1981-02-12

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, and I turn toward the New Democratic Party. In light of the CBC news report last night that the members of the federal NDP Saskatchewan caucus were asked at a meeting with the provincial NDP caucus yesterday what in the world they were doing supporting the constitutional proposals which the Saskatchewan attorney general Roy Romanow described as a "Grab bag of nonsense", and were told by Saskatchewan Premier Allan Blakeney that his government would probably support simple patriation with an amending formula, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That to preserve harmony in the Saskatchewan NDP, the Saskatchewan federal NDP members act on their own beliefs and ignore the dictates of their federal leader and vote against the government's constitutional package so there will be no necessity for cries of "Anguish" when they next meet with their provincial NDP colleagues.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL &quot;SPLIT&quot; DAY
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that looking for splits, promoting splits, and creating splits if none can be found, has become a national pastime, and in view of the fact that Joe has taken to appointing his friends to ensure he is not split from his position and Pierre to holding his nose while speaking with a split-tongue, and that our ten premiers are maintaining split
ranks, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That today be declared National Split Day and that bananas be supplied to the press gallery to symbolize Canada's gratitude for the care and competence they provide in searching out, promoting and heralding splits.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Considering the severe personal injustices experienced by Donald Kelso, an air traffic controller at Dorval airport, and taking into account the fact that the Supreme Court has just reinstated Mr. Kelso after noting that no one can be removed from a position solely on the basis of language, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester (Mr. Coates):
That this House instruct the Commissioner of Official Languages, who is responsible to the Prime Minister, to launch an immediate inquiry into this case so that in the future public servants who are unable to learn a second language will not be harassed and reduced to second-class citizen status.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIR DISASTER
Mr. Louis R. Desmarais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, 1 seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion relating to an urgent matter.

Members will be aware of the crash last night of a Texas-gulf jet and the tragic death of Dr. Charles F. Fogarty, Texasgulfs chairman and chief executive officer. Texasgulf is a natural resources development company controlled by the Canada Development Corporation. With Dr. Fogarty on that plane were top executives of Texasgulf and two company

February 12, 1981
pilots. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke):
That this House express its sympathy to the relatives and families of those killed in the crash of the Texasgulf jet last night.


Madam Speaker:: 1 am sure that the House shares the hon. member's sentiments, but 1 do not believe that I can put the motion to the House.


PETRO-CANADA FUNDS FOR PURCHASE OF PETROFINA-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The Crown corporation, Petro-Canada, has sent a credit card to a Vancouver individual already dead and in the grave for five years. 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp):
That Mr. Hopper be directed to finance the purchase of Petrofina by soliciting funds from the same group of clientele which are already its valued customers, and, failing that, to consider the purchase a dead issue.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the warning given to the federal NDP Saskatchewan caucus by Premier Blakeney that support of the government's constitutional package would hurt their election chances in the west-that is, the Liberal party's western branch-I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn):
That this House recognize the coalition and the bedroom relationship between the Grits and federal NDP and direct that the hon. member for Oshawa no longer be paid the allowance for recognized party leaders in the House.


OFFICIAL POSITION OF ONSERVATIVE PARTY-MOTION UNDER
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That time be allotted to the current Leader of the Official Opposition in order that he may clearly outline whether the Yurko position, the Clark position, the
Hatfield position, the Lougheed position or the Davis position is in fact the official position of the Conservative party on the Constitution.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


MARINE TRANSPORT
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Madam Speaker, in view of the disastrous effects upon Canadian shippers in British Columbia of the budget proposal to charge world fuel prices to Canadian international marine carriers, even while engaged in domestic trade, and since Canadian flag carriers with Canadian crews will pay 30 cents a gallon more than foreign carriers engaged in the same trade, I move, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman):
That this House directs the Minister of Transport to consult with his colleague, the Minister of Finance, in order to remove from the proposed amendments to the Petroleum Administration Act which take effect on April 1 all unfair treatment of Canadian marine carriers, in particular the tax on domestic carriers on international routes which will result in a 56 per cent increase in fuel costs.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bud Bradley (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Since the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) said that he proposed no relief in interest rates for farmers and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) said that no assistance will be afforded to agriculture in energy, and since the increase in costs to farmers in equipment, energy, seed, manpower, etc. far exceeds the increase in returns to them for their product, thus forcing them to leave the industry in great numbers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis):
That this House refer the whole issue of agriculture in Canada to a special committee of this House in order to study the problems related to this vitally important industry and arrive at solutions to ensure the livelihood of those that dedicate themselves to it.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?
February 12, 1981


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EFFECT OF GASOLINE TAX ON FIXED INCOME TAXPAYERS- MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the government's headlong rush to nationalize the oil industry, as evidenced by its purchase of Petrofina at a cost of SI.46 billion, has the potential to cost the Canadian taxpayer 13 cents a gallon, or $2.60 per tank every time that taxpayer drives up to the pumps, and recognizing that this tax is inflationary, regressive, and impacts most upon those least able to pay, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Cardiff):
That this House directs the government to shelter senior citizens, pensioners, those on fixed incomes, and farmers from the burden of this socialistic tax.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PENSIONS
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) I
move:
That this House urges the government to bring in legislation to provide pensions for all homemaker spouses-
The emphasis, Madam Speaker, is on the words "all homemaker spouses".
-in their own right, equivalent to those earned by contributors to the Canada Pension Plan, thus recognizing, for pension purposes, the contribution to our society made by those who work in the home, and that this House urges that such legislation be introduced at an early date.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The budget presented to the House by the member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. MacEachen) on October 28 proposed a "bold and experimental new program to help deal with regional inequalities in this country". It ends up that the "bold" part is that the program has been implemented in the maritimes only in Grit constituencies. In view of his blatant patronage, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley (Mr. McCuish):
That this House condemn the callous attitude of the Minister of Finance toward his fellow maritimers and his complete lack of control of the fiscal calamity which has developed in the country.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PIPELINES
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to introduce the following motion: whereas it would appear that the National Energy Board has again delayed its report on the Norman Wells-Zama Lake pipeline, this time until April, 1981, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. Bradley):
That the government put its affairs in order so that it will be able to confirm the expected advicq to proceed with this highly desirable project immediately upon receipt of the NEB recommendations, thereby allowing construction proper to commence in January, 1982, as recommended by the Environmental Assessment Review Panel.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
7156

February 12, 1981
Oral Questions
S)



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, 1 wish to direct my questions to the Minister of Finance.
This morning the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and six other industrial associations representing manufacturers of chemicals, electronics, steel and plastics, issued a joint press release expressing their opinion that under Canada's current energy program our chances of becoming self-sufficient are nil. The association predicted dire consequences to Canada, and to their industries, as a result of this policy. It seems the government is unconcerned about the effects of the energy program on the oil and gas industry. Is the minister concerned about the effects of the program on the manufacturing sector-a program he authored on October 28-which, according to these industrial representatives, will be very severe indeed unless changes are made soon?


Mr. Roy MacLaren (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member opposite will be aware that in the National Energy Program there are incentives to encourage the development of the petroleum industry in Canada, both in conventional lands and in frontier areas. In addition, certain changes have been made as a result of discussions with industry which will further encourage the development of this dynamic sector of our economy.


VIEWS OF MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES
Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is to the acting minister, the Minister of Finance, or someone who knows what is going on in the energy sector in this country.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Judy Erola.


Harvie Andre: Perhaps the Minister of State for Mines is the acting minister of energy and can cast some light on the government's thinking.
These six associations representing manufacturing interests-not the oil and gas industry-stated in their press release that now is the time to get going to obtain maximum employment and economic benefits from what should be a progressive and ongoing energy policy. As a result of the current policy, they have pointed out that their industries face very uncertain and very difficult times ahead. My question to the minister is this: if she does not accept this view of these manufacturing industries which have released this report today, could she please explain where their thinking is in error and how six very
respected, non-partisan associations, could arrive at such an erroneous view?


An hon. Member:: Sit down, Roy.


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State (Mines)):: Madam Speaker, obviously the member is aware, as are most members in the House, that those projects have been cut back by the province of Alberta, not by the federal government. The companies involved have been offered a $38 price which would give them the base to go ahead with the projects. It has been the province's choice to cut back on these particular projects.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUDGET
Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, we now know that the parliamentary secretary is not aware of what is going on and, the acting minister is not aware of what is going on.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: I am going to try again and ask my question of the Minister of Finance since he authored the budget which brought forward these disastrous policies. Given that virtually the entire Canadian business community, small business, the bankers' association, the manufacturers' association and, of course, the oil and gas industry, recognize that a failure to change the National Energy Program will result in tremendous economic costs to Canada, if the Minister of Finance is not concerned about the effects on the oil and gas industry is he concerned about the effects on all of these other industries? Does he dismiss the view of the entire business community in Canada? If he thinks these people have some reasoning behind their concerns, will he tell the House when he will be bringing in a new budget to correct the damage being done by the energy policy which he brought forward on October 28?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, it would not be correct to suggest that the government or the Minister of Finance is not interested in the views of the business community with respect to the impact of the National Energy Program or, indeed, the views of the oil and gas industry. As the hon. member knows, since the budget, on two separate occasions, 1 have tabled modifications to the tax regime as a result of suggestions made by the oil and gas industry. On each occasion they have said yes, they think these changes are worth while but they would like more changes. I want to give the hon. member that information as evidence of our willingness to listen and to respond. I want to add further that 1 disagree with the analysis that he has taken as his own, namely, the analysis presented by a group of members of the business community.
February 12, 1981

During the budget I made certain projections as to the rate of growth of the economy in 1981 based upon the National Energy Program. 1 have no reason to alter that projection with regard to rates of growth in the economy for 1981.


QUERY RESPECTING PLANS TO ASSIST MANUFACTURING SECTOR
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In the January 15, 1981, Commons Debates, page 6221, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is quoted as saying "the Toronto Star has not been able to find a single spokesman for any company in Ontario that says it has lost any jobs". So much for the reliability of both the Star and the minister, since the statement of six industrial associations said in part that the energy policy as it stands is damaging not just the oil industry, but the manufacturing industry as well. Can the minister indicate whether he has any plans prepared to mitigate the damage to the already hurting manufacturing sector?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, we are building on the very important and positive National Energy Program to strengthen our manufacturing base. Elements of this are found in the oil and gas legislation to enable the development of Canadian jobs and Canadian suppliers, in carrying out major energy projects on the Canada lands. I hope my hon. friends will recognize the importance of this and give it their active support.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, the minister is supposed to represent his client group, not fight them. He is not prepared to acknowledge what is acknowledged by all the trade associations representing the manufacturing sector and, hopefully, they have a voice in the minister. Is he at least monitoring the situation, or does he intend to let them flounder until they need a Chrysler or Massey bailout?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, we are following the situation very closely. My purpose, and I hope it is that of all members of this House, is not only to speak for individual groups but to work and speak for all Canadians. This is the way we are approaching it, and I think the hon. member should do so as well.


FISHERIES
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Albemi):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Yesterday in Vancouver announcements were made severely limiting the fishing of chinook salmon in British Columbia, resulting from many years of federal government mismanagement of that
Oral Questions
stock, particularly on the Fraser River. Many of these restrictions are putting an unnecessarily hard financial burden on the gill-net fleet, including the closure of the upper Fraser River to gill-netters and restricting combination vessels in their decision as to whether to gill-net inside or outside. Is there any agreement with the United States to have them restrict their chinook and sockeye Fishery at Point Roberts so that gill-net fishermen on the Fraser River may share in some of their own salmon going back to their spawning grounds rather than their being given to the American fishermen?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, the last part of the hon. member's question is interesting. I hope he will support the position of this government if and when a treaty is finally negotiated, because one of our aims in the new treaty affecting the Fraser River will be to return the management of that river system to the Canadian authorities. As for the means of conservation which we announced, we have tried to take a balanced view. We have restricted the gillnetters. In fact we said to those who would be very heavily restricted that we are looking at other opportunities that could be afforded to them. We have also restricted the sports fishermen and I have had a number of telegrams of protest on that score. I think they all recognize that the Fraser system Chinooks must be given a chance to spawn, and it is to this effect that we have taken these measures.


Edward Allan Miller: I assure the minister this party will indeed support a fair fisheries treaty between the U.S. and Canada on the west coast, but we do not consider a fair treaty as being an imbalance of 5.8 million sockeye as is the present situation on the west coast.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: That is not a proposal either.


Edward Allan Miller: In the recommendations from the Department of Fisheries there is very seldom any mention of a specific portion of the fleet in British Columbia which has grown from 370 vessels in 1969 to over 600 now. What proposals does the minister's department plan to restrict the kill of juvenile chinook as a result of the very efficient seine fleet? That is one of the major causes of chinook reduction in British Columbia. Over hundreds of thousands of juvenile chinook salmon are killed each year by the seine fleet and there is nothing in the press release yesterday which specifically indicates the problem will be looked into and adjusted accordingly.


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, that is an ongoing problem with which all representatives of the industry agree, and it is being addressed. In this case we were looking at the Fraser River chinook salmon and conservation measures and the seine fleet was not an overriding concern. It has had limitations in other fisheries in other areas.


Edward Allan Miller: Madam Speaker, the minister will recognize that we have advocated some regulations on the sports fishing

February 12, 1981
Oral Questions
fleet in British Columbia and we are not saying the regulations presented yesterday are all bad. However, one of the difficulties in the industry is the lack of enforcement officers both for the fishing fleet, both sports and commercial, and also habitat protection. I would like the minister to give this House some guarantee that, in the omnibus bills which were passed by Treasury Board, there will not be a reduction in the allocation of fishery protection officers on the west coast, to go to other segments of the Fisheries and Oceans Department. Would the minister indicate there is a priority to put enforcement officers on the west coast to protect the Chinook stocks which section of the fleet is prepared to regulate to protect its members?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, there will be and there is already a recognition of the problem. In fact when my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, introduces the estimates, members interested in fisheries matters will see, thanks to the support of my colleagues and also the support of members on all sides of this House, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has done rather well, and I thank all those who have supported me in this matter.


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, I direct my question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Premier Blakeney has been described by Liberal Senator Jack Austin as the pivotal premier on whose support or lack of support the fate of the government's constitutional amendments will be determined. In view of Premier Blakeney's statement last night that he could accept simple patriation and an amending formula, I would like to ask the Right Hon. Prime Minister if he has considered that offer and is he willing to give a response today along the lines suggested by Premier Blakeney.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I am not a party to what Premier Blakeney said last night. I do remember what he said two years ago at the federal-provincial conference held in Ottawa-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You complained when we read your book.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -where he went on record as opposing Premier Davis and the position of several other premiers, which was precisely that, to patriate with an amending formula and nothing else. Premier Blakeney was highly instrumental in preventing that from happening then. If he has changed his mind I am happy to hear it. I just wish he had changed his mind a little earlier.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, I would like to address my supplementary question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. If it is possible for Premier Blakeney to change his mind, I wonder if it is possible for the Prime Minister to change his mind as well.


An hon. Member:: Never.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[DOT] (M30)


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Is there just one way, and does everyone have to march to his drum?
In the so-called deal between the Prime Minister and Premier Blakeney, the terms of which were finally taken on to Hawaii, the so-called Honolulu formula, did the Prime Minister propose to Premier Blakeney an amending formula which would be based on the principle that all provinces should be regarded as equal?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, as to my changing my mind, the hon. member has just realized that the premier has come to recognize the positive character of what this House recognized last May when we all agreed that patriation with an amending formula was the right thing to do. That was then moved by the hon. member for Edmonton East. We accepted that last May, but last summer the premiers-and I have said this time and again-said clearly, on television, that they would not accept that. Even Premier Blakeney has said he would not accept that unless he got international trade and so forth. If they have changed their minds and are coming to a position which this House thought was the right one last May, why did they not say so in Montreal? Six of them met in Montreal. They have not even been able to agree to an amending formula. So what is this business of saying that I should get them together to find a consensus? Even when they meet together they cannot find a consensus.


RAILWAYS
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture in the absence of the Minister of Transport. It arises out of at least three positions the government has espoused through different ministers of the Crown with respect to the Crowsnest Pass freight rates. The Minister of Agriculture has suggested the debate has gone on too long and wants the issue resolved quickly, by August 1 at the latest. The Minister of Transport wants to order a task force to study the matter further. The Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board says a study is impractical and bluntly says nothing will be done other than perhaps a CPR inquiry.
Can the Minister of Agriculture tell the House and the farmers of Canada who we are to believe, or are all the ministers speaking with a hell of a tongue in cheek, to quote a well-known phrase?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, when the hon. member held the position of Minister of Transport, I am sure he also discussed the Crowsnest Pass
February 12, 1981

rates, I do not remember him saying what he would do about it. If he did, he kept it pretty secret. I would like to know his opinion of what should be done also.


An hon. Member:: Answer the question. You are the minister now.


Eugene Whelan: This week the Canadian Federation of Agriculture has been holding meetings in the capital of Canada. The federation has been meeting different groups, talking to politicians on both sides of the House, and making suggestions. We have asked this group to come forward with what it really thinks should be done. The federation wants to consult with us further. It wants to negociate with us, etc. We would like to know what firm stand will be taken by different groups in western Canada on what they want, because I am sure the hon. member knows that there is a great difference of opinion on what should be done.
The opinions of western producers differ widely. Some say nothing should be done; some say this should be done; some say that should be done. Those proposals are being studied at the present time, but-


An hon. Member:: Order.


Eugene Whelan: -this being such an important matter-it has been established for a great number of years-that when any change is being made it has to be the right one and provide equity for producers of livestock, feed grains and grain, and equity for the railroads, etc. So those are-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, there is a great difference of opinion flowing from the government, and I simply ask for some clarification. Is this troika plan which outlines three different policies designed to confuse or manipulate, or is the minister serious when he says that the debate has gone on long enough and that a resolution should be brought forward and put in place by August 1? Because there is a consensus emerging in western Canada through the western agriculture conference, which represents some 50 farm organizations, is the minister prepared to come forward and outline to the farmers what his government is prepared to do in terms of putting up funding to meet the Crow gap so that the debate can go on, and is the minister prepared to recommend to his cabinet a set of guidelines within which the debate can be advanced? The farmers have stated their position. Now it is up to the government to respond.


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the hon. member makes it sound quite simple, but he is forgetting the commodity sector from western Canada, which has made a different suggestion. He is forgetting the National Farmers' Union, which has made a different suggestion on what should be done-that we should not touch the Crowsnest Pass rates in any way whatsoever. The hon. member says there is a consensus. The western agriculture committee has made recommendations to us, but that alone is not good enough.
Oral Questions


An hon. Member:: Where do you stand?


Eugene Whelan: We have had meetings this week, and some of the things said by some of the people differed slightly, and perhaps in a greater fashion than I am describing. They differ in a major fashion from what has been said in written presentations to us, so they have not formed that consensus the hon. member is saying they have, and when they do that, this government will act.


HOUSING
Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for housing. The minister's response yesterday to the housing crisis in British Columbia, to the effect that housing starts were up, was small comfort indeed in view of the problems of
3,000	people on waiting lists to get into co-op housing. There are no available building lots. Average home prices are well over $100,000.
In view of these shortages and in view of the heavy financial commitments which are brought upon home owners when they remortgage their homes at higher interest rates, will the minister reconsider his withdrawal of the community services program, recognize the special need of this rapid growth area of Canada, and implement another extended and accelerated community services program particularly for this rapid growth area of Canada?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, the community services program was not designed to respond to the immediate needs defined by the hon. member. Rather, the response of the government last year, for example, in increasing the number of social units designated for immediate take-up, we believe, is a more useful response at the present time, and it is my hope as well that the lead of the federal government with the MURB program, which was followed by the province of Ontario with a program to build on top of that, will produce results much sooner and more directly in response to the problems which are experienced in the province now.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Madam Speaker, representing the fastest growing communities in North America and representing also an area which has the potential for additional housing units in the Fraser Valley, I can tell the minister that there are no lots available, programs are not working, and demand is too high. The minister said he was removing this program to allow for new initiatives. The new initiatives have not worked. What are the initiatives the minister is planning specifically for this specific western problem which comes at this particular time in the development of our country? What new initiatives is the minister talking about, and what will he do to get the program going, not six months from now, but this month and next month?

February 12, 1981
Oral Questions


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, if the hon. gentleman is proposing that in response to this immediate need the community services program is an answer, then I have to remind him that that program will continue with funding from the federal government until the month of March, 1982. Funding is continuing under that program until March, 1982, so to talk about that program in response to what we perceive to be a significant demand change in the province is not the answer. I will only repeat my previous answers. We think other programs are the answer.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Like what?


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or, in his absence, his parliamentary secretary. The parliamentary secretary knows that since October status and non-status Indian women in New Brunswick have been planning a conference in Fredericton for February 21.
In addition to funds from the Department of the Secretary of State, the status Indian women requested money from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for the specific purpose of helping status women to take part in the planning process. In a letter dated January 20 the parliamentary secretary wrote that these funds would be made available. Yesterday, the Indian women were told that this extra money would not be forthcoming. Could the parliamentary secretary or the minister tell the House why this money will not be made available after a commitment has been made?


Mr. Ray Chenier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, contrary to what the hon. member stated in his question, the money has been turned over to the Native Women's Committee of New Brunswick. They are now having a few additional financial problems which we are also trying to solve, so that they will have the money they need for next week's conference.


James Douglas Manly: The minister and the parliamentary secretary know that the most positive way to end discrimination against Indian women is to help these women form their own strong political organizations. I ask the minister, therefore, to confirm that the extra money which was promised for the planning process for status women will be made available.


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: Madam Speaker, the money will be forthcoming. We agree with the hon. member opposite that we must help these women acquire a strong status in this country, and that is why we are working at present to obtain this extra money. Their conference will be taking place and we will be there with them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Gilles Marceau (Jonquiere):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the President of the Privy Council. The constitutional debate is a landmark in our parliamentary life, and I believe that as many Members of Parliament as possible should be able to contribute to this debate if they wish to do so. Consequently, has the government leader considered as a possible solution shortening the length of speeches and lengthening our sitting hours, and would he be willing to suggest such a solution to the opposition?


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I believe that this is an excellent suggestion. We have now come to the final stage of the constitutional debate, and many members have been able to take part in the discussions during the last four months. I believe that if the length of speeches were limited to 20 minutes and if we were to add about ten hours of sitting each week, this would serve the double purpose of improving the quality of the debate and of allowing in all fairness a greater number of members to take part in the discussions. This suggestion is so attractive, Madam Speaker, that I shall put it officially to the opposition. This would be a good opportunity for hon. members opposite to show their good will.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Small Business. Yesterday in the House the Grits refused to support my motion calling for tougher legislation respecting mergers which are harmful to independent small businesses. I was pleased to hear, however, that the Quebec Superior Court saw fit to acknowledge this urgent situation by granting an injunction which will at least block the Hudson's Bay-Zeller's merger. I should like to ask the minister the following question. Because of the increased tendency toward monopoly mergers and the inability of existing laws to deal adequately with the consequences of such
February 12, 1981

mergers, can the minister tell us whether or not he has made representations on behalf of the small business community to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and what specific action is the government taking to protect certain small business sectors from extinction?


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State (Small Businesses)):: Madam Speaker, as I recall, when the hon. member introduced his motion under Standing Order 43 yesterday, the "noes" were coming from the other side of the House. Moreover, 1 would like to tell him that 1 have had many meetings with my colleague, the hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. We have jointly met with the authorities of the Canadian Association of Independent Small Businesses. I have myself met with the Clothing Manufacturers' Association as well as with the textile and shoe manufacturers to discuss this rather important problem of mergers between major distribution chains. Of course, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and myself are considering certain measures such as amendments to the Combines Investigation Act.


SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BOND PROGRAM
Otto John Jelinek: These consultations within the Liberal government have been going on for 13 years, and, in fact, last October the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs himself stated on no less than three occasions that immediate action will be taken, but still we have not heard any word. Therefore I should like to put my supplementary question to someone who perhaps will act a little faster.
My supplementary question on a related subject, Madam Speaker, is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the Liberal government is unwilling or unable to deal with high interest rates in general, and because the major concern confronting the small business community is the availability of working capital at realistic rates, as the minister himself knows, I should like to ask the minister to consider expanding the Small Business Development Bond program to include working or venture capital, and to do it forthwith.
Before he replies that he has just extended that program until the end of the year, let me remind him that this extension was undertaken at the insistence of this House. I ask him to expand that program to include working capital. If he is unable to do that, can he tell the House and the small business sector across this country which is suffering high interest rates why he cannot do it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the extension of the Small Business Development Bond was made on the recommendation of the Minister of State for Small Businesses-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and was supported unanimously by all members in the House. There were no amendments proposed at that time nor were suggestions made to have the bond extended or its ambit widened. It is not the intention of the government to widen the ambit of the Small Business Development Bond. We have taken a major step in extending the application of the bond until the end of this fiscal year. The hon. member asked why it is not possible to widen the scope of the bond. The reason is that extending it to the end of this year was very expensive, and to widen its scope would be even more expensive, and that is an expense which we cannot bear at the present time in the light of our interest to restrain expenditures.

