purpose of receiving an initial answer to it.
My question to the Prime Minister is simply this: Is he prepared to take his constitutional resolution, divide it into the
February 16, 1981

three component elements of which it currently consists- those three elements which now create such animosity and acrimony across our country-and submit them to the same test that he would ask of future governments when employing a referendum procedure to any constitutional amendment which might come forward, so that the people of Canada can vote directly in a democratic fashion on each one of these three packages before his resolution is dispatched to the United Kingdom for imposition on the people of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is changing the terms of reference as he states his question. He points out correctly that there is a provision for a referendum to make a choice between various amending formulas, if there is not agreement. If he would suggest that there be a referendum of that nature to accept or reject a charter once we had the Constitution back home, I might consider it.


Mr. Siddon:: That is not what he said.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Exactly, that is not what he said. But that is in the resolution now. He should not argue that I should do with the referendum on the amending formula the same thing as I would do with the resolution on the charter.


Madam Speaker:: 1 must allow the hon. member for North York a very brief supplementary since he had to repeat his first question.


John Albert Gamble: It is curious that in 1979 the Prime Minister made these very statements after allegedly failing to reach some agreement with provincial premiers. He said that "failing that we will bring it back and consult the Canadian people in a referendum, and that is the way we will do it". He said that we will at least be able to have a Canadian Constitution made in Canada for Canadians.
It is very clear that in making those statements the Prime Minister was talking about national unity in 1979. Has he now changed his mind and is he now pursuing a course of national destruction? Is that why he will not follow a policy of employing this referendum program before the charter, inclusive of all its provisions, is sent to the United Kingdom for imposition on the people of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it seems to me the hon. member talks a bit lightly of national destruction. The picture we have now is of six provinces opposing this parliamentary resolution in the courts. They, too, fear national destruction. The six of them have obviously not been able to agree even among themselves. I was not present to sort of direct those debates. There are six provinces opposing this resolution before Parliament in the courts. These six had several months to come to some kind of consensus. They even failed in reaching a decision as to whether or not to go to London. It seems to me that demonstrates the righteousness of the case before Parliament now.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What could destroy the country is the fact that we would fail once again, after 53 years of effort, to bring back the Constitution to Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. For the past two years the Grassy Narrows and White Dog Indian bands have been negotiating with the Ontario government to receive compensation for mercury pollution from the operations of Reed Paper Company. Now, with the help of $5.2 million from DREE, the Ontario government wants to push a road through the area. This road would undercut these negotiations, it would open the area to exploitation by outside interests, and it would completely bypass the interests of the Indian people. Has the minister received representation from within his department urging that he contact the minister responsible for DREE to make certain that DREE funds will not be used until negotiations have been successfully completed with the Indian people? Has the Minister of Indian Affairs met with the minister responsible for DREE to make this request?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, the matter has been studied as a result of representations made by officials in my department. I would be prepared to talk first with Ontario, if necessary, and then talk with my colleague.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, will the minister make clear to this House that he is prepared to do his duty to protect the interests of the Indian people and make certain that federal funds will not be used to undermine the Grassy Narrows and White Dog Indian people in their attempt to obtain compensation for the negligence of the Ontario government?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, I am certainly prepared to do my duty as far as the Indian people are concerned. Before agreeing with allegations of the kind the hon. member is making I really ought to talk to those concerned in the province of Ontario. I will do that first and respond to the hon. member in greater detail later.

February 16, 1981
Oral Questions


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The resolution on the Constitution includes a provision which indicates a dramatic shift in government policy to include Metis under the definition of aboriginal rights. Has the minister or his department initiated any discussions with provincial governments which have had to take responsibility for the Metis in the absence of any federal involvement, so that there may be an immediate transition of responsibility regardless of what happens to the Constitution resolution, and that there will be no reduction of services to the Metis in this country?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, I think that the Metis, as members of the native organizations and as native peoples of this country, are very happy with developments with respect to the Constitution. I certainly do not see how that affects the obligation of the provinces and the work the provinces are doing in terms of providing adequate services to the Metis people, and I hope that will continue.


Stanley James Korchinski: Madam Speaker, 1 put it to the minister that the inclusion of Metis is window dressing and there is going to be no assumption of responsibility for providing housing, welfare, health care and so on. This is something that the Indians of this country assumed and expected to get from the government under the terms of the treaties.


John Carr Munro: The provision in the Constitution refers to rights. If the provinces do not believe the Metis have rights they can say so. In the meantime, what I am saying is that they have an obligation to provide services to citizens within the provinces and they should continue to provide them to the Metis people. This should not affect that situation.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker,
I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The minister will know that many Canadian investors have lost money on the Canadian movie industry pursuant to the tax policy which encourages participation. Questions are now being raised about the prospectus, the marketing and other factors affecting films made in Canada. Is the government aware of these concerns? Has anyone contacted Jarnac or the film consortium of Canada or Mr. David Roffey to see if everything is in order? There are films which have cost millions of dollars and which apparently have not yet been
marketed, with very serious results for the Canadian investors who are becoming restless.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, I shall take this question as notice.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his interest. Will he check to see the extent to which financial institutions are now going after Canadian investors to repay contingent liabilities that apparently were not made sufficiently clear when these people were encouraged to invest in Canadian firms? Would he see to what extent this is going on and if the prospectus and contracts and inducements were all in order?


André Ouellet: Yes, Madam Speaker, I will check and report back to the hon. member as soon as possible.


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He will recall that on February 5, when he was prompted by the Leader of the New Democratic Party about reports that the British High Commissioner had attempted to influence Members of Parliament and other Canadians with respect to the Constitution, he replied that if these reports were true it would be completely unacceptable to the government and, in addition, he indicated that he was investigating these reports. He has declined to make a statement on two occasions in the House. Today, would he inform the House whether there were any subversive activities found by the government? If so, what they were, and what else has his investigation uncovered?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, following questions by the hon. member for Oshawa, inquiries were made into certain activities of the British High Commissioner. These inquiries, conducted with the aid of officials, concerned contacts that Sir John Ford had with elected representatives at the federal and provincial levels. The information obtained has been shared with the British authorities in London, through diplomatic channels. The Canadian government has made and will make no recommendations to the British government. It has been known for some time that Sir John Ford was scheduled to retire soon. His successor has now been named, and the Canadian government welcomed the appointment on January 27.
February 16, 1981

The Canadian government has absolutely no objection to anything the High Commissioner may have done to represent the position of the British government in relation to its interests, or to communicate his understanding of the situation in the British parliament. This is an entirely appropriate type of diplomatic activity.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Swallow yourself.


Mark R. MacGuigan: In another context, the Prime Minister stated the government's position on such matters to the House on December 16, 1977. Part of the High Commissioner's activity, of course, was of this type.
However, there are indications that the High Commissioner went beyond these normal functions into internal political matters. I am assured that the High Commissioner has noted the views expressed in this House. I have also been informed that there is no intention on the part of the British government to intervene in affairs which are properly matters for Canadians. I now consider the matter closed.


FISHERIES
Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Would the minister be prepared, in light of developments in the last week, to have a reference made so that the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry could meet and consider the new regulations on the west coast?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, I certainly have no objection to this issue being part of our discussions. I understand that the estimates will be brought before the House very soon. If there is an opportunity to discuss these matters, or to have briefings about them, I am perfectly open. I might say to the hon. member, on the other hand, that I would not want to mislead the House and allow the idea to spread that the decisions that were made, as difficult as they were, would be rescinded. What I have offered the sports fishing community is to suggest alternatives which would meet the same end as that hoped for, which is the conservation of chinook stocks.


Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, if the minister has no objection to the convening of that committee, 1 wonder if he would take steps now, before the estimates come forward, to make sure that the committee has an opportunity to meet and consider these two matters. Although he says he would not like to put the regulations that have been drawn up on hold, I wonder if he would reconsider that for a two-week period, that is, put them on hold or in abeyance until there is an opportunity for the committee to consider the matter and report back to the House.
Oral Questions


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, some of the regulations have to go into effect within a few days or a very short time. It may be difficult to hold them in abeyance. I might say to the hon. member that I am perfectly open to have a discussion with all interested members on this issue. I think this is a case where all participants in the industry want to make sure that we are fair. I am certainly interested in that. I might say to him that the best way to achieve this is not through Standing Order 43. I hope we can have conversations that will allow us to move quickly on this.


CONDITIONS OF GOVERNMENT'S AID TO COAL EXPORTS FROM BRITISH COLUMBIA TO JAPAN
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport who answers in the House with respect to negotiations between the federal government and the province of British Columbia regarding the coal deal which involves the national railway and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. In reply to a question in the House last week the minister said that the federal government would assure that it would exercise all its jurisdictions in terms of socioeconomic conditions and the environment with respect to this monumental and important project. Could the minister tell the House today just what jurisdiction has been reserved to be exercised by the federal government and whether any strings are attached as a result of federal financial involvement?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I really do not see the purpose of the question. The interest of the Department of Transport is in the operation of the port itself. In that respect the National Harbours Board and the Department of Transport are exercising their full jurisdiction. There are other matters involved such as, for example, the environment. This is a divided jurisdiction where the province does most of the work but where the federal government has some jurisdiction regarding environment in the Port of Prince Rupert. I fail to see other points. The railway is a federal responsibility and we are attending to it. Are there any particular jurisdictions that my hon. friend would like to point out to me?


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, I am more concerned with the activity around the mine. It is unfortunate that we do not have a minister in the House who can answer, and that the comments of the minister in the other place have to be interpreted by the Minister of Transport. He said in a statement that the federal government would exercise a number of jurisdictions to assure that certain socioeconomic conditions are met with respect to the mine, apart from the port which has to be developed at the same time. The minister knows the federal government will be significantly involved not only in the port

February 16, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. D. W. Munro but in other infrastructure procurements. Those are the jurisdictions on which I would like the minister to comment.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I will have a discussion with my confrere who is responsible for those jurisdictions. I just thought of another one, namely, the protection of Indians. This is a federal responsibility and there will be particular orientation toward that in the final agreement. However, I will get the full list and communicate with my hon. friend.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid on the Table the thirty-ninth report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon) and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



POINTS OF ORDER


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. There might be a disposition in the House, by unanimous consent, to revert to motions moved under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to deal with the motion raised by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney). The only nay I heard the first time was from the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Cousineau), which was not voiced the second time around. I am sure the House would now give unanimous consent with respect to that Standing Order 43 motion concerning women and the Constitution.


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry but 1 did hear noes, and that closes the matter.



MR. MUNRO (ESQUIMALT-SAANICH)-S O. 43 MOTION

["The hon. member's question of privilege may be deferred."]
Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order which is much the same as the previous one. I did not hear any noes from the opposite side to my particular motion under Standing Order 43; if there were any they must have come from the far end of the room. I would suggest that if the motion were put again, we might have unanimous consent.


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry but here again I did hear noes, so that finalizes the matter.



Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, we can all see that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) is not in his place today. Could I continue my notice of wanting to raise a question of privilege on another
day?


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member's question of privilege may be deferred.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Third report of Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped

Mr. Smith.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, as the troops become restless across Canada and as added thousands of petitions are coming in to offices of various members of Parliament, it gives me a great deal of pleasure today to present to this House of Commons a petition containing 2,689 signatures. These are to be added to the many thousands of signatures which have been collected from across Canada opposing this government's unilateral action of patriating the Constitution against the will of the majority of the people of Canada, along with a wish that this government consider patriating the Constitution with an acceptable amending formula to the various provinces of Canada. I respectfully submit this petition to this House.



YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-61, respecting young offenders and to repeal the Juvenile Delinquents Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[ Translation]


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motions.
February 16, 1981

[Stage Direction]
THAT, WHEREAS in the past certain amendments to the Constitution of Canada have been made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom at the request and with the consent of Canada;	5
AND WHEREAS it is in accord with the status of Canada as an independent state that Canadians be able to amend their Constitution in Canada in all respects;
AND WHEREAS it is also desirable to 10 provide in the Constitution of Canada for the recognition of certain fundamental rights and freedoms and to make other amendments to that Constitution;
CONSIDER ANT:
que le Parlcment du Royaume-Uni a modifie a plusieurs reprises la Constitution du Canada a la demande et avec le consen-tement de celui-ci;	5
que, de par le statut d'Etat independant du Canada, il est legitime que les Canadiens aient tout pouvoir pour modifier leur Constitution au Canada;
qu'il est souhaitable d'inscrire dans la 10 Constitution du Canada la reconnaissance de certains droits et libertes fondamentaux et d'y apporter d'autres modifications,
A respectful address be presented to Herl5ilest propose que soit presentee respectueu-Majesty the Queen in the following words:	sement a Sa Majeste la Reine l'adresse dont la 15
teneur suit:
To the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty:	A Sa Tres Excellente Majeste la Reine,
Most Gracious Sovereign:	Tres Gracieuse Souveraine :
We, Your Majesty's loyal subjects, the Nous, membres	de la Cham-
House of Commons of 20bre des communes du Canada reunis en Par- 20 Canada in Parliament assembled, respectful- lement, fideles sujets de Votre Majeste, ly approach Your Majesty, requesting that	demandons respectueusement	a Votre	Tresyou may graciously be pleased to cause to be	Gracieuse Majeste de bien	vouloir	fairelaid before the Parliament of the United	deposer devant le Parlement	du Royaume-Kingdom a measure containing the recitals 25 Uni un projet de loi ainsi con?u :	25
and clauses hereinafter set forth:
[Stage Direction]
February 16, 1981
Constitution Act. 1981 enacted
Termination of power to legislate for Canada
French version
Short title

[Stage Direction]
An Act to give effect to a request by the Senate and House of Commons of Canada
Whereas Canada has requested and consented to the enactment of an Act of the 5 Parliament of the United Kingdom to give effect to the provisions hereinafter set forth and the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled have submitted an address to Her Majesty 10 requesting that Her Majesty may graciously be pleased to cause a Bill to be laid before the Parliament of the United Kingdom for that purpose.
Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's 15 Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:	20
1. The Constitution Act, 1981 set out in Schedule B to this Act is hereby enacted for and shall have the force of law in Canada and shall come into force as provided in that Act.	25
2.	No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the Constitution Act, 1981 comes into force shall extend to Canada as part of its law.
3.	So far as it is not contained in Schedule 30 B, the French version of this Act is set out in Schedule A to this Act and has the same authority in Canada as the English version thereof.

[Stage Direction]
Loi donnant suite a une demande du Senat et de la Chambre des communes du Canada
Sa Tres Excellente Majeste la Reine, considerant:	5
qu'a la demande et avec le consentement du Canada, le Parlement du Royaume-Uni est invite a adopter une loi visant a donner effet aux dispositions enoncees ci-apres et que le Senat et la Chambre des communes 10 du Canada reunis en Parlement ont presente une adresse demandant a Sa Tres Gracieuse Majeste de bien vouloir faire deposer devant le Parlement du Royaume-Uni un projet de loi a cette fin,	15
sur 1'avis et du consentement des Lords spiri-tuels et temporels et des Communes reunis en Parlement, et par 1'autorite de celui-ci, edicte :
1.	La Loi constitutionnelle de 1981, enon- 20 Adoption* la
cee a l'annexe B, est edictee pour le Canada	^nZueTe
et y a force de loi. Elle entre en vigueur	/«/
conformement a ses dispositions.
2.	Les lois adoptees par le Parlement du Cessation du Royaume-Uni apres l'entree en vigueur de la 25 j^X'eV^uric Loi constitutionnelle de 1981 ne font pas Canada partie du droit du Canada.
3.	La partie de la version fran§aise de la version presente loi qui figure a l'annexe A a force fran«aise de loi au Canada au meme titre que la 30 version anglaise correspondante.
4.	This Act may be cited as the Canada'iS 4. Titre abrege de la presente loi : Loi sur Titreabrege Act.	le Canada.
February 16, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Rights and freedoms in Canada
Fundamental
freedoms
Democratic rights of citizens
Maximum duration of legislative bodies
Continuation in special
circumstances

[Stage Direction]
S.O.	21(2) ANNEXE B
CONSTITUTION ACT, 1981	LOI CONSTITUTIONNELLE DE 1981
PART i

[Stage Direction]
Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
Garantie des droits et libertes
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
1. La Charte canadienne des droits et	[i)br"|-sc'lu
libertes garantit les droits et libertes qui y	Canada^
sont enonces. Us ne peuvent etre restreints que par une regie de droit, dans des limites 5 qui soient raisonnables et dont la justification 5 puisse se demontrer dans le cadre d'une societe libre et democratique.
Fundamental Freedoms
Libertes fondamentales
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a)	freedom of conscience and religion;
(b)	freedom of thought, belief, opinion 10 and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c)	freedom of peaceful assembly; and {d) freedom of association.
2. Chacun a les libertes fondamentales Libertes
.	fondamentales
suivantes :
a)	liberte de conscience et de religion; 10
b)	liberte de pensee, de croyance, d'opi-nion et d'expression, y compris la liberte de la presse et des autres moyens de communication;
c)	liberte de reunion pacifique;	15
d)	liberte dissociation.
Democratic Rights	Droits democratiques
3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to 15	3. Tout citoyen canadien a le droit de vote	£r°^rati
vote in an election of members of the House et est eligible aux elections legislatives fede-	des citoyens
of Commons or of a legislative assembly and rales ou provinciales. to be qualified for membership therein.
4. (1) No House of Commons and no 4. (1) Le mandat maximal de la Chambre 20 Mandat^ ^ legislative assembly shall continue for longer 20 des communes et des assemblies legislatives assembles than five years from the date fixed for the	est de cinq ans a compter de la date fixee
return of the writs at a general election of its	pour le retour des brefs relatifs aux elections
members.	generates correspondantes.
(2) In time of real or apprehended war, (2) Le mandat de la Chambre des commu- 25 ^°an||"t,ons invasion or insurrection, a House of Com- 25 nes ou celui d'une assemblee legislative peut specia cs mons may be continued by Parliament and a	etre prolonge respectivement par le Parlelegislative assembly may be continued by the	ment ou par la legislature en question aulegislature beyond five years if such con-	dela de cinq ans en cas de guerre, d'invasion
tinuation is not opposed by the votes of more	ou d'insurrection, reelles ou apprehendees, 30
than one-third of the members of the House 30 pourvu que cette prolongation ne fasse pas of Commons or the legislative assembly, as	I'objet d'une opposition exprimee par les voix
the case may be.	de plus du tiers des deputes de la Chambre
des communes ou de l'assemblee legislative.
[Stage Direction]
February 16, 1981
Annual sitting of legislative bodies
Mobility of citizens
Rights to move and gain livelihood
Limitation
Life, liberty and security of person
Search or seizure
Detention or imprisonment
Arrest or detention

[Stage Direction]
5. There shall be a sitting of Parliament 5. Le Parlement et les legislatures tien-	Seance annueiie
and of each legislature at least once every	nent une seance au moins une fois tous les
twelve months.	douze mois.
Mobility Rights
Liberte de circulation et d'etablissement
6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada. 5
(2)	Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right
(a)	to move to and take up residence in
any province; and	10
(b)	to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.
(3)	The rights specified in subsection (2) are subject to
(a)	any laws or practices of general 15 application in force in a province other than those that discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of province of present or previous residence; and
(b)	any laws providing for reasonable resi- 20 dency requirements as a qualification for the receipt of publicly provided social services.
6. (1) Tout citoyen canadien a le droit de Liberte de demeurer au Canada, d'y entrer ou d'en 5arculat,on sortir.
(2) Tout citoyen canadien et toute per-	Liberte
sonne ayant le statut de resident permanent	detaWissement
au Canada ont le droit:
a)	de se deplacer dans tout le pays et 10 d'etablir leur residence dans toute province;
b)	de gagner leur vie dans toute province.
(3)	Les droits mentionnes au paragraphe Restriction
(2) sont subordonnes :	15
a)	aux lois et usages d'application gene-rale en vigueur dans une province donnee, s'ils n'etablissent entre les personnes aucune distinction fondee principalement sur la province de residence anterieure ou 20 actuelle;
b)	aux lois prevoyant de justes conditions de residence en vue de l'obtention des services sociaux publics.
Legal Rights	Garanties juridiques
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty 7. Chacun a droit a la vie, a la liberte et a25v'e'i'derleet and security of the person and the right not 25 la securite de sa personne; il ne peut etre	secunle
to be deprived thereof except in accordance porte atteinte a ce droit qu'en conformite with the principles of fundamental justice. avec les principes de justice fondamentale.
8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
8. Chacun a droit a la protection contre Fouiiies, les fouiiies, les perquisitions ou les saisies 30^"s's'tlonsou abusives.
9. Everyone has the right not to be arbi- 30	9. Chacun a droit a la protection contre la Detention ou
trarily detained or imprisoned.	detention ou 1'emprisonnement arbitraires. emmenJis°nne'
10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention
(a)	to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;	35
(b)	to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and
(c)	to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and
to be released if the detention is not 40 lawful.
10. Chacun a le droit, en cas d'arrestation Arrestation ou ou de detention :	35 detent|on
a)	d'etre informe dans les plus brefs delais des motifs de son arrestation ou de sa detention;
b)	d'avoir recours sans delai a l'assistance d'un avocat et d'etre informe de ce droit; 40
c)	de faire controler, par habeas corpus, la legalite de sa detention et d'obtenir, le cas echeant, sa liberation.
February 16, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Proceedings in criminal and penal matters
Treatment or punishment
Self-crimination
11. Any person charged with an offence has the right
(a)	to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence;
(b)	to be tried within a reasonable time; 5
(c)	not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence;
(d)	to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public 10 hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;
(e)	not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause;
(/) except in the case of an offence under 15 military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment;	20
(g)	not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the gen-25 eral principles of law recognized by the community of nations;
(h)	if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to 30 be tried or punished for it again; and
(/') if found guilty of the offence and if the punishment for the offence has been varied between the time of commission and the time of sentencing, to the benefit of the 35 lesser punishment.
12.	Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
13.	A witness who testifies in any proceed- 40 ings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except
S.O.	21(2)
11.	Tout inculpe a le droit:	Affa!re*^	#	cnmmelles eta)	d'etre informe sans delai anormal de penaies l'infraction precise qu'on lui reproche;b)	d'etre juge dans un delai raisonnable;c)	de ne pas etre contraint de temoigner 5 contre lui-meme dans toute poursuite intentee contre lui pour l'infraction qu'on lui reproche;d)	d'etre presume innocent tant qu'il n'est pas declare coupable, conformement a la 10 loi, par un tribunal independant et impartial a Tissue d'un proces public et equitable;e)	de ne pas etre prive sans juste cause d'une mise en liberte assortie d'un caution-15 nement raisonnable;f)	sauf s'il s'agit d'une infraction relevant de la justice militaire, de beneficier d'un proces avec jury lorsque la peine maximale prevue pour Tinfraction dont il est accuse 20 est un emprisonnement de cinq ans ou une peine plus grave;g)	de ne pas etre declare coupable en raison d'une action ou d'une omission qui, au moment ou elle est survenue, ne consti- 25 tuait pas une infraction d'apres le droit interne du Canada ou le droit internationalet n'avait pas de caractere criminel d'apres les principes generaux de droit reconnus par Tensemble des nations;	30h)	d'une part de ne pas etre juge de nouveau pour une infraction dont il a ete definitivement acquitte, d'autre part de ne pas etre juge ni puni de nouveau pour une infraction dont il a ete definitivement 35 trouve coupable et puni;i)	de beneficier de la peine la moins severe, lorsque la peine qui sanctionne Tin-fraction dont il est declare coupable est modifiee entre le moment de la perpetra- 40 tion de Tinfraction et celui de la sentence.12.	Chacun a droit a la protection contre Cruaute tous traitements ou peines cruels et inusites.13.	Chacun a droit a ce qu'aucun temoi- Temoignage gnage incriminant qu'il donne ne soit utilise 45 mcr,mman pour Tincriminer dans d'autres procedures,
sauf lors de poursuites pour parjure ou pour temoignages contradictoires.
[Stage Direction]
February 16, 1981
Interpreter
Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law
Affirmative
action
programs
Official languages of Canada
Official languages of New Brunswick
Advancement of status and use
Proceedings of Parliament
S.O.	21(2)
in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.
14. A party or witness in any proceedings who does not understand or speak the language in which the proceedings are conducted or who is deaf has the right to the assistance of an interpreter.
14. La partie ou le temoin qui ne peuvent interprete suivre les procedures, soit parce qu'ils ne 5 comprennent pas ou ne parlent pas la langue employee, soit parce qu'ils sont atteints de surdite, ont droit a l'assistance d'un inter- 5 prete.
Equality Rights
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Droits a I'egalite
15. (1) La loi ne fait acception de per- Egaiite devam sonne et s'applique egalement a tous, et tous	benlnlf ct"14 de
10 ont droit a la meme protection et au meme protection egaie benefice de la loi, independamment de toute ]Odelal0' discrimination, notamment des discriminations fondees sur la race, l'origine nationale ou ethnique, la couleur, la religion, le sexe, l'age ou les deficiences mentales ou physiques.	15
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any 15	(2) Le paragraphe (1) n'a pas pour effet Programmes de
law, program or activity that has as its object	d'interdire les lois, programmes ou activites	S°,ion
the amelioration of conditions of disadvan-	destines a ameliorer la situation d'individus
taged individuals or groups including those	ou de groupes defavorises, notamment du fait
that are disadvantaged because of race, na-	de leur race, de leur origine nationale ou 20
tional or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, 20 ethnique, de leur couleur, de leur religion, de age or mental or physical disability.	leur sexe, de leur age ou de leurs deficiences
mentales ou physiques.
Official Languages of Canada
Langues officielles du Canada
16. (1) Le fran?ais et l'anglais sont les Langues langues officielles du Canada; ils ont un 25cTnadaesdu
16. (1) English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of
status and equal rights and privileges as to statut et des droits et privileges egaux quant their use in all institutions of the Parliament 25 a leur usage dans les institutions du Parle-and government of Canada.	ment et du gouvernement du Canada.
(2) English and French are the official (2) Le fran5ais et l'anglais sont les langues	Langues
languages of New Brunswick and have	officielles du Nouveau-Brunswick; ils ont un 30"ilu.dU
equality of status and equal rights and privi-	statut et des droits et privileges egaux quant Brunswick
leges as to their use in all institutions of the 30 a leur usage dans les institutions de la Legis-legislature and government of New Bruns- lature et du gouvernement du Nouveau-w'ck-	Brunswick.
(3) Nothing in this Charter limits the (3) La presente charte ne limite pas le 35 Progression vers authority of Parliament or a legislature to	pouvoir du Parlement et des legislatures de 'egallte advance the equality of status or use of Eng-35 favoriser la progression vers l'egalite de
lish and French.	statut ou d'usage du fran?ais et de l'anglais.
17. (1) Everyone has the right to use Eng- 17. (1) Chacun a le droit d'employer le Travauxdu lish or French in any debates and other	fran?ais ou 1'anglais dans les debats et tra- 40Parlement
proceedings of Parliament.	vaux du Parlement.﻿February 16, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Proceedings of New Brunswick legislature
Parliamentary statutes and records
New Brunswick statutes and records
Proceedings in courts
established by Parliament
Proceedings in New Brunswick courts
Communications by public with federal institutions
Communications by public with New Brunswick institutions
(2)	Everyone has the right to use English or French in any debates and other proceedings of the legislature of New Brunswick.
S.O.	21(2)
(2)	Chacun a le droit d'employer le frangais ou l'anglais dans les debats et travaux de la Legislature du Nouveau-Brunswick.
Travaux de la Legislature du Nouveau-Brunswick
18.	(1) The statutes, records and journals 18. (1) Les lois, les archives, les comptes |^"ires of Parliament shall be printed and published 5 rendus et les proces-verbaux du Parlement 5 p in English and French and both language sont imprimes et publies en frangais et en versions are equally authoritative.	anglais, les deux versions des lois ayant egalement force de loi et celles des autres documents ayant meme valeur.(2)	The statutes, records and journals of (2) Les lois, les archives, les comptes 10 D~"menude the legislature of New Brunswick shall be rendus et les proces-verbaux de la Legisla-	du Nouveauprinted and published in English and French lOture du Nouveau-Brunswick sont imprimes	Brunswickand both language versions are equally et publies en frangais et en anglais, les deux authoritative.	versions des lois ayant egalement force de loi
et celles des autres documents ayant meme 15 valeur.
19.	(1) Either English or French may be 19. (1) Chacun a le droit d'employer le used by any person in, or in any pleading in	frangais ou l'anglais dans toutes les affaires	tribunaux
or process issuing from, any court established 15dont sont saisis les tribunaux etablis par le etabbsparle by Parliament.	Parlement et dans tous les actes de procedure 20 ar ement
qui en decoulent.
(2) Either English or French may be used by any person in, or in any pleading in or process issuing from, any court of New Brunswick.
(2) Chacun a le droit d'employer le fran- ^ocedurea gais ou l'anglais dans toutes les affaires dont uibunauxdu sont saisis les tribunaux du Nouveau-Bruns- grounvseauck 20 wick et dans tous les actes de procedure qui 25 runswic
en decoulent.
20. (1) Any member of the public in Canada has the right to communicate with, and to receive available services from, any head or central office of an institution of the Parliament or government of Canada in English or French, and has the same right with respect to any other office of any such institution where
(a)	there is a significant demand for communications with and services from that office in such language; or
(b)	due to the nature of the office, it is reasonable that communications with and services from that office be available in both English and French.
20. (1) Le public a, au Canada, droit a l'empioi du frangais ou de l'anglais pour communiquer avec le siege ou l'administra-tion centrale des institutions du Parlement ou 30 25 du gouvernement du Canada ou pour en recevoir les services; il a le meme droit a l'egard de tout autre bureau de ces institutions la ou, selon le cas :
a)	l'emploi du frangais ou de l'anglais fait 35 30 l'objet d'une demande importante;
b)	l'emploi du frangais et de l'anglais se justifie par la vocation du bureau.
Communications entre les administres et les institutions federates
(2) Any member of the public in New Brunswick has the right to communicate with, and to receive available services from, any office of an institution of the legislature or government of New Brunswick in English
(2) Le public a, au Nouveau-Brunswick, Communica-droit a l'emploi du frangais ou de ranglais40^SiniTtrSset pour communiquer avec tout bureau des ins- les institutions titutions de la legislature ou du gouverne- Brunswick1* 40 ment ou pour en recevoir les services.
or French.
February 16, 1981
Continuation of existing constitutional provisions
Rights and
privileges
preserved
Language of instruction
Continuity of
language
instruction
Application where numbers warrant
[Stage Direction]
S.O.	21(2)
21. Nothing in sections 16 to 20 abrogates or derogates from any right, privilege or obligation with respect to the English and French languages, or either of them, that exists or is continued by virtue of any other provision of the Constitution of Canada.
21. Les articles 16 a 20 n'ont pas pour effet, en ce qui a trait a la langue fran^aise ou anglaise ou a ces deux langues, de porter atteinte aux droits, privileges ou obligations 5 qui existent ou sont maintenus aux termes d'une autre disposition de la Constitution du Canada.
Mainticn cn vigucur dc ccrtaincs dispositions
22. Nothing in sections 16 to 20 abrogates 22. Les articles 16 a 20 n'ont pas pour Droits preserves or derogates from any legal or customary	effet de porter atteinte aux droits et privileright or privilege acquired or enjoyed either	ges, anterieurs ou posterieurs a I'entree en 10
before or after the coming into force of this lOvigueur de la presente charte et decoulant de Charter with respect to any language that is la loi ou de la coutume, des langues autres not English or French.	que le fran?ais ou 1'anglais.
Minority Language Educational Rights
Droits a I'instruction dans la langue de la minor it e
23. (1) Citizens of Canada
(a)	whose first language learned and still understood is that of the English or French 15 linguistic minority population of the province in which they reside, or
(b)	who have received their primary school instruction in Canada in English or French and reside in a province where the 20 language in which they received that instruction is the language of the English
or French linguistic minority population of the province,
23. (1) Les citoyens canadiens :	Langue
.	,	i	.,	,	.	d'instructii
a)	dont la premiere langue apprise et 15 encore comprise est celle de la minorite francophone ou anglophone de la province ou ils resident,
b)	qui ont re$u leur instruction, au niveau primaire, en fransais ou en anglais au20 Canada et qui resident dans une province ou la langue dans laquelle ils ont re?u cette instruction est celle de la minorite francophone ou anglophone de la province,
ont, dans l'un ou 1'autre cas, le droit d'y faire 25 have the right to have their children receive 25 instruire leurs enfants, aux niveaux primaire primary and secondary school instruction in et secondaire, dans cette langue. that language in that province.
(2)	Citizens of Canada of whom any child	(2) Les citoyens canadiens dont un enfant	Continuehas received or is receiving primary or	a re?u ou re?oit son instruction, au niveau	fangUpc'oi dc 'asecondary school instruction in English or 30 primaire ou secondaire, en franfais ou en 30 ^instruction French in Canada, have the right to have all	anglais au Canada ont le droit de faire instheir children receive primary and secondary	truire tous leurs enfants, aux niveaux prischool instruction in the same language.	maire et secondaire, dans la langue de cette
instruction.
(3)	The right of citizens of Canada under (3) Le droit reconnu aux citoyens cana- 35 Justification subsections (1) and (2) to have their children 35 diens par les paragraphes (1) et (2) de faire Parlenombre receive primary and secondary school	instruire leurs enfants, aux niveaux primaire
instruction in the language of the English or	et secondaire, dans la langue de la minorite
French linguistic minority population of a francophone ou anglophone d'une province :
a)	s'exerce partout dans la province ou le40 nombre des enfants des citoyens qui ont ce droit est suffisant pour justifier a leur endroit la prestation, sur les fonds publics, de l'instruction dans la langue de la minorite;	45
province
(a) applies wherever in the province the 40 number of children of citizens who have such a right is sufficient to warrant the provision to them out of public funds of minority language instruction; and
February 16, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Enforcemenl of guaranteed rights and freedoms
Exclusion of
evidence
bringing
administration
of justice into
disrepute
Aboriginal rights and freedoms not affected by Charter
Other rights and freedoms not affected by Charter
Multicultural
heritage
Rights respecting certain schools preserved
(b)	includes, where the number of those children so warrants, the right to have them receive that instruction in minority language educational facilities provided out of public funds.	5

