1982-05-03

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, about
80,000	tonnes of toxic chemicals were left to leak into Lake Ontario under the terms of a secret agreement entered into by Hooker Chemical and Plastics Corporation with the State of New York and the United States government, which agreement is now approved by a United States district court judge, all this leaving the Environment Canada officials and citizens' groups on either side of the Niagara River in a shocked and outraged position. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis):
That the Minister of the Environment initiate some positive action, even as far as taking legal proceedings, so as to protect the water quality of Lake Ontario and particularly so as to ensure that this court ruling is not a precedent for the cover-up of other chemical dump sites.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 concerning the production of a CBC miniseries on the life of Samuel Bronfman with a working title of the "Mr. Sam Project". This series is being filmed in Vancouver, at a cost to the CBC of approximately SI million, by freelance personnel in independent production facilities while the CBC's salaried, award-winning production personnel and new production facilities are underutilized. This is all taking place while the CBC is cancelling editions of "The Journal" because of tight budgets and cost
overruns. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That this House instruct the CBC to stop squandering the public's money and the talents of its own personnel in Vancouver by farming out programs and productions when these projects could be done in the CBC's own facilities by the people who are already being paid to do such work.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, whereas the total destruction of the energy sector in Canada has been capped by the cancellation of the Alsands project because of the shortsighted and greedy tax policies of the Liberal government; whereas the National Energy Program has been condemned by knowledgeable businessmen, economists and analysts from coast to coast as an unmitigated disaster, and whereas the names of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen) and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) have become synonomous with destruction and despair across Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid):
That this House condemn these callous, incompetent and obstinate ministers and ask them, in God's name, to resign their posts and leave this House.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CALL FOR RESIGNATION OF TWO MINISTERS-MOTION UNDER
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, the Alsands consortium was ready to proceed over two years ago with the development of this valuable Canadian asset until the Liberal interventionist government got its sticky hands in the process. Thousands of jobs have now been lost in Ontario and Quebec; self-sufficiency in oil is now a shattered dream. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields):

May 3, 1982
That the government admit that its national energy policy is a disaster, admit that it has destroyed job opportunities in Canada, admit that oil self-sufficiency by 1990 is impossible to achieve and, further, that the creators of this disaster, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of Finance submit their resignations from the cabinet immediately.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


DEMAND FOR MINISTERS' RESIGNATIONS-MOTION UNDER
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, the national energy policy was thrust upon the people of Canada in spite of the warnings of disaster by Conservative MPs, knowledgeable people in the industry, and provincial governments, but the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) just would not listen or heed. Now with the petroleum industry in shreds, a million unemployed, the grand hopes of thousands of Canadian families destroyed, and the grim prospect of buying foreign crude for years to come, all testify to the monumental failure of the national energy policy. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker):
That this House weeps over the devastating results of the national energy policy and requests all ministers responsible for the national energy policy to follow the long-time practice of ministers whose policies and administration brought wreck and ruin to a country, to resign forthwith.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, now that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) in an interview in Windsor, Ontario, characterized the use of force by Argentina in the Falkland as aggressive, and the Secretary of State (Mr. Regan) in a speech in Windsor, Nova Scotia, is reported as characterizing the Argentinian action in that area as naked aggression, it is just possible that I can count on unanimous consent on this occasion to my motion under Standing Order 43. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway):
That this House condemns the Argentine government for failing to respond to the demand in the UN resolution of April 3 that all Argentinian forces be withdrawn from the Falkland Islands, and urges the government of that country to respond positively now to that UN resolution so as to avoid further needless
conflict and loss of life, and commends the Royal Naval Task Force for the judicious manner in which it is pursuing its objective in persuading the aggressor to withdraw its troops from the Falkland, and meanwhile urges both parties to make every effort to find a solution to the problem that will recognize the legitimate aspirations of the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I rise pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. At a recent rally in Burnaby, over 500 people called for the closing of Oakalla prison and the honouring of the many promises by previous provincial governments to close this archaic institution in the near future. In view of the fact that the federal Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) has stated that he is seriously considering co-operating with the Social Credit provincial government to build a new maximum security prison for women on the Oakalla lands, despite the opposition of Burnaby municipal council and local MLAs, including James Lorimer, local MLA for Burna-by-Willingdon, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
That this House make very clear to the Solicitor General that under no circumstances will the people of Burnaby agree to any new prison facility being located in that community and instead that they seek an early closing of the entire Oakalla prison.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Nit-picking again.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, facts disclose that Canada's top bureaucrat, Michael Pitfield, has grossly misused public funds. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
May 3, 1982

That the Prime Minister discharge Pitfield forthwith, thereby paying fitting tribute to many years of investigation by the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville, the late Tom Cossitt.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Jack Burghardt (London West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. According to recent reports many members of the Conservative caucus are not familiar with certain aspects of their caucus policy and the Tory whip is having difficulties with some of his members. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for London-Middlesex (Mr. Bloomfield):
That this House request the Liberal whip, the hon. member for London East- And incidentally, the greatest whip ever.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: -to provide tutorials for the Tory whip in order to help him keep track of his fellow members and to get the Tories into the House when they are called.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 to draw to the attention of this House unimpeachable press reports that the Hon. Jack Horner will soon be appointed to the position of Chairman of CN Railways with a salary in excess of $90,000 per annum. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mack-asey):
That Canadians be made aware that:
Liberal Jack Horner Is out of his corner Collecting his spoil and debt.
He says with a grin
(Over a double-tracked chin)
"Oh, what a nice plum to get!"


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Comox-Powell
River.