[ Translation]


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Small Businesses. In view of the decision to set up a paper mill at Matane in the Matapedia Valley, as promised by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion during the last election campaign and as reiterated last spring, and the fact that the local people blocked the VIA Rail track and the TransCanada highway at Amqui in the province of Quebec, I should like to ask the minister whether or not he can tell the House why the government has decided not to have that paper mill built in the Matapedia Valley where there is a 40-per cent unemployment rate?


Charles Lapointe: Madam Speaker, I wonder where the hon. member gets his information. No decision has yet been made with regard to the establishment of a paper mill in the Matapedia Valley. My colleague, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, is in constant touch with his Quebec counterpart in an effort to find the best possible solution to the problem of the economic development of the Matapedia Valley.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Madam Speaker, when will the government keep the promises it made to those people instead of trying to make a national park of their valley and thus forcing them to leave their homes.


Charles Lapointe: Once again. Madam Speaker, the information of the hon. member is rather sketchy. The government has no intention of having a national park in the Matapedia Valley. Studies have been made, however, by the departments responsible for the environment, with regard to the possibility of having a major salmon river in that valley.

February 12, 1981
Oral Questions


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. How did the cabinet like the new Chrysler deal the minister put to them? Will the minister make a statement in the House with respect to this matter, or will he sneak out and hold a press conference?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I have not yet put a proposal before cabinet with respect to the Chrysler matter. If and when there is a decision taken on this matter I will be happy to make a statement, with the concurrence of the House leaders.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I think the hon. member will have to look forward to whatever decision we are in a position to announce when and if it is taken with respect to this matter.


Ian Deans: Will the minister indicate the number of dollars, in his scaled-down commitment, which will be invested in Canada in 1981, 1982 and 1983? How many of the current jobs will be protected, and exactly which components of the new K-car will be manufactured here?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, we have entered into no new agreement with Chrysler. If that should happen to be the case, then I will be very happy to disclose the details.


TRADE MARKS
Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that trade mark rules have not been revised in any substantial way since 1954, and in view of the fact that it is necessary to have a complete revision of the rules with the advent of a trade marks act, will the minister advise the House when we can expect to receive the new act?
[ Translation]


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is right, it is an issue with which the House will have to come to grips very soon. Unfortunately, the legislative schedule is so heavy that the study of several excellent pieces of legislation will have to be delayed. It is my hope that the
opposition will co-operate with the government House leader to find a way for the House to expedite passage of many such bills in the coming weeks.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It deals with the manufacturers' tax credit program. In the minister's words the program was designed for new manufacturing investment in specifically designated areas in the country characterized by high unemployment and low income. How does the minister justify the fact that in New Brunswick there are at least four regions which would more than qualify under the program with respect to high unemployment and low per capita income, in comparison with those which were designated in Nova Scotia? There are at least two other areas which qualify for the program under those terms in comparison with those which were actually designated. How can the minister justify that, other than the fact that those regions not designated are represented by Conservative members?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Madam Speaker, that would not be a justified conclusion. We operate rather differently from the government of which the hon. member was a supporter when it cancelled decentralization programs in constituencies which were held by non-government members. We have abandoned that kind of politics. We have the tax credit program for areas in the country that can be tested on the basis of economic criteria, not political criteria. If these areas are outside, it is because they are not deserving economically, not politically.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, in the maritime region that is "Fish scales", and the minister knows it. Will he not reconsider the decision he has taken to designate those areas and include all areas which meet those criteria, as he has now said that the decisions will be taken on a fair and equitable basis? Will the minister not reconsider, and include those areas which do meet the criteria of high unemployment and low per capita income? Will he assure the House and the maritime region that all future programs will be shared equally amongst all areas which qualify?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I should explain to the hon. member that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion was responsible for the selection of the areas. As I stated in the budget speech, I introduced that particular tax credit upon the urging of the minister who wished to have a powerful incentive for the poorest areas of the country. It was the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and his department which established the criteria and selected the areas, not myself or the Department of Finance. I believe that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion would be eager, as I
February 12, 1981

am, that the application of the credit be strictly on these criteria. I believe it would be quite unjustified to apply a program of this kind on any other criteria.


PIPELINES
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources I would like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. It is in preparation for the forthcoming discussions with the new administration in the United States, during which the question of pipelines will obviously be of top priority.
In light of information which is now available that the northern tier proposal is not a viable proposition and that the Canadian option would have to be exercised, namely, an Alaska highway route for northern oil, or the Kitimat pipeline,
I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government has arrived at a decision at this point as to its preference for a Canadian route, particularly in light of information which has just come out of British Columbia where there are all kinds of renewed interest in the Kitimat proposal, including oil from Prudhoe Bay and the Beaufort Sea using this route.


Roy MacLaren: Madam Speaker, the factors which the hon. member has mentioned will be taken into account in consideration of this issue and in the preparations for forthcoming discussions with the United States administration.


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, it seems the Prime Minister does not want to answer my question. I am very anxious to know whether there have been any discussions at this point between the government of British Columbia and agencies of the federal government with respect to the preference which should be exercised with respect to an oil pipeline on the west coast and a deep sea oilport.


Roy MacLaren: Madam Speaker, I am unaware of any recent discussions but I shall inquire and inform the hon. member.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. It concerns the long drawn-out 13-month dispute at B.C. Tel in British Columbia. The very good news yesterday was that Mr. Bill Kelly had been appointed by the minister as special mediator.
Business of the House
I would like to ask the minister if he has considered a recommendation to cabinet that B.C. Tel rates be rolled back along the lines of the 1977 anti-inflation board decision, when the company locked out its employees and made such exorbitant profits that the board ordered that subscribers' fees be returned to the consumers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker,
I thank the hon. member for his question. I think he will agree with me that my responsibilities as Minister of Labour are to attempt to bring about settlement of the strike. I think the appointment of Bill Kelly is the most constructive thing that I could do in that direction. Mr. Kelly will be flying to British Columbia tonight to meet with the parties immediately.
I am not in a position to know whether the company has benefited financially or lost financially as a consequence of the problems of the last few months. I do not think it is appropriately within my jurisdiction to become involved in any assertion respecting the rates which B.C. Tel should be allowed to charge.


Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, on a supplementary question, certainly all of us in this House, and in British Columbia too, hope that Mr. Kelly's mission is a success, but I would like to ask, since the subscriber has to have some protection as well, whether the minister is aware that under the National Transportation Act the cabinet has the power, should Mr. Kelly not achieve a satisfactory settlement, to vary a CRTC decision relating to rates.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, any question on that subject should be directed to the minister responsible for the CRTC in the House. As I have already indicated, I believe that such considerations are outside the authority and the responsibility of the Minister of Labour.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, after consultations with my counterparts opposite, we have come to an agreement and I now seek unanimous consent for the following House order:
That the first item to be taken up under government orders on Friday, February 13, 1981, shall be Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas;
That all questions necessary for the disposal of the second reading stage of the said bill shall be put no later than 3.45 p.m. on February 13, 1981;
That any recorded division on the said bill shall be deferred until the conclusion of consideration of government orders on Monday, February 16, 1981;
That after second reading the bill shall not be referred to a Committee of the Whole, but shall be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs; and
That the said committee shall report the bill no later than April 16, 1981.

February 12, 1981
Business of the House


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, there were those discussions, there is that understanding, and we are prepared to agree.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Madam Speaker, there were such discussions among us and we also agree.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House agree to the proposed motion of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard)?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, at this stage I was expecting the usual question on House business. Since we are on a point of order, I might as well outline the upcoming matters. There are some important items coming up next week, and I believe it is important for hon. members to know exactly what will be the business of the House during the next days.
Today we will continue with the debate on the borrowing authority bill. I shall move a motion later. After it is voted on tonight, we will go on with the debate and the appointed day for terminating the second reading stage of the borrowing authority bill will be next Monday. Tomorrow we will deal with the bill to which I just referred, the excise tax bill. If any recorded division is required as described in the House order of a few seconds ago, then this vote will be taken Monday night as well.

As for the conclusion of the constitutional debate, it is obvious that if the report is tabled tomorrow, as can be expected, the concluding stage will begin Tuesday afternoon. Most probably the form of that debate will consist in a direct resolution introduced by the government. This way I think I am answering an insistent request made last fall by my colleague, the House leader of the Progressive Conservative Party.
So I want to confirm that, unless something unexpected comes up and subject to a last glance at the committee report, most probably we will allow debate on a direct resolution rather than on concurrence of the committee report, so that if there are any amendments, since several were debated in committee, but if there were one or two more, or any number for that matter, I hope hon. members will be reasonable, those amendments might be moved more directly than otherwise possible had we introduced or were we to introduce a motion for concurrence in the committee report.
Obviously, in both instances, it would be possible to move amendments but we would rather proceed in a way which meets the requests made by the opposition parties and which is also in keeping with our more direct approach to enable us to have a more direct debate in the House as well. Essentially, Madam Speaker, that will be the business of the House until the end of the week and early next week. The concluding debate on the Constitution will begin on Tuesday.
[English)


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I thank the President of the Privy Council with respect to that matter. However, I notice in his recitation on how the government intended to handle this matter he stated that "quite probably" it will be in a resolution.


Yvon Pinard: Most probably.


Walter David Baker: He has now amended that to "most probably".


Yvon Pinard: That is what I said the first time.


Walter David Baker: Very well, quite probably is the way it stands.


Yvon Pinard: Most probably.


Walter David Baker: I beg your pardon. So that there will be no misunderstanding, and 1 was listening to the translator, not listening to the hon. member in my impeccable French with my impeccable French ear, I would like to ask the government whether the resolution will be available in the normal course with the appropriate 48-hour notice? In that case, it would appear on the Order Paper on Saturday morning in the normal course of its distribution in the Flouse and elsewhere. Is there any possibility that we might see that resolution earlier, given the fact that the resolution which will be produced does not necessarily have to follow word for word or arise completely out of the report of the joint committee? Will it be possible to see that resolution in advance?
While the minister is on his feet with respect to that matter, could he tell us whether it would be appropriate to designate an allotted day today. I have sent him a series of allotted days, and I understand that there is no disagreement with the respective dates which are Tuesday, February 24; Wednesday, March 4; Wednesday, March 18; and Thursday, March 26. I would ask the minister to designate Tuesday, February 24 now. Would the minister tell us whether that list is reasonably acceptable and could he designate that particular day now?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, with regard to the first question on the resolution, I said in French "plus que probable".
What I meant is "most likely". When I say "most likely", the chances are 99 per cent. I would merely like to keep open the possibility, after considering the committee report, of taking some other course if for procedural reasons it is necessary. However, since it is most likely we will deal with the direct resolution, we will give 48 hours notice in accordance with the Standing Order, but first we must await the tabling of the report. That means that the notice will be given around noon tomorrow. I will do my best to make that resolution available to my colleagues in both opposition parties as soon as possible, and perhaps it will be possible tomorrow afternoon, to allow them ample time to review it. In addition, the fact that the debate will begin on Tuesday, rather than Monday, will
February 12, 1981

give hon. members more time to review the resolution, if we proceed in that manner.
In so far as the word-for-word formulation of the resolution is concerned, obviously, since it is a straight resolution, we will try to respect as much as possible the recommendations of the Joint Committee on the Constitution of Canada, which worked very hard and which deserves our congratulations.
Finally, the Tory House leader wishes me to designate Tuesday, February 24 as an allotted day now, but I am not in a position to do so. I will look into the hon. member's request and perhaps I could give formal notice next Thursday. I will try to inform the hon. member verbally in advance at the beginning of next week. First, I would like to review the list since I have not seen it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, the President of the Privy Council has answered most of the questions that I had in mind. Perhaps he answered this one and 1 missed it. When the debate on the Constitution starts on Tuesday, is it the intention of the government to stay with it until that debate is over, or are there matters for which that debate might have to be interrupted?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, taking into consideration our large workload, I should like to keep the flexibility perhaps to deal, once in a while, with legislation on which we could get agreement to send it to committee or to approve it through all stages, with a very short delay.
At this stage I should not like to commit myself to dealing with this debate five days a week. I cannot confirm it today, but it is our intention to ensure that the next days and weeks are devoted mainly-and I would say almost 100 per cent-to the debate on the Constitution. But I want to keep the flexibility to once in a while allot a day, because we must allot days for the opposition during that period of time, or perhaps to deal with other business of the House on which we could reach agreement.
Finally, I think it would be very useful, following the question of the hon. member for Jonquiere, if 1 make the offer formally now of reducing the length of speeches to 20 minutes, as compared to 40 minutes, and of extending the sitting hours by ten hours a week. The purpose of this proposal is simply to allow additional members to participate. After the four months we have spent on the subject in committee and in the House


Mr. Crosbie:: Nonsense.


Yvon Pinard: -I am sure it will be easier-and everyone will understand that it will be fair-if we sit longer hours and reduce the very long, unacceptable 40 minutes in 1981 when there are 282 members in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I find it really quite strange. First, I thought the question of the hon.
Business of the House
member for Jonquiere was most unusual for my friend. It was kind of negotiating or forcing negotiations by a planted question from his own party.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


John Carnell Crosbie: A planted question.


An hon. Member:: That is exactly what happened.


Walter David Baker: I thought that was rather strange. Aside from that, in the exchange he and I had before he reached that point, I thought I indicated that we have not yet seen the resolution. The government indicated that it will follow, as closely as possible, what the committee has said. I have no guarantee of that, nor does any other person in the House or elsewhere. I cannot see any reason why one should give the government a blank cheque with respect to a matter we have not seen.


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on.


Walter David Baker: That is my first point.


John Carnell Crosbie: We are not going to do it, anyway.


Walter David Baker: If 1 may say so, at least at this point it is almost like saying that I should agree, as a matter of advantage to my colleagues and I, to give my friend $100 for nothing. I do not negotiate that way, so we will see as the debate goes on; but certainly it will not be in advance of seeing the resolution.
Quite frankly, I think it was improper conduct-and I say that with the greatest respect-to have placed that planted question by the hon. member for Jonquiere.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, certainly it was not my intention to ask for a blank cheque for the government. The offer I was making, resulting from the legitimate question put by an hon. member of this House, was only to accommodate members on both sides of the House. After all, it was not Liberal members who did their gymnastics in front of the Speaker last fall; it was the hon. member's colleagues.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Yvon Pinard: Perhaps this proposal would allow those members to participate in the debate. If we sit ten additional hours a week and if speeches last 20 minutes, it will mean a lot more Members of Parliament will have an opportunity to speak on this important subject, even if it is the conclusion of the debate.
On the other hand, I understand the hon. member's request. I think it is a fair request, that my colleague see the resolution before committing himself. I was not asking for an answer

February 12, 1981
Business of the House
today. I was only putting this proposal on the floor of the House in the hope that perhaps tomorow, when we give notice of our resolution, my colleagues on the other side would be in a position to confirm quicker that such a proposal gives nothing more to the government, but in fact is just a measure to please members on both sides of the House.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, we are discussing this in an atmosphere of the House which is now soured by the fact that the next matter with which we will be dealing is a motion to cut off debate on a borrowing bill.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Shame.


Walter David Baker: Also, we are dealing with a matter wherein the Prime Minister promised the fullest debate and participation of all members. Then, after he made that promise, he lowered the boom of closure on the debate. Now we are discussing it again when an obviously mischievous question-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Walter David Baker: The government House leader, I, and everyone who thinks about it, know that extension of time is another form of closure.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: This is a closure-crazy government; this is a closure-crazy government.
We are dealing now with something which is rather important to every member of the House of Commons. The rules of practice of the House of Commons were designed to give all members ample right to participate. It is in the light of the intention of those rules that we will judge our conduct, not by some artificial time limit set by an arrogant Prime Minister with respect to the Constitution of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I do not understand why my hon. colleague, whom I respect very much, loses his temper or cool. After all, I am only making a proposal to him; he does not have to accept it. It is just a matter of wanting members to participate. If he prefers to adopt another attitude, let the public judge. I think there was nothing wrong in what I said. There was nothing that intended to limit debate at this stage. I was only trying to be helpful so that the opposition could participate more in the conclusion of the debate. Obviously, I cannot agree with the reaction of my hon. colleague to our proposal.


Mr. Nielsen:: It was devious.


Yvon Pinard: I think the NDP would welcome a suggestion-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Yvon Pinard: -that would give more members an opportunity to participate iri the debate at this stage after four months and that would allow the House to proceed with other urgent business with which we are faced in this nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It is a very uncivilized way of proceeding.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, first may I say I was pleased to hear the government House leader say that the debate on the Constitution could be interrupted for a day, now and then, if there was something important for the House to deal with, particularly if there was something with which we could deal quickly. He knows what that suggests to me, namely, if there is a piece of legislation from the Minister of Veterans affairs which the House could pass quickly, as I know it will, I hope he will bring it in.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to say a word or two on the other subject, and I am quite cool, calm and collected in saying it. In our party we feel that the upcoming debate on the Constitution is an extremely important one, and that every member of the House who wishes to speak should have the opportunity to do so.


John Carnell Crosbie: Right on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Toward that end we think consideration should be given-


John Carnell Crosbie: Oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: -to shorter speeches and to extra hours.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not happen to agree with the suggestion of ten extra hours per week, but I think extra hours should be made available. The debate would be sharper and the public would understand it better if we had 20-minute speeches instead of 40-minute speeches.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Cuddle up a little closer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That gets applause from the government side of the House but now may 1 say that I agree with the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton that this is something we should negotiate as House leaders rather than here on the floor of the House. But I say that, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, that in those negotiations we will be prepared to consider changes for this debate in our rules to enable the largest possible number of members to speak and to facilitate a good, sharp, clear debate.


Mr. Mayer:: Madam Speaker, 1 listened with interest to the exchange between the government House leader and the hon.
February 12, 1981

member for Winnipeg North Centre concerning the possibility of interrupting the debate on the constitution for important pieces of legislation.
1 would ask the government House leader to consider Bill C-46, concerning the importation of meat, which is important legislation. I would point out also that the Standing Committee on Agriculture so far has not met this year. It is waiting patiently for legislation to be referred to it. I can assure the government House leader that if we can get on to second reading of Bill C-46 it would pass fairly quickly. The beef industry is important to all of Canada and it is going through a rather tumultuous time. It has seen a drop in live cattle prices.
I hope the government House leader would consider Bill C-46 as the type of legislation in respect of which the debate on the constitution could be stopped in order to allow that bill go on to committee. As I said, the committee on agriculture has not met this year. That tells you something of the priorities which this government has put on agriculture so far.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I will try to meet that request.


PRIVILEGE
James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, my question of privilege arises from both false and misleading statements made to me by ministers of the Crown. I do not think there is any question now but that my privileges as a member of Parliament have been infringed upon and in that way the rights of every Member of Parliament in this House have been infringed upon.
My question of privilege arises first from a statement made to me yesterday by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) that before any panel review hearing went ahead in relation to Amax at Alice Arm, British Columbia, I would have an opportunity today to meet with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc). That statement is confirmed in Hansard for January 22, 1981, at page 6452. In response to my question, the minister said:
If he finds that unsatisfactory as to a communicated vote to my colleague and myself, we will be prepared to consider some alterations for that type of paneli have also been misled on at least seven other occasions in this House of Commons, not only by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, but by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and by the parliamentary secretary responding for the Deputy Prime Minister, as recently as February 10.


Mr. Paproski:: Put your seat on the line and challenge him.
Privilege-Mr. Fulton


James Ross Fulton: I will briefly go through some of the blatant instances where I have been misled in this House, the most recent being January 22, again in response to me by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. At page 6452 of Hansard we find the following:
-might I say that a panel of experts has been set up to look into the matter, notice of which has been communicated to the Nishga Tribal Chief, Mr. Gosnell.
There are two totally false statements contained in the minister's answer, which directly affected my ability to carry on my duties as a Member of Parliament.
I raised the matter in a question of privilege which Your Honour has ruled on. During the response on the question of privilege, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development said at page 6507 of Hansard for January 23, 1981, the following:
I will endeavour to make a clarification on Monday.
The minister has made no attempt whatever. He has been present here in the House. I sent him notification that I would ask a question. The day before yesterday he asked that it be deferred. I met with the minister. He told me that I would meet with him and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans today. Instead, they announced a review process. They directly misled me as a Member of Parliament. I have been misled by the Prime Minister. There have been false statements and I challenge the minister to get up and to clarify the situation.


Steve Eugene Paproski: If he is a liar, call him a liar.


James Ross Fulton: He is a liar, if you want me to put that on the record. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development-


An hon. Member:: Withdraw!


Madam Speaker:: I will have to ask the hon. member to withdraw that word because it is unparliamentary.


James Ross Fulton: In this situation, I will not withdraw that statement.


An hon. Member:: Order!


Madam Speaker:: I think the hon. member has been carried away by a suggestion made that he might use that expression. Because of the enthusiasm of the debate, he did use the expression. I am sure he did not mean to offend the minister but I am afraid I cannot accept that kind of language in the House. I would ask the hon. member to co-operate with the Chair and to withdraw the word he used.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Let us hear the evidence.


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, at this point I will withdraw it. However, I put on this caveat that at the end of my remarks I may want to reintroduce it.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


An hon. Member:: You better not.

February 12, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Fulton


James Ross Fulton: I have been raising questions since July 8, 1980, in relation to a special dumping permit. As I have pointed out, 1 have been misled by many members of the Crown, including the Prime Minister. I would like to put on the record precisely what those statements have been. The most recent being in relation to statements made by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in response to questions I have raised in the House.
After giving out this permit behind closed doors, the ministers have gone ahead with a private study which is to be completed by March 31. This study is looking into the probability of resuspension of tailings as a result of bottom currents. This is really at the centre of this controversy. The study is being done by Woodward-Clyde Consultants Ltd. The funds were put forward. This came to my attention only yesterday.
1 have been requesting a full public inquiry, as have five major church groups in this country, the Nishga people from my riding who I have the honour to represent, many other groups including the B.C. Federation of Labour, the Building and Construction Trades Council and, not only tens of thousands but now hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are interested in a full public inquiry.
I will not give the give complete quotations, Madam Speaker, but the dates on which I have been misled are as follows: by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans July 8, 1980; October 21, 1980; January 16, 1981, and by his parliamentary secretary on February 10, 1981; by the Prime Minister July 8, 1980; by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, January 22, 1981, twice on January 23, 1981, and February 11,
1981.


An hon. Member:: He should be fired.


An hon. Member:: Give us the quotations.


James Ross Fulton: I will be pleased to put the quotations on the record, if Madam Speaker, has the time. It is a most serious question-


Madam Speaker:: I must interrupt the hon. member. First, his question of privilege as indicated in the notice which was given is not exactly the kind of thing he is debating now. He is far off the statement he made to me as to what constituted his question of privilege. I would ask the hon. member to speak about the privilege and about the facts as he has put them in his notice to me.
Secondly, the hon. member is debating the question, he is not telling me what constitutes his question of privilege. The ministers are not in the House at the present time. Sometimes some element of debate is acceptable in the course of trying to expose a question of privilege but since the ministers are not here to refute or to answer any of the arguments brought forward by the hon. member I have to ask him to keep very strictly to the question of privilege.


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I will try to sum it up briefly and to keep to one particular point. There are many places
where 1 know I have been misled. However, what arose yesterday has been to deliberately mislead me as a Member of Parliament. I have the proof in terms of the actions taken by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development today. Yesterday he told me-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. member really want to say "deliberately mislead"?


James Ross Fulton: I do, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: I have to tell the hon. member that he cannot use this kind of language in the House. This is not an acceptable expression to qualify anything that another member of this House has done. I must ask the hon. member to be extremely careful in the way that he refers to other hon. members. I am here to protect them from this kind of interpolation.


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I can only say that within a period of 24 hours a minister of the Crown told me one thing here in this chamber, 24 hours before that, and it is recorded in Hansard, he made a precise statement that is exactly of the same nature, and today he goes completely contrary to what he has told me both here in the House on the record and to me directly in this House only yesterday. I can only say that, having raised this issue the number of times I have, I have evidence that the statements made to me by the minister are false. He knows they are false. I can prove they are false. I therefore will move:
That Madam Speaker directs that those undertakings made by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and that this entire issue be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for examination.


Erik Nielsen: That's quite a grab bag.