[Stage Direction]
b)	comprend, lorsque le nombre de ces enfants le justifie, le droit de les faire instruire dans des etablissements d'ensei-gnement de la minorite linguistique finances sur les fonds publics.	5
Enforcement	Recours
24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, 24. (1) Toute personne, victime de viola-as guaranteed by this Charter, have been tion ou de negation des droits et libertes qui droits et libertes infringed or denied may apply to a court of	lui sont garantis par la presente charte, peut
competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy	s'adresser a un tribunal competent pour obteas the court considers appropriate and just in lOnir la reparation que le tribunal estime con-10 the circumstances.	venable et juste eu egard aux circonstances.(2) Where, in proceedings under subsec- (2) Lorsque, dans une instance visee au tion (1), a court concludes that evidence was	paragraphe (1), le tribunal a conclu que des	pAu^'qui eobtained in a manner that infringed or	elements de preuve ont ete obtenus dans des	^uerajem^edenied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by 15 conditions qui portent atteinte aux droits ou 15 ladm^siration this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded	libertes garantis par la presente charte, ces	dcia justiceif it is established that, having regard to all	elements de preuve sont ecartes s'il est etabli,the circumstances, the admission of it in the	eu egard aux circonstances, que leur utilisaproceedings would bring the administration	tion est susceptible de deconsiderer l'admiof justice into disrepute.	20nistration de la justice.	20
General
Dispositions generates
25. The guarantee in this Charter of cer- 25. Le fait que la presente charte garantit tain rights and freedoms shall not be con-	certains droits et libertes ne porte pas
strued so as to abrogate or derogate from any	atteinte aux droits ou libertes - ancestraux,
aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms	issus de traites ou autres - des peuples
that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of 25 autochtones du Canada, notamment:	25
Canada including	a) aux droits ou libertes reconnus par la
(a) any rights or freedoms that have been	Proclamation royale du 7 octobre 1763;
recognized by the Royal Proclamation of	b) aux droits ou libertes acquis par regle-
October 7, 1763; and	ment de revendications territoriales.
Mainticn des droits et libertes des autochtones
(b) any rights or freedoms that may be 30 acquired by the aboriginal peoples of Canada by way of land claims settlement.
26. The guarantee in this Charter of cer- 26. Le fait que la presente charte garantit 30 Mainticn des tain rights and freedoms shall not be con-	certains droits et libertes ne constitue pas libcrtfci
strued as denying the existence of any other 35 une negation des autres droits ou libertes qui rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.	existent au Canada.
27.	This Charter shall be interpreted in a 27. Toute interpretation de la presente ^rniome"
manner consistent with the preservation and charte doit concorder avec l'objectif de pro- 35^1,"™' e enhancement of the multicultural heritage of mouvoir le maintien et la valorisation du Canadians.	40patrimoine multiculturel des Canadiens.
28.	Nothing in this Charter abrogates or 28. Les dispositions de la presente charte ^oiu'reiatifs a derogates from any rights or privileges guar- ne portent pas atteinte aux droits ou privile- ccriaincs ccoics anteed by or under the Constitution of ges garantis en vertu de la Constitution du 40
[Stage Direction]
February 16, 1981
Application to territories and territorial authorities
Legislative powers not extended
Application of Charter
Exception
Citation
Recognition of aboriginal and treaty rights
Definition of "aboriginal peoples of Canada"
Commitment to promote equal opportunities
S.O.	21(2)
Canada, in respect of denominational, sepa- Canada concernant les ecoles separees et rate or dissentient schools.	autres ecoles confessionnelles.
29. A reference in this Charter to a province or to the legislative assembly or legislature of a province shall be deemed to include a reference to the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories, or to the appropriate legislative authority thereof, as the case may be.
29.	Dans la presente charte, les disposi- Applications tions qui visent les provinces, leur legislature aux teml0'res 5 ou leur assemblee legislative visent egale- 5 ment le territoire du Yukon, les territoires du Nord-Ouest ou leurs autorites legislatives competentes.
30.	Nothing in this Charter extends the 10	30. La presente charte n'elargit pas les Non-elargisselegislative powers of any body or authority. competences legislatives de quelque orga- 10 rampJtcnccs
nisme ou autorite que ce soit.	legislatives
Application of Charter
31.	(1) This Charter applies
(a)	to the Parliament and government of Canada and to all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters 1 5 relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and
(b)	to the legislature and government of each province and to all matters within the authority of the legislature of each 20 province.
Application de la charte
31. (1) La presente charte s'applique :
a)	au Parlement et au gouvernement du Canada, ainsi qu'a tous les domaines relevant du Parlement, y compris ceux qui 15 concernent le territoire du Yukon et les territoires du Nord-Ouest;
b)	a la legislature et au gouvernement de
chaque province, ainsi qu'a tous les domaines relevant de cette legislature.	20
Application de la charte
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), sec- (2) Par derogation au paragraphe (1), Far- Restriction tion 15 shall not have effect until three years	tide 15 n'a d'effet que trois ans apres l'enafter this Act, except Part VI, comes into	tree en vigueur, exception faite de la partie
f°rce-	25 VI, de la presente loi.
Citation
Tit re
32. This Part may be cited as the Canadi- 32. Titre de la presente partie: Charte 25Tilrc an Charter of Rights and Freedoms.	canadienne des droits et libertes.


[Stage Direction]
33. (1) The aboriginal and treaty rights of 33. (1) La presente charte confirme les Confirmation the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby droits, ancestraux ou issus de traites, des reuDir°'ts des recognized and affirmed.	30 peuples autochtones du Canada .	autochtones
(2) In this Act, "aboriginal peoples of Canada" includes the Indian, Inuit and Metis peoples of Canada.
(2) Dans la presente loi, «peuples autoch- 30 Definition de tones du Canada* s'entend notamment des autochtones du Indiens, des Inuit et des Metis du Canada. Canada.
PART 111	PARTIE III
EQUALIZATION AND REGIONAL DISPARITIES	PER EQUATION ET INEGALITES REGIONALES
^ Without altering the legislative 34. (1) Sous reserve des competences Engagements authority of Parliament or of the provincial 35 legislatives du Parlement et des legislatures rlga'iu/des
chances
February 16, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Commitment respecting public services
Constitutional
conferences
Participation of
aboriginal
peoples
Participation of territories
legislatures, or the rights of any of them with respect to the exercise of their legislative authority, Parliament and the legislatures, together with the government of Canada and the provincial governments, are committed to 5
(a)	promoting equal opportunities for the well-being of Canadians;
(b)	furthering economic development to reduce disparity in opportunities; and
(c)	providing essential public services of 10 reasonable quality to all Canadians.
S.O.	21(2)
et de leur droit de les exercer, le Parlement et les legislatures, ainsi que les gouverne-ments federal et provinciaux, s'engagent a :
a)	promouvoir l'egalite des chances de tous les Canadiens dans la recherche de 5 leur bien-etre;
b)	favoriser le developpement economique pour reduire l'inegalite des chances;
c)	fournir a tous les Canadiens, a un niveau de qualite acceptable, les services 10 publics essentiels.
(2) Parliament and the government of (2) Le Parlement et le gouvernement du	Engagemem
Canada are committed to the principle of	Canada prennent l'engagement de principe	services publics
making equalization payments to ensure that de faire des paiements de perequation proprovincial governments have sufficient reve-15pres a donner aux gouvernements provin-15 nues to provide reasonably comparable levels ciaux des revenus suffisants pour les mettre of public services at reasonably comparable en mesure d'assurer les services publics a un levels of taxation.	niveau de qualite et de fiscalite sensiblement
comparables.
PART IV	PARTIE IV
CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCES	CONFERENCES CONSTITUTIONNELLES
35. (1) Until Part VI comes into force, a 35. (1) Avant l'entree en vigueur de la 20cmiferenc«^ constitutional conference composed of the20partie VI, le premier ministre du Canada |es Prime Minister of Canada and the first min- convoque au moins une fois par an une con-isters of the provinces shall be convened by	ference constitutionnelle reunissant les prethe Prime Minister of Canada at least once	miers ministres provinciaux et lui-meme.
in every year.
(2)	A conference convened under subsec- 25	(2) Sont placees a l'ordre du jour de la 25
tion (1) shall have included in its agenda an conference visee au paragraphe (1) les ques- autochtones item respecting constitutional matters that tion constitutionnelles qui interessent directe-directly affect the aboriginal peoples of ment les peuples autochtones du Canada,
Canada, including the identification and notamment la determination et la definition definition of the rights of those peoples to be 30des droits de ces peuples a inscrire dans la 30 included in the Constitution of Canada, and	Constitution du Canada. Le premier ministre
the Prime Minister of Canada shall invite	du Canada invite leurs representants a partirepresentatives of those peoples to participate ciper aux travaux relatifs a ces questions, in the discussions on that item.
(3)	The Prime Minister of Canada shall35	(3) Le premier ministre du Canada invite dcs^tc^Htoires
invite elected representatives of the govern- des representants elus des gouvernements du 35
ments of the Yukon Territory and the North-	Yukon et des territoires du Nord-Ouest a
west Territories to participate in the discus-	participer aux travaux relatifs a toute quessions on any item on the agenda of a tion placee a l'ordre du jour de la conference conference convened under subsection (1)40visee au paragraphe (1) et qui, selon lui, that, in the opinion of the Prime Minister, interesse directement le territoire du Yukon 40 directly affects the Yukon Territory and the et les territoires du Nord-Ouest.
Northwest Territories.
[Stage Direction]
February 16, 1981
Interim procedure for amending Constitution of Canada
Amendment of provisions relating to some but not all provinces
Amendments
respecting
certain
language rights
Initiation of amendment procedure
Initiation of amendment procedures

[Stage Direction]
36. Until Part VI comes into force, an amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and by the legislative assembly or government of each province.
36. Avant l'entree en vigueur de la partie VI, la Constitution du Canada peut etre modifiee par proclamation du gouverneur general sous le grand sceau du Canada, auto-5risee par des resolutions du Senat et de la Chambre des communes et par Passemblee legislative ou le gouvernement de toutes les provinces.
Procedure provisoire de modification
37. Until Part VI comes into force, an 37. Avant l'entree en vigueur de la partie Modification a amendment to the Constitution of Canada in 10 VI, les dispositions de la Constitution du 10^r8"^edse relation to any provision that applies to one Canada applicables a certaines provinces provinces or more, but not all, provinces may be made seulement peuvent etre modifiees par procla-by proclamation issued by the Governor mation du gouverneur general sous le grand General under the Great Seal of Canada sceau du Canada, autorisee par des resolu-where so authorized by resolutions of the 15 tions du Senat et de la Chambre des commu- 15 Senate and House of Commons and by the nes et par Passemblee legislative ou le gou-legislative assembly or government of each vernement de chaque province a laquelle la province to which the amendment applies. modification s'applique.
38. (1) Notwithstanding section 40, an amendment to the Constitution of Canada
(a)	adding a province as a province named in subsection 16(2), 17(2), 18(2), 19(2) or 20(2), or
(b)	otherwise providing for any or all of the rights guaranteed or obligations imposed by any of those subsections to have application in a province to the extent and under the conditions stated in the amendment,
may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and the legislative assembly of the province to which the amendment applies.
38. (1) Par derogation a Particle 40, toute Modification 20 modification de la Constitution du Canada : 20 "TalnsToits
a)	soit portant insertion du nom d'une 'inguistiques province aux paragraphes 16(2), 17(2),
18(2), 19(2) ou 20(2),
b)	soit prevoyant l'application a une pro-25 vince, aux conditions precisees dans la 25
modification, de tout ou partie des droits ou obligations vises a ces paragraphes, peut etre prise par proclamation du gouverneur general sous le grand sceau du Canada,
30autorisee par des resolutions du Senat, de la 30 Chambre des communes et de Passemblee legislative de la province concernee.
(2) The procedure for amendment prescribed by subsection (1) may be initiated only by the legislative assembly of the province to which the amendment applies.
(2) L'initiative de la procedure de modifi- initiative de la cation visee au paragraphe (1) appartient a Procedure Passemblee legislative de la province concer- 35 nee.
39. (1) The procedures for amendment 40	39. (1) L'initiative des procedures de Initiative des
prescribed by sections 36 and 37 may be	modification visees aux articles 36 et 37	procedures
initiated either by the Senate or House of	appartient au Senat, a la Chambre des com-
Commons or by the legislative assembly or munes, a Passemblee legislative d'une pro-40 government of a province.	vince ou au gouvernement de celle-ci.
February 16, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Revocation of authorization
Limitation on use of interim amendment procedure
Coming into force of Part VI
Provincial
alternative
procedure
Procedure for
perfecting
alternative
Referendum
(2) A resolution made or other authorization given for the purposes of this Part may be revoked at any time before the issue of a proclamation authorized by it.
S.O.	21(2)
(2) La resolution adoptee ou l'autorisation Possibiiitc de donnee dans le cadre de la presente partie rev d ,on peut etre revoquee a tout moment avant la date de la proclamation qu'elle autorise.
40. Sections 36 and 37 do not apply to an amendment to the Constitution of Canada where there is another provision in the Constitution for making the amendment, but the procedure prescribed by section 36 shall be
5	40. Les articles 36 et 37 ne s'appliquent
pas aux cas de modification constitutionnelle pour lesquels une procedure differente est prevue par une autre disposition de la Constitution du Canada. La procedure visee a l'ar-used to amend the Canadian Charter o/lOticle 36 s'impose toutefois pour modifier la 10 Rights and Freedoms and any provision for	Charte canadienne des droits et libertes,
amending the Constitution, including this	ainsi que les dispositions relatives a la modisection.	fication de la Constitution, y compris le present article.
5 Restriction du recours a la procedure provisoire
41. Part VI shall come into force	41. La partie VI entre en vigueur a lal5Entreee"
.x ,	, A	.	vigueur de la
(a) with or without amendment, on such 15 premiere des dates suivantes :	partie vi
day as may be fixed by proclamation issued pursuant to the procedure prescribed by section 36, or (b) on the day that is two years after the day this Act, except Part VI, comes into 20 force,
a)	avec ou sans modification, a la date fixee par proclamation prise conforme-ment a la procedure visee a Particle 36;
b)	deux ans apres l'entree en vigueur, 20 exception faite de la partie VI, de la presente loi.
whichever is the earlier day but, if a referen-	II demeure entendu que, si la tenue d'un
dum is required to be held under subsection	referendum s'impose conformement au para-
42(3), Part VI shall come into force as pro- graphe 42(3), la partie VI entre en vigueur 25 vided in section 43.	25 conformement a Particle 43.
42. (1) The legislative assemblies of seven 42. (1) Les assemblees legislatives d'au or more provinces that have, according to the	moins sept provinces dont la population conthen latest general census, combined popula-	fondue represente, selon le recensement
tions of at least eighty per cent of the popula-	general le plus recent a Pepoque, au moins 30
tion of all the provinces may make a single 30 quatre-vingts pour cent de la population de proposal to substitute for paragraph 45(1 )(6)	toutes les provinces peuvent presenter une
such alternative as they consider appropriate.	proposition commune en vue de remplacer la
procedure prevue a Palinea 45(1)6).
Proposition de remplacement
(2) Chaque province concernee peut depo- 35 Possibiiitc de
mise au point
(2)	One copy of an alternative proposed
under subsection (1) may be deposited with	ser le texte de la proposition visee au parathe Chief Electoral Officer of Canada by 35 graphe (1) aupres du directeur general des each proposing province within two years	elections du Canada dans les deux ans suiafter this Act, except Part VI, comes into	vant l'entree en vigueur, exception faite de la
force but, prior to the expiration of that	partie VI, de la presente loi, etant entendu 40
period, any province that has deposited a	qu'elle peut retirer le texte au cours de cette
copy may withdraw that copy.	40periode.
(3)	Where copies of an alternative have (3) Dans les cas ou, deux ans apres l'enbeen deposited as provided by subsection (2)	tree en vigueur, exception faite de la partie
and, on the day that is two years after this	VI, de la presente loi, au moins sept provin- 45
Act, except Part VI, comes into force, at	ces remplissant les conditions demographileast seven copies remain deposited by prov-45ques visees au paragraphe (1) n'ont pas inces that have, according to the then latest retire leur texte, le gouvernement du Canada
Referendum
[Stage Direction]
February 16, 1981

[Stage Direction]
general census, combined populations of at least eighty per cent of the population of all the provinces, the government of Canada shall cause a referendum to be held within two years after that day to determine 5 whether
(a)	paragraph 45(1 )(/>) or any alternative thereto approved by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and deposited with the Chief Electoral Officer at 10 least ninety days prior to the day on which the referendum is held, or
(b)	the alternative proposed by the provinces,
shall be adopted.
force of Part vi	Where a referendum is held under
where	subsection 42(3), a proclamation under the
heMCndum Great Seal of Canada shall be issued within six months after the date of the referendum bringing Part VI into force with such modifications, if any, as are necessary to incorporate the proposal approved by a majority of the persons voting at the referendum and with such other changes as are reasonably consequential on the incorporation of that 25 proposal.
fait tenir, dans les deux annees suivant l'echeance des deux ans, un referendum pour determiner laquelle des procedures suivantes sera adoptee :
a)	celle qui est prevue a l'alinea 45(1)/?) 5 ou 1'eventuelle procedure de remplacement adoptee par des resolutions du Senat et de la Chambre des communes et dont le texte est depose aupres du directeur general des elections au moins quatre-vingt-dix jours 10 avant la date du referendum;
b)	celle qui fait l'objet de la proposition des provinces.
43. Dans les six mois suivant la date du Entree en referendum vise au paragraphe 42(3), une 15 partfevfapres proclamation sous le grand sceau du Canada referendum est prise en vue de faire entrer en vigueur la 20partie VI, eventuellement modifiee dans la mesure necessaire pour incorporer la proposition approuvee par la majorite des votants et 20 pour integrer les autres amenagements justifies qui en decoulent.
44.	(1) Every citizen of Canada has, sub- 44. (1) Tout citoyen canadien a le droit de Droit devote ject only to such reasonable limits prescribed vote au referendum vise au paragraphe by law as can be demonstrably justified in a 42(3); ce droit ne peut etre restreint que par 25 free and democratic society, the right to vote 30 une regie de droit, dans des limites qui soient in a referendum held under subsection 42(3). raisonnables et dont la justification puisse se
demontrer dans le cadre d'une societe libre et democratique.
Establishment of Referendum Rules
Commission
(2) If a referendum is required to be held (2) Des que s'impose la tenue du referen- 30 Constitution de under subsection 42(3), a Referendum Rules dum vise au paragraphe 42(3), il est consti-Commission shall forthwith be established by tue, par proclamation du gouverneur general commission issued under the Great Seal of 35 sous le grand sceau du Canada, une commis-Canada consisting of	sion referendaire composee :
(a)	the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, who shall be chairman of the Commission;
(b)	a person appointed by the Governor
General in Council; and	40
(c)	a person appointed by the Governor General in Council
(i)	on the recommendation of the governments of a majority of the provinces, or	45
a)	du directeur general des elections du35 Canada, president;
b)	d'une personne nommee par le gouverneur general en conseil;
c)	d'une personne nommee par le gouverneur general en conseil:	40
(i)	soit sur la recommandation des gou-vernements de la majorite des provinces,
(ii)	soit, si les gouvernements de la majorite des provinces ne presentent pas
February 16, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Duty of Commission
Rules for referendum
Proclamation
Computation of period
Rules to have force of law
(ii)	if the governments of a majority of the provinces do not recommend a candidate within thirty days after the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada requests such a recommendation, on the recom- 5 mendation of the Chief Justice of Canada from among persons recommended by the governments of the provinces within thirty days after the expiration of the first mentioned thirty day 10 period or, if none are so recommended, from among such persons as the Chief Justice considers qualified.
S.O.	21(2)
de candidat dans les trente jours suivant la demande que leur en fait le directeur general des elections du Canada, sur la recommandation du juge en chef du Canada, le candidat ainsi presente etant 5 choisi parmi les personnes recomman-dees par les gouvernements des provinces dans les trente jours suivant l'expira-tion du premier delai de trente jours ou, faute de recommandation, parmi les 10 personnes que le juge en chef estime qualifiees.
(3) A Referendum Rules Commission shall cause rules for the holding of a referendum under subsection 42(3) approved by a majority of the Commission to be laid before Parliament within sixty days after the Commission is established or, if Parliament is not then sitting, on any of the first ten days next thereafter that Parliament is sitting.
(3) Dans les soixante jours suivant sa constitution, la commission referendaire fait deposer devant le Parlement les regies appli-cables a la tenue du referendum vise au paragraphe 42(3), qu'elle aura approuvees par decision majoritaire. Si le Parlement ne siege pas, ce depot s'effectue dans les dix premier jours de seance ulterieurs.
Mandat de la commission
20
(4) Subject to subsection (1) and taking (4) Sous reserve du paragraphe (1) et Jurtftrendum" into consideration any rules approved by a compte tenu des regies deposees conforme- ure ren u Referendum Rules Commission in accord- ment au paragraphe (3), le Parlement peut ance with subsection (3), Parliament may 25legiferer pour reglementer la tenue du refe-enact laws respecting the rules applicable to rendum vise au paragraphe 42(3).	25
the holding of a referendum under subsection 42(3).
(5) If Parliament does not enact laws (5) Faute par le Parlement d'avoir legi-under subsection (4) respecting	the rules ap-30 fere, conformement au paragraphe (4), dans
plicable to the holding of a	referendum	le delai de soixante jours suivant le depot deswithin sixty days after receipt	of a recom-	regies visees au paragraphe (3), celles-ci sontmendation from a Referendum	Rules Com-	mises immediatement en vigueur par procla- 30
mission, the rules recommended by the Com- mation du gouverneur general sous le grand mission shall forthwith be brought into force 35 sceau du Canada, by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada.
Proclamation
(6) Any period when Parliament is proro- (6) Dans la computation du delai vise au du°^!"ation gued or dissolved shall not be counted in paragraphe (5), ne sont pas comptes les jours computing the sixty day period referred to in 40 pendant lesquels le Parlement est proroge ou 35 subsection (5).	dissous.
(7) Subject to subsection (1), rules made (7) Sous reserve du paragraphe (1), les under this section have the force of law and	regies arretees en vertu du present article ont
prevail over other laws made under the Con- force de loi et l'emportent sur les dispositions stitution of Canada to the extent of any 45 incompatibles de toute autre regie de droit 40 inconsistency.	fondee sur la Constitution du Canada.
Valeur de force de loi des regies
[Stage Direction]
February 16, 1981
General procedure for amending Constitution of Canada
Definitions
"Atlantic
provinces"
"Western
provinces"
Amendment authorized by referendum
S.O.	21(2)
PART VI	PARTIE VI
PROCEDURE FOR AMENDING	PROCEDURE DE MODIFICATION DE LA
CONSTITUTION OF CANADA	CONSTITUTION DU CANADA
45. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by
(a)	resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons; and
(b)	resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least a majority of the provinces that includes	10
(i)	every province that at any time before the issue of the proclamation had, according to any previous general census, a population of at least twenty-five per cent of the population of 15 Canada,
(ii)	two or more of the Atlantic provinces, and
(iii)	two or more of the Western provinces that have in the aggregate, accord- 20 ing to the then latest general census, a population of at least fifty per cent of the population of all of the Western provinces.
45. (1) La Constitution du Canada peut Procedure etre modifiee par proclamation du gouver- ISmcation neur general sous le grand sceau du Canada, autorisee a la fois :
5 a) par des resolutions du Senat et de la 5 Chambre des communes; b) par des resolutions des assembles legislatives d'une majorite des provinces; cette majorite doit comprendre :
(i)	chaque province dont la population, 10
avant la date de cette proclamation, representait, selon un recensement general anterieur quelconque, au moins vingt-cinq pour cent de la population du Canada,	15
(ii)	au moins deux des provinces de l'Atlantique,
(iii)	au moins deux des provinces de l'Ouest, a condition que la population confondue des provinces consentantes 20 represente, selon le recensement general le plus recent a I'epoque, au moins cin-quante pour cent de la population de l'ensemble des provinces de l'Ouest.
(2) In this section,	25
"Atlantic provinces" means the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland;
"Western provinces" means the provinces of Manitoba, British Columbia, Saskatche-30 wan and Alberta.
(2) Les definitions qui suivent s'appliquent 25 Definitions au present article.
«provinces de l'Atlantique* Les provinces de *provinces de la Nouvelle^Ecosse, du Nouveau-Bruns- 1 Atlanlll)ue' wick, de l'ile-du-Prince-Edouard et de Terre-Neuve.	30
«provinces de l'Ouest* Les provinces du -provinces de Manitoba, de la Colombie-Britannique, de ucsl' la Saskatchewan et de 1'Alberta.
46.	(1) An amendment to the Constitution 46. (1) La Constitution du Canada peut Modification of Canada may be made by proclamation etre modifiee par proclamation du gouver- 35 ^Krendum^ issued by the Governor General under the neur general sous le grand sceau du Canada,
Great Seal of Canada where so authorized 35 autorisee par un referendum tenu dans tout by a referendum held throughout Canada le pays conformement au paragraphe (2) et under subsection (2) at which	lors duquel la modification a ete approuvee :
(a)	a majority of persons voting thereat, a) d'une part, a la majorite des votants; 40
an(^	b) d'autre part, a la majorite des votants
(b)	a majority of persons voting thereat in 40 de chacune des provinces dont les resolueach of the provinces, resolutions of the	tions de leurs assemblies legislatives suffilegislative assemblies of which would be	raient, avec les resolutions du Senat et de
February 16, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Authorization of referendum
Time limit for referendum
Amendment of provisions relating to some but not all provinces
Amendments
respecting
certain
language rights
sufficient, together with resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons, to authorize the issue of a proclamation under subsection 45(1),
have approved the making of the amend- 5 ment.
S.O.	21(2)
la Chambre des communes, a autoriser la proclamation mentionnee au paragraphe 45(1).
(2)	A referendum referred to in subsection (2) L'ordre de tenue du referendum men- Automation de (1) shall be held where directed by procla-	tionne au paragraphe (1) est donne par pro- 5rceren um
mation issued by the Governor General	clamation du gouverneur general sous le
under the Great Seal of Canada, which proc- lOgrand sceau du Canada. Cette proclamation lamation may be issued where	est assujettie aux conditions suivantes :
(a)	an amendment to the Constitution of Canada has been authorized under paragraph 45(1 )(a) by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons;	15
a) le Senat et la Chambre des communes ont, conformement a l'alinea 45(1 )a), 10 adopte des resolutions autorisant la modification de la Constitution du Canada;
(b)	the requirements of paragraph 45(1 )(/>) in respect of the proposed amendment have not been satisfied within twelve months after the passage of the resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons; and 20
b) les dispositions de l'alinea 45(1 )b) applicables au projet de modification n'ont pas ete observees dans les douze mois sui- 15 vant l'adoption des resolutions du Senat et de la Chambre des communes;
(c)	the issue of the proclamation has been	c) le gouverneur general en conseil a autoauthorized by the Governor General in	rise la proclamation.
Council.
(3) A proclamation issued under subsec- (3) La proclamation visee au paragraphe 20 Deia'de tenue tion (2) in respect of a referendum shall 25 (2) fixe la tenue du referendum pour une u re eren um provide for the referendum to be held within	date comprise dans les deux ans qui suivent
two years after the expiration of the twelve	l'expiration du delai de douze mois menmonth period referred to in paragraph (b) of tionne a l'alinea b) de ce paragraphe. that subsection.
47,	An amendment to the Constitution of 30	47. Les dispositions de la Constitution du 25 Modification aCanada in relation to any provision that	Canada applicables a certaines provinces	ceftames'applies to one or more, but not all, provinces	seulement peuvent etre modifiees par procla-	provincesmay be made by proclamation issued by the	mation du gouverneur general sous le grandGovernor General under the Great Seal of	sceau du Canada, autorisee par des resolu-Canada where so authorized by resolutions 35 tions du Senat, de la Chambre des commu- 30 of the Senate and House of Commons and of	nes et de l'assemblee legislative de chaquethe legislative assembly of each province to	province a laquelle la modification s'appliwhich the amendment applies.	que.48.	(1) Notwithstanding section 54, an 48. (1) Par derogation a l'article 54, toute Modification amendment to the Constitution of Canada 40 modification de la Constitution du Canada : 35 certalns^roits(a)	adding a province as a province named in subsection 16(2), 17(2), 18(2), 19(2) or 20(2), or
(A) otherwise providing for any or all of the rights guaranteed or obligations 45 imposed by any of those subsections to have application in a province to the extent and under the conditions stated in the amendment,
a)	soit portant insertion du nom d'une 'mguistiques province aux paragraphes 16(2), 17(2),
18(2), 19(2) ou 20(2),
b)	soit prevoyant l'application a une province, aux conditions precisees dans la 40 modification, de tout ou partie des droits ou obligations vises a ces paragraphes,
[Stage Direction]
February 16, 1981
Initiation of amendment procedure
Initiation of amendment procedures
Revocation of authorization
Right to vote
Establishment of Referendum Rules
Commission