Madam Speaker:: I will have to wait until the ministers are in the House in order that they can reply to the intervention of the hon. member. I will rule on it later.


MR. MUNRO (ESQUIMALT-SAANICH)-POSSIBLE DESTRUCTION OF PARLIAMENTARY RECORDS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, I regret that I was unable to serve notice of this question of privilege. It arose as the last item of business in the committee this morning. The matter is urgent because it involves the imminent probability of the destruction of parliamentary records. I am fearful-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows he cannot bring into the House of Commons any reference to deliberations which take place in committee. The reason is very simple. The House is not aware of such actions as the hon. member is attempting to describe. If he has a question of privilege to raise about something which took place in committee, he should raise his question of privilege in the committee.
February 12, 1981

Until such time as the committee reports to the House, it is not possible to discuss it here.


Donald W. Munro: With due respect,
Madam Speaker, a question of privilege cannot be ruled upon in the committee. As I said, it was the last item of business in committee and involved the imminent destruction of parliamentary records which, to my way of thinking, are historical records that must be preserved.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. If a question of privilege is raised in committee, the committee can report it back to the House. If the committee determines there is a question of privilege, it can be properly recorded and brought into the House where it can be dealt with. Therefore, I cannot hear the hon. member on this kind of question of privilege.


Donald W. Munro: With all due respect, Madam Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Donald W. Munro: The report had been submitted, voted upon and approved. I cannot see how else I can preserve documents for the archives and the history of Canada other than by raising this for Your Honour to rule on or have it referred to a committee. Failing that, I would implore Your Honour to put a stay on the destruction of those documents until I can formulate a proper presentation for the appropriate place, wherever that may be. They are parliamentary documents and I do not want to see them disappear.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, may I just speak briefly in the abstract of that question. The question involves the preservation of parliamentary records. Ordinarily the records of any committee proceeding eventually find their way into the report of the proceedings of that committee and then into the Library and other repositories, the same as the record of our debates. There are occasions, however, where a record is kept of the deliberations of any one of a number of the standing committees, but that record is never published.
When a record is kept of the proceedings in camera, I believe it is normally preserved. That may bear some scrutiny in respect of the policies of the officers of this House about the treatment of parliamentary documents. I might suggest that the point raised by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) in this specific instance might be inquired into in light of whether or not it is desirable, where a record of in camera proceedings is kept, that record should be preserved as a general principle or as a policy of the House, in camera, of course in secret, and subject to the usual rules of release, which I understand now is some 30 years.
I am not aware whether the House policy now is to preserve records of in camera proceedings when they are kept, but there have been occasions when records have been kept of those proceedings. I dare say there are instances where those records can still be found. I suggest the point raised by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich is certainly important enough to be taken under consideration by the Chair and perhaps in
Order Paper Questions
the process of determining global policy, the specific instance might be inquired into.


Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, while this point was being raised, I tried to look up the precedents. I believe this is amply covered in Citation 615 of Beauchesne's where it is unequivocally stated:
The clerk of the committee is responsible for the safekeeping of all the papers and records of the committee.
I would take that to mean records of anything done in camera as well as on the public record.


Madam Speaker:: That is a matter which can probably be checked, but it seems to me that none of those documents are ever destroyed. This proves the point that matters dealing with deliberations of a committee should not be raised in this House. The House is totally unaware of what went on and is unable to judge the matter in question. I am at a loss as to what to do with this question of privilege. Perhaps the hon. member will give me proper notice and some idea of what the facts are so that I can see whether it is proper to raise it in the House. If it is, the hon. member can raise his question of privilege and I will rule on it at that time.


Donald W. Munro: It was my intention. Madam Speaker, in view of your ruling today that you could not accept it, to ask that I be allowed to raise this matter on another occasion. I hope to be able to do so. Meanwhile, I want to make it clear that in raising this matter, I am not casting any aspersions, none whatever, on the co-chairmen. It was a decision of the committee, not the co-chairmen. I want that on the record.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

['We need time to do that. We have to update our Standing Orders. An efficient way to begin updating our', 'February 12, 1981']
Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, possibly with unanimous consent you could call questions on the Order Paper before I move my motion.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House agree that I proceed with the usual proceedings before the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) moves his motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 250, 747, 1,833 and 1,875.

February 12, 1981
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What percentage of the shareholding of (a) Imperial Oil (b) Shell Canada (c) Gulf Canada (d) Texaco Canada, is believed to be owned by Canadians?
2.	In each of the past five years, what was the combined (a) profit after taxes (b) dividends distributed (c) taxes and royalties paid to the (i) government (ii) provincial governments?


David Michael Collenette: I am informed by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and Statistics Canada as follows: 1. Statistics Canada reports that in 1979, the latest year for which information is available under the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act, the degree of Canadian ownership was as follows:
(a)	Imperial Oil	22.33 per cent.(b)	Shell Canada	25.92 per cent.(c)	Gulf Canada	26.13 per cent.(d)	Texaco Canada	9.10 per cent.2.	EM&R has obtained the following data on the petroleum industry under the auspices of the Petroleum Corporations Monitoring Act relating to their upstream operations except for dividends which relate to total operations-:(i) and (ii)	1977	1978 ($ Millions)	1979(a) Net Income After	Income Taxes	2,079	2,285	3,525(b) Dividends	452	510	737(c) Current Income Taxes of which federal	1,100	980	1.022government (estimated) of which provincial	825	735	766governments (estimated)	275	245	256Royalties to provincial	governments	2,710	3,112	3,820
Note: This type of data was not collected prior to 1977. Data for 1980 is not yet available.


Mr. Shields: Since August 1, 1978, how many (a) administrative (b) policy consultants were under contract to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and/or any boards, commissions or corporations reporting to the minister and, in each case, what amount was paid to them?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: (a) 25-$418,436-See list below, (b) Nil.
In so far as Metric Commission Canada is concerned: (a) and (b)-Not applicable.
In so far as the Foreign Investment Review Agency is concerned: (a) and (b)-Not applicable.
In so far as Canadian Patents & Development Limited is concerned: (a) Nil. (b) 1-$1,575-See list below.
In so far as the Federal Business Development Bank is concerned: (a) and (b) 27-$601,884.73-See list below.
In so far as the Canadian Commercial Corporation is concerned: (a) 6-$136,328.96. (b) 4-$128,964-See list below.
In so far as Export Development Corporation is concerned:
(a)	16-$138,070.50. (b) Nil.-See list below.
Industry, Trade and Commerce
August 1, 1978 to March 31, 1980
Number of
(a) Name	Contracts	CostDeloitte Haskins & Sells	1	S 15.000.00Bureau of Management Consulting Services	3	81,800.00Management Consulting Ltd.	1	4,725.00A.B. Sunter & Partners	1	25,000.00Systems Approach Consulting	1	24,600.00Foster Business Services Ltd.	1	15,000.00Quasar Systems Ltd.	1	16.600.00Murray Friesen & Associates Inc.	1	15.100.00Murray, Nicholas & Associates	5	57.208.00Currie, Coopers & Lybrand Ltd.	1	19,500.00Audit Services Bureau (DSS)	1	15.400.00Eric Miller Consulting Group Ltd.	1	20,600.00Technovation Consultants	1	25.000.00Mr. William Chandler	1	7,500.00Quantum Communications Ltd.	1	25.000.00E.R.A. Consulting Economists Inc.	1	17,125.00Ernst & Ernst	3	33,278.00Total	25	418.436.00Canadian Patents & Development Limited	Number of	(b) Name	Contracts	CostJ. L. Orr-Technovation Consultants	1	$ 1,575.00Federal Business Development Bank	August 1, 1978 to March 31, 1980	(a) and (b)	Number of	Name	Contracts	CostWilliam M. Mercer Limited	1	$ 25,471.00Runzheimer and Company Inc.	1	49,160.00Gazda. Valois & Associates	1	52,897.10Hickling Johnston	1	17,093.70Hay Associates	1	11,762.67William Hastings & Associates	1	4,467.00Blake, Cassels & Graydon Ogilvy, Montgomery, Renault, Clarke, Kirkpa-	1	3,904.82trick, Hannon & Howard	1	57,801.54Price Waterhouse & Associates	1	32,778.72Public and Industrial Relations Ltd.	1	43,200.00DPA Consultants	1	26.661.26Informetrica	1	14.305.43Ducro, Meilleur & Roy & Associates	1	55.505.75Quantum	1	12.377.74Systemhouse Ltd.	1	133,090.00Digital Equipment (Canada) Ld.	1	23,000.00C. M. Whittaker & Associates Ltd.	1	800.00Caron, Racine. St. Denis & Associates	1	5,666.00Keith & Assoc. Ltd.	1	2,148.00Eastcan Consultants	1	1.000.00Lester J. Page (Architect)	1	4.392.00Robert Cassidy (Architect)	1	10.410.00Philip J. Greenacre	1	8.995.00Guy Labbe & Louis Dion	1	1,593.00M. S. Thompson	1	1,700.00Smith Carter Partners	1	1,200.00Mechanical Consultants Western Ltd.	1	504.00Total	27	601.884.73
February 12, 1981


[Stage Direction]
Canadian Commercial Corporation			(a) 1978
August 1, 1978 to March 31, 1980			Date
	Number of		February 28/March
(a) Name	Contracts	Cost	April 21 June 14Lemberg Consultants Ltd.	1	$ 86,535.96	June 23Drake Personnel	1	8,185.00	August 17Harrington Personnel	1	2.945.00	September 21Bradon Personnel Services	1	11,420.00	November 8BB&H Graphics Limited	1	26,658.00	November 17Jacques Charette & Associates Total	1 6	585.00 136,328.96	(b) 1979(b)	Date40,300.00	January 14Ernest & Ernst Management Consultants	1	March 15Peat Marwick & Partners	1	37,000.00	May 10Sores Inc.	1	19,500.00	June 18Stevenson & Kellogg Management Consultants	1	32,164.00	August 16Total	4	128,964.00	September 20 November 15Export Development Corporation	December 20August 1, 1978 to March 31, 1980	(c) 1980Number of	Date(a) Name	Contracts	Cost	January 17Hay & Associates	1	72.000.00 '	February 27Informetrica Limited	1	9.000.00	April 17Canecs Co. Ltd.	1	5,000.00	June 19Federal Systems of Canada	5	16,924.50	August 22Multiple Access	5	30,986.00	October 17Data Crown Inc.	3	4,160.00	November 20Total	16	138,070.50	
Location
350 Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ontario 407-2nd Street S.W., Calgary, Alberta Constellation Hotel, Toronto, Ontario 350 Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ontario 350 Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ontario 407-2nd Street S.W., Calgary, Alberta Royal York Hotel, Toronto, Ontario 350 Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ontario
Location
407-2nd Street S.W., Calgary, Alberta 350 Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ontario 407-2nd Street S.W., Calgary, Alberta Hotel Toronto, Toronto, Ontario 350 Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ontario 350 Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ontario 407-2nd Street S.W., Calgary, Alberta Four Seasons Hotel, Montreal, Quebec
Location
407-2nd Street S.W., Calgary, Alberta 350 Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ontario 350 Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ontario 407-2nd Street S.W., Calgary, Alberta L'Aubergc de la Chaudiere, Hull, Quebec 350 Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ontario 350 Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ontario
David Michael Collenette: I would ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Herbert: In the last year, what percentage of (a) grade school (b) high school children studied their second official language?


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


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Statistics Canada reports: in the 1979-80 school year, 44.8 per cent of elementary school children and 40.8 per cent of secondary school children in the nine provinces outside Quebec studied French as a second language. In Quebec, 37.0 per cent of elementary school children and 98.0 per cent of secondary school children studied English as a second language. It is important to note that the figures above are based on eligible students only. In Quebec, English and French students enrolled in English immersion education are excluded, as are students enrolled in French immersion education in the other provinces.


Mr. Wilson: What were the dates and the locations of the meetings of the board of directors of Petro-Canada for (a) 1978 (b) 1979 (c) 1980?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Petro-Canada reports as follows:


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Yvon Pinard: That in relation to Bill C-59, an act to provide for supplementary borrowing authority, one additional sitting day shall be allotted to the further consideration of second reading stage of the bill; and that at 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on that day, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn, every question then necessary in order to dispose of second reading stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
He said: Madam Speaker, this is a motion under Standing Order 75c which we were forced to introduce because we could not reach agreement with the opposition parties to allocate a definite period of time to conclude the debate on second reading of the bill to authorize the government to

February 12, 1981


S O. 75c
[Stage Direction]
borrow some $14 billion. Now to justify our action and our attitude, may I remind the House that in recent years, when debating bills to authorize the government to borrow certain sums of money, more often than not the government has had to resort to that procedure so as to be able to make progress.
[Stage Direction]
Yesterday 1 inadvertently mentioned that under the former government a motion under Standing Order 75c had been introduced dealing with the borrowing authority bill. I was wrong and I apologize for that. What I had in mind was the income tax bill when they used 75c. It was a slight error and I just want to correct the record. Let me state clearly that at that time the opposition, of which I was a member, collaborated very much with the government of the day. My hon. colleague, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton will recall that during the debate on Bill C-10, the borrowing authority bill, only three and a half days were spent on the second reading stage, while this year already five days have been devoted to the second reading stage of the bill. That is why, failing to find that kind of collaboration on this bill, we are forced to send it to committee as soon as possible in order to clear the stage for the House to deal with other urgent and pressing business.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Speaker, I was saying that on the basis of the most recent precedents it has been current practice to limit debate on the type of legislation which is controversial and which generally prompts the opposition parties to object strenuously, rightly or wrongly. In any event, notice was given and this motion was introduced for Bill C-7 in 1978. As I have just said it was not the case in 1979, but the same thing happened for a bill to amend the Income Tax Act and the Progressive Conservative Party, then in office, had to resort to Standing Order 75c, something which we did not do in the case of our bill to amend the income tax legislation. And in 1980, this was Bill C-30, after five days on second reading, we were also forced to serve notice and introduce this motion.
So why have recourse to that procedure as we are doing now? First of all, there is the practice I have just mentioned which seems to become a tradition whereby the opposition parties, excluding the Liberals when they were in opposition, feel the need to block passage, until S.O. 75c is used, of a bill authorizing the government to borrow money. It would appear that a practice has developed whereby an opposition party is reluctant to agree to a given period of time, even a long one, before referring a bill of this kind to committee.
Again I say that is done rightly or wrongly, but I am fully at ease to act as I am doing now because we feel that practice is unjustifiable. It seems to me that after five days of debate on second reading of a bill such as this one, knowing that the bill will be studied in Committee of the Whole and then come back on the floor of the House for the report and third reading stages, it seems unacceptable to me that a government which
wants to discharge its full responsibilities should tolerate an even longer debate on second reading of a bill.
Mr. Speaker, here we are in 1981 and once again we are facing, and I repeat-
Mr. Kilgour:: Hear, hear!


Yvon Pinard: Hear, hear. This is the year of the birth of my colleague's baby. I congratulate him. He was telling me yesterday how proud he was to be the father of a new baby born in 1981. The earth continues to turn, hon. members continue to have children, but we also continue to have too much work. We inherited a situation due to two elections within one year. Hon. members will recall May, 1979, and February, 1980, not even twelve months between those two elections, and during that time Parliament was practically paralysed and unable to meet its legislative obligations. Despite the fact that Parliament could not prevent work from piling up, the opposition still continues to enjoy all the benefits to which it is entitled under the rules of the House, and all I need do is point out to the 25 days allotted under the Standing Order governing the business of supply. The opposition is still entitled, and that is normal, to its six days of debate on the budget, to eight days on the throne speech, and also, as we saw before the holidays, to six days for two proclamations concerning certain sections of the Petroleum Administration Act.
I am saying all this because if on one hand Parliament is faced with an exceptionally heavy work load as a result of two elections within one year and of our ever greater contemporary obligations to intervene in various sectors of our society, be it energy, the economy or the Constitution, in spite of that additional load, fully explained and quite justified, the opposition still continues to enjoy the same privileges which take up so much of the time of the House. So we are all the more justified to act this way, Mr. Speaker, as we have on the Order Paper 40-odd bills which deserve to be studied during this session, as we have indicated in the Speech from the Throne.
For all these reasons, this action on the part of the government, in its wish to make this institution more effective seems logical to me and not an abuse especially when the opposition acts in this way for political or other reasons. I believe that a responsible government should put some order in the proceedings of the House, and that after a reasonable delay-I respectfully submit that is the case here as 1 have looked at second reading debates on similar bills, and I have noted that they have lasted an average of five days while, as we all know, after this motion, there will be an additional day of debate, which will mean six to seven days of debate at the second reading stage-we should keep to the average length of time spent on debates on similar bills in the past, and I think that no one could say that we are being arrogant or that we do not respect the right of members to express themselves on such bills. Once again, and 1 have spoken of this often, 1 know that my colleague from Nepean-Carleton agrees with me in this
February 12, 1981

regard. As a matter of fact, he himself has tabled a working paper on the reform of our rules. I have read this paper with interest. It contains excellent suggestions. I do not agree with all of them, but as I have already stated, 1 intend to reintroduce several of them at the appropriate time.
However, until this desirable reform has occurred, it seems to me that we should all try to be reasonable and to limit the length of our speeches by using personal discipline. This would shorten the length of debate and while not preventing Parliament from sitting since it will sit as long as it does now in any case, it would allow Parliament to better reflect modern realities and assume its responsibilities in many areas instead of spending an undue amount of time in debating specific bills or issues.
1 believe that the opposition could meet these objectives if it showed more discipline-and the same applies to the government-and it could debate and raise issues it considers of particular interest if the length of its speeches was limited to allow a greater number of legislative measures to be debated. 1 suggest that this would not penalize the opposition because the House would be sitting at least as long as it does now, and this institution would be able to play its true role, to show its respect for the Canadian people and to prove that it can be effective and worthy of their confidence.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the government House leader is so reasonable in his approach and in his words that he reminds me of a female black widow spider who, after she has attracted the male and gets him to mate, devours him. If we were to listen to the siren talk of the government House leader, that is what would happen to us. We would be devoured.
It is very significant that the government House leader said during his remarks that the government could no longer tolerate going on with further speeches on this borrowing bill. The government does not want to tolerate an opposition. It is intolerable to the government that there is an opposition in this House and that the opposition wants to discuss this bill.
This bill involves authority for the government to borrow $14 billion. It is objectionable not ony for that reason but because it also wants authority for $3 billion of that amount to continue on beyond the end of the next financial year, to continue indefinitely in case the government suffers from contingencies. The government foresees some kind of a $3 billion contingency for which it wants to retain authority. This has not been done before, at least not in my experience in this House. This is why we object to the bill, and we want to discuss it thoroughly.
The government has invoked closure on four occasions since it got re-elected on February 18. On June 9, 1980, it invoked closure on a borrowing authority bill. It borrowed $12 billion just six months ago. The government got final approval in



[Stage Direction]
July, and it used closure. On October 23, 1980, the government used closure on the constitutional resolution. On January 13, 1981, the government used closure on Bill C-48, a part of the government's new energy policy which is ruining Canada and which is foreclosing our economic prospects. Today the government is using closure, for the fourth time, to get approval to borrow $14 billion. That is a disgraceful and shameful record. Disgraceful and shameful is putting it mildly.
The minister says he wants this through the House so he can get on to other pressing and urgent business. Is it not pressing or urgent to the government that the people of Canada should have full information on what the government's financial policies are or what its economic policies are?
We are opposing this because the government has given no program to the Canadian people to overcome our present economic morass. We have not yet had any true budget. We had the budget that brought in the new energy policy of October 28, which is a complete disaster. The Economic Council of Canada has pointed out that it stops our chances for economic growth in the 1980s.
We are opposing this because of the government's absolute lack of concern for the consumer or for lower-income Canadians. We are opposing this because the government is allowing gasoline and oil product prices to burgeon, despite their promises during the campaign a year or so ago that they would not allow prices to group at all.
We are opposing it because of the lack of candor of the government. Neither in constitutional matters nor in financial matters is there any candour.
Just look at this. Here are the solemn commitments the Prime Minister made in the economic and financial field just last year. On January 19 in Vancouver the Prime Minister said, and I quote:
Liberals believe that we should use all the instruments at our disposal to try and stem the tide of the coming recession.
That commitment was made during the campaign, but the government has not used one instrument at its disposal to try to stem the tide of the recession. We have been in a recession ever since they reassumed office. There are 945,000 people out of work today. The government has not used one instrument, much less all. The Prime Minister has forgotten that promise.
He said in Sudbury on February 2:
We the Liberals would not try to set one province off against another. Wc would have responsible negotiations with the provinces and we'd work out a price.
That was an absolutely false statement. They have spent their time since February 18 setting off Ontario against Alberta, setting off east against west, setting off the centre of this country against the rest of this nation. There have been no responsible negotiations to work out a price for energy.
Other commitments made by the Prime Minister have been broken. Do you think we are going to approve borrowing authority of $14 billion for a Prime Minister who is so lacking
[Stage Direction]
February 12, 1981

[Stage Direction]
in decent standards of conduct that he has forgotten the solemn commitments he made to the electorate a year ago?
He said at the great Liberal campaign college in Toronto back in January, and I quote:
We will hold the line on government expenditure growth to under the rate of GNP. He has not done that. The GNP went down last year, and spending is up something like 12 per cent.
He was going to review the tax system to ensure that everybody made a fair contribution to future needs. Instead of that we have had a series of tax increases for consumers of heating oil and gasoline and energy and no energy tax credit, nothing to help the lower income Canadians that we offered them in our budget. And on and on in this tissue of deception that the Prime Minister campaigned on.
This party will not simply stand by and let the recession come. We will fight it and overcome it.
That is completely forgotten. Another promise was that the Liberal party endorses the right of every Canadian to have a job.
1 can go on and on with those commitments of the Prime Minister that he has forgotten. We do not propose just to go along blindly giving $14 billion in spending authority to a Prime Minister who has forgotten what the meaning of truth is or who has forgotten any concern at all about the ordinary Canadian. He has forgotten all his economic and financial pledges. He has a Minister of Finance who is the invisible man, who is hiding from the Canadian people because he has nothing to offer them. The Minister of Finance says he has a gradualist policy. He is going to reduce gradually the size of the deficit. He is taking a gradual approach. He has taken a very gradual approach to the truth, and so has his Prime Minister. He has taken a gradual approach to the loss of jobs, to the loss of real earning power by Canadian working people over the last three years, the loss of productivity, the reduction in the size of the deficit, and the increase in prices. An increase in prices this year of over 12 per cent is forecast. Is that a gradualist approach to improving the economic lot of Canadians? We have a gradualist Minister of Finance.
I say he is a gomphious Minister of Finance, which means toothless. We have a "gomphious", toothless Minister of Finance. He is ''cacophrenic". That pertains to an inferior intellect, or if he has a superior one, he has not shown it to us. He is a Minister of Finance who has forgotten his beginnings. He has turned his back on the people of his own district. I referred to this, and 1 will refer to it again. It is the January 23, 1980, Scotia Sun published in Port Hawkesbury. This Minister of Finance, who is now in a position to carry out his promise, said that on December 11, 1979, the Tories attempted to put up oil and gas prices, but, he said, the Liberals had defeated them with the NDP.
Vote for Clark, Crosbie and the Tories and you have their promise that the price of gas will go up again!
He said: "December 13, 1979, the price comes down". Here is his picture up here. Then it says "because Allan J. Mac-Eachen and the Liberal party spoke up for you". That is his allegation. Then he says, "Vote Liberal, and the price will stay
down!" That is the living evidence of a lie because the Minister of Finance has done nothing to ensure the price will stay down. There have been eight price increases in oil products since that advertisement was published on January 23 and the government took over, and now the Minister of Finance is promising the people of this country that he will impose another price increase-for what? Not for western producers, not for the industry, not to encourage conservation but to finance Petro-Canada buying out Petrofina; $1.46 billion is to be collected from the consumers of this country regardless of whether they are rich or poor, medium income or what they are.
That is his promise, eight cents a gallon likely in gasoline; six cents a gallon on heating oils. That is what is going to happen or, if it is not all done in a year, if it is done over three years, we have to add $500 million in interest that the consumers of oil and gas products are going to have to pay in this country. That is why we cannot trust this government to spend this $14 billion. We cannot give them an extra $3 billion authority beyond the end of next year. It is not a truthful government. It is a deceitful government. It is a deceptive government which is given its example by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, that to tell the truth is silly. To tell the truth is foolish. It is "fool the people", that is the policy.
It is the half truths, the amused shrug of the shoulders when you are caught in saying an untruth, a tongue in cheek attitude. Now, after only 12 hours of debate, never mind five days, that is, over $1,150 million of borrowing authority an hour, the government is going to impose closure to stop us from considering this bill further or asking the government questions. Read the two speeches made by government members, one by the Minister of State for Finance, and another short one by the parliamentary secretary. There was no information in them at all.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


John Carnell Crosbie: I urge all hon. members to vote against this attempt to stop the debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we are opposed to the motion to which the President of the Privy Council has placed before us today, and we shall make that clear when the vote comes some time this evening.
Fundamentally, we are opposed to the motion because we believe that the use of Rule 75c is no way to run this House of Commons. I quite agree with the emphasis which has been put by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) on the fact that Bill C-59 is a bill of considerable importance since it asks for authority to borrow $14 billion, and the thought of closing off debate on such an important matter is really preposterous.
February 12, 1981

Let me get back to my basic contention that the use of Standing Order 75c is no way to run the business of Parliament. I know that every time this two hour debate takes place under rule 75c, there are those on the government side who will say the rule is in the book, it is there to be used, and it is perfectly proper and legal to do so. Like a few other members in the House, I was here when Standing Order 75c was put into our rule book. I have here two volumes of Hansard, which 1 think should be recommended reading to those who are not aware of how we came to have Rule 75c. Shortly after the election of 1968 when the present Prime Minister came back to the first full term of his government, a very large package of rule changes was proposed by the president of the Privy Council of that day, the Hon. Donald Macdonald. It was proposed early in the session which began in 1968, and we dealt with it off and on right up until Chritsmas. There were some good things in that package. There were changes in respect of the handling of bills, which included the report stage, there were changes with regard to the supply practice, and so on. But included in that package was a rule called 16a which practically put in the hands of the government House leader the right to close off debate at any time. The House found it most offensive, and most of the debating and fighting over that package centred around Rule 16a. Finally, because Christmas was approaching and members wanted to get home as did the government, the government agreed to drop Rule 16a from the package if we would put the rest of the rules through. The House agreed to that suggestion, and we got rid of Rule 16a, or at least we thought we did.
At the same time, the government proposed a motion that later on there be a further study of the question of the use of time. So, come June of 1969, we had back before us a substitute of the old Rule 16a, which was Rule 75a, 75b and 75c. We found it no better than the old Rule 16a and we continued our opposition to it. If one were to read Volume X of Hansard of the session of 1968-69, one would find that it was debated at length in the House, it was dealt with in the standing committee for a long time, and finally it came back to the House for further debate. How did it end? It ended because the government decided it wanted to have that rule, on the books despite the opposition of all opposition parties, and it invoked the old 1913 closure rule to put another closure rule in the rule book.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The vote of the opposition parties against it was unanimous. It was only because of the government's majority that it was put through. While I have to admit that, legally, that puts the rule in the rule book, it is really only a rule of the Liberal majority; it is not the rule adopted in the way which most rules of parliament are adopted; that is by Parliament, by consensus. I think it is a travesty of parliamentary practice to keep on using that rule, and it makes it even worse when members stand up, as they probably will today, and say that they have the right to use the rule because it is



[Stage Direction]
there. They put it there under conditions that are a disgrace to Parliament itself, and I believe this should not be done.
I have demonstrated several times in debating these motions under Rule 75c that 1 am not opposed to efforts being made to make good use of our time, and I think we have to pursue that effort. The difficulty with Rule 75c is that every time it is used, the government thinks it does not have to do anything more about the use of time. I proposed, the last time we debated this, that we should have the government's business for the session given to us at the start, and that we should have a set of rules under which we could send a few unimportant bills to committee without debate, have a fixed time limit of a day or two of debate on the bulk of the bills, and have debate without restriction on the crucial bills, the controversial ones picked out by the opposition. I still think that is a good idea.
I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that even in my lifetime in this Parliament there have been many changes in the use of time. Some members would be surprised if I told them that when I first came here there was no limit on the time to be taken up by the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, there was no limit on the debate on the budget, there was no limit on supply, there was not even a fixed limit on the number of supply motions. In fact, all we had was a 40-minute limitation on speeches and the rule that the House rise at eleven o'clock at night. Let me say that in those days we sat until eleven p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays. It is pretty soft around here these days.
The point I am making, Mr. Speaker, is that the business with which we have to deal has grown and multiplied tremendously, so we have put in some time rules. We have cut the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne down to eight days, we have cut the budget debate down to six days, and we have cut the supply days down to 25. We have made all sorts of arrangements which arise from the fact that there are only so many days in the year and that the business has to be dealt with, business which, as I said, has increased tremendously. I believe what we have to deal with, what we have to come to, is a planning of the whole session. That is totally different from going along, as we do, allowing the government, on an ad hoc basis and whenever it feels frustrated, whenever it feels it cannot tolerate any more debate, to come in and use an unfair rule to cut off debate on the part of the opposition.
As I said already, I fully agree with the position taken by the hon. member for St. John's West that this is a bill of great magnitude and of great concern.
While you have been in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, you yourself have found it difficult to apply the rule of relevance to the debate on this bill because it touches the whole gambit of economic affairs in this country, including taxation, spending, and government policy in every area. In other words, it is probably the most important subject that has been before Parliament in this session. Some might say that the constitution is more important, but we have that with us day and night, we have lived with it for 114 years. However, in terms of the problems facing the country in the economic area, an
[Stage Direction]
February 12, 1981
S.O.	75c
economic bill becomes terribly important. In that respect, I submit that Bill C-59 is a very important bill and that the government is doing no service to Parliament and no service to the people of this country by imposing closure under Rule 75c.
I know the government does not like to call it closure; it likes to call it allocation of time. The President of the Privy Council slipped once yesterday when he called it "limitation of time". In other words, it is closure, Mr. Speaker.
I end with the words I used when I began: this is no way to run the House of Commons of Canada.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, we are now dealing with a motion introduced by the President of the Privy Council, intended to limit the debate on second reading of Bill C-59, an extremely important measure providing for the government a borrowing authority of $14 billion. The proposal for a time limit does not indicate that the government does not believe in that important measure. On the contrary, it is a significant bill but is is the responsibility of the Leader of the Government in the House and President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) to organize and plan the legislative program and the business of the House to manage to get some bills passed during a session. The President of the Privy Council has indicated that he was not very thrilled to introduce this motion in his capacity as government House leader. It is generally agreed that it would be far better to reach a consensus or to resort to provisions under S.O. 75a or even to come to an agreement of the kind which took place, for example, last week when in the space of a few days we disposed of several bills of some significance since one of them amended the Income Tax Act, while another had to do with equalization payments to the provinces. However, when the government House leader and President of the Privy Council reviews the bills which should be considered and passed by this House, there comes a time when he must decide whether he will allow the debate to go on indefinitely, as it seems to be the case with Bill C-59, or will he try to get the other House leaders to agree on a time schedule as he did in this case. However, if there is no agreement, if he cannot get a consensus, he must decide whether he will let the debate go on or limit the speeches. He took that decision to let us have an orderly calendar and to speed up our proceedings in the House and not, as I said earlier, because he thought that the bill was not important or because he enjoyed taking that kind of decision. On the contrary, I think that it is with regret that he took it but it is his duty as government House leader to organize and plan the legislative business of the government.
As I said. Bill C-59 is seeking a supplementary borrowing authority of $14 billion. Already, on second reading, 24 hon. members have had the opportunity to indicate what their respective party's position is on this issue; more specifically, 19
members of the Progressive Conservative Party have already indicated what they think of this bill seeking a $14 billion supplementary borrowing authority, and four members of the New Democratic Party have done the same. I feel that when 19 members of the same party comment on a bill, it should be adequate to put forward their party's position on that bill, whether it is for or against it, as well as its reasons for being for or against it.
And I think that because atl these 19 members who have received the proper training, who had adequately prepared their remarks, have each spoken for more than the 20 minutes allotted to them, without making any rhetorical comments and abusing the time of the House, we now know all the reasons why anybody could be against this bill. And I think that the same applies to the speeches made by the four NDP members who had carefully prepared their remarks of over 20 minutes duration, who researched their subject to tell us why their party should oppose this $14 billion borrowing authority, so that they had all the time they needed to indicate why their respective parties oppose this $14 billion borrowing authority. In any event, as indicated by the President of the Privy Council, this evening, after the vote on the time allocation motion, the debate on the borrowing authority will resume and continue as well on Monday.
In addition, the bill will be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance where, once again, committee members who represent the three parties sitting in the House will have the opportunity to put questions not only to the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and myself but also to departmental officials on the bill requesting a $14 billion borrowing authority. Might I also point out that when departmental estimates come up for study each year, hon. members have a chance to put many questions on all aspects of government spending, whether it be those of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Department of the Solicitor General of Canada, or the important and wise expenditures of the Department of the Environment with its fine scientific program. Parks Canada. All those topics and departments can be adequately examined in depth through whatever questions are put, so that not only are the $14 billion expenditures looked into but also the expenditures involved in the estimates prepared by the government that are subjected to close examination in the standing committee.
All that to say, Mr. Speaker, that during those five days when 19 members of the Progressive Conservative Party and four of the NDP intervened in the debate, it became clear why those two parties oppose the bill granting a $14 billion borrowing authority. Their reasons were either philosophical or practical. For instance, it was claimed that the amount was too high, that it would burden the country for far too long a time, and so on. Be that as it may, there was time to point out the reasons why passage of this bill is being opposed, to express them without repeating them, because repetition of arguments
February 12, 1981

does not lend them greater strength and their substance rests on principles, on their logic and not on a mere repetition or summing up. Because something is repeated 20 times over does not add to its logic. It may sink in one's mind better, but that is a matter of memory and not intelligence, and passing judgment depends on intelligence and not memory. Remembering things depends on memory, but judging them depends on reason. So, it is pointless to repeat the same thing for 20, 25 or 26 hours. The matter at hand is one of argument and demonstration that one is right; that has already been done over a certain length of time, or a number of hours; arguments have been made and proved and, for our part, we feel the point has been made adequately. Why are they opposing it? As for us, we took a few minutes to make our point on second reading, and we are ready to keep discussing this particular bill in committee. As I said, Mr. Speaker, all members have the opportunity to ask questions on every aspect of government spending during consideration of the estimates in committee.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the government House leader is always reluctant to set a time limit on debate. He would rather reach a common agreement, but he has to assume his responsibilities and expedite the business of the House and the government's legislative program in an orderly fashion. That is why we have to discuss this motion.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the remarks of the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres), who implied that the government was continually faced with delays which they for some reason or other could no longer tolerate. It should be apparent to all hon. members and particularly to the deputy government whip who just waved to me that that is not the case.
The history of this session of Parliament has been that when the Government of Canada has seen fit to bring forward legislation which advances the interests of the country, the opposition parties have in fact co-operated with the government House leader to ensure that the legislation goes through. Although there are many such instances, two come to mind. One is the freedom of information bill on which we spent only one day of debate, because it was a worth-while piece of legislation and there was general agreement in principle. There were some differences with regard to some measures in the bill, but a general agreement in principle.
As the result of agreement between all parties, a House order was introduced today with respect to an important bill to amend the Excise Tax Act. I say to the Minister of State for Finance that he ought not to imply, as I believe he was coming very close to implying, that the government is beside itself because it has a great legislative program which it must get through.
If the minister was classifying the borrowing authority bill, to borrow $14 billion which will be laid on the backs of
S.O.	75c
Canadians, as one of the pieces of legislation which just must get through, then I take issue with him and the implication in his speech, and with the statement by the government House leader that the government just cannot tolerate the delay. The government has said that the precedent for their actions is that I did the same thing when I was government House leader.
I imposed closure after five days of debate on a bill which was quite different. This borrowing authority bill does not confer any benefits on Canadians. It confers a $14 billion debt on the taxpayers. It loads onto a tax system which is already loaded. It is so loaded that out of the total outlay of government expenditures of some $67 billion, approximately $12 billion constitute the debt charges as the result of the government's borrowing. One fifth of the total government expenditures constitutes debt charges. That money does not come out of the air; it comes out of the taxpayers' pockets. The government must repay that money with interest. This bill is of no particular benefit to Canadians, because the government has not outlined an economic program. I contrast closure, limitation of time, shortening the debate, or what have you on this occasion, with the benefit which we as the government sought to incur in the bill in respect of which we were forced, by reason of repetition, to introduce closure. That bill, the property tax credit bill, stood in the name of the then minister of finance, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie).
The property tax credit bill would have allowed home owners the benefit of such a tax credit. It was introduced in a period of time when interest rates were not as high as they are today and the difficulty of owning a home was not as apparent. It was at a time when AHOP was at least still working, even though we were warned it would not work and that people would walk away. It was not a time when people were walking away from their homes because they cannot carry the mortgages because interest rates are being doubled upon renewal. This is the situation in my constituency, in Toronto, in the constituency of Brampton-Georgetown, in southwestern Ontario or Saskatoon, it is the result of high interest costs which are caused direct by the economic policies of this government. At the time, we were in government and, because We wanted to confer a benefit on Canadians, we felt we had to use Standing Order 75c. There is no benefit being conferred on anybody by this bill, none whatsoever.


Mr. Evans:: What about the principle?


Walter David Baker: I understand the necessity even though the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) does not understand.


John Leslie Evans: I understand the principle.


Walter David Baker: The hon. member does not seem to understand the difference between a piece of borrowing legislation which would impose $14 billion in debt upon the system and the property tax credit bill which would benefit a property owner.


John Leslie Evans: It is irrelevant to the principle.

February 12, 1981



Walter David Baker: The hon. member is mouthing from his seat the same speech he made on the last occasion. He is beyond the pale, 1 feel nothing but kindly pity for him, and I express it to him.


John Leslie Evans: How does that relate to the principle of cessation of debate in Parliament?


Walter David Baker: It relates in this way. A government must have the power from time to time to shorten debate. However, that power is such a strong weapon that it must be used judiciously. It ought not to be used, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has said, in a bill of this nature, a bill which can impose tremendous burdens. However, when a government has a specific program which it would like to bring forward and which is of some benefit to the country then, 1 believe, in the face of mindless opposition-and that is precisely what we faced with regard to the property tax bill-it is justified. There is as much difference between this borrowing bill and the property tax credit legislation as there is between night and day in terms of benefits.


John Leslie Evans: I am glad you are not the House leader any more.


Walter David Baker: If the government would use closure or allocation of time, then, in the absence of any other remedy, the government has the power to cut off the right of parliamentarians to speak. While 1 was government House leader, 1 put forward some proposals which I believe would have given additional rights for Parliament to hold government accountable. However, the history of rule changes has not been to make Parliament less the handmaiden of the government; it has been exactly the reverse. Parliament's powers have been eroded.
Parliament's power to carry out the duty of making the government accountable has been less with each change. I would like to believe and accept wholeheartedly that it is the intention of the government House leader to give greater opportunity to the opposition parties or private members of this House to hold a government accountable. I hope his legislation will preserve, on the one hand, the right of the government to govern and, on the other hand, provide the opportunity to the opposition and others within this Parliament who are not members of the government the right to hold the government accountable. That is why we are here. Part of that accounting process now is the right to debate and to expose to public view the failure of government policy. The failure of the government's economic policy shows in this bill in two ways. First, we are looking at $14 billion; second, it is for a period beyond that which is required by the government. No self-respecting member of Parliament could possibly support the motion put forward by the Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be here.


An hon. Member:: Is the applause for you?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: 1 appreciate the distinguished taste of my colleague, but I think the applause was because the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) had finished his remarks. It is obvious that I have not been here very long; I have been here for approximately a year. Perhaps I have a lot to learn, but, after listening to the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton, I should like to recount the lessons I took from what he said.
I think he was telling the House that if we had an important bill before us it would not require debate, we could agree to it, it would go through, and the opposition would not consider it worthy of debate. He is saying this is not an important bill, therefore they will debate it. He said that we do not have a program before us, therefore they will debate it.


David Kilgour: Horse feathers.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: That is what the member said. I can assure the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) that he will find those comments in the blues.


Walter David Baker: Read the blues.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Even though I am a new person around here, to me it is an unacceptable approach.
Another thing concerned me about his speech and it relates to the substance of what we are doing right now. He said that the bill on which he introduced Standing Order 75c, the tax credit for home owners, was fundamentally different from this borrowing bill; therefore, he was justified in doing what he did but we are not justified in what we are doing at the present time. When is it justified to use Standing Order 75c?
As a new Member of Parliament, I feel it would be appropriate to look at the words of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton when he compared the use of closure in the flag debate to his use of closure in December, 1979. He said:
It was the initiative behind the debate to ram changes in the rules of the House down the throats of members. I do not intend to do that today. What we are using here, and I think we had better make it clear to the people of Canada, is time allocation under the provisions of Standing Order 75c. This is a far gentler measure.
I suggest it is. It was put in the rules for a very important reason, the reason expressed by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton at that time. He said:
If I had any qualms or any worries as a parliamentarian about bringing forward a motion of this nature to close off debate, these qualms and worries disappeared a few months ago when I watched a long litany of motions and other matters being brought forward that bore no relevance to the business of the House.


David Kilgour: You have only ten minutes.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Let me turn to what has been brought forward thus far during the debate on this matter. Everyone in the House agrees that Canada's economic future is of major importance to every Canadian.
February 12, 1981


David Kilgour: Do the Liberals?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: There is absolutely no question that every one of us feels it must be given due time and attention. When we discussed the budget we had opportunity to debate economic matters; as well as on various opposition days. Having introduced the budget, having it fully debated and having had the House agree to it, we are just taking one logical step to implement its provisions-the authorization of the necessary borrowing power.


David Kilgour: Plus $3 billion.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: What constructive alternatives have been put forward by members opposite?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Many.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: The hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) criticized our economic policies. I should like to point to two of his criticisms. He said we have broken promises.


Miss MacDonald:: That is true.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: We have never broken our promises on energy. Our promise on the pricing of energy was that it would always be lower than the price charged by Tories. We have held by that commitment, and we shall honour it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Your commitment was that the price would always stay down.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: The hon. member will remember his comments to the House a few minutes ago when he criticized Petro-Canada and the fact that Petro-Canada would acquire Petrofina, so that Canadians from coast to coast could have their own retail outlets and could drive their cars into Petrofina stations. Does he want that for his home riding? Is he concerned that his riding will have Petrofina service stations? Does he not want Petrofina stations in his riding?


John Carnell Crosbie: Petrofina is not there. We do not need them, and we do not need Petro-Canada.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Canadians in every city which has had Petrofina stations have responded by giving them the greatest patronage of any retail outlet in the country. We are proud of that move. We invite hon. members opposite to join with us in supporting the move of Petro-Canada to bring the energy situation back to Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) raised a matter of serious concern; that is, the allocation of time in the House. In raising that question, I think he recognized that we have a very complex and difficult situation before us. There are many problems of importance with which we must be concerned. I refer particularly to the constitutional bill and to the National Energy Program. None
S.O.	75c
of us have pretended that these measures are simple; they are important.


An hon. Member:: Oh, hell.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: If the hon. member is indicating that the National Energy Program and the constitutional resolution are not worth anything more than a profane comment, I wish he would accord the House the respect it is due and read about those two matters. He would find them most enlightening. It astonishes me that hon. members opposite have raised again this question of the Constitution. Are they afraid they will miss this historic moment in Canada's development? They will have an opportunity to join with the premier of Ontario and the premier of New Brunswick. They will have a chance to join with the NDP.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: They will have a chance to join with them.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Crawl into bed with whom you will.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: They will have a chance to join with the people of Canada and to give the people of Canada what you and they admitted they want. They want a constitution made in Canada, with an amending formula and a charter of rights. That is what the people of Canada want, and we have the courage to give it to them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: I feel sorry for members opposite. What will they say to their children 20 years from now when they ask, "Where were you; where did you stand when they brought the Constitution home?" We are talking about serious measures.
We have before us a motion to limit debate on a matter which has been discussed by the opposition. This is a supplementary aspect relating to the budget. We want an opportunity to discuss other important measures such as the National Energy Program and the constitutional bill. We will welcome the comments of members opposite. We will await patiently their concrete alternatives.
The hon. member for St. John's West criticized the budget on which this is based. He said it did not contain all the measures that were in his bill.


An hon. Member:: Thank goodness.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: What constructive alternatives did the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton call for before one can introduce Standing Order 75c? What constructive alternatives did he present? I have not heard them. I have listened to a cacophony of gushing and meowing. They have asked for at least 30 new spending programs, in the face of a very responsible budget. The budget did not depress the economy by decreasing the deficit too much and it did not increase inflation by increasing spending the way the NDP wanted.

February 12, 1981



[Stage Direction]
Members of the official opposition cannot have it both ways. They cannot call for at least 30 new spending programs and ask us to reduce the deficit even more. That is why you have to be consistent. 1 ask for their reasonable consideration of our efforts to get on with the major business rather than steamroll and buttress these arguments which have no bearing on what is the substance of our economic program, the National Energy Program being at the heart of it.
It is with a great deal of pleasure that I speak, Mr. Speaker, and I ask for the support of this House for limitation on debate at this particular time.
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to the hon. member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) who I presume time has passed by as he slept away there in the backbenches of the Liberal Party. He is certainly unaware of the facts and seeks to prove a totally false case, that the energy promises made in the last election campaign by his party have not been absolutely and totally broken. Just look at the way in which the price of gasoline and the price of oil per barrel have increased since last February. In case the hon. member does not know it, the price of a barrel of oil has gone up $4.88 in that year. That is far more than the $4 which was talked about by the Conservative government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: In case he does not know it, I can tell the hon. member the price of gasoline per gallon has gone up eight different times since last February. Let me repeat, it has gone up eight different times, totalling more than 20 cents. It has gone up 30 cents a gallon in the city of Montreal, and there is more to come. The poor member from Willowdale has been unaware of all of that.


An hon. Member:: He has been asleep.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I pity him, Mr. Speaker. But far more do I pity the people of Canada who were taken in by the false promises of the Liberal Party when they made them a year ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Here we have the Liberal Party, the Grit government, once again trying to muzzle Parliament. Here they are invoking closure, refusing to let Members of Parliament express their point of view and doing their utmost to destroy the morale and spirit of this chamber. I shuddered earlier this afternoon when I heard the government House leader alluding to opposition days. He implied that we did not have anything to worry about because we have so many opposition days. It seems to me the moment he brings something like that to our attention he says it with a self-fulfilling prophecy. I think he really wants those opposition days to disappear, and would take those away from the opposition as well, just as he has been trying to take away the right to speak
in this chamber, and trying to limit debate on any number of bills that we have before us.


John Leslie Evans: Name one.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I suppose we should not be surprised by that. When he spoke in the chamber on January 13, this year, we find at page 6147 of Hansard the following:
If in the future we do not obtain agreement to reasonable time limits on the discussion of a particular bill, then it will be impossible for this House to function and we will be forced to use Standing Order 75c more frequently than has been the case in the past.
That is what he said when he threatened the House in January. It is certainly coming true. It has become commonplace for this government to introduce closure. We have seen it on three different occasions in the last four months. We saw closure introduced during the constitutional debate. Then we saw closure introduced in the energy debate. The member from Willowdale said that he wanted to be able to debate energy matters in this House. It was his government House leader who introduced closure relating to regulation of oil and gas in Canada lands. Now we have closure on a bill which goes to the very heart of Parliament itself, namely, parliamentary approval for the government on the way it supposedly handles the finances of the country judiciously.
The parliamentary system is based on the principle that the way in which the government raises or spends public moneys must be thoroughly and exhaustively examined by Members of Parliament. That is the single most important reason why this institution exists.
Back in the days when the barons forced the monarch to relinquish some of his power over the purse, they felt they should know how and from whom money was going to be raised, and that they should know how and on what it was going to be used. I sometimes think as I sit here in this chamber that the barons in those days of burgeoning Parliamentary process were more successful in getting answers from the monarch to the critical questions of how money is raised and spent than are opposition members who put questions to government ministers in the House of Commons today. I have no doubt that King John was far more forthcoming than King Pierre.


John Carnell Crosbie: Queen Pierre.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Here we are facing closure on a money bill which asks us for government authority to borrow $14 billion: For what? We don't know.