[Stage Direction]
may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and the legislative assembly of the province to which the amendment applies.
peut etre prise par proclamation du gouver-neur general sous le grand sceau du Canada, autorisee par des resolutions du Senat, de la Chambre des communes et de 1'assemblee 5 legislative de la province concernee.	5
(2)	The procedure for amendment prescribed by subsection (1) may be initiated only by the legislative assembly of the province to which the amendment applies.
(2)	L'initiative de la procedure de modification visee au paragraphe (1) appartient a l'assemblee legislative de la province concernee.
Initiative de la procedure
49. (1) The procedures for amendment prescribed by subsection 45(1) and section 47 may be initiated either by the Senate or House of Commons or by the legislative assembly of a province.
49. (1) L'initiative des procedures de 10 initiative des modification visees au paragraphe 45(1) et a Procedures l'article 47 appartient au Senat, a la Chambre des communes ou a l'assemblee legisla-15 tive d'une province.
(2) A resolution made for the purposes of this Part may be revoked at any time before the issue of a proclamation authorized by it.
(2) La resolution adoptee dans le cadre de 15 Possibiiite de la presente partie peut etre revoquee a tout revocatlon moment avant la date de la proclamation qu'elle autorise.
50. (1) Every citizen of Canada has, sub- 50. (1) Tout citoyen canadien a le droit de Droit devote ject only to such reasonable limits prescribed 20 vote au referendum vise a Particle 46; ce20 by law as can be demonstrably justified in a	droit ne peut etre restreint que par une regie
free and democratic society, the right to vote	de droit, dans des limites qui soient raisonnain a referendum held under section 46.	bles et dont la justification puisse se demontrer dans le cadre d'une societe libre et democratique.	25
(2) Where a referendum is to be held (2) Des que s'impose la tenue du referen- Constitution de under section 46, a Referendum Rules Com- 25 dum vise a Particle 46, il est constitue, par ^Ar^ndarre0" mission shall forthwith be established by	proclamation du gouverneur general sous le
commission issued under the Great Seal of	grand sceau du Canada, une commission
Canada consisting of	referendaire composee :	30
(a)	the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, who shall be chairman of the Commission; 30
(b)	a person appointed by the Governor General in Council; and
(c)	a person appointed by the Governor General in Council
(i)	on the recommendation of the gov- 35 ernments of a majority of the provinces,
or
(ii)	if the governments of a majority of the provinces do not recommend a candidate within thirty days after the Chief 40 Electoral Officer of Canada requests such a recommendation, on the recommendation of the Chief Justice of Canada from among persons recommended by the governments of the prov- 45
a)	du directeur general des elections du Canada, president;
b)	d'une personne nommee par le gouverneur general en conseil;
c)	d'une personne nommee par le gouver- 35 neur general en conseil:
(i)	soit sur la recommandation des gou-vernements de la majorite des provinces,
(ii)	soit, si les gouvernements de la majorite des provinces ne presentent pas 40 de candidat dans les trente jours suivant
la demande que leur en fait le directeur general des elections du Canada, sur la recommandation du juge en chef du Canada, le candidat ainsi presente etant 45 choisi parmi les personnes recomman-dees par les gouvernements des provin-
February 16, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Duty of Commission
Rules for referendum
S.O.	21(2)
inces within thirty days after the expiration of the first mentioned thirty day period or, if none are so recommended, from among such persons as the Chief Justice considers qualified.	5
ces dans les trente jours suivant l'expira-tion du premier delai de trente jours ou, faute de recommandation, parmi les personnes que le juge en chef estime qualifies.	5
(3) A Referendum Rules Commission shall cause rules for the holding of a referendum under section 46 approved by a majority of the Commission to be laid before Parliament within sixty days after the Commission is established or, if Parliament is not then sitting, on any of the first ten days next thereafter that Parliament is sitting.
(3) Dans les soixante jours suivant sa constitution, la commission referendaire fait deposer devant le Parlement les regies appli-cables a la tenue du referendum vise a l'arti-lOcle 46, qu'elle aura approuvees par decision majoritaire. Si le Parlement ne siege pas, ce depot s'effectue dans les dix premier jours de seance ulterieurs.
Mandat de la commission
(4)	Subject to subsection (1) and taking (4) Sous reserve du paragraphe (1) et Regiementation into consideration any rules approved by a 15 compte tenu des regies deposees conforme- 15 u re eren um Referendum Rules Commission in accord-	ment au paragraphe (3), le Parlement peutance with subsection (3), Parliament may	legiferer pour reglementer la tenue du refeenact laws respecting the rules applicable to rendum vise a Particle 46. the holding of a referendum under section 46.	20
Proclamation (5) Jf Parliament does not enact laws under subsection (4) respecting the rules applicable to the holding of a referendum within sixty days after receipt of a recommendation from a Referendum Rules Commission, the rules recommended by the Commission shall forthwith be brought into force by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada.
(5)	Faute par le Parlement d'avoir legi- Proclamation fere, conformement au paragraphe (4), dans 20 le delai de soixante jours suivant le depot des regies visees au paragraphe (3), celles-ci sont mises immediatement en vigueur par proclamation du gouverneur general sous le grand sceau du Canada.	25
Computation of period
(6) Any period when Parliament is proro- 30 gued or dissolved shall not be counted in computing the sixty day period referred to in subsection (5).
(6) Dans la computation du delai vise au paragraphe (5), ne sont pas comptes les jours pendant lesquels le Parlement est proroge ou dissous.
Computation du delai
Rules to have (7) Subject to subsection (1), rules made force of law	under this section have the force of law and
prevail over other laws made under the Constitution of Canada to the extent of any inconsistency.
(7) Sous reserve du paragraphe (1), les 30Valeur de f°rce regies arretees en vertu du present article ont de 101 des regles force de loi et I'emportent sur les dispositions incompatibles de toute autre regie de droit fondee sur la Constitution du Canada.
Limitation on use of general amendment procedure
51. (1) The procedures prescribed by section 45, 46 or 47 do not apply to an amendment to the Constitution of Canada where there is another provision in the Constitution for making the amendment, but the procedures prescribed by section 45 or 46 shall, nevertheless, be used to amend any provision for amending the Constitution, including this section.
51. (1) Les articles 45, 46 ou 47 ne s'ap-35 Restriction du 40pliquent pas aux cas de modification consti- pr^dure3 tutionnelle pour lesquels une procedure diffe- normaiede rente est prevue par une autre disposition de modification la Constitution du Canada. La procedure visee aux articles 45 ou 46 s'impose toutefois 40 45 pour modifier les dispositions relatives a la modification de la Constitution, y compris le present article.
[Stage Direction]
February 16, 1981
Idem
Amendments by Parliament
Amendments by provincial legislatures
Matters
requiring
amendment
under general
amendment
procedure
Consequential
amendments

[Stage Direction]
(2) The procedures prescribed by section 45 or 46 do not apply in respect of an amendment referred to in section 47.
52. Subject to section 54, Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate or House of Commons.
(2) Les procedures prevues aux articles 45 ou 46 ne s'appliquent pas a la modification visee a Particle 47.
52. Sous reserve de Particle 54, le Parle-5 ment a competence exclusive pour modifier 5 les dispositions de la Constitution du Canada relatives au pouvoir executif federal, au Senat et a la Chambre des communes.
53. Subject to section 54, the legislature 53. Sous reserve de Particle 54, la legisla-of each province may exclusively make laws 10 ture de chaque province a competence exclu- 10 amending the constitution of the province. sive pour modifier la constitution de celle-ci.
54. An amendment to the Constitution of 54. Toute modification de la Constitution Canada in relation to the following matters du Canada portant sur les questions suivan-may be made only in accordance with a tes se fait selon la procedure visee aux arti-procedure prescribed by section 45 or 46:	15 cles 45 ou 46 :	15
(a)	the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;
(b)	the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms;	20
(c)	the commitments relating to equalization and regional disparities set out in section 34;
(d)	the powers of the Senate;
(e)	the number of members by which a 25 province is entitled to be represented in the Senate;
(/) the method of selecting Senators and the residence qualifications of Senators;
(g)	the right of a province to a number of 30 members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators representing the province; and
(h)	the principles of proportionate representation of the provinces in the 35 House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada.
a)	la charge de Reine, celle de gouverneur general et celle de lieutenant-gouverneur;
b)	la Charte canadienne des droits et libertes;
c)	les engagements enonces, en matiere de 20 perequation et d'inegalites regionales, a Particle 34;
d)	les pouvoirs du Senat;
e)	le nombre de senateurs representant
chaque province au Senat;	25
f)	le mode de selection des senateurs et les conditions de residence qu'ils doivent remplir;
g)	le droit d'une province d'avoir a la Chambre des communes un nombre de 30 deputes au moins egal a celui de ses senateurs;
h)	les principes de la representation pro-portionnelle des provinces a la Chambre des communes prevus par la Constitution 35 du Canada.
55. (1) Class 1 of section 91 and class 1 of 55. (1) La rubrique 1 de Particle 91 et la section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867	rubrique 1 de Particle 92 de la Loi constitu-
(formerly named the British North America 40 tionnelle de 1867 (anterieurement designee
Act, 1867), the British North America (No. 2) Act, 1949, referred to in item 22 of Schedule I to this Act and Parts IV and V of this Act are repealed.
sous le titre : Acte de I'Amerique du Nord 40 britannique, 1867), PActe de I'Amerique du Nord britannique (n° 2), 1949, mentionne au n° 22 de Pannexe I de la presente loi, et les parties IV et V de la presente loi sont abroges.	45
Idem
Modification par le Parlement
Modification par les legislatures provinciales
Recours obligatoire a la procedure normale de modification
Modifications
correlatives
February 16, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Idem
Amendment to Constitution Act. 1867
Laws respecting
non-renewable
natural
resources,
forestry
resources and
electrical
energy
Export from provinces of resources
Authority of Parliament
5.0.	21(2)
(2) When Parts IV and V of this Act are repealed, this section may be repealed and this Act may be renumbered, consequential upon the repeal of those Parts and this section, by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada.
(2) Des l'abrogation des parties IV et V de la presente loi, le gouverneur general peut, par proclamation sous le grand sceau du Canada, abroger le present article et changer 5 en consequence de cette double abrogation la numerotation de la presente loi.
Idem


[Stage Direction]
56. (1) The Constitution Act, 1867 (for- 56. (1) La Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 merly named the British North America Act,	(anterieurement designee sous le titre : Acte
1867) is amended by adding thereto,	de I'Amerique du Nord britannique, 1867)
immediately after section 92 thereof, the fol- lOest modifiee par l'insertion, apres l'article 92,10 lowing heading and section:	de la rubrique et de l'article suivants :
Modification de la Loi
constitutionnelle de 1867
«Ressources naturelles non renouvelables, ressources forestieres et energie electrique
92A. (1) La legislature de chaque pro-	Competence
vince a competence exclusive pour legife-	Provmciale
rer dans les domaines suivants :
"Non-Renewable Natural Resources, Forestry Resources and Electrical Energy
92A. (1) In each province, the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to
(a)	exploration for non-renewable natu- 15 ral resources in the province;
(b)	development, conservation and management of non-renewable natural resources and forestry resources in the province, including laws in relation to 20 the rate of primary production therefrom; and
(c)	development, conservation and management of sites and facilities in the province for the generation and produc- 25 tion of electrical energy.
(2) In each province, the legislature may make laws in relation to the export from the province to another part of Canada of the primary production from non-renew- 30 able natural resources and forestry resources in the province and the production from facilities in the province for the generation of electrical energy, but such laws may not authorize or provide for 35 discrimination in prices or in supplies exported to another part of Canada.
(3) Nothing in subsection (2) derogates from the authority of Parliament to enact laws in relation to the matters referred to 40
a)	prospection des ressources naturelles 15 non renouvelables de la province;
b)	exploitation, conservation et gestion des ressources naturelles non renouvelables et des ressources forestieres de la province, y compris leur rythme de pro- 20 duction primaire;
c)	amenagement, conservation et gestion des emplacements et des installations de la province destines a la production d'energie electrique.	25
(3) Le paragraphe (2) ne porte pas Pouvoirdu atteinte au pouvoir du Parlement de legife-40 P<irlcment rer dans les domaines vises a ce paragra-
(2) La legislature de chaque province a Exportation competence pour legiferer en ce qui con- provinces cerne l'exportation, hors de la province, a destination d'une autre partie du Canada, de la production primaire tiree des ressour- 30 ces naturelles non renouvelables et des ressources forestieres de la province, ainsi que de la production d'energie electrique de la province, sous reserve de ne pas adopter de lois autorisant ou prevoyant des disparites35 de prix ou des disparites dans les exportations destinees a une autre partie du Canada.
[Stage Direction]
February 16, 1981
Taxation of resources
"Primary
production"
Existing powers or rights
Idem
phe, les dispositions d'une loi du Parlement adoptee dans ces domaines l'emportant sur les dispositions incompatibles d'une loi provinciale.

[Stage Direction]
in that subsection and, where such a law of Parliament and a law of a province conflict, the law of Parliament prevails to the extent of the conflict.
(4)	In each province, the legislature may 5 make laws in relation to the raising of money by any mode or system of taxation in respect of
(a)	non-renewable natural resources and forestry resources in the province 10 and the primary production therefrom, and
(b)	sites and facilities in the province
for the generation of electrical energy and the production therefrom,	15
whether or not such production is exported in whole or in part from the province, but such laws may not authorize or provide for taxation that differentiates between production exported to another part of 20 Canada and production not exported from the province.
(5)	The expression "primary production" has the meaning assigned by the Sixth Schedule.	25
(6)	Nothing in subsections (1) to (5)
derogates from any powers or rights that a legislature or government of a province had immediately before the coming into force of this section."	30
57. The said Act is further amended by adding thereto the following Schedule:

[Stage Direction]
Primary Production from Non-Renewable Natural Resources and Forestry Resources 1
1.	For the purposes of section 92A of this Act,
(a)	production from a non-renewable 35 natural resource is primary production therefrom if
(4)	La legislature de chaque province a 5 Taxation des competence pour prelever des sommes ressources d'argent par tout mode ou systeme de
taxation :
a)	des ressources naturelles non renou-velables et des ressources forestieres de 10 la province, ainsi que de la production primaire qui en est tiree;
b)	des emplacements et des installations de la province destines a la production d'energie electrique, ainsi que cette pro- 15 duction meme.
Cette competence peut s'exercer indepen-damment du fait que la production en cause soit ou non, en totalite ou en partie, exportee hors de la province, mais les lois 20 adoptees dans ces domaines ne peuvent autoriser ou prevoir une taxation qui eta-blisse une distinction entre la production exportee a destination d'une autre partie du Canada et la production non exportee 25 hors de la province.
(5)	L'expression «production primaire# a .Production le sens qui lui est donne dans la sixieme Prlnlalre* annexe.
(6) Les paragraphes (1) a (5) ne portent 30 Pouvoirsou pas atteinte aux pouvoirs ou droits detenus dro,ts exis,ants par la legislature ou le gouvernement d'une province lors de l'entree en vigueur du present article.*
57. La presente loi est en outre modifiee 351*™ par l'adjonction de l'annexe suivante :
«SIXIEME ANNEXE
Production primaire tiree des ressources naturelles non renouvelables et des ressources forestieres
1.	Pour 1'application de Particle 92A :
a)	on entend par production primaire tiree d'une ressource naturelle non renouvela-ble:	40
February 16, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Primacy of Constitution of Canada
Constitution of Canada
Amendments to Constitution of Canada
Repeals and new names
Consequential
amendments
(i)	it is in the form in which it exists upon its recovery or severance from its natural state, or
(ii)	it is a product resulting from processing or refining the resource, and is 5 not a manufactured product or a product resulting from refining crude oil, refining upgraded heavy crude oil, refining gases or liquids derived from coal or refining a synthetic equivalent of crude 10 oil; and
(b)	production from a forestry resource is primary production therefrom if it consists of sawlogs, poles, lumber, wood chips, sawdust or any other primary wood product, 15 or wood pulp, and is not a product manufactured from wood."


[Stage Direction]
(i)	soit le produit qui se presente sous la meme forme que lors de son extraction du milieu naturel,
(ii)	soit le produit non manufacture de
la transformation, du raffinage ou de 5 l'affinage d'une ressource, a l'exception du produit du raffinage du petrole brut, du raffinage du petrole brut lourd ame-liore, du raffinage des gaz ou des liqui-des derives du charbon ou du raffinage 10 d'un equivalent synthetique du petrole brut;
b)	on entend par production primaire tiree d'une ressource forestiere la production constitute de billots, de poteaux, de bois 15 d'oeuvre, de copeaux, de sciure ou d'autre produit primaire du bois, ou de pate de bois, a l'exception d'un produit manufacture en bois.*

[Stage Direction]
GENERAL	DISPOSITIONS GENERALES
58. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the 58. (1) La Constitution du Canada est la 20 Primaute de la supreme law of Canada, and any law that is loi supreme du Canada; elle rend inoperantes Canada1*'0"d* inconsistent with the provisions of the Con-20les dispositions incompatibles de toute autre stitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, regie de droit, of no force or effect.
(2) The Constitution of Canada includes
(a)	the Canada Act;
(b)	the Acts and orders referred to in 25 Schedule I; and
(c)	any amendment to any Act or order referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).
(2) La Constitution du Canada comprend :	Constitution du
Canada
a)	la Lot sur le Canada;	25
b)	les textes legislatifs et les decrets figurant a l'annexe I;
c)	les modifications aux textes legislatifs
et aux decrets mentionnes aux alineas a) ou b).	30
(3) Amendments to the Constitution of (3) La Constitution du Canada ne peut Modification Canada shall be made only in accordance 30 etre modifiee que conformement aux pou-with the authority contained in the Constitu- voirs conferes par elle. tion of Canada.
59. (1) The enactments referred to in 59. (1) Les textes legislatifs enumeres a la Abrogation et Column I of Schedule 1 are hereby repealed	colonne I de l'annexe I sont abroges ou modi- 35nouveaux,l,res
or amended to the extent indicated in 35	fies dans la mesure indiquee a la	colonne II.Column II thereof and, unless repealed, shall	Sauf abrogation, ils restent en	vigueur encontinue as law in Canada under the names	tant que lois du Canada sous les	titres menset out in Column III thereof.	tionnes a la colonne III.
(2) Every enactment, except the Canada (2) Toute loi, sauf la Loi sur le Canada, 40 Modifications Act, that refers to an enactment referred to 40 qui fait mention d'une loi figurant a l'annexe correlatlves in Schedule I by the name in Column I I par le titre indique a la colonne I est thereof is hereby amended by substituting modifiee par substitution a ce titre du titre
[Stage Direction]
February 16, 1981
French version of Constitution of Canada
English and French versions of certain constitutional texts
English and French versions of this Act
Commencement
Exception
Short title and citations
S.O.	21(2)
for that name the corresponding name in Column III thereof, and any British North America Act not referred to in Schedule I may be cited as the Constitution Act followed by the year and number, if any, of its enactment.
correspondant mentionne a la colonne III; tout Acte de l'Amerique du Nord Britanni-que non mentionne a l'annexe I peut etre cite sous le titre de Loi constitutionnelle suivi de 5l'indication de l'annee de son adoption et 5 eventuellement de son numero.
60. A French version of the portions of the 60, Le ministre de la Justice du Canada version Constitution of Canada referred to in	est charge de rediger, dans les meilleurs	^rtainTielaesSchedule I shall be prepared by the Minister	delais, la version fran?aise des parties de la	constitutionneisof Justice of Canada as expeditiously as pos- 10 Constitution du Canada qui figurent a l'an- 10 sible and, when any portion thereof sufficient nexe I; toute partie suffisamment importante to warrant action being taken has been so	est, des qu'elle est prete, deposee pour adopprepared, it shall be put forward for enact-	tion par proclamation du gouverneur generalment by proclamation issued by the Gover-	sous le grand sceau du Canada, conformenor General under the Great Seal of Canada 15 ment a la procedure applicable a l'epoque a 15 pursuant to the procedure then applicable to la modification des dispositions constitution-an amendment of the same provisions of the nelles qu'elle contient.
Constitution of Canada.
constitutionneis
61. Where any portion of the Constitution 61. Les versions fran?aise et anglaise des versions of Canada has been or is enacted in English 20 parties de la Constitution du Canada adop-	anglaJse'de
and French or where a French version of any	tees dans ces deux langues ont egalement	20certains textes
portion of the Constitution is enacted pursu-	force de loi. En outre, ont egalement force de
ant to section 60, the English and French	loi, des l'adoption, dans le cadre de l'article
versions of that portion of the Constitution	60, d'une partie de la version fran?aise de la
are equally authoritative.	25 Constitution, cette partie et la version
anglaise correspondante.	25
62. The English and French versions of this Act are equally authoritative.
62. Les versions franfaise et anglaise de la presente loi ont egalement force de loi.
63. Subject to section 64, this Act shall 63. Sous reserve de Particle 64, la presente come into force on a day to be fixed by loi entre en vigueur au jour fixe par procla-proclamation issued by the Governor Gener- 30mation du gouverneur general sous le grand 30 al under the Great Seal of Canada.	sceau du Canada.
Versions fran9aise et anglaise de la presente loi
Entree en vigueur
64.	Part VI shall come into force as pro- 64. La partie VI entre en vigueur dans les Exception
vided in Part V.	conditions prevues a la partie V.
65.	This Schedule may be cited as the 65. Titre abrege de la presente annexe :	Tines
Constitution Act, 1981, and the Constitution 35 Loi constitutionnelle de 1981; titre commun35 Acts 1867 to 1975 (No. 2) and this Act may des lois constitutionnelles de 1867 a 1975
be cited together as the Constitution Acts, (n° 2) et de la presente loi : Lois constitu-1867 to 1981.	tionnelles de 1867 a 1981.
[Stage Direction]
February 16, 1981
S.O. 21(2)	SCHEDULE I
	to the

[Stage Direction]
Column I Item Act Affected	Column II Column III Amendment New Name
1. British North America Act, 1867, 30-31 Viet., c. 3 (U.K.)	(1)	Section 1 is repealed and Constitution Act, 1867 the following substituted therefor: "1. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1867." (2)	Section 20 is repealed.2. An Act to amend and continue the Act 32-33 Victoria chapter 3; and to establish and provide for the Government of the Province of Manitoba, 1870, 33 Viet., c. 3 (Can.)	(1)	The long title is repealed Manitoba Act, 1870 and the following substituted therefor: "Manitoba Act, 1870." (2)	Section 20 is repealed.3. Order of Her Majesty in Council admitting Rupert's Land and the North-Western Territory into the union, dated the 23rd day of June, 1870	Rupert's Land and North-Western Territory Order4. Order of Her Majesty in Council admitting British Columbia into the Union, dated the 16th day of May, 1871.	British Columbia Terms of Union5. British North America Act, 1871, 34-35 Viet., c. 28 (U.K.)	Section 1 is repealed and the Constitution Act, 1871 following substituted therefor: "1. This Act may be cited as thc Constitution Act, 1871."6. Order of Her Majesty in Council admitting Prince Edward Island into the Union, dated the 26th day of June, 1873.	Prince Edward Island Terms of Union7. Parliament of Canada Act, 1875, 38-39 Viet., c. 38 (U.K.)	Parliament of Canada Act, 18758. Order of Her Majesty in Council admitting all British possessions and Territories in North America and islands adjacent thereto into the Union, dated the 31st day of July, 1880.	Adjacent Territories Order
February 16, 1981


[Stage Direction]
Colonne I Loi visee
Colonne II	Colonne III
Modification	Nouveau titre
1. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-	(1) L'article 1 est abroge et Loi constitutionnelle de 1867
nique, 1867, 30-31 Viet., c. 3 remplace par ce qui suit:
(R.-U.)	«1. Titre abrege : Loi constitutionnelle de 1867.*
(2) L'article 20 est abroge.
2. Acte pour amender et continuer Facte trente-deux et trente-trois Victoria, chapitre trois, et pour etablir et constituer le gouvernement de la province de Manitoba, 1870, 33 Viet., c. 3 (Canada)
(1)	Le titre complet est abroge Loi de 1870 sur le Manitoba et remplace par ce qui suit:
«Loi de 1870 sur le Manitoba.*
(2)	L'article 20 est abroge.
3. Arrete en conseil de Sa Majeste admettant la Terre de Rupert et le Territoire du Nord-Ouest, en date du 23 juin 1870
Decret en conseil sur la terre de Rupert et le territoire du Nord-Ouest
4. Arrete en conseil de Sa Majeste admettant la Colombie-Britannique, en date du 16 mai 1871
Conditions de l'adhesion de la Colombie-Britannique
5. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1871, 34-35 Viet., c. 28 (R.-U.)
L'article 1 est abroge et remplace par ce qui suit:
«1. Titre abrege : Loi constitutionnelle de 1871.*
Loi constitutionnelle de 1871
6.	Arrete en conseil de Sa Majeste admettant l'lle-du-Prince-Edouard, en date du 26 juin 1873
Conditions de l'adhesion de l'ile-du-Prince-Edouard
7.	Acte du Parlement du Canada, 1875,38-39 Viet., c. 38 (R.-U.)
8.	Arrete en conseil de Sa Majeste admettant dans l'Union tous les ter-ritoires et possessions britanniques dans l'Amerique du Nord, et les iles adjacentes a ces territoires et possessions, en date du 31 juillet 1880
Loi de 1875 sur le Parlement du Canada
Decret en conseil sur les territoires adjacents
[Stage Direction]
February 16, 1981