John Leslie Evans: Read the budget.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: For how long? We don't know that either. At what rate? That is another unknown factor. What we do know is that $14 billion is one heck of a lot of money. It is a lot of money and it is not a figure to which most Canadians can easily relate. Quite frankly, 1 admit it is very difficult to relate to $14 billion. I have to try to relate it to
February 12, 1981

something more tangible than just say it is a lot of money. 1 suppose if 1 were to relate it to a commodity, such as cars, 1 could figure out that for $14 billion we could buy 1,400,000 cars at $10,000 each. In other words, you could buy a car for every man, woman and child in greater Vancouver. That gives you some idea of the magnitude of the amount of money the government is seeking. As soon as you begin relating that figure to something tangible you are struck by the enormity of the amount the government is asking for in this borrowing bill. Is it any wonder that members feel obligated to ask about the bill, to debate the matter, and to raise it over and over again? Is it any wonder that members are perturbed that this amount will drive up our already unmanageable national debt? It will drive up the amount of money which flows continually out of this country for interest rates on loans already outstanding. I have to ask myself what is it about this bill which makes the Liberals so reluctant to allow members to debate it in full. The answer is probably because it is an embarrassing bill-


An hon. Member:: It's a cover-up!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -and because it is a bill which points to the sorry state of the government's debt. It is a bill which points to the Liberal government's inability to hold on to the purse strings. It points as well to the lack of respect which the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) have for the taxpayer's dollar. No wonder they do not want to debate it. No wonder they are invoking closure. They cannot stand the heat of having their economic policies and their economic record brought up time and time again. They are running out of arguments to support what really is in essence insupportable.
No doubt one of the reasons they are invoking closure is that they cannot get anybody on that side to stand up and say anything positive about the government's economic record. Closure is a pretty harsh measure to invoke when members are genuinely trying to figure out what are the government's economic priorities. That is a difficult job at any time, Mr. Speaker, but in a period of recession, such as we have today, surely the government should be willing to listen to suggestions of how it should better order its priorities to get the best possible value it can from its dollars.
We know the government does not like to refer to what is going on here today as closure. It would rather refer to it as time allocation under Standing Order 75c. We know only too well and they know only too well that closure does not smell very sweet. However, closure under any name you want to give it, no matter how you attempt to pour perfume on it, will not make it any sweeter. Every time this government introduces closure as it has done, it chews away at the very foundations of our parliamentary system.
In closing, I would like to say that the group opposite is like a bunch of termites or death watch beetles eating away at the basic underpinnings of this structure. What they do not seem to realize or appreciate is that this kind of sustained abuse to



[Stage Direction]
which they are subjecting Parliament not only demeans and degrades Parliament, but in the end, if they continue in this way, will destroy it.
[Translation}
Mr. Rene Gingras (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the motion introduced by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) pursuant to Standing Order 75c is to limit debate on Bill C-59. The House has been discussing this bill since January 30. Furthermore, it will be considered in committee and must be approved by March 31 for the government to proceed with its 1981-82 borrowing program.
Mr. Speaker, the House has 40-odd bills and resolutions to consider. In the last year, the President of the Privy Council has done a very efficient job as government House leader in an attempt to make up for the time lost during Parliament's sabbatical leave which lasted from May, 1979, to February 1980. Mr. Speaker, these are historical times. I am happy to be living at this point in our history, when we are dealing with an energy policy and a Canadian Constitution with a charter of rights and an amending formula.
At present, the House has 32 standing, special or joint committees whose purpose is to relieve the House of its workload. 1 have here the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, and I want to draw the attention of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) to the fact that there is a vast difference between Standing Orders 33 and 75, the latter being divided into three parts. Under Standing Order 75a, there can be an agreement to allot time for a debate. Standing Order 75b deals with the situation where the majority of members come to an agreement in respect to a debate. The present motion is proposed pursuant to Standing Order 75c which applies when no agreement has been reached on time allotment. The President of the Privy Council gave notice yesterday that we would be debating this motion today.
Here we are, Mr. Speaker, participating in a debate which could have been avoided if the opposition did not want to appear on television at all costs. I think the proceedings of all 32 committees should be broadcast to enable the Progressive Conservatives to say "Hello, mom." on television. We saw this morning when the Constitution committee proceedings were no longer televised that the Progressive Conservatives completely changed positions. Those same hon. members refuse to shorten the speeches. If at least their speeches were entirely relevant, but they are always harping on the same string, but I shall not name anybody.
Mr. Speaker, we were elected to the Canadian Parliament to make it work. We were also elected to represent our constituents in our respective ridings.


David Kilgour: Do it!


René Gingras: We need time to do that. We have to update our Standing Orders. An efficient way to begin updating our

February 12, 1981



[Stage Direction]
Standing Orders is to limit our own speeches. Having said this, Mr. Speaker, we shall have the opportunity perhaps in the next debate to apply S.O. 75a and to agree on time allocation in the House. Mr. Speaker, I hope 1 shall not have to make another speech on S.O. 75c in the forthcoming debate next week.
[Stage Direction]
Mir. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to those on the government side speak about Standing Order 75c. Without the advice of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I went back to see how 75c came about. I can only say that I agree with my colleagues 100 per cent.
Members opposite say it is a parliamentary law, one of the rules of Parliament, so they should use it. It is a law that was brought in by closure. The laws of Parliament must be built by consensus. We, the elected Members of Parliament representing our constituents want to have this House work effectively and we strive to that end. We cannot have the tyranny of a majority. This law was put on the books by a Grit majority. It was brought in by closure. The government member who just spoke said they want an efficient government, an efficient operation of this House. By continuing to use 75c, they indicate that they want to be efficient but do not want opposition. They do not want any member of this party or the party to my left to oppose them. They want to run roughshod over the people of Canada, continuing in their wild and woolly spending ways.
Government tells us not to debate in this House, not to bring up those things they have done. We are told not to get involved. The government says it wants to run Canada and that it should be allowed to dominate it. If we oppose, they bring in 75c. That is what this government has done, is continuing to do and will do in the future when people in Canada try to express a legitimate concern on behalf of their constituents.
We are here to express concerns on behalf of those we represent. We are expressing concern on behalf of those who contribute the money about the spending by this government. We are debating Bill C-59 because we have a debt. It is not the government that has the debt, but the people of Canada. It is not Liberal members opposite who owe this money, but all Canadians. As far as the use of 75c is concerned, which stifles and stops debate and the democratic process, I find it repugnant both as a Canadian and a parliamentarian.
May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen)- Federal lands-Yukon-Disposition of certain lots without tender; the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert)-Petro-Canada-Inquiry whether offer made to purchase Petrofina; the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen)-Fisheries-Regulation of herring fishing on west coast.
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, private bills, notices of motions (papers), public bills. There being no items on the Order Paper under the heading of private bills, the House will proceed to the notices of motions (papers).


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
[Stage Direction]
Items Nos. 1, 22, 5, 28 allowed to stand by unanimous consent.

[Stage Direction]
REDUCTION OF SHAREHOLDINGS BY TATE & LYLE HOLDINGS LTD. IN REDPATH SUGAR LIMITED
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil) moved:: That an order of the House do issue for copies of all agreements, correspondence, notes and other communications relating to the requirement by the Foreign Investment Review Agency that Tate & Lyle Holdings Limited reduce its shareholdings in Redpath Sugar Limited.
He said: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is not the first time I have stood in the House to discuss this particular subject. May I say at the outset and repeat what I have said before, though I will be mentioning Redpath Sugar, I am not criticizing any of their actions. Though I will be mentioning the Export Development Corporation, I will not be attacking them. Even though I will be talking about the Foreign Investment Review Agency, it is only because of some concerns about the operation of the agency which I hope to explain in my remarks.
The interest in the subject of sugar goes back several years to my concern about developing countries in the Caribbean. It seemed to me it did not make sense that we in Canada were
February 12, 1981

importing our sugar from Africa, crossing the Atlantic in one direction, while the Caribbean countries were sending their sugar across the Atlantic in the other direction to England.
1 asked a question back in the fall of 1974 about the import of sugar from the Caribbean countries and the effects of transportation costs. The answer I received was that the transportation costs of sugar from any country of origin are not taken directly into account. The price of sugar in Canada is linked directly to the London daily price. In response to some further questions on tonnage, I was told again in the fall of 1974 that, whereas Canada was importing some 4,000 metric tons of sugar from Barbados, that country was sending
102.000	tons to the United Kingdom, and Jamaica was sending about 10,000 metric tons to Canada and 158,000 metric tons to the United Kingdom. Also in the same response, when 1 asked about the estimated percentage of Canadian sugar imports being received by Canada Sugar and Dominion Sugar, which was at that time and presumably still is a subsidiary company of Tate & Lyle Holdings Ltd., I was told that 37 per cent of our raw sugar imports were being brought into the country by that company. I did note that some 105,000 or
106.000	metric tons of sugar was coming in from Cuba, which would indicate there was no reason why there should not have been some agreement with the other Caribbean countries.
I have mentioned Tate & Lyle Holdings Ltd. and that is going to be part of the reason for discussion this afternoon. Tate & Lyle Holdings Ltd., which has an operation in some 24 countries including Canada, is obviously a giant multinational and effectively controls the sugar market of the world.
In February, 1975, we read the report that Redpath Industries Limited, a subsidiary of Tate & Lyle Holdings Ltd., was criticizing politicians and it suggested that politicians were becoming instant experts on sugar matters. I suggest we have not taken enough interest in this subject.
In April, 1976, Redpath Industries Limited issued a news release and I quote from this release:
Redpath Industries Limited has been awarded a contract to construct a major agro-industrial sugar complex by the government of the Ivory Coast in Africa. Total cost is estimated at $155 million-
The Export Development Corporation gave a boost to Redpath Sugars Limited, and this is probably why the contract was signed, by helping finance the Canadian sugar complex on the Ivory Coast. The Export Development Corporation kicked in, according to the report, $88.3 million in the form of a ten-year loan. I also read that some $10 million was expected to come from the Canadian International Development Agency in the form of a concessionary financing loan. I am not particularly opposed to the co-operation between CIDA and EDC. In fact, I have suggested we probably do not do enough of this type of thing. If we follow the example of West Germany as a case in point, we might find it somewhat easier to increase our export business.
However, the repayment of this Export Development Corporation loan was to be in 20 semi-annual instalments beginning six months after completion. The Export Development Corporation also provided a guarantee for loans by banks of up to $5
Foreign Investment Review Agency
million. The terms under which the agreement was made were not disclosed, and I do not take great issue with the reasoning given.
1 discussed the matter in the House in December, 1977, and the following month received a letter from the chairman of the board and president of the Export Development Corporation, Mr. John A. MacDonald. I am digressing somewhat, but I mentioned Mr. John MacDonald last week in this House when I was speaking of the reorganization of the Department of Public Works. Back in the late 1960s he was the deputy minister of that department. If I can read from his letter, and I have read this into the record before, he says and I quote:
Only by guaranteeing commercial confidentiality will clients of the corporation be prepared to disclose the kind of information necessary to ensure viable transactions and serve the Canadian interest.
Further on in the letter we read and I quote:
-you and other interested Canadians . . . cannot become party to information which, if released, might put Canadian firms at a competitive disadvantage.
The difficulty I am running into will become apparent. In a letter dated May, 1979, from the then minister of industry, trade and commerce there was some discussion of the commitment by Tate & Lyle Holdings Ltd., the parent of Redpath Sugar to which 1 have previously referred. He said in his letter that the commitment, that is to divest itself of its interest in Redpath, will be implemented as soon as the financial position of Tate & Lyle Holdings Ltd. recovers sufficiently.
What bothers me somewhat is that if we are waiting for the share price to improve so that Tate & Lyle Holdings Ltd. can put its shares on the market for Canadians, it means in effect we are waiting for a time when Canadians can be expected to pay more for those shares.
I understand why the Foreign Investment Review Agency may have some reason for extending the original agreement, but once again this question of disclosure is looming large. What we do not know makes us ask questions.
In November, 1977, talking about this undertaking by Redpath Industries and its U.K. parent, Tate & Lyle Holdings Ltd., we note there were two investment proposals which were allowed under the Foreign Investment Review Act. The date of allowance was October 7, 1976, and the undertaking was that Redpath and its parent, Tate & Lyle Holdings Ltd., would increase the participation by Canadians in the capital stock of Redpath to 52 per cent, and the fulfilment of this undertaking was not required until September 30, 1980. At that time it was some three years after the date of the letter I received from the then minister of industry, trade and commerce.
The legally binding undertakings made by a firm in the course of winning approval from the agency are in most cases not published. There is no public accounting of how well companies have fared in meeting the undertakings to provide significant benefit, and the agency at one time estimated that approximately 20 per cent of the cases failed to meet the original undertakings.

February 12, 1981
Foreign Investment Review Agency
Thus in the minds of members of the public there is some doubt as to whether there is any strength to the original agreements, and we are therefore somewhat concerned about enforcement, "We need more data to maintain public confidence in the integrity of the process". That statement was made by the present Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray).
It is interesting that in the 1979-1980 annual report on the Foreign Investment Review Act we find that following the election on February 18, 1980, the minister to whom 1 have referred, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, became the minister responsible for the administration of the Foreign Investment Review Act. This gentleman was the head of a group which was established in 1970 to analyse foreign investment in Canada and to recommend appropriate policy measures to the government of the day.
The group's 1972 report, "Foreign Direct Investment in Canada," led to the enactment of the Foreign Investment Review Act and to the creation of the Foreign Investment Review Agency. Most acquisitions are by non-Canadians, and this also applies to new businesses.
I want to talk now about the number of cases which are going through. In 1976 the number of reviewable new business cases was 196. This number increased in 1977 to 328; in 1978 to 331; and in 1979 to 379. The total number of cases resolved in those years increased from 144 in 1976 to 373 in 1979. It is interesting to note in those same years that the amount of investment in millions of dollars decreased from $803 million in 1977 to $202 million in 1979. I have not received an explanation for that drop in the dollar total of investment.
To complete the package, reviewable acquisition cases amounted to a total of 171 in 1976 and increased in number to 261 in 1977, 360 in 1978 and 380 in 1979. The total number resolved increased from 160 in 1976 to a total of 372 in 1979.
The work which was being done by the Foreign Investment Review Agency appeared to be improving in terms of productivity. Why, then, am I concerned today? I should say that just by coincidence, when I was in Montreal last night, the president of a foreign-owned company made a point of complimenting the Foreign Investment Review Agency on the manner in which it had efficiently handled applications by his firm for acquisitions in Canada. That said, however, the reason I am concerned is that within the past short period of time I have received complaints from three different companies about delays in getting their applications through FIRA. I feel that we are facing a rather difficult and possibly a political situation here, something about which, frankly, I am not necessarily happy.
I will explain. For fiscal year 1979-1980 the agency received a budgetary allotment of $3,779 million, and that was to be for 116 person-years. As a result of the government's restraint program actual expenditure was $3,507,710, and 108 person-years were utilized. It is abundantly clear from the figures I have put on the record that the number of applications is increasing each year.
It is apparent that the agency is doing its best to cope with the increased workload being brought to it. However, if it is not given the tools with which to work, essentially its budgets, so that it can hire personnel, then obviously there will be a slowing down in its operation. I suggested this is probably the problem some companies are facing today, particularly those companies which have been complaining to me personally about the length of time it takes for their applications to be processed.
The obvious benefits flowing from the work of the agency are mentioned in its report, which says that in the five years to the end of March, 1979, the agency's proposals provided for the direct creation of almost 52,000 jobs. Many thousands of additional jobs have been or will be created indirectly through the multiplier effect of these investments.
In the last two minutes remaining to me I should explain one other point which is bothering me. I say this without trying to be at all unkind to the minister. I feel the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce was trying to put us on the right track in the work he did back in 1972. I was personally the chairman of the standing committee which was responsible for putting this act through the committee stage and bringing it back into the House.
I expressed concern then, and I have expressed concern since, not about the act as it was written, but about the possibility that administrative difficulties could result in delays which would have an effect on foreign investment, not intended by the act itself. I have inquired as to whether it is possible that our minister, using his ministerial prerogative, is asking additional questions or in any way acting as a brake to try to hold up the rate at which these applications are being processed. I reiterate that in a general sense the operation of the agency is considered satisfactory.
I suggest first, that if by an increased number of applications their workload has been increased, if the actions of a minister justify this and the amount of work which they have to do to satisfy his requirement has been increased, then the proper way to ensure that these applications can still be processed on time is to give them the tools they need, which would be an increased budget and an increased number of trained persons to handle the increased workload. If the parliamentary secretary who will reply will assure me that that is the intention of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, I would be very happy to receive that news this afternoon.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the motion refers to an undertaking given to the Crown in 1976 by Redpath Industries Limited of Montreal and its parent company, Tate & Lyle Holdings Ltd. of England. This undertaking was given in consideration of the allowance by the governor in council of the acquisition by Redpath of two Canadian companies: Merry Packaging Limited of Don Mills, Ontario, a custom supplier of flexible packaging material, and Holway
February 12, 1981

Paper Box Manufacturing Limited of Agincourt, Ontario, a manufacturer of folding paper boxes.
When these decisions by the governor in council were announced on October 7, 1976, the government of the day also announced the undertaking given by Redpath and its parent, Tate & Lyle;
To increase the participation by Canadians in the capital stock of Redpath from 45 per cent to 52 per cent.
That is still their commitment. The undertaking given in 1976 was framed in the light of circumstances at that time. Some time later, as a result of changed circumstances, it became apparent to Redpath and Tate & Lyle that they would not be able to fulfil their commitment as quickly as they had originally expected without considerable handicap. Therefore, they approached the agency with a view to renegotiating the terms of their undertaking. The government of the day was satisfied with the representations made by the companies.
Following negotiations between the agency and Redpath, the government agreed to revised terms under which participation by Canadians in the capital stock of Redpath would be increased in stages. The new agreement contains specific measurable benchmarks relating to the financial affairs of the companies which would reflect their ability to increase Canadian participation, and thus would serve as an unambiguous trigger for fulfilment of the commitment. I want to emphasize that the commitment itself is unchanged, that is, to increase Canadian participation in Redpath from 45 per cent to 52 per cent.
In the matter of enforcement of undertakings given under the Foreign Investment Review Act, the government has reassured investors that common sense and understanding will prevail. That is as it should be. This issue was addressed when the foreign investment review bill was being considered by Parliament in 1973 prior to its enactment. When the bill was before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, the minister, speaking on behalf of the government of the day, said the following:
In principle, all undertakings are binding. In those cases where a person Tails to comply with undertakings, the minister may apply to the courts for an order directing that the undertakings be fulfilled. This, however, is likely to be a procedure of last resort.
You will recall that I suggested some undertakings at least would be based on the medium-term plans of the acquiring company. These plans would, to some extent, be based on the conjecture about the future and therefore would simply reflect the company's anticipation concerning its future development. They would not be guaranteed in their entirety. Thus, flexibility and good sense must be exercised by the minister.
In normal circumstances the inability to fulfil understakings will lead to discussions with the minister and perhaps to the negotiation of new undertakings. Like any contract, an undertaking can be modified with the consent of both parties. If, however, the failure to comply with an undertaking is clearly the result of changed market conditions-for example, the undertaking to export frisbees is followed by the collapse of the frisbee market-the person would not be held accountable. It should be remembered, however, that some undertakings may be tailored to a range of market expectations.
The purpose of the Foreign Investment Review Act is to ensure that certain forms of foreign investment will be of significant benefit to Canada. I do not believe it would be of benefit to Canada for the government to administer the act in
Foreign Investment Review Agency a draconian or unreasonable manner by insisting that in all circumstances commitments given in good faith by investors on the basis of their expectations for the future must be fulfilled to the letter, even when circumstances have changed and implementation of those undertakings would impose an unexpected hardship on the investor concerned.
But that does not mean the government is abdicating its responsibility to ensure that investments allowed under the act are of benefit to Canada. Procedures have been established to monitor the implementation of plans and undertakings presented by investors whose applications were allowed. The monitoring is usually carried out at annual intervals. Most undertakings cover an investor's performance over a number of years and require monitoring for a commensurate period of time. The great majority of investors have been able to fulfil their commitments. But in those cases where changed economic circumstances have made it necessary to renegotiate undertakings, the agency seeks new commitments offering at least equal benefits to Canada. The minister has the authority to initiate legal proceedings in any case where an investor fails to comply with the terms and conditions of his investment. To date it has not been necessary for the minister to exercise that authority because both the government and investors have approached this matter in a reasonable and businesslike fashion.
I would now like to address the concerns expressed by the member about the amount of time taken to resolve investment proposals under FIRA and the amount of information required to be filed by foreign investors in the review process.
It should be kept in mind, first of all, that FIRA places an onus on the foreign investor who wishes to acquire control of a Canadian company or establish a new business, to demonstrate that his or her proposal is, or is likely to be, of significant benefit to Canada. The specific factors to be taken into account in the determination of significant benefit, the assessment criteria, are outlined clearly in the act.
The two major points to be kept in mind at this juncture are that the initiative is with the foreign investor to make his case to the government; the other major point is that the test of significant benefit means exactly what it says, a proposal by a foreign investor who is able to demonstrate only that his or her proposal would not be detrimental to Canada, which would, by the terms of the statute, be found to fail.
The assessment criteria, upon which the government bases its decisions, are composed of a number of commercial, industrial, economic and public policy considerations. They include, first, the effect of the acquisition or establishment on the level and nature of economic activity in Canada, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the effect on employment, on resource processing, on the utilization of parts, components and services produced in Canada, and on exports from Canada. Second, they include the degree and significance of participation by Canadians in the business enterprise or new business and in any industry or industries in Canada of which the business enterprise or new business forms, or would form, a part. The third consideration is the effect of the acquisition or

February 12, 1981
Foreign Investment Review Agency
establishment on productivity, industrial efficiency, technological development, product innovation and product variety in Canada. The fourth point is effect of the acquisition or establishment on competition within any industry or industries in Canada. The final consideration is the compatibility of the acquisition of the new business establishment with national industrial and economic policies, taking into account industrial and economic policy objectives enunciated by the government or legislature of any province likely to be significantly affected by the acquisition or establishment.
The minister responsible for the act has the responsibility of recommending to the government which of the foreign investment proposals that come before him can properly be allowed and which should not be allowed. It cannot be a rubber stamp operation. I think it is obvious from what is required of the minister that he has to be fully briefed about each and every foreign investment proposal that comes before him. To accomplish this task effectively, he needs adequate information and analysis on which to base his recommendations; unfortunately, that can take time.
The review process in itself can be complex and often time-consuming. As soon as an application outlining an investment proposal is received by the Foreign Investment Review Agency, it is scrutinized by FIRA's compliance branch to determine whether or not the proposal is reviewable and whether the notice contains the information prescribed by the Foreign Investment Review Agency's regulations. That is to say, it ensures that the investor has met the basic legal information requirements. If the proposal is found to be reviewable, it is passed on to the assessment bureau for an evaluation based on the significant benefit criteria to which I referred earlier. Frequently, at this stage, relevant information additional to that contained in the notice is sought through contacts with the applicant and consultations with appropriate federal departments. The notice is also circulated to the province, or provinces, significantly affected by the proposal with a request for their views and comments so that the agency knows how the proposal is received regionally and locally.
When all the necessary information has been assembled, the case is then referred to the minister, together with an assessment by the agency of the perceived effects of the investment. If the minister concludes that the investment is likely to result in significant benefit to Canada, he must make a recommendation to the governor in council or cabinet, that the investment be allowed. If not, he must so inform the agency, which in turn informs the applicant accordingly. The applicant then has the opportunity to make further representations. When those representations are completed, the case is referred to the minister a second time for a decision on what his final recommendation would be.
In reaching his decision the minister must frequently take into account the representations he receives from other members of Parliament which reflect the concerns of their constituents about particular investments and the impact thereof. The
agency, too, receives numerous representations from third parties including competitors, labour unions, and employee or management groups which have a direct interest in the outcome of a takeover bid and the terms on which it takes place. In addition, with increasing frequency, Canadian companies are coming forward to make known their interest in competing against foreign takeover bids. These interests of Canadians cannot be ignored by the government. They must be taken into account in any assessment of the benefit to Canada of a foreign investor's proposal.
I mention all of this not to justify the delay in dealing with investment proposals under the act but to make the point that the process is one that very often requires a number of months to complete. There is obviously no advantage to the government in unnecessary delay. If the government is not satisfied that an investment is of significant benefit it can-and has- disallow it.
The government has taken a number of steps to expedite the review process. In 1977 the regulations under the act were amended to provide for a much abbreviated form of notice for small business investments, that is, investments involving assets of less than $2 million and involving fewer than one hundred employees. The procedures for dealing with those investments were streamlined to permit the minister to judge, within a matter of days, whether on the basis of the information available in the notice, he was able to recommend allowance. Roughly 60 per cent of all the investment proposals reviewed by the agency are dealt with under these streamlined procedures which enable government to reach a decision. The investor is advised of this decision usually within 20 days of the date his application was filed. I cannot think of many administrative processes with that sort of record, whether at the federal, provincial or municipal level. But, of course, the longer more complex cases take a longer period of time to deal with, for the reasons I have mentioned.
The time taken in reviewing investment proposals must be measured against the results of the review process, that is, the benefits to Canada of investments that are allowed to proceed. Indeed, most of the work of the agency centres on the effort to improve original proposals and to negotiate additional firm commitments which will bring economic benefits to Canada. It is not in the interest of the department to be adverse to these proposals but rather to bring the best proposal forward.
An analysis carried out by the research staff of FIRA has revealed that since the agency was created, investment proposals reviewed and allowed have involved 70,000 new jobs and $5 billion of investment. These statistics obviously have only a limited meaning as indicators of FIRA's performance. For one thing, the figures do not show what FIRA has achieved through negotiating with applicants to upgrade the quality of investment proposals as a condition of allowance.
Using jobs as an example, I should like to speak about how the agency's work has improved the quality of employment in Canada. FIRA's negotiations have helped to increase Canadian participation in the direction, management and ownership of the Firms involved and to create opportunities for Canadians
February 12, 1981

in research, engineering, new supplier industries and in a variety of consultant services. As a result, doors previously closed to Canadians have been opened.
The agency has negotiated commitments from investors to carry out research and development in Canada and to exploit the results of such research in Canada. To date such commitments amount to over $130 million in expenditures in research and development. The concrete benefits of FIRA extend to other important areas, such as exports and the greater use of Canadian suppliers of goods and services. Thus, one of the most long-standing complaints about foreign ownership or control has been the constraints frequently placed on Canadian subsidiaries in their export efforts. FIRA's work has led to applicants establishing export targets. It has led to Canadian subsidiaries being assigned exclusive rights to export either all their products to certain countries or certain products worldwide. Some applicants outside North America have given exclusive rights to Canadian subsidiaries to service the entire North American market. In cases where prospects for exports are too uncertain for investors to make specific commitments, the agency seeks undertakings to protect the Canadian business from restrictions on seeking out and exploiting any export opportunities.
With respect to domestic sourcing, FIRA often negotiates commitments that a minimum percentage of total requirements on specified materials, components, merchandise and services will be sourced in Canada. In situations where the investment calls for purchases of machinery and equipment, the agency will seek assurances that Canadian manufacturers be given the opportunity to tender. The negotiations have produced clear benefits, including new jobs, the expansion of existing businesses and, in some cases, the fostering of supplier industries in Canada.
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain;: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak for very long, but I was interested in the points made by the two previous speakers, particularly the points in defence of FIRA. On balance, everyone appreciates that the job which FIRA has is difficult. The questions which we most often ask are asked because the information we need in order to make reasonable judgments about the decision-making process of FIRA in a given situation frequently is not forthcoming. This is the primary purpose of this motion today. It is very difficult to make any kind of learned judgment on the appropriateness of the decisions of FIRA, given the nature of the act within which it must operate and the secrecy which must surround its deliberations.
The matter of Redpath which was raised in the motion is only one of such instances that bring very serious questions to mind. I would like to put more examples on the record which, in my mind raise the question of whether the act ought to be broadened in order to permit disclosure. Very few people disagree that disclosure is required. Those who argue against disclosure are not aware that in many other parts of the world disclosure is required as a matter of course, unless it directly
Foreign Investment Review Agency
involves processing and therefore may hurt the company's operation. But in terms of the undertakings made by a company seeking approval for a takeover, disclosure would make for a much tidier, much more acceptable operation.
The following are some examples about which I have been wondering. In 1978, the application of Skyline Steel Corporation to acquire control of Skyline Steel Industries Ltd. received approval. Of many and varied requirements which range all the way from increased employment, new investment, increased processing additional exports, Canadian participation, improved productivity and industrial efficiency, enhanced technological development, improved product variety and innovation, beneficial impact on competition, to compatibility with industrial and economic policies, the company met three. They met the criteria for increased resource processing, beneficial impact on competition and compatibility with industrial and economic policy.
Let me give hon. members a description of the significant benefits the Foreign Investment Review Agency identified in a press release dated July 13, 1978:
A proposal by Skyline Steel Corporation of Port Kearny, New Jersey, U.S.A., which is wholly-owned by Trade ARBED, Inc. of the U.S.A., which in turn is controlled by ARBED, S.A. of Luxembourg, to acquire control of Skyline Steel Industries Ltd., of Burlington, Ontario, which is a subsidiary of Engelhard Minerals and Chemicals Corporation of the U.S.A., which in turn is utlimately controlled by South African interests, and is a business engaged in the distribution principally of steel sheet piling which is not now manufactured in Canada.
Given that this company only met three requirements and that the information above does not lead one to the conclusion that it will manufacture anything of significance, one must ask why it won approval. If I were to ask that question, I would not receive an answer because the law does not permit it. Yet, I believe I have every reason to wonder why that company was given approval under the Foreign Investment Review Agency's mandate. There is reason from time to time to wonder about whether or not there is sufficient disclosure.
Here is another example. In 1978 a firm called Tomorrow's Heritage, Inc. of Beverly Hills-that is a sexy name-out of all those categories met four requirements. This company would increase employment, create new investment, increase resource processing and use of Canadian parts and, of course, like all of them, it is comparable with industrial and economic policy. Here is the description taken from the same press release:
A proposal by Tomorrow's Heritage Inc. of Beverly Hills. California. U.S.A.. to establish a new business in Burnaby, British Columbia, to be engaged in the marketing of family photographic portraits.
Pray tell, what is the significant benefit to Canada in that? I would like to be told in the House why FIRA approved that company so that I would know. Of course the minister cannot tell me, because the law does not permit that. Therefore, I must wander around, disgruntled, for the rest of my life because I cannot find out if either of these companies would provide a significant benefit to Canada, what their commitments are and whether they lived up to them.
I have another example for hon. members. I have picked these examples at random and they are spread over a number
7188

February 12, 1981
Foreign Investment Review Agency
of years. This one is dated 1976 and was approved by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) who was then responsible for the administration of FIRA. Incidentally, the other two companies were approved by little Jack Horner. In any event, Harlock Williams Lemon Ltd. scored six out of ten on the criteria scale.


Mark Willson Rose: That's good.


Ian Deans: Yes, he did very well.


Mark Willson Rose: He was not a lemon.


Ian Deans: Let me tell hon. members about Harlock Williams Lemon Ltd. An agency news release dated October 7, 1976 states as follows:
A proposal by Harlock Williams Lemon Ltd. to establish a marine insurance underwriting agency in Vancouver, British Columbia. The proposal was deemed to have been allowed.
What was the significant benefit to Canada? Do we not have enough marine insurance underwriters on the west coast? FIRA not only gave approval, it deemed his application approved, which concerns me somewhat. However, I have no way of finding out whether the company lived up to its commitments, how much money was involved, and whether there was any benefit to anyone other than the company.


Mr. Darling:: They will take insurance from Canadian agencies.


Ian Deans: Yes, and presumably ship it out of the country since the company was to be involved in exports. I expect the export was money-money which we can hardly afford. My last example, can be found in an agency news release dated January 28, 1981. It reads:
The allowance of one foreign investment proposal was announced today by the Hon. Herb Gray, minister responsible for the administration of the Foreign Investment Review Act.
A summary, in tabular form, of the benefits identified is attached.
The proposal is by Sandvik Canada Corp., of Mississauga, Ontario, which is owned by Sandvik AB of Sandviken, Sweden, which is controlled by two Swedish companies, Kornaes-Marmo AB and Investment AB Kinnevik, both of Sweden; and Noranda Mines Limited, of Toronto, Ontario, to acquire control of the business carried on by Noranda Metal Industries Limited, consisting of its Special Metals Division at Arnprior, Ontario, which manufactures nickel alloy and stainless steel seamless tubing for use primarily in Candu nuclear reactors.
Given that it scored seven out of ten, I wonder if the House thinks it is a good idea to transfer the ownership of a company manufacturing something as important as the tubing for Candu nuclear reactors to a foreign-owned and foreign-con-trolled company? What would be the significant technological benefit to us? What would they be able to do that we were unable to do previously? If we were not able to do it previously, does it mean we were making an inferior product prior to this company taking over? Does it mean that the product which was being made previous to this approval was not of the highest quality? Does it mean that we were producing tubes for Candu reactors in a less efficient, less controllable and less beneficial way than it will be the case in future?
I should like to refer to some of the reasons for this takeover. The first of the serious matters dealt with was improved productivity and industrial efficiency. The second was enhanced technological development. Then there was improved product variety and innovation, as well as beneficial impact on competition. Of course the takeover fitted in, as everything supposedly does, with industrial and economic policies.
There are some questions I should like to ask. What was this company doing that did not measure up to what will now be done? What about the products it made which are in place in nuclear reactors?
Perhaps the other cases to which I referred were somewhat humorous, although important, but they made my point. But in a case such as this, surely to God there is a reason for having a clear picture of why it is deemed important to Canada's future to allow this takeover. What improvement can we expect as a result of the takeover? Perhaps the most important question would be: Were we getting less efficient or somehow less acceptable products prior to the takeover? If not, what are the benefits?
1 do not think my questions are unreasonable and I should like to know why this proposal was accepted. Is it in our best interests to have a foreign-controlled and foreign-operated company making such a crucial part for nuclear reactors in this country? What conditions were placed on the company? To what extent do they have access to the technology involved in the Candu reactor development? To what extent will that technology be available to people outside the country as a result of selling this company to a foreign-held subsidiary?
It is part of the job of a Member of Parliament to try to get to the bottom of something that is as strategic as this. I share the concern of the hon. member who moved the motion about the Redpath matter. As he pointed out, he has no axe to grind with Redpath, with FIRA or with the Canada Development Corporation. I have no axe to grind with Sandvik; I do not even know the people.
In terms of policy, FIRA cannot hide behind the act. The act was not written well. It does not permit the disclosure the public of Canada requires. The act must be changed and not just when the minister gets around to it. If this type of approval is to be given in an area as important and as crucial as this, then the act must be changed forthwith so that we can adequately monitor the effect of takeovers of this type. Quite frankly, I suspect many of these things are happening. Because of their workloads, vast majority of members, are unable to keep up with all the changes that are taking place.
I want to stress that I am delighted the hon. member raised this matter today. It is a crucial matter and it is important for us to address it now. I think we should have a response from the minister as quickly as possible about the changes he will undertake in order to guarantee that a significant benefit is always involved. This must be fully disclosed, together with all the terms and conditions of any transaction, so that we can adequately monitor the work being done by FIRA and determine the degree of benefit in each transaction.
February 12, 1981

[ Translation]


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I know that under our Standing Orders, no member can speak on an issue other than the one before the House, but I hope you will allow me to extend, on behalf of all members, our wishes for a speedy recovery to the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Ethier), the Deputy Chairman of Committee of the Whole who, as we know, has been hospitalized because of a fairly serious illness. We all hope to see him back in the House very soon.

It would be difficult for me to reply to all the remarks concerning the motion put by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) who admitted that the operation of the agency was satisfactory. 1 suppose his main purpose in moving the motion was to show his concern about the enforcement of, or the qualifying requirements of, the decision by FIRA.
I listened attentively to most of his remarks, especially those in which he referred to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) who answers for FIRA in the House. I hesitate to get into a debate on remarks which seem to imply that the mere fact that we have a responsible, interested, hard-working, competent, concerned and efficient Minister of Industry and Commerce-and I see the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) laughing-


Stanley Howard Knowles: So are you.


Gérald Laniel: -who tackles problems on a daily basis, might have the effect of delaying the decision-making process of FIRA. The member opposite should find out whether the agency has fulfilled its mandate, then he will understand the advantages of having such a good minister. He should have congratulated the minister for his efficiency. I understand the preoccupation of the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain, but this is practically a square circle. It would not be easy for the agency to make a judgment on a takeover or an investment in Canada without, in the first place, supplying some guarantee to the enterprise concerned regarding confidential information.
We are members of Parliament. I do not think we have a responsibility that requires us to know all the details. If we are generally satisfied, as the hon. member for Vaudreuil indicated when he spoke, with the good work of FIRA, that satisfaction is endorsed by the statistics, the results of investments, the job creation, the access to the technology and the progression of these new industries in coming to Canada. The pattern is a good one. That is why I appreciate the good work of this agency.
May I call it six o'clock so that I may have an opportunity when this debate comes back again before the House, to go further into the workings of FIRA and answer the requests of hon. members.


S.O. 75c
Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: That is agreed. The Chair will take special pleasure in conveying the hon. parliamentary secretary's compliments and good wishes to the deputy chairman of the Committee of the Whole.
It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At 6.03 p.m. 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. Pinard:
That, in relation to Bill C-59, an act to provide supplementary borrowing authority, one additional sitting day shall be allotted to the further consideration of the second reading stage of the bill; and that at 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on that day, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn, every question then necessary in order to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: When the debate on this motion was interrupted at five o'clock this afternoon, the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) had the floor, and had some time remaining. He would be entitled upon his return to seek the floor. In the interim, I will recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie).


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a sense of mixed pleasure to have the opportunity tonight to speak in opposition to the government's move on the legislation having to do with the borrowing authority. I say mixed pleasure because, of course, it is not pleasant for us to have this experience in the first place, to witness the government trying to close off debate on a matter as important as the borrowing authority. However, I take some pleasure in being able to stand in my place and be part of the tradition which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) so aptly represents. I refer to the tradition of this party and its opposition to closure, its opposition to 75c going back to its very formation at the time when the Liberal government used closure to bring in this new form of closure. Therefore, it is with some pleasure that I stand here today along with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to register opposition to

February 12, 1981


S O. 75c
[Stage Direction]
the government's most recent attempt to stifle debate in Parliament.
1 have only been a member of Parliament for a short while. It will be two years in May. 1 experienced the invocation of 75c in the Thirty-first Parliament and I have experienced it three times in this Parliament. Before I came here, 1 was of the false impression, it now appears, that closure was something that was only brought in on very historic occasions, and even then was regarded as a negative move on the part of the government.
When I was just five years old, the Liberals of the day, in 1956, brought in closure on the pipeline debate. 1 was one of those young Canadians who grew up with the perception that closure was something that was used only in those kinds of political events that were perceived to be crises by the government of the day. Since becoming a Member of Parliament, 1 have seen closure used time and time again.
1 want to take this opportunity to make a few brief remarks about what the debate on closure ought to bring to mind for us. First, we have to remember, particularly as closure is being brought in on the borrowing authority, that the original purpose of Parliament was to put control of the public purse in the hands of the people for the first time.
We have here a particularly poignant example of the government returning to itself the divine right of kings. It seeks to limit the possibility of debate in Parliament on something so fundamental as the borrowing authority for some $14 billion when we in our party, for example, have only had the opportunity of putting forward three, perhaps four, speakers. There is something wrong when there is so little opportunity to sort out the kinds of priorities the expenditure of that kind of money represents.
We ought to look at the larger picture of what has happened to parliamentary debate. I am not sure how long it has been the case, but I want to say to other members who may feel the way I do that one of the problems with debate, period, is not just that it is closed off, but that at times it seems so meaningless. What we have here is not real debate. We have a sort of pro forma exercise in which everyone gets up and does a little part of the charade. A charade is going on now with members chatting and doing their own thing. I am going through the exercise expected of me; after me, others will go through the exercises expected of them. We will then have the vote and everything will be fine.
The problem is, this is no longer a debate. And this is not a chamber for the exchange of ideas. No one is open to persuasion. Members know what they believe when they stand up and they know what they believe when they sit down. No one is listening to anyone else.
The opposition does not have the power of persuasion because there is no real debate going on here. The only power the opposition has is to delay government action. I suggest this is why so much bad feeling is aroused when the government moves against the power of the opposition to delay legislation. In fact, Parliament has so little power-and the opposition in
turn has even less-that this power to delay is cherished by the opposition and ought to be cherished by the opposition until such time as we can restore some integrity to debate in this House.
One of the problems with debate in this House is that it reflects the sense in which all of us are prisoners of the big lie; nobody really expects anybody to tell the truth any more. From the time we turn on our television sets or radios in the morning until we turn them off after the news at night, we expect to be bombarded with all kinds of falsehoods and half-truths, and we carry that attitude toward communication into this House. 1 wish to use this opportunity to call, in so far as it is possible to call for something like this, for the restoration of the integrity of communication so that we can have some kind of real debate here. This will have to happen on a much wider scale than just this Parliament, but we can begin by restoring some integrity to debate here and not sliding down the slippery slope toward a lack of genuine communication. We do not want the kind of politics that relies on advertising, on slogans, on the indifference and apathy of the Canadian people. We must get out there and let them know what is really going on. We are all guilty, in this respect, of cheapening the worth of political debate.
The government's move to close off debate is part of that syndrome; it is a sort of "Catch 22" situation. 1 am sure that one of the reasons closure does not seem to be such a tragedy to some members is that the debate is so worthless in the first place. And it is worthless because the government and others have had the attitude that it is simply something we must get through. It is a vicious circle. I ask the government to break out of the role it has been playing. It has more power than the opposition, obviously. I ask the government, in its leadership role, not just in its technical role, to give more power to the opposition and to committees. In turn, this would bring more power to debate. Perhaps we could actually turn this House into the institution I thought it was, perhaps naively, when I decided to run for office. If that were so, we could have some genuine debate about the future of the country and many of the matters which are troubling us at this time.
This move on the part of the government to close off debate is the kind of cynical manoeuvre which destroys rather than promotes the possibility of what I am talking about.
John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the remarks made by my friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie). The hon. member has touched one of the very real problems we face in this House, the fact that business has to be done, debate has to be held and such debate must be relevant. That is one of the problems to which my hon. friend referred and of which I am aware from listening to debates on a number of issues.
My friends on both sides of the House will agree that debate has strayed far from the topic which was under discussion in
February 12, 1981

the House. One of my hon. friend's points with which 1 disagree is the fact that-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Thank God.


John Leslie Evans: He says, thank God. I am glad we would both thank the same person.
After six days-and that is how much time will have been spent on the debate on the borrowing authority-one would expect we would have heard the major arguments pro and con the borrowing authority, and that the bill could then go to committee where one or both ministers would appear and important aspects could be studied in depth.
After listening to the majority of the speeches and having read the rest, 1 am sorry to say that I think the direction given to the government by the members of the opposition has been marginal at best. 1 think any objective observer would have to say that. As parliamentary secretary I organized this debate on behalf of the minister. 1 had to ensure that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) could agree that the opposition had the maximum amount of time to present their views with regard to this particular bill on borrowing authority.
Until today, we had placed two speakers before the House on this debate, the Progressive Conservative Party 18 and the New Democratic Party five. By the time the debate terminates on Monday, as called for in the motion under Standing Order 75c imposed today, it will have lasted six days and then, as 1 said, the bill will be transmitted to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. When it returns to the House for third reading there will be additional debate. In my opinion, given that kind of flexibility and latitude, and the ability of members of the opposition to make their views known in speeches of some duration, there has been no throttling of debate.
We have listened to the speeches of hon. members opposite, we have monitored the debate closely, we have listened to the objections raised by hon. members, and we have tried to get the sense, in certain cases, of how their remarks were relevant to the question before the House.
We should get something else on the record as well. My hon. friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill, put his finger on another issue; that is, that the tactic of delay is used, and used effectively, by the opposition. When faced with that kind of tactic, and when certain hon. members opposite say with a smiling face, "We are going to delay until you are forced to use 75c", then I think the kind of rhetoric we have heard today about debate being throttled, and the abuse of Parliament is just that-pure rhetoric.


An hon. Member:: Who said it?


John Leslie Evans: It is pure rhetoric and I think we all admit it.


An hon. Member:: Name the hon. member. No guts.



John Leslie Evans: Today the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) indicated dismay that to her mind the government was asking for $14 billion worth of borrowing authority without a plan. All I have to say to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is that if she were to read the budget she would find that it includes the most comprehensive fiscal structure ever presented to Parliament.
In that fiscal plan are the envelopes which indicate to all hon. members the areas in which government expenditures will take place. In addition to that, the hon. member knows very well that it is from the fiscal plan set out in the budget that the estimates of each department are derived. These give a much more detailed explanation of expenditure plans for the departments. The revenue-raising side of the budget is in the form of the borrowing authority. The size of borrowing authority is clearly indicated in the budget. The fiscal plan is there, and the estimates are there. When the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands says there is no plan, I am sure it is simply because she does not understand the fiscal arrangements of government.
Borrowing authority has traditionally been used as a vehicle for the discussion of a wide range of matters because anything which involves taxation or expenditure can, presumably, be discussed under the heading of borrowing authority. But it seems to me that in future all hon. members should sit down together and ask, in all honesty, if we can focus debate on borrowing authority bills any more tightly than we have with regard to this legislation, previous legislation from this government and, indeed, legislation from the government of hon. gentlemen opposite. The public must be totally confused when it watches television and sees what is going on. It must wonder what in the world this debate is all about. Is it about borrowing authority but we are talking about everything under the sun except the subject of borrowing authority?
Hon. members opposite say we have throttled debate on economic issues. Not only have we not throttled debate on economic issues-in particular, debate on borrowing authority-but we probably have had more debate on economic issues in the last three to four months than in any other Parliament in the history of this country. The budget was brought down in October, and a debate followed that. There were energy bills, and the debate followed them. There was an emergency debate before Christmas which set a record for length of continuous debate. All these were on economic issues. We have just passed an income tax bill. Again there was an economic debate of some length. Finally, we have before us a borrowing authority bill.
I think we have to be realistic. We know for sure that the opposition can and has used the rules to stall and delay. The hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill admitted that tonight by saying that this is a valuable tool of the opposition. When the government faces that kind of situation, when we face a series of legislative initiatives which should be brought forward and when hon. members opposite want very badly to get into

February 12, 1981


S.O. 75c
[Stage Direction]
debate on the Constitution, then the government has to take some initiative.
It has to show some leadership. That has required the imposition of Standing Order 75c in this case, and I certainly do not apologize for that.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Leslie Evans: With regard to the principle behind the use of Standing Order 75c, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) waxed long and, he believed, eloquent earlier this evening about when Standing Order 75c should and should not be used. To his mind it is all right to use Standing Order 75c, limitation of time for debate, as long as the bill under consideration confers benefits on someone, but if it does not confer benefits, then it is not appropriate to use Standing Order 75c. That flies right in the face of what my friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), said with respect to the principle of debate-irrespective of the bill under consideration, it is the principle of debate-and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would stand on that principle. He spoke earlier about it. In fact, he spoke just before the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton and laid out quite clearly what the principle behind the use of Standing Order 75c is, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the content of the bill under discussion.
I would like to quote some of the words of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton when he spoke with respect to Bill C-20 in the Thirty-first Parliament. At that time the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton indicated that he was a patient man. He went on:
I do not want the Liberal Party to try such a feeble argument that they can appear to be co-operative on the one hand and obstructive on the other. I want them to be known for what they are-obstructors. They have proven this today.
The hon. member was talking about our objections at that time to the use of Standing Order 75c by the Conservative government with regard to Bill C-20, which was with respect to mortgage interest and property tax credits.
Finally, I would like to read one more quotation from the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton as follows:
I think the opposition will strain the credulity of the public in other ways. They will be claiming that they have been cut off at the knees; that their pearls of wisdom on this bill have not been given sufficient time to be heard; that the Canadian government is so Draconian that it is cutting short the debate on Bill C-20. I think this government has been extremely generous with the opposition.
That was said after five days of debate, and we are imposing Standing Order 75c after six days of debate. I appeal to the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton to read his own words and then withdraw some of the remarks he made during his speech today.


Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to oppose this motion, which has nothing to do with borrowing. This motion deals with closure.
1 want to say at the outset that I do not agree with the previous speaker in any way, shape or form. I am becoming
increasingly alarmed about the routine application of the device of closure under the fancy name of Standing Order 79c.