[Stage Direction]
to the
CONSTITUTION ACT, 1981-Continued
Column I
Item	Act Affected
Column II Amendment
Column III New Name
9. British North America Act, 1886, 49-50 Viet., c. 35 (U.K.)
Section 3 is repealed and the Constitution Act, 1886 following substituted therefor:
"3. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1886."
10.	Canada (Ontario Boundary) Act,
1889, 52-53 Viet., c. 28 (U.K.)
11.	Canadian Speaker (Appointment of	The Act is repealed.
Deputy) Act, 1895, 2nd Sess., 59
Viet., c. 3 (U.K.)
12.	The Alberta Act, 1905 4-5 Edw.
VII, c. 3 (Can.)
Canada (Ontario Boundary) Act, 1889
Alberta Act
13. The Saskatchewan Act, 1905, 4-5 Edw. VII, c. 42 (Can.)
Saskatchewan Act
14. British North America Act, 1907, 7 Edw. VII, c. 11 (U.K.)
Section 2 is repealed and the Constitution Act, 1907 following substituted therefor:
"2. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1907."
15. British North America Act, 1915, 5-6 Geo. V, c. 45 (U.K.)
Section 3 is repealed and the Constitution Act, 1915 following substituted therefor:
"3. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1915."
16. British North America Act, 1930, 20-21 Geo. V, c. 26 (U.K.)
Section 3 is repealed and the Constitution Act, 1930 following substituted therefor:
"3. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1930."
17. Statute of Westminster, 1931, 22 Geo. V, c. 4 (U.K.)
In so far as they apply to Statute of Westminster, 1931 Canada,
(a)	section 4 is repealed; and
(b)	subsection 7(1) is repealed.
18. British North America Act, 1940, 3-4 Geo. VI, c. 36 (U.K.)
Section 2 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"2. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1940."
Constitution Act, 1940
February 16, 1981
[Stage Direction]
ANNEXE I (suite)

[Stage Direction]
Colonne I	Colonne II	Colonne IIILoi visee	Modification	Nouveau titre
9. Acte de PAmerique du Nord britan-nique, 1886, 49-50 Viet., c. 35 (R.-U.)
L'article 3 est abroge et rem- Loi constitutionnelle de 1886 place par ce qui suit:
«3. Titre abrege : Loi constitutionnelle de 1886.*
10.	Acte du Canada (limites d'Ontario)
1889, 52-53 Viet., c. 28 (R.-U.)
11.	Acte concernant l'Orateur canadien	La loi est abrogee.
(nomination d'un suppleant) 1895,
2e session, 59 Viet., c. 3 (R.-U.)
12.	Acte de PAlberta, 1905, 4-5 Ed.
VII, c. 3 (Canada)
Loi de 1889 sur le Canada (fron-tieres de l'Ontario)
Loi sur l'Alberta
13. Acte de la Saskatchewan, 1905, 4-5 Ed. VII, c. 42 (Canada)
Loi sur la Saskatchewan
14. Acte de PAmerique du Nord britan-nique, 1907, 7 Ed. VII, c. 11 (R.-U.)
L'article 2 est abroge et rem-place par ce qui suit :
«2. Titre abrege : Loi constitutionnelle de I907.*
Loi constitutionnelle de 1907
15. Acte de PAmerique du Nord britan-nique, 1915, 5-6 Geo. V, c. 45 (R.-U.)
L'article 3 est abroge et rem-place par ce qui suit:
«3. Titre abrege : Loi constitutionnelle de 1915.*
Loi constitutionnelle de 1915
16. Acte de PAmerique du Nord britan-nique, 1930, 20-21 Geo. V, c. 26 (R.-U.)
L'article 3 est abroge et rem-place par ce qui suit:
«3. Titre abrege : Loi constitutionnelle de I930.*
Loi constitutionnelle de 1930
17. Statut de Westminster, 1931, 22 Geo. V, c. 4 (R.-U.)
Dans la mesure ou ils s'appli- Statut de Westminster de 1931 quent au Canada:
a)	Particle 4 est abroge;
b)	le paragraphe 7(1) est abroge.
18. Acte de PAmerique du Nord britan-nique, 1940, 3-4 Geo. VI, c. 36 (R.-U.)
L'article 2 est abroge et rem-place par ce qui suit:
«2. Titre abrege : Loi constitutionnelle de 1940.*
Loi constitutionnelle de 1940
[Stage Direction]
February 16, 1981

[Stage Direction]
to the
CONSTITUTION ACT, 1981 -Continued
Column I
Item	Act Affected
Column II	Column III
Amendment	New Name
19. British North America Act, 1943, 6-7 Geo. VI, c. 30 (U.K.)
The Act is repealed.
20. British North America Act, 1946, 9-10 Geo. VI, c. 63 (U.K.)
The Act is repealed.
21. British North America Act, 1949, 12-13 Geo. VI, c. 22 (U.K.)
Section 3 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"3. This Act may be cited as the Newfoundland Act."
Newfoundland Act
22. British North America (No. 2) Act, 1949, 13 Geo. VI, c. 81 (U.K.)
The Act is repealed.
(effective when section 55 of the Constitution Act. 1981 comes into force)
23. British North America Act, 1951,	The Act is repealed.
14-15 Geo. VI, c. 32 (U.K.)
24. British North America Act, 1952, 1	The Act is repealed.
Eliz. II, c. 15 (Can.)
25. British North America Act, 1960, 9 Eliz. II, c. 2 (U.K.)
Section 2 is repealed and the Constitution Act, 1960 following substituted therefor:
"2. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, I960."
26. British North America Act, 1964, 12-13 Eliz. II, c. 73 (U.K.)
27. British North America Act, 1965, 14 Eliz. II, c. 4, Part I (Can.)
Section 2 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"2. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1964."
Section 2 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"2. This Part may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1965."
Constitution Act, 1964
Constitution Act, 1965
February 16, 1981
[Stage Direction]
	SO. 21(2) ANNEXE I (suite)
	LOI CONSTITUTIONNELLE DE 1981
Colonne 1 Loi visee	Colonne II Colonne III Modification Nouveau titre
19. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1943, 6-7 Geo. VI, c. 30 (R.-U.)	La loi est abrogee.
20. Acte de 1'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1946, 9-10 Geo. VI, c. 63 (R.-U.)	La loi est abrogee.
21. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1949, 12-13 Geo. VI, c. 22 (R.-U.)	L'article 3 est abroge et rem- Loi sur Terre-Neuve place par ce qui suit: «3. Titre abrege : Loi sur Terre-Neuve.*
22. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique (N° 2), 1949, 13 Geo. VI, c. 81 (R.-U.)	La loi est abrogee lors de l'en-tree en vigueur de Particle 55 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1981.
23. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1951, 14-15 Geo. VI, c. 32 (R.-U.)	La loi est abrogee.
24. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1952, 1 Eliz. II, c. 15 (Canada)	La loi est abrogee.
25. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1960, 9 Eliz. II, c. 2 (R.-U.)	L'article 2 est abroge et rem- Loi constitutionnelle de 1960 place par ce qui suit: [DOT]2. Titre abrege : Loi constitutionnelle de I960.*
26. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1964, 12-13 Eliz. II, c. 73 (R.-U.)	L'article 2 est abroge et rem- Loi constitutionnelle de 1964 place par ce qui suit: «2. Titre abrege : Loi constitutionnelle de 1964.*
27. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1965, 14 Eliz. II, c. 4, Partie I (Canada)	L'article 2 est abroge et rem- Loi constitutionnelle de 1965 place par ce qui suit: «2. Titre abrege de la presente partie : Loi constitutionnelle de 1965.*
[Stage Direction]
February 16, 1981

[Stage Direction]
to the
CONSTITUTION ACT, 1981- Concluded
Column 1
Item	Act Affected
Column II Amendment
Column III New Name
British North America Act, 1974, 23 Eliz. II, c. 13, Part I (Can.)	Section 3, as amended by 25-26 Eliz. II, c. 28, s. 38(1) (Can.) is repealed and the following substituted therefor: "3. This Part may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1974."	Constitution Act, 1974British North America Act, 1975, 23-24 Eliz. II, c. 28, Part I (Can.)	Section 3, as amended by 25-26 Eliz. II, c. 28, s. 31 (Can.) is repealed and the following substituted therefor: "3. This Part may be cited as the Constitution Act (No. 1), 1975"	Constitution Act (No. 1), 1975British North America Act (No. 2), 1975, 23-24 Eliz. II, c. 53 (Can.)	Section 3 is repealed and the following substituted therefor: "3. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act (No. 2), 1975"	Constitution Act (No. 2), 1975
-The Minister of Justice
February 16, 1981
[Stage Direction]
ANNEXE I (fin)

[Stage Direction]
Colonne 1	Colonne II	Colonne IIILoi visee	Modification	Nouveau titreActe de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1974, 23 Eliz. II, c. 13, I (Canada)	L'article 3, modifie par le para-graphe 38(1) de la loi 25-26 Elizabeth II, c. 28 (Canada), est abroge et remplace par ce qui suit: «3. Titre abrege de la presente partie : Loi constitution-nelle de I974.*	Loi constitutionnelle de 1974Acte de I'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1975, 23-24 Eliz. II, c. 28, Partie I (Canada)	L'article 3, modifie par Particle 31 de la loi 25-26 Elizabeth II, c. 28 (Canada), est abroge et remplace par ce qui suit : «3. Titre abrege de la presente partie : Loi constitution-nelle n° 1 de 1975.*	Loi constitutionnelle n° 1 de 1975Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique n" 2, 1975, 23-24 Eliz. II, c. 53 (Canada)	L'article 3 est abroge et remplace par ce qui suit: «3. Titre abrege : Loi const i-tutionnelle n" 2 de 1975.*	Loi constitutionnelle n° 2 de 1975
-Le ministre de la Justice
[Stage Direction]
February 16, 1981
Order Paper Questions
['1. The Strathcona Trust Fund was established on August 13, 1908. Its aims and purposes are to improve physical and intellectual capabilities of children by inculcating habits of alertness, orderliness, and obedience, as well as to foster a spirit of patriotism to a realization that the first duty of a free citizen is to be prepared to defend his country.\n2.\tThe initial funding was $500,000. The present amount is $500,000.\n3.\t(a) The trust operates a savings account and disburses\nthe interest by cheque.\n(b) The funds have been and are being disbursed to the provincial committees of the fund to meet the aim of the trust.\n4.\tMinister of National Defence, deputy minister of national defence, chief of the defence staff, vice-chief of the defence staff, deputy chief of the defence staff, chairman of each provincial committee, (a senior military officer appointed by the respective regional commanders), and 12 civilian members named by the respective provincial education minister (two from Ontario and Quebec, one each from the remaining provinces). No remuneration is paid.']
Madam Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 21(2), this motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders later today or at the next sitting of the House.



[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,508, 1,553, 1,560, 1,834, 1,854, 1,899 and 2,032.
I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Caccia: 1.	How many houses have been insulated each year since the Canadian Home Insulation Program was introduced?
2.	What (a) is the percentage (b) are the totals, by province, of eligible homes insulated every year since the program was introduced?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: 1 am
advised by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: 1. See list below.
2.	(a) See list below; (b) See list below.
CHIP grants-Number of cheques issued since the program was introduced:
Province	1977	1978	1979	1980	TotalNewfoundland	37	635	7,218	26,614	34,504New Brunswick	435	3,876	7,963	14,445	26,719Quebec	6	7,064	22,233	79,883	109.186Ontario	3,689	32,662	136,486	301,717	474,554Manitoba	418	3,146	9,765	26,301	39,630Saskatchewan	182	1,478	5,706	20,892	28,258Alberta	-	2,126	12,256	39,751	54,133British Columbia	942	4,872	14,061	44,140	64,015Northwest Territories	-	21	51	66	138Yukon	-	44	144	214	402Canada	5,709	55,924	215,883	554,023	831,539
Note: Only one grant is available per house.
Percentage of eligible houses insulated since the program was introduced:
Province	1977	1978	1979	1980	TotalNewfoundland	.04	.81	9.31	34.3	44.5New Brunswick	.36	3.23	6.63	12.0	22.3Quebec	-	.62	1.97	7.1	9.7Ontario	.23	2.07	8.66	19.1	30.1Manitoba	.19	1.50	4.66	12.6	18.9Saskatchewan	.09	.75	2.91	10.7	14.4Alberta	-	.71	4.12	13.4	18.2British Columbia	.22	1.16	3.34	10.5	15.2Northwest Territories and Yukon	-	1.25	3.75	5.4	10.4Canada	0.1	1.4	5.4	13.8	20.6
Eligible Houses Built Prior to 1961
Newfoundland	77,500
New Brunswick	120,000
Quebec	1,126,600
Ontario	1,575,600
Manitoba	209,500
Saskatchewan	195,600
Alberta	297,200
British Columbia	420,000
Northwest Territories and Yukon	5,200
Canada	4,027,200


Mr. Howie: Did Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation conduct surveys to determine the apartment rental vacancy rate in the city of Fredericton, Saint John or Moncton. New Brunswick, and, if so, on w hat date was the last survey conducted and what rate was disclosed in each case?


Paul James Cosgrove: 1 am
advised by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: the most recent apartment vacancy survey carried out by CMHC was conducted in October, 1980. The rates were as follows:
Vacancy Rate
Fredericton	3.2	per	centSaint John	3.6	per	centMoncton	5.2	per	cent


Mr. Howie: For the fiscal year ended March 31, 1980, what amount was expended under the provisions of the Community Services Contribution Program for the operation of the program in (a) New Brunswick (b) Fredericton, New Brunswick?
February 16, 1981


Paul James Cosgrove: I am
advised by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows:
(a)	For the first program year (1979) $4.2 million has been allocated to Community Services Contribution Program (CSCP) projects in New Brunswick. Payments on eligible projects for a given program year are made in the following fiscal year. The first payment on 1979 projects, under the terms of the operating agreement on CSCP signed with New Brunswick, could not occur until May 1, 1980, and further payments would be made quarterly thereafter until March 31, 1981, which is the closing date for the first program year.
(b)	For the first program year (1979) $200,000 has been allocated to CSCP projects in the city of Fredericton.


Mr. Herbert: In each of the past five years, what percentage of (a) applications (b) grants under the External Research Program of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation were from or to residents in Quebec?


Paul James Cosgrove: 1 am
advised by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: the CMHC External Research Program commenced in June, 1980, and consequently was not in effect in the four preceding years.
(a)	The percentage of applications from residents of Quebec in 1980 was 22 per cent.
(b)	The percentage of awards to residents of Quebec in 1980 was 14 per cent.
Order Paper Questions STRATHCONA TRUST FUND


Mr. Stewart: 1.	On what date was the Strathcona Trust Fund established and what are its aims and purposes?
2.	What was the initial funding in the account and what is the present amount?
3.	(a) How are funds disbursed from the account (b) to whom have funds been disbursed and for what reason?
4.	Who are the trustees of the fund and what remuneration, if any, is paid to each?


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1. The Strathcona Trust Fund was established on August 13, 1908. Its aims and purposes are to improve physical and intellectual capabilities of children by inculcating habits of alertness, orderliness, and obedience, as well as to foster a spirit of patriotism to a realization that the first duty of a free citizen is to be prepared to defend his country.
2.	The initial funding was $500,000. The present amount is $500,000.
3.	(a) The trust operates a savings account and disburses
the interest by cheque.
(b) The funds have been and are being disbursed to the provincial committees of the fund to meet the aim of the trust.
4.	Minister of National Defence, deputy minister of national defence, chief of the defence staff, vice-chief of the defence staff, deputy chief of the defence staff, chairman of each provincial committee, (a senior military officer appointed by the respective regional commanders), and 12 civilian members named by the respective provincial education minister (two from Ontario and Quebec, one each from the remaining provinces). No remuneration is paid.



CROWN ASSETS DISPOSAL CORPORATION


Mr. Herbert: Question No. 1,854-Mr. Cossitt:
Since 1969, by year, what was the total amount or financial commitment made by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to each province and what was the over-all total for each province?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: please refer to the following annual reports:
Must (a) departments (b) Crown corporations and agencies, compete in open public tender with the private sector if they wish to purchase material or equipment from the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: I am
informed by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation as follows: as per corporation procedure (G-24), federal government departments and/or agencies are given first priority in obtaining surplus material and equipment in which they have expressed an interest, without the formality of competitive bidding.
1969-	70 Tabled January 29, 1971,
1970-	71 Tabled February 16, 1972,
1971-	72 Tabled February 9, 1973,
1972-	73 Tabled March 15, 1974,
1973-	74 Tabled March 10, 1975,
1974-	75 Tabled December 8, 1975,
1975-	76 Tabled May 6, 1977,
1976-	77 Tabled March 7, 1978,
1977-	78 Tabled February 7, 1979,
1978-	79 Tabled April 22, 1980,
Sessional Paper No. 283-1/28 Sessional Paper No. 283-1/28A Sessional Paper No. 291-1/28 Sessional Paper No. 292-1/28 Sessional Paper No. 301-1/28 Sessional Paper No. 301-1/28A Sessional Paper No. 302-1/28A Sessional Paper No. 303-1/28 Sessional Paper No. 304-1/28 Sessional Paper No. 321-1/28


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

February 16, 1981
Borrowing Authority



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, February 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bussieres (for the Minister of Finance) that Bill C-59, to provide supplementary borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, today 1 want to try to respond to some of the allegations made earlier in the debate by members of the official opposition and of the New Democratic Party with respect to Bill C-59. For example, that the government is asking for a blank cheque in this bill; that the government is requesting more borrowing authority than it needs; that the government has not put forward a plan for restraint of expenditures, as the minister indicated earlier, and that deficits will not be reduced under the plan forward which has, in turn, led to the borrowing authority bill.
In addition, during a number of days of debate allegations have been put forward by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) and other members of the opposition comparing the December, 1979, budget introduced by the hon. member for St. John's West in the previous government and the budget put forward by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) on October 28.
I want to show through analysis that the kinds of assertions made-namely, that the 1979 budget would have led to a lower deficit, a greater reduction in financial requirement and generally a more responsible fiscal pattern-are fallacious. As well, I want to look at the commitment which the government has put forward regarding a change of priorities in the budget toward greater emphasis on economic and energy development. Finally, I want to respond to some specific criticisms put forward by the opposition of the government's program during the debate on Bill C-59.
First let me deal with the question put forward by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), a question repeated subsequently. Opposition members say the government is asking for a blank cheque, that it is asking for $14 billion with no plan and with no knowledge by members opposite as to what use the $14 billion will be put. That assertion by members opposite is total nonsense. In his budget of October 28 the Minister of Finance put forward the most comprehensive description of a government's expenditure plans of any government in the history of this House. The budget clearly showed the expenditure plans by category or envelope for this year and the next two years. It is clear from the budget document presented by the minister on October 28 that this $14 billion is needed for the government's expenditure plan. It is clearly laid out in that document. The idea that it is a blank cheque and that the opposition is given no indication where the expenditures will occur is pure rhetoric.
In addition, we will soon be considering the estimates for 1981-82. At that time we will have very detailed descriptions of what each department within the over-all envelope structure will be using the moneys sought in the borrowing authority for under the expenditure plan.
I commend the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) for what has been brought forward just recently. I refer to the beginnings of what will be a complete revision of the public accounts of Canada and a much more detailed description than we have had in the past with regard to government expenditure programs, even more detailed than what is now available.
Therefore, the argument that the government is asking for a blank cheque, that it simply does not want the public to know how it is going to spend the moneys asked for in the bill before us today, is pure rhetoric. It has no basis in fact. That argument simply cannot stand the test of fact.
An assertion was put forward by the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) with respect to his belief that in this bill we were asking for some $5.9 billion more than was needed by the government under the proposed expenditure plan. That simply is not true. As of March 31, 1981, as I explained to the hon. member opposite, all existing borrowing authority will have expired. In other words, no borrowing authority will be carried forward into fiscal year 1981-82 from previous fiscal years.
There was unused borrowing authority in the budget presented by the hon. member for St. John's West which was carried over from the budget in 1978. At the time borrowing authority was requested, $2.9 billion of non-lapsing borrowing authority was carried forward into 1979. When the hon. member for St. John's West presented his budget in 1979, he had this unused borrowing authority.
It was carried forward after the election into the 1980-81 election year because the government's borrowing authority bill was not passed until July, 1980. The government ran between March 31, 1980, and that point in July on that unlapsed $2.9 billion borrowing authority. At that time it was completely exhausted. When the borrowing authority bill of last summer passed, there was $100 million of unlapsed borrowing authority. Therefore, to all intents and purposes there was no borrowing authority left.
The borrowing authority that was requested and granted by the House last summer will lapse in its entirety, if not used, as of March 31, 1981. Therefore, there is no existing borrowing authority that will be carried on to the next year. That being the case, and given the fact that from the budget our fiscal year 1981-82 financial requirements are $11 billion, the borrowing authority of $14 billion, subtracting the $11 billion-


Mr. Blenkarn:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In order to keep the parliamentary secretary's argument straight, can he advise us how much of the $12 billion will lapse this year? He has been saying he has none left. How much of that $12 billion will in fact lapse this year?
February 16, 1981


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The parliamentary secretary, if he wishes to answer the question.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, rather than try to recall off the top of my head the answer to that question, we will commit that when the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) speaks tonight to close the debate, he will have that information for the hon. member.
As I was saying with regard to the $11 billion of financial requirements for 1981-82-page 41 of the budget speech, if the hon. member is interested in looking at it-we are now asking for $14 billion of which $3 billion will be non-lapsing. In other words, the government is asking for $3 billion of the $14 billion to be non-lapsing to the extent that on March 31, 1982, that sum would not expire. It will be carried over into fiscal year 1982-83 after March 31.
The reason is to allow flexibility from the rigid 12-month borrowing authority rules. If the government could not get borrowing authority for 1982-83 passed by March 31, 1982, the government would have borrowing authority to operate on until such time as that bill could be passed. That is an extremely valuable flexibility.
In fiscal year 1980-81, at which time we had an election, we found that with the $2.9 billion of unused borrowing authority that was non-lapsing from the budget of the previous minister of finance in 1979 the government could keep going until it could introduce legislation to get borrowing authority for the new fiscal year. That is why we are asking for the non-lapsing portion.
That $3 billion of extra borrowing authority over and above our projected financial requirements is required for two purposes. First, it is to provide some degree of flexibility to ensure that we have enough borrowing authority to cover contingencies that may arise should the projections not be exactly as we have forecast. Second, that borrowing authority would be available to be used for foreign currency transactions which could be required in the event of a need to support the value of the currency, for example. For all these reasons, it is typical for governments to request somewhat more borrowing authority than they have the intention of borrowing for their financial projections in the budget.
That has been the case in the past. It is the case with this borrowing authority. I think the hon. member for Mississauga South now understands that the excessive $5.9 billion request that he was discussing earlier was under the assumption that we still had the $2.9 billion of unused borrowing authority from the 1978 budget that was non-lapsing. I think he understands that is not the case.
I think I have been able to show in this short period that we are not asking for a blank cheque or for an unnecessarily large amount, given the financial requirements that are projected. That is not to say we would not like to see the financial requirements be much less; but using realistic estimates, we are in the position where that is going to be the likely amount of financing that will have to be done by the government to finance governmental operations in fiscal year 1981-82. It is
Borrowing Authority
clear from the budgetary documents precisely what those funds will be used for.
There has been an accusation that the deficits of this government will continue to grow, that in effect there is no commitment on the part of the government to reduce the deficit or to restrain expenditures. That accusation has been made by a great many members on the other side of the House. I wish to state in the strongest possible terms that this is in fact false. The government has every intention, every commitment, to bring the deficit down in the future, starting this year-


An hon. Member:: You have been saying that for ten years.


John Leslie Evans: -and to keep the growth of expenditures over the next three years within the average growth rate of the gross national product. That commitment has been made by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of State for Finance on a number of occasions. I can assure the House that this commitment is solid, that it is firm; it is a commitment which the government and the Minister of Finance are completely and totally committed to keeping to the people of Canada.
If we look at the situation, I think all governments have to operate on the basis of financial projection. The hon. member for St. John's West, when he was minister of finance, put forward his projections. All governments put forward their best estimate of how they are going to be able to finance in the forthcoming period. That does not mean that that is an absolute certainty and that that is the way the world is going to unfold; it means that at this point in time it is the best possible estimate of how we will do in the next financial period. In the set of projections that we have put forward in the budget, we find that the financial requirements will decline from a level of $12.2 billion in 1980-81, which is the present fiscal year, to a level of $7.2 billion in fiscal year 1983-84. That is a $5 billion reduction, and I note, in passing, that that is precisely the same magnitude of reduction as was promised by the hon. member for St. John's West in his budget of December, 1979.
In addition, we look at the figures for the budgetary deficit. The budgetary deficit will decline from $14.2 billion in 198081 to $ 11.8 billion in 1983-84. Finally, as a percentage of gross national product, the deficit declines from being 5 per cent of gross national product in this fiscal year to being 2.9 per cent of of gross national product in 1983-84; nearly a 50 per cent reduction in the percentage share of gross national product that is represented by the deficit of the federal government. That is an achievement that we are projecting and we will be proud to see occur.
In discussions on borrowing authority, the budget, the income tax bill, and on other pieces of financial legislation that have come before this House in recent months, including the emergency debate just before the Christmas recess, the recurring theme was that the December, 1979, budget would have done much better than the budget put forward by the Minister

February 16, 1981
Borrowing Authority
of Finance. I would suggest that is total fallacy as well. The reason it is a fallacy is that hon. members opposite revert back to the figures that are shown in the budget speech of the hon. member for St. John's West, and which were presented on December 11, 1979. Sometimes the world does not unfold as we predict and, in fact, the world unfolded much differently than the hon. member for St. John's West predicted in his budget. So much so, Mr. Speaker, that his projections are off between $2.5 and $3 billion with regard to deficit, with regard to expenditures and other figures-


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


John Leslie Evans: -and I will document precisely where those differences are. The hon. member for St. John's West has admitted many of these to me in our discussions over the last several months. First of all, there is the oil import compensation payments. We all know that in the early months of 1980 there was another large burst of oil price increases at the world level. The forecasts put forward in the December, 1979, budget were based upon a presumed increase in oil prices, prices that did not take into account this large burst of oil prices. Nothing could have been done or was proposed to have been done in the budget of December, 1979, that would have offset a major increase in the oil import compensation payments that resulted from this large increase in world prices of oil.
As a result, the budget of December, 1979, put forward by the hon. member opposite would have been out by approximately $2.3 billion from the point of view of expenditures. In other words, the oil import compensation payments would have been $2.3 billion higher than were anticipated in the December, 1979, budget. In addition, and the hon. member for St. John's West admitted this on page 4226 of Hansard, due to the recession which, in the first half of 1980, was worse than the hon. member had forecast in his budget, he admitted, that his deficit would have been "a few hundred million dollars higher". That is as a result of the recession, not as a result of the higher oil import compensation payments. Nor is it taking into consideration the higher interest costs, which again the hon. member for St. John's West did not forecast in his budget and which have had a major impact upon the interest cost of the federal debt.
That cost would have been $125 million higher than was estimated in the December, 1979, budget. When we add the cost of just these three factors together, we find that the budget deficit and the financial requirements of the previous Conservative government, had they continued under the budget of 1979 put forward by the hon. member for St. John's West, would have been $2.7 billion higher than those projected in that budget document.
In other words, the financial requirements under the hon. member's budget would have been, in 1980-81, $12.6 billion. I refer back to the figures I have given for our financial requirements this year, namely $12.2 billion. That is $400 million less than the financial requirements under the previous budget.
With regard to the 1983-84 figures, the $7.5 billion financial requirement under the Conservative budget and the $7.2 billion under the budget put forward by the Minister of Finance today, the deficit has precisely the same type of relationship. If we look at the 1983-84 deficit, it would have been $11.8 billion under the Conservative budget, and it will be according to our forecast, $11.8 billion under our budget. That implies to me that there is no basis whatsoever to contend that the financial picture of the Conservative government would have been any better.
With regard to financial requirements, from an honest analysis the projections are that they would have been slightly worse than they are under the budget of the Minister of Finance today. I know hon. members opposite have difficulty with figures which relate to economics, but I hope that once and for all this will lay to rest the hue and cry we have heard from the other side time and again. They say that had they been allowed to stay in office, financial requirements would have been much lower and the deficit would have been reduced much faster. In fact, an objective analysis of the facts indicates that that is utter nonsense.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: What about the Economic Council's analysis and comparison? Tell us about that.


John Leslie Evans: I would like to discuss a couple of other things with regard to that budget in order to make a comparison of how the people would have fared under that budget as opposed to how they will fare under the budget we put forward in October. We must first look at the fact that now, given a realistic assessment of the economic situation, the financial requirements and the deficits of the two budgets are roughly equivalent. We were able to achieve that without an 18 cents a gallon excise tax on gasoline. That 18-cent a gallon excise tax would have raised $2.5 billion out of the pockets of Canadians. That fact cannot be argued, and we are saying that the deficit and the financial requirements will be the same as they would have been under the Tory budget without an additional $2.5 billion being taken out of the pockets of Canadians.
We have heard much about the refundable energy tax credit. That was supposed to be a great boon to Canadians. It was supposed to save Canadians from the higher cost of energy. If we look at the budget papers of the hon. member for St. John's West of 1979, we find that not one penny of that refundable energy tax credit would have reached the pockets of Canadian taxpayers until after March, 1982. They would not receive it in 1980 or in 1981 but in 1982. then it would have been only half what hon. members opposite have been claiming, $220 per family. In fact, in March, 1982, it would have been $110. Only in March, 1983, would it have been $220. Those figures come from that budget. That budget admitted those figures, yet we often hear about the great energy tax credit which was supposed to save Canadians from higher energy costs. The case has been grossly overstated by hon. members opposite.
February 16, 1981

There was to be a mortgage interest and property tax credit amounting to $575 million in 1980-81, and it was to climb to $2.5 billion only in 1982-83. It was to be in between in 1981-82. In 1980-81, $575 million would have been returned through the mortgage interest and property tax credit to those who, quite frankly, are not by any means in greatest need. Instead, we chose to increase the guaranteed income supplement by some $200 million. With respect to tax credits or money returned to Canadians in the form of expenditure programs, I think the priorities of this government are where they should be and not where they should not be. I suggest that the Conservatives' deficit would have been no lower than ours and that the financial requirements would have been higher than they will be under the budget put forward by the Minister of Finance. I hope we can lay to rest once and for all the argument that the great and glorious December, 1979, budget would do so much with respect to fiscal responsibility and so much for Canadians through tax transfers, because the facts simply do not bear that out in any way, shape or form.
We heard discussion from the other side during this debate with respect to what the priorities of this Liberal government are. Where are the incentives for growth, development and investment? Let us go back again and look at the two budgets. We find that the amounts to be spent by this government on economic development and energy research and development are substantially more than proposed by the government of hon. ladies and gentlemen opposite. The fact is that in 1981-82 economic development expenditures by this government will increase by 21.6 per cent. That is a substantial increase by anyone's standard.
This government will increase energy development expenditures by $3 billion to $4 billion per year through the years 1983 and 1984. Net of the oil import compensation payments, and not taking into consideration expenditures to help Canadians maintain their standard of living by compensating them for higher world oil prices, energy and economic development expenditures rise from $6.9 billion in this fiscal year to $13 billion in 1983-84. That is a substantial increase. It is almost a doubling of the expenditures for economic development and energy by this government over a period of three years. I say- and the budget documents show-that there has been a substantial shift in priorities toward economic development and energy development on the part of this government in the last year. I
I ask hon. members opposite and those on my own side to assess the discussions and commentary we have been hearing for the last three or four months and try to establish the priorities of the opposition with respect to government expenditure reductions. On Friday the Minister of Finance stood in his place and asked the Right Flon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) to stop his colleagues from proposing additional expenditure programs, if in fact he was serious about seeing the government reduce the rate of inflation. There is no way the government will be able to reduce the rate of inflation if we accept all of the proposals, or even some of the proposals,
Borrowing Authority
put forward by hon. members opposite for additional expenditure programs.