John Leslie Evans: Seventy-five.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: The point is that it throttles free speech. The legality of Standing Order 75c, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) mentioned this afternoon, is not the issue. I wonder if members of the government, which so readily applies closure in this House, really believe in the charter of rights for Canadians that they are espousing.
Closure was a seldom-used parliamentary strategy until this present administration assumed office. Now, three times in five months it has been invoked. When the constitutional committee reports, I think on Tuesday, what will happen then? Will it go as the old song goes, "Mr. Five by Five"? Will there be five closures in five months? The hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) said there should be relevancy. I think five out of five is very relevant, and I do not think it is rhetoric. If it is rhetoric, then I am all for it. I was denied the right to speak on behalf of my constituents during the budget debate. Why? Because of closure. I was denied the right to express my views and the views of my electors during the Constitution resolution debate. Why? Again, because of closure.
This afternoon the House leader said it was not members of the government side who did gymnastics in front of the Speaker's chair when closure was invoked in the debate on the Constitution. He missed the whole point of that occasion. Why were there gymnastics? There were gymnastics because those who participated in them were denied their rights, as members of this House, to speak on what is probably the most important issue for Canadians since confederation.
Now, again, I am being limited. I have many things to say. Instead of the customary 40 minutes, I have 10. I wonder- and I ask hon. members opposite to wonder-whether we are about to see the day when free speech is eliminated entirely from this House. Will we see the day when members just mail in their speeches or deliver them to the Hansard office to have them printed? It is a sad reflection on parliamentary democracy when a government hides-and I say "hides"-behind closure to avoid the spotlight of opposition examination and criticism. And this government has a majority.
I came to Ottawa to act as an extension of my constituents, which I believe is the democratic way. I did not come here to be a trained seal, as mentioned by the author of the book, "The Backbencher". I did not come to sit idly by and watch an autocratic leader of the Grit party turn this nation into a presidential-type republic because of an idea of a constitution made in his name. The seat I occupy is the most prized possession I could ever have. I sit in what I believe to be the highest court of this land, and unless that is changed by what I call the three Ts, that is the way it should remain. Those three Ts are the "trauma of the Trudeau treatise", or more specifically, the changing of our Constitution.
This chamber should be the embodiment of free speech. It should be the epitome of all those basic rights we have come to hold so sacred in this great country of ours. I personally will
February 12, 1981

not stand idly by and be gagged by a Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who has nothing but contempt for Parliament and who has said so. He calls parliamentarians "nobodies" and sees Parliament as a necessary evil while going on his merry way. He treats Parliament as a puppetmaster treats marionettes, and he has his own Pinocchio.
There are no marionettes on this side of the House. Where are the voices of protest in the government ranks? There has to be one person who will speak the truth. Have government backbenchers become the trained seals about which I spoke? Are they so browbeaten that they are afraid to speak out in defence of the freedom of this House?
If we lose freedom of speech, as we have started to lose freedom in our economy and as did Petrofina, we will lose individual freedom, because that is what happens when economic freedom in lost. If we lose freedom of speech by closure, the right to oppose, the right to criticize, the right to scrutinize public business and public accounts, what reason is there to sit in this House of Commons? What would Caesar have us become, eunuchs in his court? What would the emperor have us be? Spear carriers I suppose, strewing olive branches at his feet as he enters this chamber. Is the emperor afraid to be told he has no clothes? Is he afraid to meet Parliament face to face? Is he afraid to look us in the eye? Is he afraid to involve us in the process of developing progressive legislation which will advance the ideals and goals of this nation? Is the government reverting to the arrogance which dates back to the jackboot days of C. D. Howe and his "who's to stop us" statement?
1 tell you Mr. Speaker, we cannot be stopped with closure. That statement was made when closure was invoked during the infamous pipeline debate. But today hon. members opposite are sitting with a comfortable majority. I for one refuse to stand silent and see the rights of Parliament abused, frustrated and strangled. I believe in open covenants, and I believe they should be arrived at openly. We, as elected Members of Parliament, hold a public trust. That trust is being abused when a parliamentary majority seeks to withhold the rights of the opposition minority. I refuse to worship at the throne of the emperor from Mount Royal who, in turn, worships at the throne of Castro, Galbraith, Mao and Lasky. Let me say this, Mr. Speaker, we are all commoners in this chamber, and let the right hon. member opposite not forget that.
I intended to rise in the debate and speak with pride on Bill C-59; not pride for that abominable piece of legislation but pride at being a member of the only truly national party of Canada, the only party which wants to preserve our federal Commonwealth status. In that bill, the government wants to borrow $14 billion. Not only does the Grit government want to borrow that amount, but it wants to put an extra $3 billion in the deficit kitty, which would not be repayable until March,
1982.	The bill does not state what the interest rate will be, it does not state what the vehicle of borrowing will be, and it does not state from what country the government wishes to


S O. 75c
[Stage Direction]
borrow. Why is that? Because it is ashamed; that is why it had to invoke closure.
Is the reasoning behind closure that we have an 83-cent dollar and our dollar being the measure of the trust and confidence which the world places in us, it would not be flattering to the government to admit that if the United States is the source of those funds, it would cost us 17 per cent more?
The harsh reality, the grim prospect, the very thought of borrowing $14 billion is frightening. The figure of $14 billion boggles the mind of most people, but not that of the fellows opposite. It should bring fear into the souls of the backbenchers opposite. It is a legacy of debt. I have a ten-year-old son, as do other hon. members here and as do other Canadians, and that is what we will leave them. What is the government's answer to that? Its answer is, "Don't talk about it, sweep it under the rug, hide it with closure".
An hon. Member:: Why don't you listen over there?


Ronald Alexander Stewart: The government treats this bill as if it were a routine piece of legislation. Unrepentent, the government brings the bill forward unrevised, and it does so with closure; in other words, with fear, with trepidation. I just wonder how much people can take, especially hon. members on this side of the House who are barred from their democratic right to speak on this bill. Surely hon. members opposite feel some shame. The government is displaying colossal gall and unmitigated effrontery in asking Parliament to condone its profligate and reckless spending. I have to ask the government if it has lost touch with reality. The answer is yes. Does the government fully comprehend the magnitude of what it is asking Parliament to do? Yes it does, because it invoked closure. It understands what it is doing full well.
Has the government become so isolated and insular that it does not understand the ramifications of its massive borrowing? The United States understands it, and is starting to do something drastic about it. The deficit spending mentality is so ingrained in this government and has impressed itself so much on it that it no longer possesses the will or the desire to put the nation's finances in order and to forget about a constitution which has served us well for 130 years. That is why it rules by closure.
I shudder when I see a government rule by fiat and spend by fiat. All that fiscal and monetary policies mean to this government is another shift at the printing plant to roll off more dollars to cover deficit stacked upon deficit and bill upon bill. The term "balanced budget" is not in the government's glossary. The government would not know a balanced budget if it tripped over one and broke Pinocchio's nose.
A few years ago the Auditor General warned Parliament that financial controls did not exist and that the government was in trouble. I was not in Parliament when that happened, but I can conjure up the phantasm of the right hon. gentleman sitting opposite and shrugging, although he probably did not even read the Auditor General's report. He cannot shrug away the fact that he is bankrupting this nation, and people are starting to discover it quickly, as demonstrated by the 64 per

February 12, 1981



[Stage Direction]
cent response to the poll on the Constitution. Our $100 billion-plus budgetary deficit is an anchor against progress. You have to sell and you have to spend, but you have to take in more than you spend, and that is axiomatic. We need a chance to discuss this matter fully and openly, as we should discuss the Constitution. All 1 can say to the government is: show intestinal fortitude over there and vote against it.
[ Translation]
Mr. Henri Tousignant (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, for quite a while now, five days to be exact, we have been discussing Bill C-59 to provide authority for the government to borrow the required sums of money for its most basic operations. I fully realize that this exercise is necessary and in accordance with the spirit and the realities of our parliamentary system, and that in effect it guarantees the protection of our democratic rights and thus the proper management of the affairs of the state.
That being said and agreed upon, Members of Parliament and the public in general will no doubt recognize that although this is a necessary and useful exercise, members opposite have abused the time made available to them by introducing arguments of doubtful relevancy into the discussion which only serve to foster all kinds of statements which do not promote in any way the advancement of political science, Mr. Speaker, nor for that matter the consideration of Bill C-59.


An hon. Member:: They do not realize it!


Henri Tousignant: I am absolutely astonished that members opposite should act so innocently when the government proposes to limit debate with the agreement of all parties. I almost fell off my seat when 1 heard the comments of the former government House leader under the Conservative government of 1979; I was flabbergasted, because that is certainly not what he said at that time. Here, for instance, are some of the things the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) said when he was government House leader, and I quote from Hansard of December 7, 1979:
Also we are hearing from the other side of the House great appeals to parliamentary democracy and that we are destroying it, I should like to indicate to the hon. member that I know it is the kind of thing I used to say when I sat on the other side of the House of Commons.
What a hypocritical statement!
Having watched a former government claiming abuse of the rules, let me say that if I ever had any doubts about the importance of Standing Order 75c, those doubts were blasted away by the actions of that party . . . We do not intend to allow the opposition to put the government into that position, or to so ruin the proceedings of the House of Commons that the people of Canada cannot get the piece of legislation which the government promised during the last election.
1 would like to read what the House leader of the former government, in 1979, had to say.


An hon. Member:: Who was that?


Henri Tousignant: The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). This is what he had to say:
As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) said, I am a patient man. I do not want the Liberal party to try such a feeble argument that they can appear to be co-operative on the one hand and obstructive on the other. I want them to be known for what they are-obstructors. They have proven this today.


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


Henri Tousignant: Mr. Speaker, what more can we say? Where is the sincerity of those so-called defenders of our parliamentary traditions? Of course it helps a bit to understand their generalized frustrations. Remember all the time they waited to form the government. All of a sudden, through sheer accident, they are swept into office but they cannot hang on and power slips through their fingers. Canadians did not waste any time to decide that important issues could not be left in the hands of children. As we have all seen in the past, the people, of course, cancelled their right to govern. We have all seen dogs running after cars and we are tempted to ask ourselves what they would do if they caught up with them. When we look at the people across the floor that is the impression we get. Frustrations, Mr. Speaker. We have to sympathize with them. They were given the chance to form the government but were so careless that their fellow countrymen had to tell them to their face, no we cannot let you go any further, you no longer have our confidence. And so today they want to appease this passion brought on by their defeat. The official opposition simply and deliberately goes out of its way to criticize every move made by this government.
You have to see how far they are prepared to go to throw the country into confusion and chaos. For instance, how did they attack our energy policy? Can you imagine, they accused us of being socialists. Mr. Speaker, 72 per cent of the capital of oil companies operating in Canada is foreign capital, and it leaves the country with 22 per cent of net profits. So we in the government-


Marc Lalonde: You mean 82 per cent.


Henri Tousignant: The hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) says 82 per cent. That is correct.
This government assumes its responsibilities, knowing as it does that those resources belong to all Canadians, yet hon. members opposite rake us over the coals throughout the country. It is the same thing with the Constitution, Mr. Speaker. If they wanted to be just a wee bit sincere-they know that very well-and tell the truth, Canadians from one end of the country
February 12, 1981

to the other would be grateful for what we are doing for them now. Mr. Speaker, 1 realize that time flies by but, in my opinion, if those people across the floor were to stop shedding crocodile tears and support us we could get down to the job of governing the country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. It being 8.45 o'clock the two hours provided for the consideration of the motion now before the House under the provisions of Standing Order 75c have expired. Accordingly, under the terms of the standing order it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put every question necessary to dispose of the motion.
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.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, February 11, 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.
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, this gives me the opportunity to participate in this debate, curtailed and shortened as it was by the Draconian imposition of closure on the part of the government. I am very pleased to see that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is staying to hear my speech because 1 have many remarks to direct to him personally as leader of this government.
It is very interesting to note that since the Prime Minister has occupied that position he has never participated in any debate aside from the required and mandatory Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. The Prime Minister

February 12, 1981
Borrowing Authority
regards the House of Commons as a nuisance and a bother. He never, never participates in the debates about our country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: He thinks so little of the House of Commons that he is well known for this reference to members of Parliament as being nobodies. Now, at his direction, the House leader has imposed-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I have to make a reference to a member in the House across the way, because the only time he speaks is when he is seated. He never speaks when he is standing up. I am, of course, referring to the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau).
If the Prime Minister participated in these debates and if he understood that the people of Canada are concerned in the context of today's conditions, he would know that the people want to have a debate on the economic circumstances of Canada. This is a very important and worth-while debate in terms of what is happening in our country.
Many constituents speak to me and ask why we have not addressed ourselves to some of the serious problems in our country at the present time. They ask why we have a preoccupation about matters such as the constitution. They ask why we do not get on to the realities of the economic circumstances in Canada today. I can only reply that this debate offers members of the House of Commons the opportunity to make suggestions to the government and to discuss the economic circumstances of our country.


An hon. Member:: You are driving him out of the House.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Prime Minister has moved to a place where he should be in this House, and that is to the backbenches.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The people of Canada do want to hear about the economic circumstances of our country. They want to hear why it is that our government is coming to Parliament to ask for authority to borrow $14 billion. After 12 years, the legacy of this Prime Minister is that the government goes to the foreign markets and to the banks in this country-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He is reading the newspaper.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I do not mind the Prime Minister not speaking in this House but this is the first time he has ever sat in the House during the course of a debate.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: At least I am listening, but your hon. members are not.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: My hon. members are listening with rapt attention.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: 1 speak not only to the Prime Minister but to the people of Canada. I can tell them that this is an important bill. Many people do not understand the enormity of this particular legislation.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I don't have to. Look at Crosbie.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Prime Minister says, "lend me $14 billion".


An hon. Member:: Why?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He is reading the funny papers.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: People do not understand what a billion is.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Try $140 a second.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Do people really understand? One billion seconds ago the first atomic bomb had not yet been exploded. One billion hours ago Christ was still on this earth.


An hon. Member:: Where did you get that from?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: One billion years ago man was still living in caves. One billion dollars ago, in terms of federal government spending, was yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is the reality of our circumstances in Canada today.
I would ask members on the other side to restrain themselves, Mr. Speaker. I know they will want to listen with enthusiasm to what 1 have to say.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Today we have been faced with closure once again as part of the arsenal of tactics of this government. Because of its majority, closure has been imposed on a most important bill which we must consider in this Parliament. The argument has been made that this bill has received some 12 hours of attention and therefore we must move it from the House of Commons and into committee where it will not embarrass the government. The government's main preoccupation is to move the bill off the floor of the House of Commons into the obscurity of a committee where it will not have the full attention of the public and the mismanagement which has taken place under this government, will pass unmarked.
February 12, 1981

I suggest that second reading of this bill gives members of the House of Commons an opportunity, as parliamentarians, to discuss in principle the questions related to the borrowing of this money. These are related to the larger question of why we are in these circumstances today. We can make constructive suggestions to the government. It can take advantage of the advice it receives from members representing constituencies across this country.
Canadians are anxious that Members of Parliament discuss the economic circumstances of this country. The role of parliamentarians is to represent their constituents, to discuss the issues that are relevant and important and to have some control over the executive which would otherwise go unfettered. The imposition of closure should be of serious concern not only to members of the opposition, but to the government, the backbenchers in particular. This is one opportunity for them to bring to the attention of the executive, the cabinet, their concerns, apprehensions and hopes for the country. Any move on the part of this government to impose closure is a retrograde step that we and the people of Canada do not deserve.
1 want to deal with the question of why this borrowing bill is so important. A number of myths have developed and have been, if I may use the term, perpetrated by this government. There are suggestions that somehow this borrowing is not all that bad, that we in Canada should not be too concerned about the government borrowing such an enormous amount of money.
One of my colleagues pointed out that this borrowing bill is like giving the government a carte blanche to spend, because it does not have the ability to control spending. Certain myths have been perpetrated by supporters of the government. I am not sure if the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) supports this proposition, but one myth is that deficit spending is good for Canada's economic health. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The myth has been spread across the country that somehow deficit spending is in fact helpful in terms of the government's activities and responsibilities. Deficits do not necessarily occur as a consequence of measures designed to promote economic growth. A considerable portion of the existing deFicit is purely and simply the result of the failure to achieve economic growth.
If a deficit has been incurred as a consequence of measures taken to promote economic growth, there may be some economic benefit from it. As the same time, however, regardless of how the deficit occurred, there are serious economic consequences. There are really only two ways to finance a deficit. The first is by the printing of money. This leads to an expansion of the money supply and increased inflation. The second is the method used under the provisions of this bill, namely, borrowing money.
Borrowing Authority
Borrowing money, as contemplated by this bill, has a number of consequences. It crowds out private sector borrowing and increases interest rates. At a time when we are faced with unprecedented interest rates in this country, it should not be lost on the supporters of this government that one of the consequences of this bill will be that the borrowing of this money will have a very deleterious effect on interest rates and very serious consequences on the average consumer.
In recent years, net new federal borrowings accounted for more than one-third of non-consumer borrowing. I ask hon. members to consider the consequences of what I am saying. This is a frightening prospect in terms of the direction in which we see this government moving in these economic programs, or lack of programs and planning.
When a government borrows money, its total interest costs go up and, as a result, the deficit goes up. In the normal course of events, more money must be borrowed to pay the interest on past debts.
Another myth perpetrated by this government is that somehow this deficit that they have incurred is increasing year by year, as certain as the sun comes up in the east and sets in the west, because it is taking positive initiatives which are somehow directed toward assisting Canadians. It is fair to point out at this time, with respect to this bill, that a number of factors are responsible for Canada's recent deficit. One of the most important is the fact that we have economic mismanagement and we have had this mismanagement from successive Liberal finance ministers. Poor economic performance results in slow revenue growth and increased expenditures in social programs such as welfare and unemployment insurance.
In addition, the inflation generated by the Liberals in the seventies has driven government spending up at a faster rate than revenues. Unnecessary spending by this and preceding Liberal governments has caused a drain on the treasury. I will not waste the time of the House listing examples of unnecessary spending, but there is one of recent interest that comes to mind.


An hon. Member:: List them.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: There is an awful urge to list them, but 1 only have 40 minutes and it would take far more time than that to list the unnecessary expenditures of this government.
There is one example that the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), having served as minister of transport, will remember well. I refer to Mirabel airport, a $500 million white elephant. The Liberals have consistently failed to exercise adequate cost control over projects and programs. In October, 1979, for example, it was discovered that cost overruns on ongoing projects initiated by Liberal governments totalled $1.1 billion. In 1978, the Unemployment Insurance Commission paid $290 million to persons not legally entitled to receive benefits.

February 12, 1981
Borrowing Authority
These are the kinds of expenditures that come from mismanagement and a lack of control. These amounts could have been saved for the Canadian public if the government had any interest, desire or motivation with respect to looking after and properly managing the taxpayers' money in this country.
In some cases the Liberals have driven up the cost of government by rewarding their friends and attempting to buy votes in order to remain popular. That is the tradition of the Liberal party. Their political strategy has been spend, spend, spend, particularly at election time. At that time nothing is sacred. They spend money to buy their way back into power. Unfortunately, they are using the taxpayers' money, increasing the deficit and causing serious problems not only for us, but for our children and children's children.
1 want to remind hon. members of a period of time which was particularly devastating to the Canadian economy. It was during the minority government of 1972-74. At that time, in order to sustain power and deal with their bedmates and friends in the Democratic Party-


An hon. Member:: They paid for it.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Canadian people are still paying for it. Spending rose during that period of time at a rate of 20 per cent per year. This is the price Canadians paid and will continue to pay because of the federal Liberal Party's desire to keep the New Democratic Party onside, to keep them in a coalition. The two of them have cost our country dearly both in terms of spending practices and the deficit we now face.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: There is another myth put forward by the government; that there is nothing wrong with having a large national debt. We hear that from government spokesmen from time to time. The government says we owe the money only to ourselves and that there are assets to offset the debt. The major problem with that particular argument is that the debt must be serviced in the current fiscal year, and the cost of servicing it will exceed $11 billion. That is just under one tax dollar in every four.
Let us consider the consequences of one dollar of every four collected from the taxpayers of our country, going purely and simply to service the deficit and the debt incurred by this government, and preceding Liberal governments over the years. Of course, the Liberal Party thinks that is funny. It thinks that somehow attaining power, spending taxpayers' money and retaining power is all that counts in political life; that honesty plays no part in politics. One dollar out of every four dollars collected by taxpayers is used to service the debt! If you convert that to the liability of each taxpayer in Canada,
it comes to $1,200 each every taxpayer in Canada. The gross debt is three times larger than the estimated value of the government's assets. So much for the argument of the government that somehow we have assets to counteract the deficit and the debt we have incurred.
Another argument or myth put forward by the government is that there is nothing wrong with short-term deficits. The federal government has not balanced its books since 1970 and is unlikely to do so over the course of the next five years. The Liberals maintain that since 1970 the deficit has been a short-term problem. There is nothing short-term about 15 years of deficit financing in this country.
Another argument that the Prime Minister in particular likes to put forward whenever there is a question about the deficit in our country and the spending activities of the government, is that compared to other nations, our deficits are not all that bad. I think statistics will prove that out of 17 OECD countries for which 1979 data is available, only five nations had a deficit which was proportionately larger than Canada's and 11 had a deficit which was proportionately less.
Since 1979 our fiscal situation has deteriorated. The United States, our largest trading partner, is expected to balance its books in the next year under its new administration. Considering the potential this country has, the ability of our citizens and our productivity, why are we in a declining deficit position?
I also want to deal with the argument put forth by this government that this deficit is not too bad in relative terms. I have heard the argument that relative to our GNP, our debt is smaller than it was at the time of the Diefenbaker government. During the Diefenbaker years, the government had a relatively large debt, due to the obligations created during the Second World War.
In 1960 the net debt was equal to 33 per cent of GNP; it declined to 13.1 per cent of GNP in 1975. However, since 1975 the net debt relative to our GNP has more than doubled, to a projected 28 per cent in the current fiscal year. If current trends continue, this government will be unable to use that particular comparison much longer. It does not have the consequences of the Second World War to rely upon. This situation has come about because of its own spending habits, its mismanagement and its inability to deal seriously with the fundamental economic problems of our country.
I want to deal briefly with the fact that during the time this party was in power, it took steps to control spending. In the time that my colleague for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) was minister of finance, a real attempt was made to control spending and reduce the deficit. It took a lot of courageous action on the part of all ministers and members of this party to bring things under control and reverse the tendency to increase the deficit.
February 12, 1981

When we took office, internal projections showed that the deficit would rise to $18 billion by 1984-85. Action was taken to reduce the figure to $9 billion by 1983-84, one-half of the deficit position in the previous government's estimates. Our budget projected that cash requirements be cut in half, from $9.9 billion in 1979-80 to $4.8 billion in 1983-84, and that spending increases be held to the rate of inflation in the country.
We took measures to improve expenditure controls and accountability, such as the envelope system. We took steps to reduce overclassification problems in the civil service and to impose tough financial penalties for government departments which incurred cost overruns on capital projects. We arranged to implement several of the recommendations of the Lambert commission. There were real cuts in spending. The government of which I was privileged to be a member was very serious about its responsibility to manage the taxpayers' money and to look after the affairs of this country in a responsible manner. As a result of the return of this government, we are back on the old trail. With single-minded determination it seems to be determined to take us down the road of increased deficits, increased spending and it seems to have no concern at all about efficiency of operation and efficiency of management.
1 know this causes some anguish and grief to the member for Ottawa Centre and he is right to be concerned. 1 am sure that in his heart of hearts he understands the difficulties this government is creating. Representing as he does a constituency in the capital city, he fully understands. Having had the opportunity to serve in the public service, he will fully understand the implication of this policy and where it is taking us in terms of the future of our country.
What we are dealing with in this bill is the request for authority to borrow $14 billion. Included, is a $3 billion contingency fund, a sort of a slush fund if you will, in case the government finds that some of its actions are off target. I suggest that this is one of the fundamental problems with this particular bill. On the basis of its record we know that building in a $3 billion slush fund will do nothing to make this government concerned about the efficiency of its operation or the consequences of its spending programs. This record causes great concern to anyone who takes responsible government in this country seriously. We are facing a situation where the taxpayer pays, and pays and continues to pay. The obligations imposed upon the taxpayer of this country are becoming enormous.
All members of Parliament receive letters from constituents with respect to the increased burden of taxation now imposed on private citizens, wage earners and middle and low-income Canadians who try to work, try to participate and try to involve themselves in the productivity of our nation. They find that the taxation imposed by the federal government is oppres-
Borrowing Authority
sive. They see no relief, and this naturally leads to a sense of despondency and real concern about where our country is going. They wonder about the advantages of being involved in any occupation, employment or small business. They wonder why they should be working. With the present rate of taxation they sometimes feel they would be better off on unemployment insurance. We all hear that from our constituencies. Hon. members opposite know that is the kind of correspondence they get; it is the kind of correspondence I get. I receive correspondence expressing concern about the weight of taxation.
The budget brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) projects spending of $66.6 billion next year. A deficit of $13.7 billion was projected. The gross national debt last year was $107 billion, and I suspect it will exceed $120 billion by April of this year.
As 1 have mentioned, interest is a very, very serious drain on our economy, and it will cost the Canadian taxpayer $12.3 billion next year.
I am sure people who are watching this debate are just befuddled by these huge and enormous figures. It must be very difficult for the avearage citizen to comprehend them. My colleague, the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands (Miss MacDonald), in an excellent involvement with respect to the closure motion, brought to our attention the fact that it is hard for the average person to relate to the amounts of money we are talking about. 1 would like to deal just for a moment with some examples of what is involved in terms of the government's spending programs and in terms of cost to the taxpayer. 1 think when these figures are presented in very simple terms, they become meaningful, and people can understand what the government is about. This matter is almost akin to "How many ways do I love you" but this time it is, "How many ways am 1 fixing you" on the part of the federal government. I want simply to put the matter in that context because I have some examples which might be of interest to members of the government who are sitting across the way.
Government spending will be equal to $7,600 per taxpayer in the coming fiscal year. The Prime Minister sat, smiling and smirking during this debate. That $7,600 compares to government spending of $1,692 per taxpayer when he assumed office. That is the kind of increase per taxpayer we are facing on the basis of the government's spending program.
On a per capita basis, government spending next year will amount to $2,730 per man, woman and child in Canada. That compares to $549 per capita when the Prime Minister assumed office.
Government spending is now more than five times greater than it was when the Prime Minister first took office and ten times greater than it was during the Second World War.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) made some references to buying cars in relation to

February 12, 1981
Borrowing Authority
total government spending. I want to relate it to the buying of houses. Total government spending is enough to buy a new $75,000 home for every householder in British Columbia.


Steve Eugene Paproski: If they could find one.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: My colleagues will be interested in knowing that interest on the public debt is enough to buy a new $75,000 home for every householder in the city of Calgary. I think I will move to Calgary. That is a place where a house costs much more than $75,000, but at least it would be a down payment.
The annual cost of interest on the public debt next year will equal $500 per capita and $1,390 per taxpayer. These are facts with respect to the spending habits of this government as they relate to the individual citizen. It is impossible to talk in terms of billions of dollars because, as I pointed out, it is impossible to comprehend. The fact that a billion seconds ago the first atomic bomb had not yet been exploded, shows how enormous a billion is. We are talking now about 14 times that.
As I mentioned before, one in four tax dollars is used to service the debt. Seven years ago, the burden of paying that interest rate was only one dollar in nine. That is now reduced to one dollar in four. With that progression we will be faced with a very serious proposition two or three years down the road.
I want to give some other examples because I have many of them, and I want hon. members opposite to listen very carefully to these statistics. The government's total debt is the equivalent of $5,000 per capita and $13,700 per taxpayer. That is the total debt obligation on every citizen of this country. The cost of interest on the debt exceeds the value of federal income taxes collected from persons earning less than $30,000 a year.
1 have a number of other examples which relate to the average citizen of this country. These relate to the enormity of the spending programs and the deficit which has been occasioned by this government. I would be only too happy to table this information for the benefit of hon. members.
If any member is interested in exactly what the consequences are and wants more examples of what this means to every taxpayer, I would be glad to give this information or to speak to any member personally.
I have just a couple more minutes, and I want to finish by calling attention to what I thought was an excellent address referred to in a recent article by Ronald Anderson of The Globe and Mail. The address was given by Professor J. C. Gilson of the department of agricultural economics of the University of Manitoba. Professor Gilson pointed out that we in Canada are headed on a very serious course for the future of our country. In his remarks he demonstrated a serious concern for the future of our country. He pointed out that, unfortunately, under this government we now have a country which is
torn by dissension and is apparently unable to deal intelligently with economic problems, while other less well-endowed nations seem capable of doing so. He said that an important part of the problem is that in Canada the revolution of rising expectations has turned into a revolution of rising entitlements.
People in Canada, according to Professor Gilson, have somehow come to expect, as a result of this government's spending habits, more and more government spending and more and more government intervention in terms of the day to day activities of life and business. But, Professor Gilson points out, we are now facing leaner times and leaner circumstances and must come to grips with the very serious problem.
Professor Gilson said the following:
Seldom in the history of our nation have Canadians faced as much contention, conflict and confrontation, with so little resolution of their basic economic problems, as they did during 1980.
He said:
The urgent economic issues which . .. are developing into a national crisis, are inflation, the large and increasing federal budgetary deficit, the chronic deficit in the current account balance of payments, and the weak performance in productivity improvement.
I think Professor Gilson really puts his finger on the problem in our country when he points out, and I quote:
It is clear that our society needs to take stock of itself; to make an honest assessment of its goals, values and institutions, and to decide how it is to be reshaped and matched with current realities.
Unless and until the federal government gets its revenue and expenditure policies under control, to the point where effective fiscal policy can be used along with monetary policy to combat inflation our nation will continue to alternate between periods of monetary squeeze and excessively high interest rates, and serious upsurges in the rate of inflation.
Put into very simple terms, the proposition is that with the deficit position this government has inflicted on the people of Canada, there is absolutely no room for flexibility in dealing with the serious problems of the average citizen. Where is the resilience and the strength in our economy that would enable us to deal with oppressive interest rates? Where is the ability to help, as we attempted in our budget to help, the low and middle-income earner? Facing that kind of drain on the economy, what can be done to deal with interest rates? What can be done to help the small businessman or the average citizen in terms of mortgage interest rates on his home or in terms of real property taxation, which is now growing because of the requirements of the municipalities of our country? An ever-increasing cycle is developing as a result of this government's actions?
I want to give a message to the government tonight, a message which is serious and which we must all consider: unless we get together in a constructive way-and that is the basis of all my remarks on second reading of this bill, on the principle of this bill,-unless every member of the House comes forward and tries to give advice to the government and
February 12, 1981

tries to suggest a course of action for the government and does so in a co-operative way, in a non-partisan way; unless we create an economic future and plan our economy so that we can reduce the deficit, then the requirement for borrowing money, which expanded from $ 12 billion in June of last year to $14 billion six months later, will be a rollercoaster proposition which will worsen.
I plead with the government to take advantage of this opportunity when it is a majority government. There are advantages in having a majority. It gives the government the ability to take the kind of action that will give stability and flexibility to our economy. By doing so, the government will be rendering a service to the Canadian people. If it continues on the present course, we in Canada will face a poor and unfortunate future. A country such as Canada with the potential it has, deserves far better.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) for making his comments brief. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that I will not be the cause of members leaving the chamber.
For the past number of hours we have been debating the $14 billion which this government wishes to borrow to subsidize its deficit. If this government were an individual or a company, it would declare bankruptcy. The problem is that the federal government has no place where it can file bankruptcy papers. 1 am sure that if it could, it would file them. You cannot have deficits continuously, as this government does, and go on and on, unless you happen to be the government.
We understand that much of the money that is allocated by this government goes toward western development. Hon. members in the government party have often referred to the figure of $4 billion. We cannot find the $4 billion in the budget. When we take a close look at the budget, we find $2 billion to be spent over three years, but when we take another look to try to find out where this new $2 billion will be spent, we find it is to be spent on existing programs. There is nothing new, nothing to benefit or assist the people.
I see the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) shake his head, but the fact is that the $2 billion will not be spent on new programs. Let us see where this $2 billion comes from. It comes from the $37.5 billion which will be removed from the resources of western Canada in the next three years. The proposal is to return $2 billion and to take away $37.5 billion. This will not make people in any part of Canada respect a government which tries to promote such flim-flam and chicanery as taking $37.5 billion and returning only $2 billion.
I heard the hon. member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) referring earlier this evening to prices which this government is charging for gasoline. I should like to read into the record figures representing the difference between what was proposed in the PC budget of December, 1979, and what is projected in
Borrowing Authority
the present budget for the year 1983. Under the December PC budget, the average annual tax on heating oil was equivalent to 19 cents a gallon. Under the Liberal budget, by December, 1983, the average tax on heating oil will be 55 cents a gallon, and that is before the purchase of Petrofina, as my colleague, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) says. Under the PC budget, the average annual tax on gasoline was 39 cents a gallon. The average annual tax in 1983 under the Liberal government's budget will be 59 cents a gallon. In spite of this, hon. members opposite cried about the 18-cent increase we proposed! Under our budget the total tax, before the energy tax credit, for the average Canadian family would have been $483. Under this budget, the average tax will be $790. In our budget we proposed an energy tax credit because we had compassion and sympathy for middle and lower-income Canadians. It would have meant another $220. Under our tax system, the average Canadian family would pay $263, but under the system proposed by this bellicose government, they will have to pay $790, and hon. members opposite are wondering why the people of Canada are saying that their budget is not that great.
Let us see why we have a deficit of $14 billion. We have heard the reason given by members on the other side. The reason, they say, is that the government has a program and it needs $14 billion. What do they need it for? They need it for JetStar trips. I would like hon. members opposite to listen. In 1978, under the old Liberal government, 431 trips were made, for a total of $274,107,000. In 1979, under the Progressive Conservative government, 162 trips were made. Hon. members opposite are saying that is why we lost the election. They cannot really think that we lost the election because we were careful with the taxpayers' money. That cannot be the way they think of the taxpayers of Canada. I am sure that hon. members opposite have more sense than to think that our taxpayers can be purchased with their own money.
Let us look at the period of time when Otto Lang was minister of transport. I see there is a mistake in my notes here. The name of the minister is spelled "Auto", and I apologize for that because he took up more time flying. He made 30 JetStar trips in the same time period as the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) took three. Recently the JetStar has been used for 56 trips a month, or two trips every day including Saturdays and Sundays. The big user of the JetStar seems to be the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) who travels across Canada promoting himself. He is not of great assistance to my part of the province of Saskatchewan.
Mr. Speaker, I see that the clock is moving ahead, so may I call it ten o'clock?

February 12, 1981
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, since the rules changed in 1972, 1 believe it was, when this late show was first invented, this is the first time 1 have risen to take advantage of it. I do so because of a matter which is very important to Yukoners.
1 telephoned the office of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) and informed him that I would be raising this matter tonight. But I suppose he had other pressing matters to deal with and he did not consider the land question in the Yukon of sufficient importance in relation to his other responsibilities. I see the hon. member for Tim-mins-Chapleau (Mr. Chenier) in his seat, though. He is probably here tonight to read the written response to what is anticipated will be my presentation.
The constitution is of importance to Yukoners, Mr. Speaker, in terms of government reform. Fuel prices are very important in the north. High taxes and high interest rates are extremely important in that high cost area, as are high food prices. High unemployment and native land claims, too, are important. Environmental concerns and the aspect of the Alaska highway natural gas pipeline are also very high on the priority list of important items in the Yukon, as are the functions of the Northern Canada Power Commission. Transportation and mining development are also of great importance. But 1 cannot think of a more important issue in all of my years in the Yukon than the availability of land. Of the 207,036 square miles of Yukon, the territorial government has jurisdiction over some 367 of those. All of the rest are federal.
1 would like to break down this problem into two compartments. and it is important to do so. If it were not for the land freeze which the federal government imposed until the settlement of native claims in Yukon, an individual-and 1 am emphasizing that word, individual-would be entitled to apply for permission to purchase a plot of land, whether it be a small plot in the municipality or a larger plot in the countryside. That application would be initiated by the individual and dealt with by the government.
If the member for Timmins-Chapleau is to answer my question, will he at least pay attention to my submission, which he is to respond to?


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: 1 always do.


Erik Nielsen: I will compartmentalize the one problem of an individual. Again, in all of my time in Yukon, which is going
on 30 years now, I know of no instance where there has been a federal disposition of multiple lots of land which has not been-I know of no such disposition. If there had been one, I would be extremely surprised if it were not publicly advertised and all Yukoners given an opportunity to apply.
The recent case which gives rise to these questions concern six lots of federal land available in the Cowley Lake area and seven other lots along the Carcross Road which became available for disposition. That is 13 lots in all. They were snapped up by individuals who seemed to have some kind of inside information. One of those individuals was the chief administrator of lands in Yukon whose application was right there on top, among others from prominent individuals in the community. There was no public advertising and no request for public tenders.
At that stage I raised the matter in the House. Since that time there have been meetings between the territorial government officials and the federal government officials in Yukon to determine how to resolve the matter. Territorial government policy is to advertise such dispositions publicly and to give every Yukoner an equal opportunity to apply for those multiple land dispositions. The outcome of that meeting has not yet been decided but I was informed today that the federal position now is that everything is in a holding pattern and that there will be no disposition of those 13 lots. The whole matter is under review and until such time as a policy is developed, there will be no disposition. That is some progress, and with that position I agree.
There are two possible solutions to this particular problem. First, the federal government could advertise those lots as being available for sale, which would give every Yukoner an equal opportunity to apply for them. The other and more preferable solution is that the federal government could transfer those lots to the Yukon government which, in turn, would dispose of them. I know that it is the standing, invariable policy of the Yukon government to publicly advertise multiple lot dispositions for sale so that everyone is given an equal opportunity.
I suggest that in the future the disposition of federal lands of multiple disposition be publicly advertised so that every resident of the Yukon may be given an equal opportunity to acquire those lands. I make the final distinction; we are not speaking about an individual application, as difficult as that is to get through, but about several lots belonging to the federal government and put up for sale by the federal government. In such instances it is the obligation of the government to follow its own guidelines for the disposition of public lands set out by the Treasury Board and to call for public tenders, which means advertising and giving an equal opportunity to all to obtain those lands.


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: Mr. Speaker, for the past two or three years there has been controversy in the Yukon concerning the policies and operations of the Depart-
February 12, 1981

ment of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in regard to making land available to Yukon citizens for lease or for purchase. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) highlighted this controversy by alleging improprieties in the department-


Erik Nielsen: That is not true. I alleged no improprieties.


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: -in regard to some 13 rural lots south of Whitehorse. Of course, there was no such impropriety, as was recently stated publicly by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro).
There are, however, some lingering misunderstandings of the department's land disposition policies in the Yukon which I would like to dispel. For many years the department held to what can be described as a laissez-faire policy in the granting of surface interests to Yukon lands.
Individuals or firms which applied to the federal lands office rarely had their applications rejected. The primary criteria was that an applicant should receive as much land area as he needed for his purpose. There was only a cursory review and evaluation of the application, with little or no territorial government input, and the cost of land was set at the minimum allowable in the territorial lands regulations. It became obvious that uncontrolled disposition could lead to costly unplanned-for demands for public services and to environmental damage. It soon became necessary for the department to apply policies that would gain control of the situation. As an example, the department felt it necessary to apply a policy under which cottage recreational lots would be made available in future only in planned subdivisions. Some 500 lots have been prepared and released by the department since then.
However, the predominant measure taken to impose order on a situation that was getting out of hand by the mid-1970s was to enter into co-operative land-use planning projects with the Yukon government. Since 1977, both levels of government have pursued land-use planning in what is called the Whitehorse north study area, encompassing 750 square miles, and the Whitehorse south study area, encompassing some 1,400 square miles.
In effect, these projects have addressed the rural land development requirements and aspirations of 60 per cent of the Yukon's population. The projects were carried out with extensive public participation. The Yukon government and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development have approved the findings of the studies which will provide for rural residential acreage lots being made available in the near future. The government of the Yukon will announce very soon a policy for rural lot development in the Whitehorse area.
The method by which the department makes land available in a fair and equitable manner also needs to be addressed. The regional lands office employs three systems. I will not be able to explain all of them, but I should like to continue this with the hon. member when I get the chance.


Erik Nielsen: I wish you would answer the question.
Adjournment Debate


PETRO-CANADA-INQUIRY WHETHER OFFER MADE TO PURCHASE PETROFINA
Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, January 16, I put a question in the House to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). 1 asked him whether he could deny or confirm that Petro-Canada had made a purchase offer to Petrofina. He replied that he was not aware of any approach made by Petro-Canada to Petrofina in recent months.
I should explain that the background to that question was a conversation I had with the minister the previous Wednesday, in which I made known to him that there were allegations that the president of Petrofina had made known to other persons what he considered to be offers by Petro-Canada for the purchase of his company.
Two weeks later came the confirmation that our suspicions were well-founded-Petro-Canada was buying Petrofina. The acquisition by Petro-Canada of Petrofina represents a significant step in achieving the goals of the government's energy program.
From now on Petro-Canada will not be only a national company by name, but in reality, from Cape Breton to Vancouver. Petro-Canada already owns gas stations in western Canada, but not in the east. This will change with the acquisition of Petrofina's 1,086 stations across Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces.
When the federal Liberal government announced the National Energy Program on October 28, the keystone of the program was, and still is, the intention to increase Canadian participation in our domestic oil and gas industries. This acquisition is one of which all Canadians can be proud.
Easterners should be able to buy gas from their national oil company rather than from foreign-owned gas stations, as westerners have been able to do since Petro-Canada bought Pacific Petroleums in 1978.
The energy policy received an additional boost a couple of weeks ago when Dome Petroleum announced a multibillion dollar energy exploration program. The price paid for Petrofina has been estimated by various people, but I have noticed that Wood Gundy, a brokerage house, calculated Petrofina's net asset value before the federal budget as $99.31 a share and its post-budget value as $81.54. Of course the point is that as a nationally-owned company it can return to its $99.31 per share value. A premium under those circumstances of $21 a share or 21 per cent is certainly not out of line with similar purchases.
The purchase of Petrofina propels Petro-Canada into fifth place from eighth place in the oil and gas business. The other four major petroleum companies-Imperial Oil, Gulf Canada, Texaco Canada and Shell Canada-are all foreign-owned. Petrofina's oil and gas production, its tar sands interests, its Montreal refinery and its more than 1,000 gasoline outlets will now be owned by Petro-Canada.
I should like to make some reference to the four foreign-owned companies which I mentioned. For example, Imperial

February 12, 1981
Adjournment Debate
Oil has only 22 per cent Canadian ownership; Shell Canada, 26 per cent; Gulf Canada, 26 per cent and Texaco Canada, 9 per cent. 1 ask, therefore, where did the profits go? I want to make reference to this matter, and I shall be very precise. The net income of these four companies, after income taxes, in 1977 totalled just over $2 billion. In 1978 it went to $2,285 million, and in 1979 it went to $3,525 million. Of that amount, in the three years about which I am talking, 1977, 1978 and 1979, the federal government took in $825 million; $735 million and $766 million respectively. The amounts that went to the provinces were as follows: in 1977, $2,985 million; in 1978, $3,357 million and in 1979, $4,076 million. I think it is time we called a halt to this. There was an increase of 27.6 per cent in the profit of Imperial Oil for the year ended December 31, 1980, over the previous year. This did not include a one-time increase in cash profits amounting to some $81 million.
It is interesting that the foreign-owned multinationals are starting to make a move. Canadianization is no longer in doubt. Gulf Canada submitted a report proposing three alternative Canadianization schemes. Shell Oil is negotiating with two medium-sized Canadian companies to form a new consortium. Mobil, similarly, is negotiating with two Canadian companies to bring off the same deal as Shell.
The decision to go after and take over Petrofina was made by the board of directors and management of Petro-Canada. The negotiations were carried out on a business basis by the management of Petro-Canada, and the government has approved the takeover. I sincerely applaud the government's initiatives. I look forward to receiving my Petro-Canada gas credit card at an early date so that I can leave the profit on Canada's immense natural resources in Canada.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has so well comprehended the government's policy of Canadianization in the petroleum sector that there is little that I need add.
I should, however, take this brief opportunity to draw attention to the Canadianization goals in the national energy policy, goals which were set forth against the background of foreign ownership in our petroleum industry which has been much greater than in other industrialized countries.
The National Energy Program identifies a greater Canadian ownership and control in the petroleum industry as a principal goal. It holds out the expectation that from Canadianization a yet more dynamic energy sector will emerge, one more responsive to Canada's broad national goals. More specifically, the program looks toward 50 per cent Canadian ownership of oil and gas production by 1990; Canadian control of a significant number of larger oil petroleum companies and an early increase in the share of the petroleum sector owned by the Government of Canada.
As the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) has suggested, the popularity of the Canadianization program
cannot be in any doubt. The evidence is ample, whether it be in the form of opinion surveys or simply in the form of the increased customer demand at existing Petro-Canada stations in western Canada. I want also to draw attention, as the hon. member has just done, to the fact that in the purchase of Petrofina, Petro-Canada has acquired a company with assets that fit in particularly well with its present activities and which, when integrated, will help to ensure that we have a truly national, viable state oil company.


FISHERIES-REGULATION OF HERRING FISHING ON WEST COAST
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, on Monday last I rose in my place to ask the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) questions about the herring roe fishing policy that he was implementing this year on the west coast.
Until now I have had a great deal of respect for the answers the minister has given when he has been asked about fishing policy in Canada. I always felt that he was trying to be candid, not like another cabinet minister in the government; I felt that he was as open and forthcoming as possible-until last Monday.
I was surprised and alarmed that he skirted around the questions and never answered them. What alarms me most is I do not think he knew the answers. I do not believe he was trying to be untruthful; he just did not know.
When 1 was elected in 1974, three Liberal members were elected in British Columbia, representing coastal fishing communities. Today there are none. It appears that at least the fishermen are trying to send this Liberal government a message that they are unhappy with the fishing policy as it is being administered. The government is not catching on to that message.
The minister is not going to British Columbia any more now than in the days when Liberal members represented those coastal fishing communities. If he cared for his entire portfolio, not only the eastern maritime portion but also the Pacific portion, he would go there a few times each year and hear first hand what the fishermen have to tell him.
I had several simple questions to put to the minister. First, will those fishermen who have herring fishing licences automatically be able to fish for herring roe? Second, in the event there is the exception of those people who already hold that licence, will there be other categories, such as natives and other groups, who will be subjected to the lottery system? Third, why did the minister shelve the program which the department had in place for the 1980 season? Since there had been a strike during that year and the program had never been used, why did they shelve that program for 1981 and surprise the fishing community with an entirely new, untried policy? The fishermen had already invested money in preparing themselves and their equipment for the policy announced in 1980.
February 12, 1981

After that investment, the program was shelved for an almost entirely new one for 1981. Fourth, are there plans for expanding that kind of policy to other species such as salmon? That is the only question the minister attempted to answer. All he could say was he did not know of any plans, he would have to check.
I received no answers. My concern is that the minister does not know what is going on in the west coast Fishing industry, nor does he understand the problems those fishermen are facing.
This raises new concerns. The fishermen are being continuously faced with what appear to be impetuous, in-house decisions made by people who seldom go into the Field. They are made on the eleventh or fourteenth floor, if there is one, of an office building on Pender Street in Vancouver. It is a policy untouched by human hands; sterile, as clinically pure as possible. Those policymakers do not ask how their decisions affect the fishermen who have made their investment and their plans.
The minister should have known that eight out of the 11 groups were opposed to the lottery system. Only three wanted it. Although roughly 60 per cent to 70 per cent of the fishermen were opposed to it, he was set to go ahead. I understand that since I asked the question, there has been a modification of the program. Part of the lottery system has been cast aside and most or maybe all of the Fishermen will be allowed to go out.
I want to quote from page 2 of a news release issued by the department entitled "1981 Herring Roe Season". I quote:
-it has been necessary to set a maximum number of vessels of each gear type for each of the three areas. Consequently, all fishermen may not receive an area licence certificate for that most preferred area.
I showed this to the minister after I had asked the question. He did not understand what it was all about. I must say I am worried. In his answer to me the minister said, as reported at page 7016 of Hansard:
-but in 1981, according to the reports of the biologists, we had to question very seriously if the type of management breakdown which had occurred in 1979 was tolerable-
In talking to fishermen I Find it was not the biologists, but the herring co-ordinator who was out there. The minister is simply not doing his job for PaciFic coast fisheries; he is not going out there and he is not consulting the industry thoroughly. He seems to have a few officials he consorts with and he bases his final decision on the basis of that short and shallow consultation. It is time he went out there and listened to the fishermen.
Adjournment Debate


Mr. George Henderson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, an area licensing system is being implemented for the 1981 roe herring season. All herring roe fishermen are eligible for the program, with no special entry status for any particular group of fishermen.
Three areas of the coast were identified as separate fishing areas and I will mention them: north of Cape Caution, the Gulf of Georgia and the west coast Vancouver Island. Each roe herring licence holder is eligible to fish in only one of these three areas. A choice form was sent to roe herring licence holders on which they were asked to rank the three areas according to their order of choice. Licence holders were advised that, in order to achieve relatively equal opportunity for catches in each area, a draw might be necessary in order to award licence certificates in some areas.
According to choice forms submitted as of yesterday February 11, 1981, 1,416 indicate that although an optimal management situation may not be possible in all areas, the fleet is adequately distributed by first choice to allow a fishery to proceed in an orderly manner and to provide equitable catch opportunity. All roe herring licence holders are being assigned to their area of First choice for the 1981 season. This will accommodate voluntary pooling and fishing in traditional areas for native and other fishermen.
A number of management options were discussed for the 1981 roe herring season. The options discussed with industry were: no roe fishery; vessel pooling for seiners; individual vessel quotas; and no change from current management practices. The consensus among the industry organizations canvassed was that a new management plan was essential. The establishment of zones will improve gear distribution on the grounds and is expected to lead to larger catches being available in each area without endangering the stocks through high risk fishing situations.
It is quite an undertaking to manage the west coast fishery, and I think the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) and the department are doing their best in a very, very severe situation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 10.30 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, February 13, 1981