An hon. Member:: What about Petrofina?


John Leslie Evans: Hon. members opposite talk about Petrofina. If I have time, I will get to that and settle that issue once and for all.
The Minister of Finance has committed himself to a reduction in the deficit and in financial requirements, and I think by what I have said to this point I have shown that without any doubt.
I should like to refer to the emergency debate. In that debate the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition stood in his place and spoke eloquently about the economic situation, hon. members of the New Democratic Party spoke and we on our side spoke. The debate lasted some 26 hours or so. In any event, the debate set a record for length. During that debate the New Democratic Party called for additional expenditure programs in the form of a cost of living tax credit and a tax cut for low and middle-income Canadians. Those would be substantial expenditure programs which would place very severe strains on the fiscal position of the government. They would detract from the government's ability to reduce the deficit and detract seriously from the fight against inflation.
But far above and beyond the request for additional expenditure programs which were put forward by the NDP during the emergency debate, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition stood in his place and demanded the introduction of the energy tax credit, a shelter allowance, mortgage interest deductibility, and an exemption for home heating fuels from the energy tax. Using the figures in the December, 1979, budget of his own ex-minister of finance, and also using the October, 1980, budget figures for calculating these costs, I have calculated that these four policies which were recommended at that time by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition would increase the deficit by $2.5 billion in 1981-82, and that increase in the deficit would climb to over $5 billion in 1983-84.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, if you took the projected figures in the October 28 budget for the financial requirements and for the deficit and added $2.5 billion in fiscal year 1981-82 and $5 billion in fiscal year 1983-84, you would find out what the results would be if the government were to adopt today the recommendations for additional expenditure programs put forward by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. Add $5 billion to the $11.8 billion budget deficit in 1983-84, and we would have under a Tory government a budget deficit of $16.8 billion. In my view, and in the view of hon. members opposite, the implications of the kind of expenditure demands which we are facing from hon. members opposite may finally sink in. There is no way that that is consistent with fiscal responsibility; there is no way that that is consistent with fighting inflation; and there is no way that that is in the interest of Canadian taxpayers and citizens.

February 16, 1981
Borrowing Authority
Hon. members opposite have been speaking about buying service stations instead of buying Petrofina. Hon. members have been misleading the Canadian public-I do not thnik intentionally but rather through their inability to do any kind of accurate analysis-with regard to the implications of the purchase of Petrofina by Petro-Canada.


An hon. Member:: Two dollars for every $1 worth of stocks. That is what the implications are.


John Leslie Evans: For example, I have heard the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson), who is now the energy critic for his party, say that the purchase of Petrofina is not in the national interest because the government has paid far too much for it. The weekend before last on the CTV television network there was an interview with a senior member of Dominion Securities, the firm which previously employed the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre, in which he indicated two things: first, that the price paid by Petro-Canada for Petrofina was a fair price to both parties and, second, that if you were to start from scratch, if you replaced the refinery, purchased the land and replaced the 1,100 service stations, that alone, in the estimation of the gentleman from Dominion Securities, would cost more than $1.46 billion. And that does not include the leases, the land which Petrofina has, the oil rights and the gas rights which they have. All of that would be over and above the $1.46 billion.
We are seeing this happen more and more. The objective financial analysts in the press, who know what they are talking about, are coming forward and saying that it was a fair price for both parties. If another private sector company, such as Imperial Oil, had bought out Petrofina, it would have paid a price that was similar to what Petro-Canada paid. The rhetoric which flows around here, which is without logical analysis, is bloody well incredible!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: You have convinced us about your rhetoric!


John Leslie Evans: We have heard that this $1.46 billion is going to cost the taxpayers 8 cents or 12 cents a gallon. The minister has given the data and hon. members can do the calculations. All it takes is adding, subtracting and a little bit of dividing. The contract calls for 25 months of payment; that is, there will be payments over a period of three years. Let us assume that you were to pay for the whole thing with the tax. The minister has not indicated that such is the intention, but let us assume this for the purposes of showing up the nonsense which we have been hearing from the opposition recently. By how much would you have to increase the pump price of gas to get enough money over three years to pay for Petrofina fully with the equity? It would be about half a cent to a three quarters of a cent per litre.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Leslie Evans: That is how much, Mr. Speaker. I am glad that hon. members are goading me into giving them the figures; I have them right here. Hon. members opposite have said that it applies to home heating oil. Let us assume that it applied only to gasoline, not to anything else. I think all hon. members would agree that that would cut down the revenue base. What
does 18 cents a gallon raise? I am referring here to the excise tax from the budget of the hon. member opposite amounting to $2.5 billion a year, 18 cents a gallon. If you can divide, you will find that we would need, if we were going to pay for Petrofina entirely with equity from that tax, $1.46 billion over three years; that is half a billion dollars per year. Four decimal one cents a litre is what 18 cents a gallon excise tax would have raised. If you needed half a billion dollars a year, it would turn out to be 0.8 cents a litre per year for three years. It is not 12 cents a gallon, it is not some outrageous figure, if the minister decided, in his wisdom, to pay for Petrofina from the tax, and he has simply not committed himself to doing that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I listened with some amusement to the comments of the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans). What I had to ask myself, as I listened, is what it is that these people on the opposite side of the House feed on that fills them with that degree of arrogance. I listened to the hon. member saying that no matter what has been discussed here "my speech will put an end to all the questions that have ever been raised; once you listen to me, you will have all the answers and there will be no doubt about anything any more".
What he does not understand about Parliament is that we come here, all of us, to make our contribution to the furtherance of the debate, trying to make suggestions, trying to put forward proposals; and not one of us has made the claim that we have the total answer or all the answers, until I heard the hon. member for Ottawa Centre rise in his seat this afternoon and say, "Once I have spoken, you will know the truth and you won't have to ask about anything else."


John Leslie Evans: About the two budgets.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: While we all admit that the hon. member for Ottawa Centre may have some contribution to make, surely he does not have the last word in this House, even in a debate where the government has imposed closure as it has this afternoon. I know what the hon. member's speech really was. It was trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. It was even more difficult for him than the first person who ever tried to do that. He did not get very far with it.
In one statement he said-and he asked us to believe it- that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) has made a solemn commitment to bring down the deficit. He said that it was his solid commitment. We have had 12 years of Liberal rule and every year the deficit has gone up. Why should we suddenly believe that this one should be so solid that it will turn around the situation?
We have heard the other solid commitments of the Liberal government over the years. The Minister of Finance, speaking in his own constituency to the people of Cape Breton, said, "1 make you a solid commitment to keep down the prices of oil and gas". That is what he said, and since then he has allowed
February 16, 1981

the prices of oil and gas to go up eight times. This hits hardest some people in the country, those with the lowest incomes. Neither he nor the hon. member for Ottawa Centre offered them any comfort by providing any kind of tax credit for oil and gas purchases; neither the member nor the minister cared about that. All the minister wanted to do was to make a blatant election promise that the price of oil and gas would go down and stay down.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is the kind of rhetoric we have been hearing. The minister never made any commitment that the price of oil was going to go down. That is the kind of rhetoric about which I was talking during my contribution.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is a point of debate. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) has the floor.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I will correct that. He said "stay down".


John Leslie Evans: That is not what you said.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: February 16, 1981
Borrowing Authority
I have always been a strong supporter of Canadianization, Mr. Speaker, but I take great exception to what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance said and to the attitude of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde)-that money for acquisitions is no object as long as it is being coughed up by somebody else, that is, by the Canadian taxpayer. That is what the president of Petro-Canada said when he was asked where he would get the money from. He said that the Canadian taxpayer would shell out. What other attitude could explain authorizing Petro-Canada to buy out Petrofina at $120 a share-$59 above its trading value when this takeover was first rumoured? Nobody can make any sense-regardless of what the parliamentary secretary says-of a government which comes along and says that it will make an acquisition but will give a monetary gift of an additional $59 over and above what the shares were being traded for when it first began to think of acquiring Petrofina.
What really disturbs me about this is the priority accorded by this government to the manner in which it spends the Canadian taxpayers' money. It is willing to shell out a lot more money than it should to buy up an oil company. It is willing to send the money off to the vaults of some happy Belgians but it is not willing to do the things which should be done here at home.
It really disturbed me to learn that while the government was throwing money away on inflated shares and in other cases buying for Canadians what they already own, it is turning its back on the spending priorities which could bring about an equitable distribution of services for Canadians all across this country. The government is turning its back on the real needs of this country. That is what really concerns me. Its priorities are screwed up-there is no other way to put it.
Canadians have been really shaken in recent weeks to learn what little priority the government is giving to the development of trained research staff and innovative research programs in this country. Of course, it does pay lip service to research and development, but when it comes to supplying an adequate amount of government funds to the research granting councils of this country it falls woefully short of even the most basic requirements.
When the government goes abroad to borrow an additional $14 billion in foreign markets for heaven knows what-it does not explain that-it is backing away from the commitment which was made last year to carry out the five-year plan of adequate funding to the research granting councils. There are two important factors which we should bear in mind when we look at these councils in their role of furthering research and development in Canada. First, you must consider that a five-year plan is vitally necessary if scientists, engineers and medical researchers are to be properly trained and if the innovative research programs they undertake are to be carried through to conclusion. This cannot be a stop and go proposition. You cannot say to a researcher that funding will be available this year but next year it will be someone else's turn. People must be trained on an ongoing basis. You cannot say about a
research project, whatever the field of science, that the particular project can be developed for the next 12 months but then must be abandoned for the next couple of years in order to start up something else. That is not the way to carry research programs to conclusion. Scientific research just does not work in that way. There must be continuity and consistency. There must be an environment created which allows those involved to look beyond next month and next year to well into the future. That is the first point about the granting councils.
The second point is that it cannot be an on-again, off-again proposition, as I have said. We must also bear in mind that the research granting councils are the very engine which motivates the spark, the impetus for much of this scientific and technological research in Canada today. The research councils are really the granting agencies through which funding is channelled to train and produce the human plant, the human resources without which there can be no progress.
The Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) can talk in grandiose terms about providing incentives to carry out more research and development. But industry knows full well that even if you have incentives coming out of your ears you cannot put them to good effect unless you have the highly trained scientific manpower and womanpower to take advantage of those incentives. You simply cannot do without the highly skilled human plant.
There is a lack of trained scientific and engineering personnel in Canada today, which is already beginning to have a serious impact on the Canadian economy. Thus, we have two options. We can import personnel from abroad, as we have done in the past, although I suggest that option is less open to us now than it was 15 or 20 years ago. That is one option. The second option is to train the personnel here in Canada. The latter course is obviously the course of wisdom. But in order to do this the government must comprehend and come to grips with the need for funding research granting councils on a long term basis.
These two points which I have mentioned interact. More than that, if properly implemented they will provide an essential ingredient to Canada's future prosperity. They will provide a highly trained force of scientists, engineers and medical researchers who will be the backbone of Canadian industry and, hence, Canadian employment in general.
The history of the struggle to achieve this laudable and obviously sensible goal has not been an easy one. I remind the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance just how difficult it was with the Liberal government throughout the 1970s. At that time it failed to realize the potential of the research granting councils. One might use the analogy that it kept them at starvation wages on a month to month basis. There was no comprehension as to how the granting councils could be the engine to generate greater industrial output or how they could initiate preventive medical programs which would reduce the vast sums of money which we must now spend on health and medical care. In fact, the councils were treated as just another suppliant coming to the Treasury Board
February 16, 1981

each year to be given their crumbs from the table. Their very existence throughout the decade of the 1970s was precarious. I have no doubt that there were Liberal cabinet ministers as, indeed, there were Liberal backbenchers who argued the case and the cause of the research granting councils. But their voices were weak and their political clout lacking. As a result, our talented personnel, our indigenous research projects and our industrial and medical development suffered through the 1970s.
I want to say, sir, that that changed when the Clark government came to office; a new approach was taken to the research granting councils. It says something about the differences in priority that we accorded to spending.
Adding to interest payments on borrowed moneys was not one of our priorities. Generating greater industrial development through improved research and technology was. And we knew where to start: with the research granting councils. I am sure I do not breach cabinet confidentiality when 1 say there were arguments in cabinet about the funding of the councils, but there were far more voices raised in favour of putting them on a proper financial footing than against, which is so different from the situation today.
The result of what was done under the Clark government was something in which I took pride. That result brought about a long-sought Conservative Party objective. It put the granting councils on a long-term, five-year basis so that they had adequate lead time for planning, and it dramatically increased their funding during the first year of that five-year plan.
Let us look at the record in comparison with what had gone before. The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council had its budget increased by $41 million, or 35 per cent. The Social Sciences and Elumanities Research Council had its budget increased by $5.8 million, or 16.7 per cent. The Medical Research Council had its budget increased by $12.8 million, or 17.4 per cent. A 35 per cent increase for the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council was brought in by the Clark government. Compare that to the 12 per cent and 8 per cent increases that the former Liberal government had allocated to that council in 1978 and 1979. It was just enough to meet inflation but not enough to initiate innovative research programs.
What we have seen recently gives pause to what the present government's intention is and how different it is to the reaction accorded the former government's moves in this direction. The reaction of the scientific community to the Conservative government's recognition of the importance of the granting councils was immediate, and, needless to say, positive. It had been given an infusion, a new lease on life. Plans were developed which would be ongoing; projects were undertaken which would be assured of a more than one year lifespan; and, most important, the numbers of young people engaged in scientific and medical research training were greatly expanded. The
Borrowing Authority
engine was rolling and the end result for Canada would be highly beneficial.
That was the situation a year ago. What do we find one year later with another Liberal government back in office? We find a minister struggling valiantly, I have no doubt, to maintain the program the Conservative Party initiated, but a minister with little clout and little support in cabinet. And as he battles away in a cabinet that is devoting most of its time and energy to borrowing moneys for less worth-while objectives, word is spreading throughout Canada's scientific community that it has been sold out.
I quote from an article on page 15 of the Ottawa Citizen, February 6, 1981, as follows:
In what scientists consider the ultimate doublecross, the federal government has scuttled a major program for revitalization of university research and scientific training programs.
The article goes on to state:
Designed to get Canadian researchers back to work and offset severe shortages of young engineers and scientists, the plan called for significant budget increases for the council until 1985. Despite reassurances the five-year plan would continue this year, however, it has been quietly sabotaged.
I should like to put on record what one member of the scientific community wrote to me from Kingston when he learned about the plans of the Liberal government to scuttle the five-year plan and lower funding to the research councils. As he contemplated the government's reneging on the five-year plan of assistance and the effect on the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, he wrote:
We simply cannot start and stop five-year plans in this stupid way. In the case of NSERC this means that various new programs started in 1980-81 will cither have to be closed down or seriously curtailed after but one year of operation. Specifically:
1.	The University Research Fellowship Program has already been curtailed from 100 positions per year to only 75 for 1981 -82;
2.	The budget for replacement of worn out and obsolete equipment has been slashed by many millions of dollars;
3.	The new program of undergraduate summer research awards (to encourage undergraduate students to prepare for careers in research and development) must be in some jeopardy;
4.	The project research applicable in industry (PRAI) grant scheme, a very effective way of bringing industries and universities together will be seriously diminished in impact.
He is analysing the effect on the research community of what this government has done in cutting back, year after year, worth-while programs which had been initiated and worth-while programs and long-term research funding which would involve newly trained people in Canada-good doctors, geophysicists, chemists, electronic engineers, mechanical scientists, all of whom are involved in this new program and who take time to train. If the money is not available to finance that training period, then it is we in Canada who will not have enough men and women to staff our hospitals, search for our oil, test our drugs, modernize our computers, design our engines or improve our nuclear power.
This is what the government's program is doing at the present time. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance so proudly pointed out, the government has decided to take a great amount of money and send it abroad to pay for

February 16, 1981
Borrowing Authority
inflated shares of the newly-acquired Petrofina. It will take that out of Canadian taxpayers' money and be willing to spend it abroad on something that will not benefit Canadians, but it will not continue the funding to the granting councils at the same level as last year, funding that is so necessary if we are to have the kind of industrial development that this country is crying out for.
That is why I say the government has its priorities all screwed up. That is why I say the kind of gibberish we heard from the parliamentary secretary earlier today does not make any sense when worth-while programs are being slashed in order to feed the ego of some particular minister, be it the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It is a very sad commentary on what the government is trying to do with its borrowing programs and its budgetary programs today.


Ursula Appolloni: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) and her impassioned plea for innovative research. It is too bad that she was not around in 1959 to make an equally impassioned plea to the then Conservative government that did away with the Avro Arrow-


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Come into the present.


Ursula Appolloni: -as a result of which Canada has been deprived, perhaps forever, of the tremendous expertise we had in the scientific world.
I would like to say a few words regarding the government's request for supplementary borrowing authority. It represents this government's desire to operate the machinery of government responsibly and effectively, even though some members of this House may be determined to delay virtually all measures put forward by the government.
Many members opposite waxed indignant about what they called closure being applied in the House of Commons. Though many Canadians may not understand this idea, what they do understand is what they see in their House of Commons, and what they have seen recently are various attempts from time to time to delay the work of this government. However, this House of Commons should be more than just a place for people to speak; it should also be a way in which the people of Canada manage to govern. Once the various ranges of viewpoints have been expressed, it is time to get down to the business of managing and governing.
In our National Energy Program the government has shown its determination to use Canadian tax dollars wisely and responsibly. We are investing to Canadianize more of the petroleum industry in order to ensure that our energy policy is carried out in the best interest of the people of Canada and not of the multinationals. Moreover, we are providing a framework within which companies can plan and work and within which Canada can achieve oil self-sufficiency. We are also encouraging conservation of our finite resources in that regard and
providing a revenue-sharing arrangement which will best benefit Canadians in the producing and the consuming provinces. And all of this at reasonable prices. That is what is known as responsible management.
We see in the budget real and vigorous attempts to restrain government spending while still providing Canadians with the services which are essential to their well-being. The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) has emphasized the necessity for the government to work as a partner with other sectors of the economy to create jobs, reduce unemployment, develop Canadian industry, manage our resources, and above all to combat inflation. That too, Mr. Speaker, is responsible management.
I am not one to overreact to highly political comments and I have a great deal of respect for members on both sides of this House of Commons. However, I was appalled by the remarks of the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) during this debate. I have often admired and respected that member's talent and knowledge: however, I am now forced to reconsider.
On two occasion in this House, the member from Victoria seems to have forgotten his responsibility as a privy councillor. As a former minister of national defence-


An hon. Member:: The best one we have seen in years.


Ursula Appolloni: -he knows full well that successive governments in this country have agreed that, while our Voodoo aircraft are capable of carrying defensive nuclear weapons and we have the capability to store them safely on Canadian soil, we cannot acknowledge whether they are in situ at any given time or where they may be located. The hon. member knows the reasons behind this undertaking of Canadian governments, and I consider it unfortunate and irresponsible that he would choose to raise the matter in the House not once but on two occasions. The threat of terrorism and the threat to national and international security-


Mr. McKinnon:: Mr. Speaker, 1 hesitate to interrupt the flow of garbage which the parliamentary secretary is spreading, but the Hon. James Richardson first raised that matter in the House of Commons as a Liberal minister of national defence. It has been the subject of press releases by the Liberal government. I see nothing sacred about it. It has nothing whatever to do with security.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. This has become a point of debate. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence (Mrs. Appolloni) has the floor.


An hon. Member:: Tell us about the Liberal government.


John Horton McDermid: Did he hurt your feelings?


An hon. Member:: Listen and learn, McDermid.


Ursula Appolloni: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting for the Canadian forces now to see what they have lost with this change in government.


An hon. Member:: 


All 70,000.
[Stage Direction]
February 16, 1981
Ursula Appolloni: As I was saying when I was very rudely interrupted, the hon. member knows the reasons behind this undertaking of Canadian governments.
The threat of terrorism and the threat to national and international security always exists, and the hon. member opposite should recognize that threat. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has stated, and it has been clearly demonstrated by government representatives, that Canada's policy has been to choose not to deploy nuclear weapons on Canadian soil and with Canada's armed forces. I suggest that if anything is "cheap and sleazy and gives this place a bad name", to use the hon. member's own words, it may well be his attitude in this matter, because he cannot, as a former minister of national defence, claim ignorance of the facts.
I am also dismayed at the hon. member's attack on the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) over the CF-18 contract. Admittedly it is a very complex contract but it is also an excellent one. The hon. member from Victoria has a copy of it. This question of progress payments and enforcement of industrial benefit commitments is very well covered in the contract. The Minister of Supply and Services has now provided the hon. member for Victoria with the answer to his question. The answer can be found right in the contract. Can it be, then, that the hon. member did not read the contract or simply that he did not bother to check the facts?
In the same speech the hon. member from Victoria referred to his desire to see a white paper on defence. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne) and the government are aware of his views on this subject. I would like to point out at least one misconception the member has about the current white paper. Fie called peacekeeping the last priority in that white paper. Where did he get that notion? Certainly not from the white paper itself. I quote from the 1971 white paper as follows:
The policy announced by the Prime Minister on April 3, 1969, initiated the process of adjusting the balance between Canadian defence activities to ensure that priorities for defence were responsive to national interests and international developments.
A process of adjusting which is responsive to national interests and international developments is found in the white paper. To me this portrays an evolution which has taken place and continues to take place so that the basis of the white paper remains as valid today as it was ten years ago. Reading on in the white paper we find:
Four major areas of ativity for the Canadian forces were identified in summary form as follows:
(a)	the surveillance of our own territory and coastlines, i.e. the protection of
our sovereignty;
(b)	the defence of North America in co-operation with U.S. forces;
(c)	the fulfilment of such NATO commitments as may be agreed upon; and
(d)	the performance of such international peacekeeping roles as we may from
time to time assume.
This paper will next examine these four areas of defence policy in detail.
Nowhere, so far, have these four areas of defence policy been called priorities in either descending or ascending order. Perhaps the member from Victoria would like to examine the white paper again.
Borrowing Authority
At this point in the white paper we find that activity in each area must be assessed in terms of the priorities which have been, and if I may add, continue to be established.
The four areas of defence policy remain as eminently viable today as they were ten years ago, but the priority assigned to each is the subject of an evolutionary process which continues to take place. By delivering an annual statement on the subject, taking into full account the domestic and the international situation, the Minister of National Defence can do more to place emphasis and priorities in proper context and perspective than if he tried to rewrite a still perfectly valid white paper.
Instead of encouraging further efforts for the defence of Canada, the hon. member opposite has preferred to take cheap shots at the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence. For some reason, perhaps because he was frustrated by his own inability to persuade his cabinet colleagues in the previous Conservative government to achieve greater defence aims, he has chosen in his speech to denigrate government efforts to upgrade our defence capabilities.
The hon. member may prefer to speak of the past rather than the present or the future, but since this government took office we have achieved a great deal in national defence of which we are justifiably proud. We have chosen a new fighter aircraft which will enable our air force to carry out our commitments at home and abroad, and in so doing we have negotiated an excellent contract which is bringing considerable industrial benefits to this country. We are forging ahead with our plans to provide the navy with six new frigates while at the same time enhancing our Canadian naval shipbuilding capability. We have taken the means to extend the life of 16 of our existing 19 destroyers to maintain our naval capability until new frigates enter service.
After receiving new Leopard tanks, the army is taking delivery of 441 new armoured vehicles and a variety of wheeled vehicles of all types. We will soon be letting a contract for 2,800 new 2!/2-ton trucks. Plans also call for the purchase of 2,500 new jeeps in the near future.
We have initiated a search and rescue capability update program and we have earmarked more resources to be provided to reserves as equipment for their training, including helicopters and armoured vehicles.
Delivery of all 18 Aurora long-range patrol aircraft will soon be completed, on time and on budget. I need not remind the hon. member of the highly unfounded criticism of the opposition when we launched that program, one which has proven very successful despite the political play he and his colleagues made at the time.
In that same speech the hon. member for Victoria expressed doubt about the government's commitment to increase defence spending by at least 3 per cent in real terms in accordance with our agreement with our NATO allies. He used several statistics which I found interesting. Many things can be done with statistics, and they can be interpreted in many ways. For

February 16, 1981
Borrowing Authority
example, the hon. member pointed out that for 1979-80 the defence budget decreased by .23 per cent. I would merely like to point out to the hon. member that much of the responsibility for the budget for that year rests with him since he was minister during that period. 1 would like to point out to the hon. member that in the budget presented by the Minister of Finance a commitment to increase the defence budget was presented and the government intends to stand by that commitment. Therefore this government's excellent work in the area of national defence will continue. This is the pledge we have made to our NATO allies and we intend to keep it.
Our urgent and important equipment requirements have largely been provided for and the Department of National Defence is now undertaking a series of measures to meet new challenges in the field of manpower and, more particularly, the reserves. I believe that any impartial observer would have to admit that we have made and continue to make very significant progress in our defence posture despite very destructive criticism from both ends of the opposition benches. We on this side of the Flouse have to be realistic in determining how much is enough when dealing with defence and national security, always keeping in mind that without national security there can be no social security.
I know the hon. member opposite cherishes such values as honour, integrity and responsibility. I would encourage him to demonstrate that. This government has made commitments to Canada's defence and to the Canadian Armed Forces. Our Canadian forces are among the most dedicated and capable people in the country, even in the world, and they deserve more support from the former minister than they are receiving. We on the government side will continue to take our responsibility seriously.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: 1 rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary would allow me to ask a question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence (Mrs. Appolloni) accept a question?


Ursula Appolloni: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: A moment ago the parliamentary secretary mentioned that in the year 1979-80 there was a smaller amount spent in real terms. I believe the figure was .38 per cent less. It is not important. It was a small fraction of 1 per cent. She blamed that on me because I was minister of national defence that year.
I simply want to ask whether she recognizes that our government came into office in June of that year when the estimates for 1979-80 had already been passed by this House of Commons. The only thing we did so far as changing the estimates in any way was concerned was to increase them by some $60 million in order to fulfil a commitment which had been made by the previous government with NATO. The money that is being spent this year by the lucky Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne), who is spending it, is
money we put into our estimates which were passed last spring.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have heard the hon. member. This appears to be a debate between two hon. members. With the consent of the House, I would prefer to recognize now the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke).


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-59, the borrowing authority bill, once again; that is to say, in another year and not another time on the same bill. I am impressed with the simplicity of the bill. It is smaller than most which we get a chance to debate here. There is only one clause other than the title. One wonders why we are spending so much time of the House on such a small bill, one that must be fairly straightforward. In fact, one might wonder why we are spending so much time on this bill regarding which the government has once again seen fit to invoke closure. This is the third time in five months that we have had closure invoked to stop the voices of the opposition from speaking out on matters of importance to Canadian taxpayers. After having taken an absolutely irresponsible attitude and invoked closure, the government then starts putting up speakers one for one, matching the speakers on the opposition side.
The hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) used his full allotted time. Your Honour interrupted him at the end of his time. The hon. member for York South-Weston (Mrs. Appolloni) just gave a speech which I suggest belonged to some other debate. I do not recall her mentioning much, if anything, to do with this bill. It is bad enough that the government uses this further muzzle on the opposition by putting up speaker for speaker, but the last two government speakers have been parliamentary secretaries. For the executive on the other side to be chewing up opposition time in a way like that is unpalatable and disgusting.


Donald W. Munro: Offensive.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Yes, offensive. There are two main reasons why this bill is so important, deserves a long debate and should not be cut off by this closure move. The first is the size of the authority sought by this bill, $14 billion. The second is the underlying ills that have produced the deficits which have made this amount of borrowing necessary.
There used to be an infamous saying attributed to the Grits-"What's a million?" Now we can ask ourselves in the same tone whether they have adjusted that to "What's a billion?"
When I go around my constituency, I give explanations to various school classes. From time to time I explain what is a billion. I am beginning to wonder if I have been explaining to the wrong people. Maybe I should make some of those explanations here. It is the government opposite which has a greater need to know what is a billion.
I could give an example here. Probably many members buy lottery tickets. I will take the case of a Canadian who wins $1 million dollars in the lottery. He invests that $1 million dollars
February !6, 1981

at 10 per cent. I just use that percentage for ease of figuring, because with the inflationary rates of interest that this government has given us, he would get a lot more than that; but 10 per cent is an easy figure to get, and it is an easy figure to use. He would have an income of $100,000 a year, and that is, roughly speaking, $2,000 a week. Well, I suppose we all know somebody in the neighbourhood that earns $2,000 a week or $100,000 a year. But if we gave that same lottery winner $1 billion and he invested it in the same way, he would have an income of $100 million a year, or $2 million a week, and 1 do not think any of us could say we know anybody that had an income of that magnitude. It is about time that the government started thinking in billions instead of in millions.
Another example is a stack of bills. If we take a stack of $1,000 bills and we have a thousand of them, that will give us a stack of paper eight inches high. It does not take too much arithmetic to realize that if you multiply that stack of $1,000 bills by a thousand to get to $1 billion, you would have a stack of bills that was 667 feet tall. I am sorry I do not have the metric measurement. But if you stop and think of that size of stack of bills, that is a stack of bills higher than the length of two football fields. There is quite a difference between an eight-inch stack to make $1 million and a 667-foot stack to make $1 billion.
The final example that I often use is if we go back to the first year of our Lord and an individual had obtained $1 billion at that time, in A.D. 0, in other words, or A.D. 1, however you want to count it, and had started spending that money just straight off the top, no interest at all, in the year 1981, after spending $1,000 a day, for nearly 2,000 years that individual would still have $277 million left. He would be good for a lot more time spending $1,000 a day, and this is without receiving any interest, which I think is an important thing to remember.
Maybe this government is now finding out what a billion is worth, because their policy agent, Mr. Hopper, the president of Petro-Canada, has come crying back to the trough. He says, "But fellas, you know, I've bought that company you wanted me to buy, but now I need $1.5 billion, because my treasury is empty and 1 have not got the money in my coffers. So I want you guys to get the money somewhere. Maybe you will tax the consumers of gasoline or petroleum products, or maybe just go back to the printing press and print some more money." I do not think Mr. Hopper is telling us where to get it, but he needs $1.46 billion to complete the purchase of Petrofina. I would have thought that this outfit across there would have thought about it before asking Mr. Hopper, with his bankrupt or, at least, insolvent company, to buy that other company for them.
How is the government going to raise this $1.46 billion, and what is it going to cost? If, as Mr. Hopper suggests, the government just taxes Canadians to raise it, it will cost $65 per capita. Each and every person will have to pay $65. Well, that does not sound too bad; but if you take an average family of five, which is having a tough enough time as it is, then that family has to raise $325 in order to pay for the new toy,
Borrowing Authority
Petrofina, of the government. Well, maybe $325 is not so bad either; but we have to relate this $1.46 billion to the total debt of this government that they have run up over the years. It is hard to figure out exactly what the national debt is these days, but the public accounts, which I brought along today, indicate that the liabilities of the Government of Canada are $106 billion as at the end of the last fiscal period.
If we apply some simple arithmetic to that, it develops that that debt will apply to every Canadian, at the rate of $4,425. That is in addition to the other and ordinary personal borrowings that individuals make in Canada to acquire automobiles or homes or whatever they borrow money for. Again, if I apply that $4,425 per capita to the average family of five, it comes out to well over $20,000 for that family in addition to anything else it may have borrowed.
What exactly is $14 billion, and how much is that in relation to whatever else we have? It is about 14 per cent of the total liabilities that we have already. I consulted the taxation statistics, the 1980 edition, which is the latest one out, which analyses returns of individuals for the 1978 taxation year. Summary table two in that book shows that in 1978 $14 billion was the amount of federal tax collected from 14 million individuals who filed income tax returns that year. What this government is asking us to do by Bill C-59 is to take an amount equal to the total amount of tax paid by all individual taxpayers in this country two years ago, and just add it on, because they need some more money, to the total debt that these poor taxpayers are already saddled with.
The long-term policies which have resulted in this kind of situation developing where we need this borrowing bill are just that: long-term policies. They are not something that has popped up to surprise the government, and I have already referred to having had these borrowing bills before. Again, I refer to the 1980 public accounts. In the last five fiscal years, that is, from 1976 to 1980, the deficits incurred by the government have totalled $49 billion. Of course, not all of that is cash, but the cash requirements over that same five-year period were $40 billion. During that same five-year period, the unmatured debt, which I will have something to say about a little further on, increased by $34 billion. The total debt of the government is unknown. It is not known, probably, by anyone. Again referring to public accounts, page 2.9 in the current volume, the statement of assets and liabilities of the government shows liabilities, other than those for annuities, insurance and pensions, of $83 billion. Now, that is not quite the $106 billion of the total liabilities. In that same report, we can find liabilities of Crown corporations which are not consolidated, but are debts guaranteed by the government and have to be added, and that is another $8 billion. Those all bear interest. The contingent liabilities, which do not bear interest yet, are shown there as $4 billion. We also have unrecorded liabilities. These are arising mostly from pension indexing for those civil servants who are already retired, and also from termination benefits for those who are about to retire.

February 16, 1981
Borrowing Authority
As hon. members well know, the public accounts are full of gems of information for those who are willing to dig for them and study them. I found a write-off in fiscal year 1979 of $546 million because of adjustments of assets for values. Then in 1980, the last fiscal year, $1.5 billion was written off, again to adjust the accounts to their proper values.
Earlier this month the public accounts committee was told by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to expect a write-off of about $700 million. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited was not quite sure of the amount which had resulted from La Prade and two other heavy water plants built by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited having to be closed down because there was no market for their products. What I am saying is that there is much debt shown in the public accounts, and the $100 billion figure I used can be well established.
Having established the size of the debt to some measure, we then have to determine the cost of borrowing all this money. Again I refer to the public accounts, which show a total unmatured debt of $72 billion at an average interest rate in 1980 of 10.13 per cent. It might be worth noting at this point that the government too is suffering from its inflationary policies in that only five years ago, in 1976, the government was borrowing at a rate below 8 per cent. The present rate of 10.13 per cent is up 29 per cent over 1976.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: They are not borrowing at 10 per cent any more.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Goodness knows what the government will be paying. That will be disclosed in the next public accounts. The rate will probably be closer to 12 per cent. I want to remind hon. members, and particularly members of the Grit government, that the government used to have the ability to borrow at 3 per cent because that was about what the real value of renting money or borrowing money was. However, with inflationary policies-most notably put into effect over the past six to eight years-interest rates have risen to such a level because they must reflect the rate of inflation plus the natural worth of the money, which would be about 3 per cent.
What does the total direct borrowing cost us? It is easy to see that if we applied the 10.13 per cent to the $72 billion reported as unmatured direct debt, that comes to an interest cost of well over $7 billion. That is each and every year. We have heard that it will continue to rise, but using the $7.3 billion, how does that compare as an interest cost with other costs and transactions of the government? The total 1980 expenditures, again in the public accounts, were $51 billion, so we can see that $7.3 billion works out to 14 cents out of every dollar the government spends being used to pay interest on debt.
That is serious enough, but if we compare that cost with revenues, we find that of the total tax revenues in 1980 of $35 billion, the $7 billion means that 21 cents out of every dollar the government takes in in tax revenues goes out right away to pay interest on this debt.
If we want to shock taxpayers in a real way, we can go back to those taxpayers I spoke of earlier who, in 1978, paid $14 billion in tax. We can see that over half of all the individual income tax paid in 1978 went toward covering the interest costs of this government. Comparing that figure with 1980 when personal tax revenues increased, as most taxpayers know from looking in their pocketbooks, we find that the rate was 43 cents. That means that 43 cents out of every dollar every individual Canadian taxpayer paid to this government went to cover interest on debt.
Perhaps that is enough of looking back. I have established what the costs are and where the borrowings of the government are at this point. Perhaps we should look ahead a little and see what will happen and what we can look forward to with this government. After all, it was not many months ago- April 14, 1980-when the throne speech produced by the government opposite announced the following:
It is the intention of my government to continue the policies of expenditure restraint-
We can all have a laugh at that.
-and improved government administration ... Improving the efficiency of the federal government is as important an objective of these reforms as reducing the deficit.
Following the example of the Progressive Conservative government in the Thirty-first Parliament, 1 see that the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), in presenting his budget last year did a Five-year forward projection. It is interesting that that was the first time any Liberal government had ever seen fit to do that. He was following the example of the former minister of finance, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), who became the first finance minister ever to make a five-year forward projection.
What do this government's projections show? First of all, in addition to the $51 billion I spoke of which we are spending in the 1980 Fiscal year, the increases are shown at 15 per cent, then the next year at 12 per cent, the following year at 11 per cent and finally, for 1984, another 11 per cent increase. These are cumulative increases which will result in expenditures by the 1984 fiscal period of $81 billion. We have to find another $30 billion to spend and, knowing the government opposite, it will probably want to borrow again when that time comes.
In addition to the increases in expenditures the same table shows increases in deficits. There will be another $63 billion added on to the total deficits of this government since confederation and an increase in borrowings will be necessary. Further borrowings of $39 billion will be needed during the next four years.
With more borrowing and the higher interest rates about which my friend, the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), was just telling us, it is not hard to imagine what kind of difficulty we will have in relation to the portions of budgets which will be taken up by the interest load this government has put upon us.
Do the Grits opposite know what is happening? I rather suspect they do not. Again I refer to comments offered by the Auditor General in his 1979 annual report wherein he made a
February 16, 1981

number of recommendations which were the culmination of many years of work on his part. One of those comments was the following:
If the current government disregards the recommendations of the governmentwide studies undertaken by the AG's office (and detailed in this report), inadequate control of the public purse will continue.
We know about the Auditor General's comment concerning control over the public purse. The government has the benefit of the Auditor General's studies, recommendations of the Lambert royal commission on financial management and accountability and the D'Avignon committee study on personnel management and the merit principle.
1 have not finished my remarks yet, Mr. Speaker, but I note that it is five o'clock.


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


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of convening a federal-provincial meeting at the earliest date possible for the establishment of a national power grid that would connect all power systems in Canada and also, where possible, effect connections with grid systems in the United States, thus fully utilizing the power potential that exists in Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is not a new topic. It has been discussed in this Flouse on many occasions but it is one that is most appropriate at this particular stage in our country's history. It is appropriate because, while we spend a great deal of time talking about oil and gas, there are many other forms of power which are of significance to the future development of our nation.
While these days we hear a great deal about the possibility of a major power shift from central Canada to the west, there is, in my opinion, as great a potential, if not greater, for the same type of power shift occurring in eastern Canada or in the Atlantic provinces, depending on where you come from. In the west they think that eastern Canada is Ontario and Quebec; in the maritimes or in the Atlantic provinces we think eastern Canada is the Atlantic provinces. But it is one of the sad facts of life and of history that as far back as 1959 we were very close to achieving a federal-provincial agreement-on which the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) will elaborate in the very near future-which could
National Power Grid
have put in place a national power grid and eliminated, to a very significant degree, the insecurity of resource supplies in the fields of energy which exist at present and have put the Atlantic provinces and all of eastern Canada in the position of having to rely far too often upon the whims of the oil barons of the world.
To outline in a little detail some of the benefits which would come to the whole nation from the development of a national power grid, let me state some of the potentials which exist in Atlantic Canada and which are ours for development if a national power grid is put in place. We know about the problems between Newfoundland and Labrador and the province of Quebec so far as Churchill Falls is concerned. We know of the tremendous power potential which is associated with Churchill Falls and the development which has occurred there since the harnessing of Churchill Falls by Brinco. But we also hear a great deal in this House and other places about the possibilities of the Lower Churchill and the frustrations faced by the people in Newfoundland and Labrador over the fact that they cannot develop this tremendous power resource which they see there, both because of the transmission system which at this time will only move that power through the province of Quebec and because of a long-term agreement which was worked out between the then premier of Newfoundland, Joey Smallwood, and the government of Quebec many, many years ago, which, unfortunately for Newfoundland and Labrador, is to apply for many years in the future.
Let us stop to think what would happen if we had a national power grid and the opportunity to lay a cable which would move that power in Newfoundland and Labrador through Newfoundland to Cape Breton Island and on to Nova Scotia, and which would pick up the resources which are ours in the coal fields of Cape Breton, not to mention the coal fields on the mainland of Nova Scotia. Certainly the coal fields of Cape Breton are harnessed to a significant degree by the Buchanan government. This would offset the tremendous dependence which we have at present on bunker C oil which comes from off our shores and, unfortunately, in many instances from Arab nations, upon which we cannot depend because they themselves cannot depend on their capability to produce and deliver the oil which is theirs to sell.
However, let us go a little farther, past Cape Breton and the oil there to the Bay of Fundy and the tremendous possibilities which are associated with power generation there. Only last week I attended meetings in New York City with Premier John Buchanan and other experts associated with tidal power in Nova Scotia at which we talked with the New York State Power Authority and other people in the state about Fundy tidal power and its development.
As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, we in Nova Scotia have under way at this time a pilot project on the development of tidal power at the Annapolis River. That project will be completed in 1983 when, for the first time, a new type of generator called a straight-flow generator will be used for the harnessing of the waters in the Bay of Fundy which are at the Annapolis River to see if that particular generator will work as

February 16, 1981
National Power Grid
effectively as its creators believe it will. If it does, then it will be used onwards to the Minas Basin where the hydro power which could be produced is almost beyond man's comprehension. It would certainly be of the magnitude of Niagara Falls, if certain sites were chosen in the Minas Basin to develop that power. It would be comparable to James Bay in Quebec as a potential source of power.
What we require, even if we are going to harness the tides of the Bay of Fundy, are transmission lines which would deliver the power in question to users who require it at this time. There is no doubt about the fact that a national power grid, if it were developed, would guarantee that the power would be made available first to Canadians, that they would have the first opportunity to take advantage of the tremendous power potential available in those Fundy tides. But even if that could not happen overnight with the construction of transmission lines, either through New Brunswick to the New England grid or under water through the Bay of Fundy to Maine, we could still put that power into an area which could immediately use it. It would assist in the payment for the actual barrages which would have to be constructed and the generation systems which would have to be put in place, as well as the cost of transmission lines which would be required to deliver power to the area where it is needed at present. With payment, you could have a system whereby there would be a diminishing supply of that power going outside our nation if it were required in our nation, and if we had a national power grid in place we would be able to deliver that power to whichever part of this nation required it. That is what is so important about a national power grid. That is the difference between what we have now and what we should have had yesterday.
The tremendous advantage is that hydro, whether it be from tidal power or from rivers, gives two guarantees to the people of this nation. First, it gives pollution-free power. It does not run the risk of acid rain, nor the risk of destroying the environment, as does open strip mining and things of that nature. None of those problems is involved. Second, it provides inflation-free power. Once the dams are built, for instance the ones associated with Churchill Falls, the Lower Churchill or Fundy tidal power, they are in place for 50 to 75 years. Over that period of time the cost of the power would be a known fact, with very little escalation of any kind.
With regard to Fundy tidal power, the tides come in and the tides go out. Price does not make any difference because the tides still come in and go out. Once the dams are built they are in place, and it has been suggested that they would be in place for 75 years. This indicates that we will know the cost of that power today and, really, 75 years from now. The experts say that there is less than a 1 per cent inflation factor associated with the development of that kind of power. It is a substantial difference, especially when one looks at oil which was $2 per barrel in 1973 and today is something like $36 U.S. per barrel, with many experts saying that the price of oil will soon be something like $100 U.S. per barrel.
When one looks at those figures and the possible development in eastern Canada, one has some appreciation of what could be done if we could only develop a national power grid as soon as possible. As the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain will point out in detail, much of it is in place now, It is simply a matter of developing the connectors and upgrading the transmission lines across the country so that we can move power back and forth where it is needed.
These days we talk a great deal about security of supply for oil and gas. We in eastern Canada know of our potential to participate in making a two-way pipeline for either oil or gas tremendously valuable to the whole nation from a security of supply point of view. We can look at a national power grid in exactly the same manner. With such a power grid we could give a guaranteed security of supply not only to eastern Canada but to the entire nation from the point of view of being able to move electrical energy from Labrador to British Columbia. That is what the country requires; that is the foresight our leaders must have. It is the reason I suggest that there should be a federal-provincial conference committed to the development of an agreement which will ensure that this moves forward.
I suggest that agreement does not have to be at the first minister's level in the beginning. I believe we have resource ministers across the country with the foresight to want the required interconnections to ensure that we have a national power grid. It saddens me that although since 1973 we have been told the facts of life as far as oil supplies in the world and in this country are concerned, we have not moved or we have moved like turtles when we should have run like deer. Even at this late stage we must see to it that a mechanism is put in place which can produce a national power grid to move electricity, not only back and forth across the nation but north and south when it is required, and in many instances it is.
With power in the maritimes, with Fundy tidal power in Nova Scotia, certainly we will need to connect with American power systems to move our power north and south, to pay for the required facilities, to retain the long-term benefits for Canadians, and in the short term meet the problems faced by our American friends who are also in the same box as far as security of supply for energy needs are concerned, especially oil. They are most anxious to get out of oil usage and turn to alternate sources of energy, so that they will have a security of supply the same as we in eastern Canada desire.
As this debate goes on, I hope a determination will be expressed by the House to ensure that some initiatives are taken at the federal level to put in place, as quickly as possible, a national power grid for the benefit of all Canadians.


Mr. Roy MacLaren (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the motion this afternoon by the hon. member opposite was introduced against the background of the recent National Energy Program announced by the government. It is within that context that I want to say a word about the motion and then turn to the more specific questions of the hon. member concerning the
February 16, 1981

possibilities of a national energy grid, and also his concluding point with regard to electricity exports to the United States.
The House may recall that it was noted in the National Energy Program that Canada's capacity in electricity has more than kept pace with our demand for electricity, and that that margin of capacity gives us an opportunity to analyse further the choices we shall have to make regarding the generation of electricity in the future.
In referring to that element of the National Energy Program, the hon. member understandably concentrated on the requirements, as he sees them, of the region from which he comes. Indeed, electricity is a source of energy which holds great promise in the maritime provinces of Canada.
The National Energy Program draws attention to the opportunities represented by a number of major projects in the Atlantic provinces to which the hon. member referred. I am speaking of the Lower Churchill project which is under active consideration at the moment. Certainly it is the government's view, as indicated in the National Energy Program, that the technical, financial and political barriers to the rapid development of Lower Churchill power must be overcome without delay. In addition to that commitment, the National Energy Program and, indeed, existing initiatives of the federal government are also directed toward the generation of electricity in the Atlantic provinces in such novel ways as the tidal power to which the hon. member opposite referred. He will be aware of the federal financing of a development project in that regard, a project which I am sure all members in the House hope will indicate a viable and prosperous future for that particular potential source of electrical power.
Beyond that, of course, the member is conscious, as I am sure we all are, of the need to ensure alternative energy sources to that of oil-fired electricity generation in the Atlantic provinces. Therefore, the emphasis in the program is also on environmentally acceptable conversions to coal of oil-fired capacity in electricity generating stations, where that opportunity exists.
Against that background of electricity generation potential in the maritime provinces-and I have touched upon only one or two examples-I want to say a word about a national power grid to which the hon. member opposite has drawn the attention of the House. That question is not a new one by any means. As the hon. member pointed out, it is not a new idea. It has been discussed over the past decades, and there has been a continuing interest in that time in the possibilities offered by a national power grid.
There have been two major studies undertaken on an interprovincial basis to explore the opportunities for strengthening the electrical connections between provinces. The first of those studies began in 1962, almost 20 years ago. It was completed in two stages under the direction of a federal-provincial working group on long distance electricity transmission. At that time the committee had to indicate the nature and extension of the potential benefits of a trans-Canada interconnection as its
National Power Grid
objective, which might be expected to bring significant benefits to the whole Canadian economy. A further major expectation was that the grid would reduce the need for investment in generating capacity and, additionally, would reduce operating costs. The first stage of that study was completed in 1963. It was followed by a more detailed investigation.
The result of the study stated that there would be savings. But they were seen as minor savings-less than 1 per cent of the total electricity system investment. At that time the committee findings indicated that to obtain the maximum benefit of a national development plant would require the full co-ordination, planning, development and operation of the interconnected utilities. Of course, in turn, that implied a requirement for some form of central planning and operating authority. The members of the committee concluded that the estimated net benefits of the national network were too limited to justify the further immediate development of the idea. However, the committee did recommend that the subject be re-examined at a later date.
Some years later, in 1977, the possibility of a type of interprovincial grid was, indeed, examined by an interprovincial advisory committee on energy. A study group was established which undertook an assessment in a somewhat similar manner to the earlier study to which I have referred. In October, 1978, a report was issued which concluded that there was a very modest, but positive, indication that the value of strengthened east-west interconnections in the electricity system of Canada would increase over time.
From that very brief and somewhat simplified view of the studies, it can be seen that there were some indications of benefit from a major expansion of regional interconnections. Those benefits were seen as small, in terms of the total investment which would be required in the electricity industry in the years ahead. It was also seen that in order to achieve such modest benefits some form of central planning would be required. There were indications that the provinces would see this as an unacceptable limitation of their flexibility in their own planning of electricity capacity.
On the other hand, it is evident that there has been progress among electrical utilities in Canada in co-operating among themselves. Certainly, on occasion the national government has acted to encourage them to do so. For example, from the two studies to which I have referred, the provinces became more active in expanding their regional connections.
When the federal-provincial committee began its work in 1963, the major north-south transmission system between the Peace River hydro development in northern British Columbia, to take an example, and the load centres in the southern part of the province had not been completed. The Nelson River system in Manitoba had not been committed. The eastern-western portions of the Ontario system were isolated, as were the eastern-western parts of the Quebec hydro system. At that time no transmission interconnections existed between Quebec and Labrador or between Quebec and New Brunswick. Prince Edward Island was isolated from the mainland. The results of the studies encouraged an increased growth of transmission

February 16, 1981
National Power Grid
lines in many of the provinces. The federal government played an important role in assisting the provinces in the development of their electrical generation capacity and transmission facilities.
1 would like to give one or two examples of such federal involvement. They include the extensive support of provincial electrical research and development, such as the $25 million contribution to the demonstration of low head hydro power at Annapolis, Nova Scotia, to which the hon. member made reference. This was a commitment to provide a loan of up to almost $200 million at Crown corporation rates. To date, over $100 million has been spent for transmission facilities from the Nelson River development in Manitoba. Other participation by the federal government was demonstrated in the joint involvement with the Newfoundland government to study the hydro potential of the Lower Churchill Falls in Labrador from which there are high expectations of real benefit. The federal government has also assisted in the construction of the cable between the mainland and Prince Edward Island, which substantially reduced the cost of electricity generation in that province.
It is obvious from these and other elements that in the past the federal government has been active in assisting the provinces to develop efficient and effective hydroelectric and other electrical capacity. Not only has the federal government demonstrated its interest and concern in the past but it is committed to playing an important role in the future.
To sustain Canada's energy security in the long run we need to substitute more plentiful forms of energy for those forms which are now less plentiful and more expensive, particularly oil. Within that program, as I have already noted, electricity remains a major element.
To that end the government has embarked upon a program to encourage Canadians to convert their domestic heating from oil to natural gas in some areas and to electricity in others. The incentive program, Canadians will want to recognize, does include electricity just as much as it does oil.
If our goal of substitution were achieved tomorrow, that is, the goal of reducing our use of oil in residential, commercial and industrial sectors to 10 per cent of the total energy used in those sectors, the daily saving would be almost 400,000 barrels of oil, the equivalent of what we import today.
The National Energy Program looks toward the ecourage-ment in the Atlantic provinces in particular of the substitution of electricity, where practical, for the high cost and limited oil that is available. That program will begin to be implemented vigorously in the months immediately ahead.
In addition to discussing some of the domestic benefits of electricity co-operation among provinces which in the hon. member's view would best take the form of a national electricity grid, I want to touch on the international aspect the hon. member raised, and that is a power grid which would maximize connections with the United States. In that regard hon. members may recall that international trade in electricity has
grown dramatically in recent years; since 1975 there has been nearly a fivefold increase in our net exports. Net revenues from the export of electricity have risen from approximately $1 million in 1975 to almost $7.5 million in 1979. In fact, in 1979 our net export of electricity represented 9 per cent of net Canadian electricity generation.
Such a growing level of electricity exports understandably raises the question of whether the interconnections between the Canadian and the United States facilities are interfering with the development of greater regional interconnection within Canada.
I think it is worth taking a moment to explore some of the reasons for the growth in international links to determine whether there is any negative effect to the national interest or whether such exports represent a clear benefit to Canada and an activity which should be promoted and developed further.
During the early years of this century several hydroelectric developments were constructed in Canada, primarily to meet the needs of the neighbouring states of the United States. Some of those developments were undertaken under contract which continued up to as much as 60 years. That, in turn, led to some concern that the more attractive hydro sites were somehow being directed away from supplying the needs of the Canadian consumer. The isolated nature of electricity systems in the first decade of this century made it very difficult to replace energy from United States sources in the event that Canada wished to recapture its hydroelectric output. The export of electricity was actively discouraged by a number of measures and exports were regulated as early as 1907. From the period 1925 through 1963 a tax was levied on electricity exports, a fact that was not always recalled during the recent debate about taxes on the export of petroleum.
The establishment of the National Energy Board in 1959 provided an opportunity to review export applications in a much more comprehensive manner and to distinguish between export opportunities that could provide substantial benefit to Canadian customers from those that might endanger the cost of security of supply to Canadians.
More recently, the National Energy Board has put tests in place to ensure that exports will be permitted only after the Canadian people are assured of their own electricity requirements while at the same time taking the opportunities for foreign exchange earnings which such exports represent.
I do not doubt that in the time ahead we will hear more about the possibilities of electricity generation partly, perhaps, from the stations in the maritime provinces. It is an area to which the government is sensitive. We will work to assure the Canadian people that while their needs for electricity are fully met, equally the possibilities for co-operation with the United States in this area are also actively supported.
I touched upon some of the questions raised by the hon. member in his interesting statement. I think he will see that a number of initiatives have been taken in the past to encourage co-operation among the provinces in their electrical generation
February 16, 1981

activities. He will see there are aspects of the National Energy Program which are designed to encourage the further development of electricity capacity in the maritime provinces.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am sure he will recognize that as a result of initiatives taken both by provincial governments and the federal government, the potential for electricity exports will be seriously examined and further developed as the capacity and needs of Canadians are met.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, when we talk of a national policy for Canada, I do not think there is any debate or argument about the fact that the key component of any national energy program has to be an energy power grid which will carry power from all types of sources.
The parliamentary secretary has just finished outlining the sad story of inactivity on this proposal for 20 years. Let me refresh the memory of the House about things done a generation ago when we finished 22 years of inactivity on the part of the federal Parliament in regard to the development of Canada.
In 1957 a fresh new government came in with the national power grid in its policy resolutions from the 1956 convention. It went to work on the proposal with vigour, spoke to every provincial government, got the support of every provincial government, spoke to all the hydro commissions, power authorities private and public, got their support and in 1959, after the preliminary technical study, the prime minister of the day announced in Kitimat a national power grid for Canada.
This grid would not just carry the power from the hydro resources of Canada which were and are abundant, energy would come from many sources-the tar sands of Athabasca, the heavy oils of eastern Alberta the geothermal energy below the surface of all Saskatchewan and the resources of the prairies. It would take in coal, although we did not know the full amount there was in B.C., Alberta and Saskatchewan. In just those three provinces alone we now know there is over 200 billion tons of coal. We were looking to the coal of the offshore area because that figure of 250 billion tons I quoted does not apply to the northern parts of Canada, the Arctic Islands or the coal of the offshore area. That has a tremendous potential along the eastern part of the country. The Fundy Tidal Power was certainly part of that concept.
We visualize the power grid which runs from the Yukon in the north, with all the unused power each year going into the sea, together with all the power from the rivers in northeastern B.C., including the Peace River, the power from the Columbia system, the Saskatchewan Nelson system and the power from the Churchill. Then there is a big gap in northern Ontario. We thought of harnessing what is now called the James Bay power, the great power of the Churchill River and the tremendous offshore energy potential of the Atlantic provinces and bringing all of that and all of the LPP fuels for the fixed power part of the package. It was a great concept, but we had to
National Power Grid
assure ourselves that not only was it a hypothetical dream, it was an economically viable project. Even using the distressed prices of oil and gas referred to by the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester (Mr. Coates) that you could get offshore as dumped products, even referring to the very cheap power rates in Manitoba, what you will get in B.C., what you had in Ontario and what you were going to get in Quebec- with that, even as the parliamentary secretary stated, when that study was completed on the economic aspects as well as the physical and technical aspects the report in 1963 showed a marginal advantage. That was the case even at the low prices of that day.
What the parliamentary secretary forgot to tell you, Mr. Speaker, and Canadians, was that we went to that power grid as a basic fundamental in our national development policy because we knew from the Paley report in 1952 and the Netschert in 1959, and so on in that the world would be short of oil, the most popular form of energy in 1950. We knew that 1980 was the critical period and we had to get ready for that critical period. Prices would obviously have to rise from those rock bottom prices of $2 per barrel. If you were to add in the present costs of all the energy sources I have mentioned and put into that 1963 study what the benefit-cost ratio would be, as the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester said, it would be hard to grasp. Things are 30 times higher. Think what it would mean today to the Atlantic provinces if they were part of a national power grid, both contributing to and taking from that power grid. Think what it would mean to the hard-pressed industries of Ontario to get access to sure energy supplies, maybe coming from Alberta's coal or from Saskatchewan; maybe coming from as far away as the Yukon? The trick was bumping it back and forth.
As the parliamentary secretary mentioned, that report was never published. That report came into the hands of the minister in September, 1963. However, some of the information in it was obtained by talking to power corporations and commissions across the country. Some were private power corporations and did not want their figures known. When I asked the minister for a summary of the report, just to state what the parliamentary secretary stated here today, that the benefit cost was plus, we could not get it. From 1963 the provinces were forced, one by one, to develop their connections. They had already done it in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick in 1957 through the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act, which was passed in this House to help those provinces build connections. Manitoba, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta and B.C. are all being forced into the connection. Over the years they have developed the capacity to carry a higher voltage and reduce the cost.
Another factor is the research which has gone on. Take a look at what Quebec Hydro has done in research of high voltage transmission. What about the work done by the National Research Council, and what about the wind tunnel at the airport? What about that 1963 report and the losses that would not have to occur with our modern technology. That technology by Quebec Hydro and the National Research

February 16. 1981
National Power Grid
Council was available publicly 12 years ago, and nothing was done about it. The whole history of this subject, over the past 20 years has been sad. I cannot honestly blame anyone. There is this lethargy in Ottawa about doing anything. All this enthusiasm at the provincial power authorities level was squelched by politicians. I ask hon. members why? I can tell you that no one knows the answer.
I talked to Mr. Levesque, now the Premier of Quebec, but was minister of resources in the Lesage government and he was enthusiastic. He was the first president of the Canadian Council of Resource Ministers. He said this was the only way the federal system would work, if we all sat down as equals and discussed what was best, and then do whatever came under our jurisdiction. What an opportunity Canada missed.
1 have another fact. You have heard me talk about wind power and you have heard me talk about heat pumps in this House, but I have not yet talked about one of our greatest resources in energy, namely, geothermal energy.
Geothermal energy is found in the Cumberland Basin. It runs right across to Gaspe. Geothermal energy is under southwestern Ontario, under the prairies and in isolated spots in British Columbia. We have no information about it in the north. But let me quote what scientists said two years ago. They said that on the prairies alone the energy content of this hot water beneath the prairies is 360 times the energy content of all the natural gas we will ever discover in Canada, and we have discovered a lot of natural gas in Canada. We still have 400 trillion cubic feet to come that we know about. But geothermal energy is 360 times greater. Geothermal energy can be turned on site into electrical power and sent anywhere, north, south, east or west. Think what security we could bring to the manufacturing province of Ontario. We could send that power east, west, north or south because we know we could get it back under this concept of moving power around to meet time zones east and west and to meet the peak loads north and south. I will not go through all the technical data about that.
1 have not put a figure of energy content on the 250 billion tons of coal. I could do it, but I am simply saying that Canada has energy of a non-renewable sort running out of our ears. We sit in this House and fight and quarrel like a group of children over a silly little bit of oil, which is only going to last five years anyway. I would not like to see this Parliament continue dealing, as it is now with oil prices, because of this pride of confrontation which exists between politicians. One of the ways to settle this darned thing is to quit fooling around. Everyone knows that a power grid, which would have cost $300 million in 1963, with the knowledge we have today would only cost about $1 billion, would move power in tremendous volumes back and forth, way below the cost of what we have to pay for energy from local sources today.
We are no longer talking about $2-per-barrel oil in determining whether the project has a benefit cost ratio plus. We are talking about $30 and $50 for a barrel of oil. If we want to face this $30 and $50 per barrel of oil, we should just sit and wonder about these things.
Let us talk about all the things we have looked at. I have not seen the 1977 report.
If we had wanted to use this great energy of Canada 25 years ago to build up the Atlantic region to the highest level of any industrial complex in the world, it could have been done. It has all the markets of the world at its service, access to the Arctic resources by sea from the north, access to all of this energy in their own area and, with a labour force as good as any in the world, it should be one of the richest complexes in the world. Had we started that 20 years ago, what regrets would those of us have today who knew what the hopes were then? We have to face up to this and get it done.
I want to see an east-west power grid so that British Columbia, Manitoba and Quebec are not forced to sell south. That is the only way to finance their operations today with the high cost of energy. I would like to see these great unused power resources built in.
There is no use talking about Fundy tides if you are talking about a market in the Atlantic area. It needs a market 1,000 miles in diameter, and when those great surges come four times a day let the high voltage lines be built that will pump it out and bring it back so the whole area becomes secure. If we happen to help 100 million Americans in the process, so be it. We will get it cheaper; it is ours. This is what sharing means; this is what co-operation means.
I appeal to members on the government side to go after the department and ask for a copy of the 1963 report. No member of Parliament has seen it. Let us look at it. Let us apply the new cost figures to it. Take the report and study of 1977 and let those who know something about it look at it. Do not let these reports be taken as an excuse to avoid action. Do not bury them, bring them out into the daylight. It is amazing how many people across this country cry in their beer at night, thinking of all the work they did some 20 years ago. I have had them come into my office and show me the different parts of the report which they did. Why not let it be known, that is all we ask. Get the information out. Once you see there is a market for this great power of Fundy, the tidal power from other areas and all the other forms of energy across the country, there is no question about what the decision will be. If you want to fight inflation and energy costs, the key to it over the next 30 to 50 years will be this power grid. Let's look at it; let's get it moving.
The suggestion of calling a meeting is fine. Restore the old Canadian council of resource ministers or any group that will meet together. The various provincial ministers are not dolts. They would like to work together. However, they need the leadership of the federal government which seems reluctant to think big. That is the job of this House. If the members of this Parliament do nothing but get them back together again and start talking, if we make that contribution in the next three or four years, we will have served our country well.
February 16, 1981


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on the motion before us. I wish to clearly indicate that the members of the New Democratic Party have no hesitation in supporting the principles enunciated in the resolution. We believe the study and the eventual establishment of a national power grid would be just part of what we conceive as a major need in this country, the establishment of an industrial strategy to use the material and human resources to the benefit of all people, to meet their needs and provide the required jobs. In order to have an industrial strategy, we need planning on a major scale by the federal government in co-operation with the provincial governments.
One of the major resources in this country is hydroelectric power. Although we probably use more hydroelectric power per capita than any other country in the world, we have tremendous unused and untapped sources in northern Quebec, northern Manitoba, northern British Columbia and other places.
As the hon. member who introduced the resolution is from Atlantic Canada, he talked about the resources of Labrador and the Bay of Fundy. There are tremendous resources in western Canada. The Conservative Premier of Manitoba is talking about a power grid among the three prairie provinces.
These potential resources should be studied in detail, catalogued and used to the utmost. Hydroelectric power should be used as much as possible in place of our non-renewable resources such as oil, natural gas and coal. That cannot be done without a study and a national grid which would connect the sources of power we now have.
It makes no sense for Labrador power to be sold to Quebec and then to the United States rather than to New Brunswick, Nova Scotia or Ontario. It makes no sense for Manitoba to sell power to the United States when it could and should be selling to Saskatchewan or Alberta thereby obviating the need for the coal they now use. We support this bill in principle and hope it receives the support of the House.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity to speak on the motion of the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester (Mr. Coates). It fits in very well with the objectives of the National Energy Program to move away from expensive and insecure oil to electricity, natural gas, biomass and other renewable energy sources.
During the past 20 years we have seen a number of interconnections between northern and southern British Columbia, the Nelson River transmission system between northern Manitoba and the south, an interconnection into the United States between the eastern and western parts of Ontario, the eastern and western parts of Quebec, an interconnection between Quebec and New Brunswick and the cable system to Prince Edward Island, as well as the interconnection between New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. There were a number of interconnections established through co-operation between the provincial utilities and the federal government. In some cases funding was provided for interconnections between the various systems.
Borrowing Authority
In respect of exporting to the United States, it is very important to use utilities such as Ontario Hydro because of the tremendous power needs in New York City and New York state. This power is required for air conditioning during the summer months when our needs in Ontario are not as great. The load can be maintained and the exports take place. Very substantial financial rewards return to the utility in Ontario and there is a cost advantage for Ontario consumers.
There is a need for an interconnection between Saskatchewan and Alberta. With the very rapidly expanding economy of Alberta, there will be a need for an interconnection for the possible use of power from Manitoba. I understand an interconnection is being constructed between British Columbia and Alberta which will provide for the sharing of electrical resources between those provinces. It will make use of the hydro resources of British Columbia which are very extensive. Much is already being exported to the United States. There is a need for many interconnections.
We talked about the Fundy tidal power, the need for an interconnection between Labrador and Newfoundland because of the great potential of the Lower Churchill Falls system, and the ultimate possibility of exporting that power from the Lower Churchill Falls to the maritime provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I would indicate to the hon. member it is six o'clock. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Bussieres (for the Minister of Finance) that Bill C-59, to provide supplementary borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When the debate was interrupted at five o'clock, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke) had the floor.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, I was saying at five o'clock that the Auditor General had pointed out

February 16, 1981
Borrowing Authority
to the government many of the improvements that were necessary in order to return to fiscal sanity. We are now being presented with Treasury Board's recommendations of a review of information necessary for parliamentarians so they can have a rational review of expenditures. Appointments of departmental comptrollers have been too slow to assure that Parliament has the necessary departmental expenditure information.
The point of all these recommendations, and there are critics of them, is that these expenditures do not cost the government money. They save the government money. The faster this kind of thing can be put into effect, the better for all the taxpayers.
I want to refer to a conference I attended in Toronto, The Financial Post conference last year. It was called "Hands On, Hands Off'. A few words from Milton Friedman would probably be in order for my friends opposite. There were 300 delegates there, including two former ministers of finance from the government opposite. Mr. Turner, one of the former finance ministers, made a comment, as he was introducing Mr. Friedman, about completely free markets. I think he said they exist nowhere and that Canada was built with a judicious mix of private and public capital and initiative.
Mr. Friedman was quick to take Mr. Turner to task on that remark, pointing out that there is no such thing as public capital. There is only private capital. Government and public expenditures come only from wealth produced by individual taxpayers. He also had an answer for governments generally, about inflation, reminding us that it was caused by governments, governments that were too fastidious to finance expanding social programs by raising taxes or borrowing at going interest rates, and so they had been creating money at a rate that outstrips the economy's growth. Of course, there is a solution: restrain monetary growth.
There are other solutions that have been tried. One has been tried, by the government opposite, namely, wage and price controls. History proved that both here and in the United States that was not the solution. It gave temporary relief to problems of inflation.
It is easy to blame people for inflation. The government blames the world, the weather, foreign markets, anybody else. They blame labour. Some people blame labour, which is certainly not responsible by simply making attempts to keep up with inflation. Business cannot be blamed for trying to raise their prices to cover higher cost. Even the banks have been blamed for inflation; but because of inflation caused by these bad fiscal policies, they have to pay higher and higher rates to people who are willing to save in order that the money can be loaned out to people who want to borrow. Of course, they have to pay higher rates for that money.
We need less government. That is the problem. That would go a long way to providing a solution. The government we have must stop smothering business with regulations and by control- . ling prices; for example, prices of oil. We have other examples of the government getting into matters like Petro-Canada and buying Petrofina. Just a month or so ago, the government purchased a whole string of service stations in the city of Vancouver. 1 do not think the taxpayers really wanted all that
money to come out of their pockets to buy a string of service stations from which they were already getting good service.
We also need an overhaul in the tax system. We need an overhaul which would encourage savings and investment in Canada. The present policy of taxing illusory gains created by inflation discourages saving by taxpayers and encourages spending. That, of course, fuels inflation. The present system is unfair and inadequate.
I will give just a couple of examples. In 1978, according to the taxation book to which I referred earlier, 2,300 taxpayers making over $50,000 a year paid no income tax at all, and that number includes 96 who earned over $200,000 and paid no income tax. Can a system which allows that be fair?
Let us look at the rules which affect tenants versus owners of homes. The owner of a home pays no tax on his gain when he sells his home, and a tenant who invests his capital and pays rent is taxed at very high rates because he chooses to be a tenant and invest his capital.
There are no roll-over provisions which would allow one to sell a personal asset and buy another comparable personal asset. In case hon. members think only business people are concerned about roll-overs, let me remind them that some people probably have cottages, certain collections or other items they value which they may wish to sell in exchange for another, but there is no roll-over provision, and they will have to pay the full capital gains tax and then find that they are not in a position to replace those particular assets.
I have given some examples of why we have this bill before us now, and there are others. Perhaps before I finish I could just mention the Mirabel airport, which has been in the news recently. The original cost of Mirabel was about $600 million, which included $150 million to expropriate farm lands nearby. Now the Grits have decided they no longer need all that land around that airport, and they want to sell it back to some of the 2,200 families whose lands were expropriated. But now how do they decide to whom they are going to sell? Many of the home owners are gone. Some of the properties are leased to unsuspecting tenants, and some buildings are in disrepair, in spite of the fact that the government had a $10 million annual program to keep order in the general area. If we add all that to the $1 million a week being lost on the operation of Mirabel airport, we have an idea of why we have a bill like this before us.
It is clear that Liberal policies are leading us down the road to financial ruin, and there is no sign of needed changes, no sign of restraint from the other side, no sign of fiscal responsibility, no sign of fair taxation, no sign of reduced government interference, no sign of concern for individual taxpayers and no sign of concern for corporate taxpayers who, after all, get all of their ability to pay taxes from individual taxpayers.
With the policies of this government it is clear we will be back here next year, and maybe I will be taking part in a debate on another, bigger borrowing bill.
February 16, 1981


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak about the supplementary borrowing authority bill. Like other members of my party, I regret the imposition of closure, which denies to other members the right to speak on this issue.
This evening I would like to look at the supplementary borrowing authority from the perspective of my concern for the Indian people of Canada. We all know that the question of borrowing raises fundamental issues about the way in which this government is managing, or mismanaging, the economy, and we all know that the social fabric of our nation depends upon a healthy economy.
If ever we want evidence that the government has mismanaged the economy, we can find it by considering the plight of the Indian people. In many respects the Indian people are something like the miners' canary. When miners had to enter shafts where there was a possibility of dangerous gas or bad air, they used to take canaries with them. The miners knew that if the canaries survived, they could survive. They knew that if the canaries succumbed to bad gas, they had better get out of there very quickly.
When we look at the situation of the Indian people, we see that in many ways it forecasts and highlights the situation all Canadians are facing. Indian people suffer the highest unemployment in Canada. For example, Norway House in Manitoba has a population of 2,500, and of that population of 2,500 there are over 700 people listed as unemployed employables. We will not find these people listed in the regular statistics on unemployment which come out from Statistics Canada every month. They are not part of the 945,000 people about whom this government does not seem to be concerned. They are an additional number. There are no records kept of them.
The ratio of employed people to dependants in the Indian community is one to ten. Whereas in the rest of society it is approximately one employed person to two dependants. This gives some idea of the serious situation, and to maintain this pace or even keep up with this deplorable situation of one person in ten employed, the government will have to create some 13,000 new jobs in the next ten years. But the government is not even doing that, it is falling behind and this deplorable rate is getting worse. Instead of creating an average of 1,300 jobs a year to maintain this ten to one ratio, the government is creating about 1,000 jobs. Next year the situation will be worse unless something drastic is done.
Because of their remote locations most Indian communities suffer even more than others from the high cost of living, and Indian people are the ones who suffer most from cutbacks in government spending. Government policies over the last 100 years have destroyed the economic basis for self-sufficiency. The people have had to depend upon government grants, public works projects and welfare. In some Indian communities the social assistance rate is over 95 per cent. Migration of Indian people to cities over the last 14-year period increased from 15 per cent to 30 per cent. People try to escape from one kind of poverty only to end up in another. They turn from
Borrowing Authority
unemployment in one area only to find themselves unemployed in another.
When the government cuts back, the Indian people feel it most. I believe it is time, as we look at this borrowing authority, that we looked at what is happening to the Indian people because, like the miners' canary, the welfare of the Indian people has a message for all of us, if we can only understand it.
I was talking today to someone from the Union of New Brunswick Indians who was concerned about the cutbacks in that area. On only two reserves were there minimal increases. On some reserves there were cutbacks in their administration funds which equalled 62 per cent. This means they have to cut back on basic essential services like street lighting. At the same time they are concerned about advertisements in newspapers for senior management consultants at salaries of between $31,000 and $36,000 a year. They will have the job of helping Indian bands manage their programs more effectively. The government is cutting back with one hand, and with the other it is offering to pay consultants $31,000 to $36,000 a year to help these Indian bands manage. They can be experts on how people can survive on nothing, but they themselves will be getting very nice salaries. The Indian people asked where the money for this new consultant program will come from, and they suspect very much that it will come from some of the cutbacks they experience.
The total budget for 60 Manitoba bands is up this coming year by only $10 million, from $122 million to $132 million. That represents an increase of only 8 per cent at a time when the cost of living is increasing by 12 per cent. We expect that the Indian people will be able to get along with 4 per cent less than last year. The director general for the region has asked for a barebones grant of $159 million, instead of which only $132 million was made available. The department is putting a penalty on those Alberta bands which have resources of natural gas by pressuring them to use the revenue from these resources. Instead of using the revenue for development, they want them to use it to supply services which normally the department has supplied.
I was speaking to someone from a smaller reserve in Manitoba who told me that a year and a half ago these people took over the management of their own school. At present, they are providing services from grade one to grade nine, and they hope to expand. Now they face cutbacks. They presented full cost estimates, with which the department agreed, for $737,000. Instead, the department says that $610,000 will be available for the next year. They are $127,000 short for the operation of that school. The department agreed with their needs, it agreed with their estimates, but it said it was sorry, it had no money.
What I am saying is that the government has not managed its finances properly. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that these cutbacks are as wasteful as any of the wasteful expenditures
7316

February 16, 1981
Borrowing Authority
which some other hon. members like to draw to your attention. When we cut back on basic items such as education, we are being wasteful of our human potential. This reserve is having to cut back on its social development programs, social assistance and minor home repairs. In every way we expect the Indian people to do with less. These are the conditions which result from cutbacks. We have created a dependence for these people, and then we cut back. I submit that if the government were borrowing money to invest in the future of Canada and if it were borrowing money to invest in the future of Indian people, we would agree. But this is not happening. In real terms, federal expenditures for Indian people have increased by 15 per cent over the past decade, while federal expenditures for non-Indian programs have grown by 128 per cent per capita in the same time; a 15 per cent increase for the Indian people, 128 per cent for other programs.
The Indian economic development fund has been described by department officials as a fund of last resort, and truly people need to be desperate to apply for it. In the current quarter, the interest rate for loans under $75,000 is a modest 19.75 per cent, but for loans and portions of loans over $75,000, the interest rate is 21.75 per cent. This is the fund which we expect Indian people to use to get development capital so they can develop their communities, so they will not be dependent on welfare, and so they will not always have to be coming to the government for a handout.
Last fall, when this was brought to the minister's attention, he agreed it was a deplorable situation. I understand he was hoping very much there could be some kind of a true development fund established which would make money available for the Indian people. But the minister was not successful in convincing Treasury Board there was such a need, so the present pitiful conditions are continuing. In 1979 and 1980, less than half of the money which has been allocated to development was actually used for that purpose. Much of the rest was used to cover over-target expenditures in education and social services because the government is always cutting back and giving less than the barebones estimates. When there are cost overruns, the government dips into the Economic Development Fund and uses that money to cover these cost overruns.
This is the way we continue to perpetuate a dependence rather than helping the Indian people to establish a true system of development. While less than 4 per cent of the total budget of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is available for development purposes, over 20 per cent is used for social assistance programs. It seems we want these people to continue on welfare, we want them to continue to be dependants rather than to give them the resources they need to develop their communities and develop economic self-sufficiency. I suggest that instead of the government using its borrowing power to allow the Indians to reach self-sufficiency and economic independence, it uses it to create a system of welfare dependence.
We have all seen the report of the Auditor General for the past year in which he indicates very clearly that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is out of control and does not know what it is doing.The report states:
An example of the effect of these planning and control weaknesses can be found in the implementation of the policy for transferring program delivery responsibilities to Indian bands. We found that the department had not forecast the rate of transfer, nor were conditions for transfer specified.
When they found that costs had increased, they decided to implement cutbacks, and the Indian people are in the unhappy position of having to administer their own misery.
With regard to the Economic Development Fund, the report points out that:
-the department has approved loans totalling $81 million.
It does not know where they are going. It has had to write-off $17 million. The report goes on to state:
In our view, a significant portion of these proposed write-offs is due to the department's inadequate management of the approval of loans, monitoring of projects and collection of loans,-
There is a confusion of roles in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It does not know whether its job is to keep the Indians in line or whether its task is to help them with development. In October of 1980, officials of the department estimated that some $10 million was needed to help bands prepare for some of the massive development projects which would affect them in the near future. Last week they were offered $1 million. If the government is serious about the needs of the Indian people it will begin to shift its priorities from bureaucratic red-tape management and welfare dependence and begin to give priorities to economic and community development. This will cost money, and I urge that the government use its borrowing authority for this kind of a developmental purpose.
As a beginning it should adopt a clear policy for settling Indian band land claims in a manner which would give these people a base for their own economic development, and then it should institute a development fund which will give Indian bands access to capital. In this way they can use their resource base and their natural ability and have the capital to develop both.
We in our party very definitely oppose wasteful expenditures. We also oppose wasteful cutbacks, we oppose the waste of human resources and human potential about which this government does not seem to care, the waste that is represented by the more than one million people who are unemployed, and the waste that is represented by allowing our Indian people to exist in the backwater where no one pays any attention to them.
I want other speakers to have an opportunity to participate this evening, so in conclusion I urge the government to use its borrowing authority for positive purposes, not for a continuing patchwork of programs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this particular debate. I guess all
February 16, 1981

hon. members in the House do not like the notion of shortening the debate but, on the other hand, when one is on this side- and 1 think the Tories would have experienced this had they been in power much longer-there is a very great need to move these things along. If we did not shorten debate at one time or another, I do not think we could possibly get done what must be done. I think this particular subject fits very well into committee. I will welcome it there, and I hope many members will participate at that level.
Part of what I have to say concerns what I would call neo-conservative mathematics. Those of us who have been involved in education, as I have been over 22 of the last 30 years, must feel that we are reaping the whirlwind of our own inadequacies when we must deal with this kind of mathematics. There always seems to be some kind of notion that one can just pull out an absolute figure, and that gives total meaning. For example, when we use an inflation rate of 12 per cent versus the inflation rate of 6 per cent or 7 per cent in West Germany-and I am not sure what it is at this particular point-we are dealing in figures which are relative, but we are not dealing with the base. I do not have any later figures but in 1978, dealing with an index on what can be bought, taking an index of 100 in the United States or 102 in Canada, and using the same currency in West Germany, one would get $150. It would be similar to a railway worker who may be new on the job. if he received a 10 per cent raise on his $10,000 income, his 10 per cent would amount to $1,000, but someone at the top end of the scale, such as an engineer, will go home with $3,000 as a result of the same 10 per cent raise. We have to be able to determine these bases.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) used a figure of $80 billion as the net national debt. She said that was very, very high. I have heard other members talking about the net national debt being $8 billion or $9 billion in 1960, comparing these two figures and saying, "Look at what terrible thing has happened." Of course, one must deal with the net national debt in terms of some figures to which one can have reference. For example, if I owe $10,000 it is very important, if I want another line of credit, whether my income is $5,000 or $100,000. It is very, very relative. There is no point talking about my debt of $10,000 without some base. I must have a base, and if I do not have a base of reference, then the figures are meaningless.
Similarly when we talk about the net national debt we must have a base. I always have a great deal of trouble when they talk about the gross national debt being $120 billion, the net national debt being $80 billion and the difference being $40 billion. Surely that is arrived at in a very, very devious way. The combined assets of the federal government must be worth more than $40 billion, certainly in terms of land, in terms of the north, and so on. However, that is not the argument at this particular point.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would the hon. member permit a question?
Borrowing Authority


Paul Edmund McRae: I would be glad to permit a question, but I made an agreement with some members on the other side that I would be finished my remarks by 8.50 p.m. I will take a quick question, but I do not want to lose that time.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question will be very brief. For the benefit of the House, would the hon. member indicate what is the main thrust of his remarks? In effect, is he saying that we should be relatively happy with a 12 per cent inflation rate and a net debt position of $80 billion?


Paul Edmund McRae: The thrust of my remarks is not to say that we are happy. If the hon. member listens to my entire speech, I think he will get the thrust of my remarks. In fact, very shortly I will refer to an article which will provide the thrust of my remarks. Basically, it is that the doom and gloom which comes from the other side really does not make much sense. Nobody likes a gross national debt of $80 billion, but the point of the matter is that $80 billion represents 26 per cent or 27 per cent of the gross national product, and if we go back to 1962, it was about 30 per cent of the gross national product. It is the relative thing about which I am talking. That is what is left out of a lot of the neo-conservative comments, which I will illustrate in a minute.
I should like to look at the purchases of Petro-Canada. I hear people talk about some large oil company, such as Mobil or Gulf, buying and investing in the holdings of some other company; it may very well be the Thomson chain investing in Hudson's Bay. This is an investment. Thomson did not go out and spend $400 million or whatever; he invested it. When we went out and bought Atlantic Richfield in 1976, I believe we paid $340 million. I am told it is now worth about $1 billion. Is that a good investment? Certainly there must be a reason for it being worth a good deal more. Of course, I think one of the reasons is that all corporations in the oil industry are worth a great deal more. But in late 1978 or early 1979 I remember Morty Shulman saying to me on his show, "You threw away a lot of money; it was a waste of money", and today we are told that it is worth 2.5 times what it was then. If that is the case, how can one call it a bad investment? I would say that the people who sold it might very well have been skinned at that rate; if a company can appreciate 250 per cent in the course of two or three years.
It seems when the federal government purchases a company it is spending money. No one ever talks about the investment or what will be the return to Canadian people. They do not talk about those things. It is all right for the Alberta government to buy PWA; it seems fair enough. But when the federal government does it it is some kind of crime. Those mathematics always bother me.
Over the weekend when I was preparing for this particular speech, I noticed an article which appeared in The Globe and

February 16, 1981
Borrowing Authority
Mail. In fact I was surprised to find it in The Globe. I always suspect that Rupert Murdoch has secretly bought The Globe and it is now a new paper. At any rate, I should like to refer to the article by Lawrence Martin in Washington. He said:
Ronald Reagan tells the country it is in its worst economic mess since the Great Depression. He lofts a 1960 dollar on the television screen and, illustrating the nation's misery, demonstrates that it is only worth 36 cents today. He says that big government is at the root of most of the country's economic problems. He vows to take a meat axe to the budget.
Let us take a look at that in terms of American funds at this particular point in time.
In 1960 when a dollar was worth a dollar, the median family income in the United States was roughly $5,000 a year. In 1979, the median income was $19,000 a year. Nineteen thousand dollars worth 36 cents each comes out to $6,840 real 1960 dollars. In those terms, the standard of living, despite what the president tells the people, has risen sharply-by almost a third.
So, the American people are better off by a third. In 1960, in terms of 1971 fixed dollars, our gross national product was $53 billion. In 1975, in terms of 1971 fixed dollars, our gross national product was $110 billion. In that period of time we see a doubling. We can certainly say that Canadians are far better off than we were in 1960, in spite of the kind of thinking put forward by the Conservatives.
Mr. Martin in his article says:
Myth No. 2 that the new administration is trying to pass off is that big government and its deficits are the prime cause of inflation. The new-right Reaganites have such deep faith in this theory that it is the one prong of their one-pronged anti-inflation program.
Basically, that is what I have heard from the opposite side of the House since 1974-75. Mr. Martin in his article goes on to ask about oil prices and food prices.
At this point let us take Vancouver as an example. What about the land which is being bought by people from Hong Kong, and Alberta, which is pushing prices up tremendously? There you have a situation of tremendous tension brought on by super-inflation. It is not caused by government. These are real inflationary effects which are structural in nature. They can be defined very easily. The increase in oil by seven or eight times has a tremendous effect on inflation. To say that there is really only one inflationary factor does not make sense.
Mr. Martin's article goes on:
Myth No. 3 is that government has grown so big that it is out of control. In fact, government hasn't grown so much.


Mr. Kilgour:: Why do you not talk about Canada?


Paul Edmund McRae: Let us go to Canada. I would really like to compare what is happening in the United States with what is happening in Canada.
The article goes on:
Two decades ago, the government purchased 11 per cent of the country's total output. By last year, it was below 8 per cent.


David Kilgour: What do you suppose it is in Canada?


Paul Edmund McRae: Everyone seems to be calling for Canada. Let us take a look at it. I can do it in terms of inflated dollars or in terms of constant dollars. It can be done either way.


David Kilgour: Do both!


Paul Edmund McRae: There are two kinds of government expenditures; one is on goods and services, the other is on transfers. No one can say that transfers can be inflationary since they are transfers from one Canadian to another. You may not like it if it happens to be coming out of your pocket.


David Kilgour: What about on the part of Canada?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae) has the floor. It is very disruptive if other hon. members insist on interrupting. I suggest the hon. member be allowed to conclude his speech.


Paul Edmund McRae: In 1954, 10 per cent of the gross national product went for goods and services. By 1978 that was down to 6 per cent. That is a decline in terms of inflated dollars. In terms of constant dollars it went from about 8 per cent to about 3 per cent.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: What about total spending? Tell us about that.


Paul Edmund McRae: We are talking about the federal government's expenditures which tend to create spending.
Looking at another set of figures, let us see what has happened to government spending. President Reagan says that the great offender is the federal government. It has been shown that it is not the great offender. But let us take a look at what is happening in Canada, since members opposite seem to want to talk about that. Using 1960 as an example, federal government spending amounted to 17.0 per cent of the gross national product.


David Kilgour: What is it now?


Paul Edmund McRae: In 1979 it was 16 per cent. I am glad the hon. member opposite is asking these questions, since I have the answers right here. I talked before about having a reference point, which I think is very important. As I said, in 1960 it was 17 per cent of the gross national product and in 1979 it was 16 per cent.
Another interesting example can be found in the provinces. In 1960 provincial expenditures represented 6.1 per cent of the gross national product. In 1979 it rose to 15 per cent. What happened is that there was a growth in government spending by the provinces and the municipalities. Municipality spending has increased, but not by a great deal, as I see it. It has probably increased by about 5 per cent or 6 per cent over the particular period of time about which I am speaking.
What has really happened is that there has been a massive transfer from the federal government to the provinces and the municipalities. This bears particular importance when you consider the subject we will be debating tomorrow. The party opposite talks constantly about the power of the federal gov-
February 16, 1981

ernment and how we must maintain the power of the provinces. That is the basis of the difference between the constitutional views on this side of the House and what has been said opposite-certainly by the Tory party.
It is extremely important to realize that the growth of provincial government in terms of the gross national product has been at least infinitely faster than that of the federal government.
The only way power can be defined is by looking at who spends what. For instance, if we went back to 1943, which was a time of war and rather a poor period to look at, we would see that federal spending in terms of the gross national product was 22.3 per cent whereas the provinces spent 3.3 per cent.
Looking at 1955, the figure for federal spending was 17.6 per cent compared with 4.8 per cent for the provinces. I think this means there has been a relative shift in power from the federal government to the provinces. I think the new Constitution and the thinking on this side of the House reflects the need to reverse this.
The Economic Council of Canada spent a great deal of time looking at the relationship between the federal and provincial governments with respect to surpluses. In its seventieth annual review, page 60, it deals with the kinds of surpluses that exist between the federal and provincial governments. It shows that with the resource revenue being transferred to governments such as Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, and with the surpluses that these provinces will have, basically the total of all government deficits will disappear in three or four years. By that time there will be a zero deficit at all levels of government in this country. Even today, deficits are being reduced in this way. What do we do with a $14 billion federal government deficit?


An hon. Member:: Sixteen.


Paul Edmund McRae: ASH billion or $15 billion federal government deficit which, when put alongside the provincial surpluses, gives us a net surplus in terms of all the governments of Canada. That is the only way these things can be compared. It is the reference point that we must have.
As the future unfolds and as we deal with the Constitution and with a second phase, we will have to deal very seriously with the kind of distortion that has been created of a large federal deficit side by side with very large provincial surpluses. I think there will be a lot of debate on this situation over the next year or two.
1 want to conclude by saying that this is not just simplistic mathematics; it is not a matter of picking a number and saying, "that is it". We have to deal with these references, with these trends and the things that really count. A figure of 10 per cent or 12 per cent inflation has to be associated with the base and with the relative base of other countries and so on. The net national debt has to be associated with gross national product. If we do not do that kind of thing, then I believe we are failing as legislators.
Borrowing Authority


Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to the principle of Bill C-59, an act to provide supplementary borrowing authority, I am reminded that this is my first opportunity to speak since the change of government in the United States of America, our great neighbour. Therefore,
I should like to take a few moments to remember the six years I spent working in New York and Arizona, to congratulate President Reagan and his cabinet and to wish them well in the difficult years ahead. His conservative philosophy held for me a fascination and won my admiration during my U.S.A. political experience.
In recognition, also, I should like to pay tribute to retiring President Carter, irrespective of perhaps a somewhat different ideology. I do so, perhaps, because of our early common experience in nuclear engineering.
All members in this House recognize recently retired President Carter as a man who worked for peace among nations and know that during his term, America was not at war. During his term, the fundamental principles for world arms limitation were established and he laid a foundation for the evolution of a lasting peace settlement in the Middle East.
Furthermore, I am certain that all in this House, indeed all Canadians, recognize President Carter as a man of faith and belief in the fundamental human rights of all peoples and of the liberation of the human spirit of all economically and politically repressed peoples throughout the world.
More pointedly, let me deal with the borrowing Bill C-59 which is before this House. It is always unfortunate when we have to deal with legislation that has come under the sword of closure. This bill is an indictment of Canadian governments. The bill reminds us that our national government debt has exceeded $100 billion and that we are generating additional debt at between $14 and $15 billion per year. This is a national disgrace; indeed, it is a national tragedy. It is a shame, indeed almost treasonable, as the Government of Canada presides, in my estimation, over the richest nation in all the world. Only 23 million people share the ownership of this vast wealth of arable land, immense freshwater systems, vast untapped storehouses of minerals and hydrocarbon resources, forests, hydro potential, fish, wildlife and literally every kind of resource one can imagine. What a vast potential for wealth generation and yet we borrow and borrow. We are living off the backs and the sweat of coming generations. I would ask, why? It is because the government's management systems and the political guidance of this House over the last decade have failed economically. We have imposed a management system where wealth redistribution has throttled wealth production in a nation with unlimited economic potential. Repeatedly, Canadians today are worried about the future, about the changes to the Canada of the future brought about by the government's inadequate management policies, worried about inflation and the lack of an over-all effective industrial and social policy.
Let us look into the past a bit to see if we can gain some insight into where we are going. What have we done in Canada during the last 35 years since the war?

February 16, 1981
Borrowing Authority
In summary and in over-all perspective, I perceive the following to represent what we have done in building the Canadian society during the last three and a half decades.
First, we have educated ourselves, as a people, to one of the highest standards in the world. Our education has been broadly based with a wide and non-constricting and non-dogmatic perspective. It was moderately permissive and generally directive toward material rather than spiritual ascension. It predominantly, though not totally, followed the American mould.
Second, we applied technology extensively, most of it imported from the United States of America through the media of the multinational corporations, though we have excelled in a few areas like nuclear energy, on our own. Because we used extensively the multinational corporations and their access to American-developed technology, these corporations became dominant in owning our resources and industrial wealth. We became an intermediate manufacturing and exporting nation with declining competitiveness.
Third, economically, on an over-all basis, we have had phenomenal growth in our national economy, primarily based on harvesting and selling our vast resources. Our economy grew from a GNP of $31 billion by approximately four times in constant dollars during three and a half decades. Our population grew only by 75 per cent. We became rich as a nation though other nations surpassed our growth because of much greater productivity. We built in Canada a physical plant system of unprecedented inefficiency and only now are we realizing it as world energy costs are skyrocketing. We almost forgot that fundamental, applied and innovative research must be an integral part of a highly complex industrial society like ours.
Fourth, economically and socially, the nation experienced an intense preoccupation with security; security against almost every eventuality: sickness, unemployment, old age, catastrophe, business bankruptcy, and so on. Most of this security was backed or sponsored by government action. We built a humane society based on government redistribution of wealth. Our system adopted tenure as a right rather than a privilege tempered with responsibility. We provided undisputed tenure to our civil servants, professors, teachers, professions, and thereby generated an increasing demand for tenure without productivity requirements in all organized labour. With increasing tenure, productivity waned. We became lazy, and the pride of doing was replaced with the enjoyment of loafing. Elaborate procedure and refined specialization became a substitute for performance. We demanded more and more from our governments.
Fifth, we became preoccupied with enjoying all the material goods of life at an increasingly younger and younger age. Homes, suites, cars, goods of all sorts were demanded and promoted for the young. In providing all these goods, we established a vast credit system to give us what we wanted now, and increasingly mortgaged our future. Mass advertising created the appetite, credit provided the means, mass production and technology and imports provided the goods and lowered prices. We spoiled ourselves with obsolescence; redundancy, style, throwaway and fraud prevailed and is prevailing. Our appetite increased, our frugalness decreased, we damned the future and lived for the present. Governments evolved a taxation system of unprecedented complexity and unfairness. The poor are paying hidden taxes at every turn. The hidden tax load in Canada is excessive on such necessities as housing.
A few years ago when the Hon. Barney Danson was the minister of housing, I pressed very strongly at a conference of housing ministers for an analysis on the tax structure on housing in Canada. An intermediate analysis was done which found the tax load excessive. It was tax on tax on tax. The federal government did not conduct such a study. It shied away from it. Instead it laid out the terms of reference for the Greenspan study.
Sixth, we demanded more and more from our governments, and governments grew dramatically and involved themselves in every facet of our lives. Governments at the three levels grew without attention to political ideology, rationality or prudence. Politically, we have dashed madly toward de facto socialism with the three levels of government this year expected to tax 43 per cent of the gross national product of Canada. Governments have engaged themselves massively in wealth redistribution at rates which exceed the nation's ability for wealth production. Our appetite as governments is so voracious that massive debt formation has almost overwhelmed us.
The federal government deficit this year is expected to reach $15 billion alone. As debt rises, we print more paper money and so institutionalize inflation rates in double-digit figures. What is inflation? It is a reminder of the reality that we are living beyond our means, that we are getting poorer and must increase our productivity and competitiveness as a nation. We borrow more, we print more and delay the final reconciliation with fiscal prudence, but we shall not escape. The poor, the needy, the weak, the old, suffer the most during these terrible readjustment periods. The time for readjustment is upon us whether we know it or not. This borrowing bill is nothing more than an escape from fiscal prudence that is so vitally necessary.
Seventh, politically our nation has evolved peacefully. Partisan politics has become ideologically blurred with all parties moving significantly for greater socialization and greater government involvement in the economy, regardless of political direction.
One party in Canada had its vision of splitting the country fail. In my opinion, it will try again if given the chance. Out west we have an embryonic separatist movement but the durability of the nation shall prevail.
Provincial governments have grown and gained significantly in relative posture and prominence over the national government in some cases. The national presence and dominance has receded in economic terms but has ascended in emotional and communicative fervour. Some constitutional redefinition, reemphasis and redistribution are timely. Patriation of the Con-
February 16, 1981

stitution is a vital necessity. It has been delayed too long and permitted too many national and regional problems to accumulate.
Eighth, the world around us for a while grew in stability and then began to come apart at the joints. Political, social and economic instability is increasing. World-wide inflation is causing a severe form of economic dislocation. Economic issues resulting primarily from nationalistic protectiveness and resource-pricing policies are now foremost in the minds of world leaders. The risk that the operation of the international economy may spin out of control presents a graver threat to world order today than the nuclear arms race or the struggle between differing political ideologies. Democracy as a form of government is severely threatened by world-wide inflationary pressures.
As I see it, over the last 35 years, that in a nutshell was the situation both internally and externally and it is the situation facing Canada in the 1980s. One might ask, have we built our national economic house upon a rock or upon the sand? I think our living room is anchored on rock but our economic kitchen is on pretty slippery sand. We have many adjustments to make during the 1980s.
First, can we revise our economy and re-establish private enterprise as our motivating force for accelerated wealth production, or, at the least, can we find a workable and productive partnership between the private and the public sectors? I think we can. We are intelligent enough in Canada to do this irrespective of governments.
Second, can we contain the voracious appetites of governments and restrain their growth rates by re-establishing the community, the home and the family unit as the prime motivator, caretaker and babysitter of the social dislocations of our society? The Crosbie budget was the beginning of the movement in that direction.
Third, can we in the organized workplace rediscipline ourselves to increase productivity, innovativeness and deploy new technology to improve our competitiveness in the international marketplace? That was the intent and policy of the Progressive Conservative government a few months ago.
Fourth, can we control inflation and its ravaging effects upon the less fortunate? The Crosbie budget set a new direction in this regard, but some policies across the way may help in this regard in the future.
Fifth, can we meet the challenge of energy self-sufficiency in all forms of energy use? In particular, will we be able to meet the world food crisis resulting from environmental, climatic and population growth patterns?
Sixth, will we be able to cope with the inherent economic and social restratification needed to cope with an increasingly aging population? We must examine seriously our pension systems and anchor them to a more solid financial foundation than those to which they are now anchored.
Seventh, will we be reaching for greater brotherhood rather than increasing isolation in our urban conglomerates as we move toward a new century of civilization?
Borrowing Authority
Eighth, can we meet the challenge of constitutional patria-tion, redefinition and renewal in the 1980s? I think we can.
In conclusion, may I again say that this borrowing bill before the House is a reflection of the inadequacy of the Canadian government's management system. As governments, we do not manage the national economy well. We try to administer it through bureaucracy, a guaranteed process for moving toward bankruptcy. What we need is a national government with the vision, understanding and determination to right the national wrong in our country, a faltering economic system in the richest country in the world.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker,
I thank my colleague from Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) who just spoke. He covered many of the introductory remarks I would have made in addressing myself to this disgusting example of a government which has to stoop to borrow large amounts of money and to mortgage the future of our children. It borrows against the equity of the national resources of some regions of Canada in order to finance a style of government extravagance which is far beyond the ability of this country to pay in the short term. What we have from this government is another very poor example to the private sector and to the children whom we hope will grow up in this country knowing something about economic responsibility.
The statistics of borrowing and deficits of this government over the past decade have grown to horrendous proportions indeed. As a member from western Canada, I say that these statistics are depressing to all Canadians who know something about frugality, saving a penny for a rainy day. They do not believe in living beyond their means at the expense of their children in years to come.
The mood in this country is ugly. It is ugly because of the government's constitutional initiatives taken without regard for the sensitivities of the people in the regions, their premiers and Members of Parliament from those parts of the country not represented on the government benches.
The mood is ugly as well because people have had it up to their teeth with a government which fails to recognize the importance of restraint. It pretends, adopting the Keynesian philosophy of economics, that it does not matter if we incur these massive deficits because we will pay for them in the future with smaller dollars. In other words, it pretends it is incurring ever-increasing deficits on the notion that it is always easier to pay in the future than it is today. It is a sad commentary that the government assumes inflation as a given input for the justification of its deficits.
Much of what we are having to contend with is reflective of a tremendous misunderstanding of the concept of equality of opportunity on which this great country and our friend to the south, the United States of America, was based. The concept of equality of opportunity is quite distinct from the concept of equality of outcome. I wish to read some familiar words by a well known current author, one of the so-called neo-conserva-

February 16, 1981
Borrowing Authority
tives that my friend was referring to a moment ago. Milton Friedman writes, and I quote:
A society that puts equality-in the sense of equality of outcome-ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests.
That is what we are seeing in this country today, a system of patronage designed to benefit those who happen to be on the good side of the government in Ottawa, and disrespect and disregard for regions and political philosophies that may disagree with them.
How large is our deficit? The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke) often uses an example. He points out that if any of us had the privilege of having a million dollars in the form of $10,000 bills, they would form a stack six or eight inches high. If you squash them down, your million dollars will be a stack of $1,000 bills only four inches high.
By comparison, if you stack those $1,000 bills to accumulate a total of $14 billion, which this government is asking to borrow, you would have a stack over a mile high some 7,000 or 8,000 feet high. If the net public debt in this country were changed into $ 1 bills and stacked up, they would reach to the top of the stratosphere, some 50,000 feet into the atmosphere, or 16,000 metres. That illustrates the dimension of the problem which faces Canadians and our children in the future.
I am alarmed that this government in its budget has shown no evidence of restraint, in total contrast to the sanctimonious-sounding promises in the throne speech of a few months ago. The government has shown no willingness to put into action the words expressed in the throne speech, and I quote:
My government will reduce the federal deficit in a planned and orderly manner .. . Improving the efficiency of the federal government is as important an objective of these reforms as reducing the deficit.
Balderdash! Where is the evidence shown to this House of improving the efficiency of the federal government? I will deal further with that in a few moments.
The government is spending 10 per cent more in the 1981 fiscal year than it spent last year, at a time when our gross national product is not likely to grow at all. If it does, it will grow by something less than 1 per cent. We keep hearing the myth in this House that things are bad all over, that times are tough in the United States and elsewhere. It is ludicrous for the Liberal members to blame the rest of the world, especially the Americans, for the serious plight of our economy.
All we have to do is compare the level of the U.S. deficit as a fraction of its government budget with our own to see the stark reality of the situation. The United States budget for 1980 was projected a year ago to amount to $600 billion, roughly ten times larger than our own. The projected U.S. deficit for that period was 3 per cent of that budget or about $16 billion, incidentally at the same level as our own.
It is now a year later and the Carter administration has left office. At the end of that year, Carter was projecting expenditures of some $663 billion, with revenue of $607 billion for a deficit of $56 billion. That deficit was only 8.3 per cent of
government spending in that very bad year as far as the U.S. administration is concerned. By contrast, this government is advocating a deficit in the order of 20 per cent of our government budget, a deficit of at least $14 billion in the present fiscal year. Our budgeted deficit of $14 billion out of $67 billion is three times as large as the U.S. deficit per capita and Ronald Reagan says he has a crisis on his hands.
There is indeed a crisis in the United States and they recognized it much earlier than we did. Our crisis is compounded all that much more, not merely because our deficit per capita is much larger, but because our economy is so intricately tied to that of the United States.
It is alarming to realize that this government and its finance minister have reverted to the old habits of the former minister of finance in his budget, the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien). In the budget presented in November, 1978, the government projected a deficit of $10 billion on a budget of $50 billion for a 20 per cent deficit.
When the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) came into this House and presented his budget in December, 1979, he put forward a budget for the 1980-81 fiscal year which reduced that deficit to only 14 per cent of his budget. By 1983 to 1984, the Conservative deficit would have been reduced to 6 per cent of budgetary spending. If we compare that with the projections of the present Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) we will find that for the same fiscal year, 1980-81, the Liberal budget shows we have gone back to a deficit in the order of one-fifth of our government budget, some $12 billion. For 1983-84, we have a deficit of some 9 per cent of projected government expenditures of $81 million. In other words, even by 1983-84, this government opposite is projecting a deficit one and a half times as large as that which the Crosbie budget projected. This is just totally unacceptable.
If one looks at that well-read report by the Economic Council of Canada called "A Climate of Uncertainty", and looks at Figure Chart 1-1 on page 8 of that report, he will find that of all of the governments in the western industrialized world, the Canadian government is the only one that reports an economy where the annual percentage of output is on the decline and has been continually since 1967. The other industrialized countries have, since 1973, shown a resurgence, a recovery in their economic output as measured by their gross national product. But this government and this country is contending with an ever-diminishing output as a percentage of gross national product and it just shows the extent to which our economy is in serious, serious financial shape.
In addition to the some $14 billion the government is asking to borrow tonight to add to the $80 billion gross net public debt, it is important government members realize what they are doing to public servants in this country, because they have now accumulated a $20 billion liability to all of the public service employees in Canada, and the armed forces, Department of National Defence, and the public service, generally. There is a $21 billion book liability to those government
February 16, 1981

employees and that liability is growing at the tune of $2 billion each year.
If you look at the budget introduced by the Minister of Finance in October, you will find, in table 1, on page 21 of that budget, there is an item "Annuity Insurance and Pension Accounts". This item amounts to some $2 billion, and this item amounts for the discrepancy between the Financial requirements of the government and its deficit. This government deficit is some $2 billion greater than its financial requirements because it has the benefit of a low-interest loan at the rate of four percentage points, compliments of the employees of the Government of Canada. I think that is shameful. I think the employees of the Government of Canada have been sold a bill of goods. They have been promised indexed pensions, but in fact their pension funds are growing at a rate three times the rate of outlay by way of payments to retirees. This government opposite, in a very scandalous move, is borrowing now to the tune of some additional $20 billion which adds to our present level of an $80 billion net public debt, and borrowing it out of the hides of the public servants of Canada. I think it is high time that question was addressed. Those employees are entitled to a properly accredited accounting as the Auditor General has demanded, and they are entitled to sit on a board of trustees to see those contributions secured in a form of equity so that they know, if faced with any possible range of economic circumstances, that the government has the ability to honour its commitments to those employees of the Government of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Edward Siddon: I could go on much longer, but I know that my capable colleague, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wright) would like to speak. I just want to say of this approach taken by the government opposite, there is a very lopsided sense of priorities. If we look at the breakdown of the tax dollar paid by every citizen of this country to finance the extravagance and the essential programs of the government, we will see a breakdown somewhat as follows: out of that tax dollar, 39 cents go to health and welfare; 10 cents go to debt charges to cover the ever-growing cost of debt, including that portion of our debt to which we are beholden to foreign interests in order to borrow money because we cannot find enough within our own country. Communications and transport, and I presume that includes the CRTC, the CBC and the Post Office, that accounts for 7 per cent. In total, we have some 56 per cent of the tax dollar, 56 cents on every dollar in the area of health, welfare, debt charges and communications, including the CBC, the CRTC and Post Office.
By contrast, only 4 per cent of the federal tax dollar goes to education, only 2'/i per cent to manpower and immigration, only .7 per cent to research and only 2 per cent to industry, trade and commerce and another 5'/2 per cent to general government.
What we have in this country is a lopsided set of priorities where the productive areas of our economy and the potential for future development of opportunity and expanding industry,
Borrowing Authority
that portion of our economy, is very seriously underfinanced and undersupported. The non-productive sector of our economy, including health and welfare, debt charges, and the CBC, is eating up more than 50 per cent of the federal tax dollar. That is at the heart of our dilemma in Canada today. We have only to look at the foolish extravagance in a concept like CBC 2, which is absolutely unnecessary at this point in time. We have only to look at the implementation of metric conversion which has imposed upon small manufacturers in my riding tremendous financial burdens in terms of additional inventory accounting, in terms of mismatching of parts and components, all tremendous economic burden to them, and let us not forget the whole question of bilingual printing.
Why do I have to receive in my office every day mounds and mounds of glossy Canadian newsprinted paper, printed on both sides, when the government could well print French and English in two separate volumes; print them in the required numbers. I would not be throwing nearly as much paper waste into my waste basket. This is paper produced by the pulp and paper industry of Canada which could well have been exported, instead of having me toss it aside and burn it because I do not happen to read the other language. It is utterly foolish. In conclusion, I would just like to recite what I consider the old prairie ethic, and I am a prairie kid.


An hon. Member:: I don't even know what language you speak.


An hon. Member:: Some of us like to speak two languages, Tom.


Thomas Edward Siddon: That's fine. You do not have to read both of them at once. Policies are being made in this country by a group of people including our silver spoon socialists to the left, who were born with silver spoons in their mouths. The key examples are the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), the finance critic for the NDP, the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae), the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
Mr. Speaker, they are like spoiled children born into a millionaire's family, and the result is invariably the bankruptcy of the family business. These individuals have never had to build their own homes or businesses.


An hon. Member:: Yes, I have.


Thomas Edward Siddon: They have not had to work an honest day with their hands. They have never had to sweep a floor or stook bundles on the prairies. They have never worked on a production line, or a drilling rig or in a mine. They have never had to hold down two jobs, and with two wives working-or one wife-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Edward Siddon: Two if you can get the extra one. They have never had to seek out a second job in order to pay the family grocery bills. They have never gone to bed hungry, these

February 16, 1981
Borrowing Authority
silver-spoon socialists in the federal offices. They never learn about the rainy day frugality which people of western Canada understand so well, particularly after the experience of the depression years. These experiences made western Canadians, prairie dwellers in particular, strong and independent. These members opposite do not believe in laying up storehouses for tomorrow. They do not understand the old adage: "You don't get something for nothing". There is no such thing as a free lunch. They do not believe that. They believe we can just use inflation to offset the growing burden of interest charges. They believe in devaluing Canadian dollars for capital borrowed from foreign interests. They are busy spending this country into oblivion with money borrowed against the future security of our children and their children and against the resources of the resource-rich regions which they are so intent on grabbing.


Mr. Bill Wright (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon), for allowing me a few minutes to talk about this bill. I am sure he will now be departing and calling his one and only wife.
I want to speak briefly against this bill. I spoke seven months ago against another bill, Bill C-30. It seems a little ridiculous to rise seven months later to talk about an even bigger bill involving not $12 billion but $14 billion. In addition, I rise on a night when a debate, lasting 12 hours prior to today, is being reduced. It seems to me that it is an abuse of Parliament to be pressing this upon us, not allowing us as representatives of our constituencies to speak on behalf of those constituencies with respect to this bill.
If this government had not gone into debt as much as it has, it is obvious we would not have to rise as frequently to debate these bills. We do not like to talk about bills such as this. If there were no Liberal handouts in this bill, we would not be debating it tonight.
In 1979-80 the deficit was almost $12 billion, and now it is over $14 billion. The government admitted last fall it was spending $1 billion a month more than it took in, and now it is admitting it is spending $1.18 billion more than it is taking in. It is spending $180 million a month more than it is taking in. This is more than it was spending last year.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) tells us the deficit is going down, but why in heaven's name do we have to approve a bill, not for $11 billion, but for $14 billion? Hon. members opposite want $3 billion as a cushion. What will hon. members opposite do with the $3 billion?


David Kilgour: It goes to deserving Liberals.


Frederick William Wright: One of my colleagues says it goes to deserving Liberals, and so it must. We do not know where it is going because they will not tell us. At meetings we ask the Minister of Finance how he will spend the money, and he will not tell us. He says it will be spent on something. We ask him why he wants to borrow in foreign currencies, and he says he does not really want to borrow in foreign currencies, yet the government borrowed $1.1 billion last fall and has only repaid $300 million of that. However, he will not tell us what he wants to spend that money on.


John Leslie Evans: Read the budget.


Frederick William Wright: One year ago the Bank of Canada said there was little doubt that the key reason for the slide toward more inflation was the public policy of this government. In 1968 the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) promised in Moncton, New Brunswick, he would control spending. He said that to large audiences. At that time the deficit was $500 million. Now it is over $14 billion. Where is the restraint? When we ask this of the Minister of Finance he says he will restrain spending. Does he not know how to restrain spending?


David Kilgour: He prints the money he spends.


Frederick William Wright: It is quite obvious that we have to do something to control spending, and perhaps there is a way by which all of us can control the spending of government agencies. Perhaps we as Members of Parliament should look toward controlling our spending to a percentage of gross national product. Let us say spending was 30 per cent and the gross national product was $130 billion; we could control government spending in any one year to, say, $40 billion. That means all government departments would be committed to efficiency because they would only have so many dollars. We do not have that now, we have unlimited spending. The government comes to us for authority to borrow money and, if that is not enough, it comes back and keeps coming back. This government does not know how to put a limit on spending. Therefore, it cannot build up any efficiencies within any government agencies.
I would like to conclude with a couple of remarks about the energy policy because it is part of the spending package. The government says it wants to have oil self-sufficiency. In 1974 the Prime Minister said there would be self-sufficiency by 1980. We do not have it. Now hon. members opposite say we will have it by 1990, yet the Alberta government says by 1990 we will be importing three times the amount of oil we are importing at the present time.
I could go on, but hopefully we will get another chance to debate this bill at third reading. There are aspects of this bill which are alarming. It is unbelievable that this government does not know how to control spending. Unless all of us as Members of Parliament take a stand, sooner or later the public will rebel.
[Translation)


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, we have now spent seven days debating this bill to authorize the government to borrow $14 billion. I should like to recall briefly that in addition to this authority to borrow $14 billion for the financial year 1981-82 the bill contains one provision under which any borrowing authority in excess of $3 billion left at the end of the financial year 1981-82 will be
February 16, 1981

automatically cancelled. However, there is also another provision under which we are asking that any borrowing authority under $3 billion left at the end of the financial year be transferred to the following financial year.
Hon. members will recall that this bill stems directly from the budget tabled last October. The borrowing authority we are now seeking will cover the $11 billion financial requirements forecast in the budget, the exchange operations provision as well as contingencies. As hon. members know, the budget strategy of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) is to reduce the deficit by limiting the growth of government expenditures. The budget deficit should drop from $14.2 billion this year to $13.7 billion next year and to $11.8 billion in 1983-84.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Bussières: The hon. member may laugh, but he should remember that the Canadian population put their trust in this government and that, in the few months where his government was in power, it showed so much irresponsibility that it was thrown out by the Canadian voters.
During this period, increasing sources of funds from nonbudgetary accounts will help to finance the budget deficit of the government. During the second reading debate, the hon. members talked, of course, about the general direction of the economic policy of this government. However, they also referred to the national energy program. They talked about the authority to borrow in foreign currencies which is provided in this bill and which was also provided in the previous borrowing authority bill. They also talked about the direction of the monetary policy of the government, about the support given by the government to the Bank of Canada to reduce the money supply, about the impact of government deficit financing on private investment financing, and also about the debt structure in Canada.
During this debate, some members had the opportunity to explain why they disagree with this bill, and others to say why they support it. I would like to reply to some of the comments made during the debate, and I want first of all to refer to some of the points made by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). For instance, the hon. member said that the government has lost $1.1 billion by redeeming Canada Savings Bonds and attributed this redemption to a loss of confidence on the part of the citizens in their government. Mr. Speaker, the redemption of Canada Savings Bonds has a very different explanation from that given by the hon. member for St. John's West. In fact, the government is trying to reduce the part these bonds play in the total financing of the government borrowing operations or in the over-all management of the national debt. Moreover, if the hon. member for St. John's West would think back, he will remember that this was explained in detail in the Standing Committee on Finance,
Borrowing Authority
Trade and Economic Affairs when it studied the borrowing authority bill only a few months ago.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, Canada Savings Bonds can become a costly means of financing for the government. The interest rates on the bonds follow any upward adjustment of the interest rates payable in the marketplace. However, the downward movements of those rates are not reflected in the rate of return of the bonds. Furthermore, I would like to add that savings bonds are as good as cash since they can be redeemed any time at their face value.
Mr. Speaker, I see time is running short and I would like to deal with an aspect raised by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wright) a few moments ago, namely, that hon. members do not have the opportunity to discuss what use the government will make of this money. I would like to remind him that hon. members not only have the opportunity to discuss what the government will do with this particular amount of money, that is the $14 billion in borrowings, but that they have many opportunities to discuss all government expenditures during consideration in committee of the estimates and also during the numerous sittings of the Committee of the Whole House on supply issues.
Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied that in the seven days of debate on this bill we have had ample opportunity to hear and consider the pros and cons with regard to this piece of legislation. We now know the position of the different parties on this borrowing authority. We will also have the opportunity in the standing committee, starting this week, to discuss further this borrowing authority and the management of the government debt.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. It being 9.45 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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

February 16, 1981
Borrowing Authority


Madam Speaker:: It being past ten o'clock, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 2(1).
At 10.16 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, February 17, 1981