HEALTH CARE
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, pursuant to Standing Order 43. Government spending cuts are severely threatening health care in British Columbia and hospitals are faced with closing down 1,200 beds and laying off 3,000 employees to make up a $100 million financing shortage. Whereas the federal government provides funding for half the cost of health care services and hospitals in the Vancouver area, Penticton, Kamloops, Cranbrook, Kelowna, Vernon, Chilliwack, Surrey and White Rock, which are now threatened with cutbacks; whereas the B.C. government's austerity drive will only lead to further reductions in health care facilities and increase the 12,000 British Columbians already on waiting lists for elective surgery; and whereas the federal government has an obligation to maintain proper health care, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson):
That this House condemn the health care cuts in British Columbia and demand that the Minister of National Health and Welfare provide funding to prevent further budget slashes.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, whereas former senator Eugene Forsey, a man renowned for his integrity and understanding of public policy, has turned in and ripped up his Liberal membership card, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid):
That this House congratulates the hon. gentleman on his perspicacity and hopes that his action will set an example to all Canadians who are generally interested in the future of the nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

May 3, 1982
Oral Questions


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, whose national energy plan has directly and effectively devastated the conventional Canadian oil and gas industry. Three hundred rigs worth over a billion dollars have fled to the United States. Of course the greatest tragedy was the tens of thousands of lost Canadian jobs which went with them. With the collapse of the Alsands megaproject, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and his national energy plan have now robbed 50,000 more Canadian construction and manufacturing workers of their jobs.
When will the minister scrap the national energy plan, which is a national disgrace, a national disaster, and nothing more than a massive tax grab by the government? When will the national energy plan be replaced with policies which would create jobs for Canadians instead of depriving them of their right to work?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I point out to the hon. member that at the present time the oil and gas sector is governed by agreements with the three producing provinces, the province of Alberta, the province of Saskatchewan, and the province of British Columbia. Those agreements have been welcomed by the governments of those provinces.
As far as stimulus to the industry is concerned, ever since the agreement the Government of Canada and the government of Alberta in particular have provided further improvements for the industry. The government of Alberta has announced a reduction in royalties which will total over a billion dollars this year, which is money which will go to the oil and gas industry. Analysts indicate that there will be more drilling in Canada this year than there was last year, and they expect a very active winter next year in the oil and gas sector.
With respect to activities in the past to which my hon. friend has referred, I remind him that many of those drilling rigs which moved to the United States are now not doing anything in the United States, and some of them are expected to return to this country.


William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, the minister knows full well that in March of 1980 he could have had an agreement which would have guaranteed both Alsands and Cold Lake and that at this precise moment 100,000 Canadians would be working and the program would be two years down the line. Instead, those 100,000 Canadians, who could have been working at Cold Lake and at the Alsands plant, are in unemployment lines. That is the difference.


FUTURE OF MEGAPROJECT AT COLD LAKE, ALTA.
William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, Alsands is gone. The Alaska gas pipeline is going nowhere. Conventional oil and gas activity has gone down to the United States. The one major energy project the minister thinks he may be able to revive is the Imperial Oil megaproject at Cold Lake. What ironclad guarantee can the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources give Canadians that that project will be saved, along with the 50,000 direct jobs it would create?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that if, as he said, an agreement could have been reached in March of 1980, that agreement could have been reached in February, 1980, in January, 1980, or at any time in the whole of 1979 when his government was in office and when he was a member of the Tory government. If what he said is true, what did he do when he was in office, and what did his government do when it was in office? That government had nine long months to reach an agreement. It did not, and I suspect there was a good reason why it was not able to reach an agreement at that time.
With respect to the other point concerning Cold Lake, that is a matter for Imperial Oil to decide. The government of Alberta and the Government of Canada together have made what has been termed a very generous offer. If Imperial Oil has plans concerning Cold Lake, no doubt Imperial Oil will be in touch with us. In the meantime we will proceed with other activities in the energy field.


William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, if the former government were still in power there would be 100,000 Canadians working at those two projects, and the minister knows it. Those megaprojects were not destroyed by my party; they were destroyed by the miniminds in the government opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT MINISTER RESIGN
William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, the government, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and the Minister of Finance have been saying for months that the Canadian economy is at the mercy of international conditions. The one sector that is unique to Canada in the industrialized world is energy. That is the one sector in which we are supposed to have such an advantage, but now,
May 3, 1982

because of the loss of the megaprojects and the devastation of conventional oil and gas drilling, it has reduced employment by 200,000 jobs. May I ask the minister if it is not time that he submitted his resignation, given that record?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend certainly does not appear to take into account the reality of the situation. I would suggest to him that he should read the statement made by the president of Shell Canada last Friday in which he clearly indicated that the reasons the partners were not proceeding with those projects at the present time-


Mr. Nielsen:: It is because they do not trust you.


Marc Lalonde: -was related to the uncertain situation with regard to oil prices in the world and with regard to the rate of inflation over the next few years-


William Herbert Jarvis: Not in March, 1980.


Marc Lalonde: -and the long delay before these companies could get the return on their investment in those very expensive projects. These are the reasons given by the president of Shell Canada.
I want to remind my hon. friend that today, for instance, Exxon in the United States, which has nothing to do with the National Energy Program or this government, has cancelled a project for which it had already committed $900 million. That is one of the oil shale projects. I could mention several other projects to my hon. friend that have either been cancelled or delayed in the United States, particularly projects having to do with synthetic fuel. There is a genuine problem there which is related to the evolution of prices in the world, the rate of inflation and interest rates in North America. All these have created problems and led to the cancellation of a number of those projects in the United States. Canada is in the same situation.


CASH FLOW POSITION OF OIL COMPANIES
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It relates to the shale deposits in the United States. It is estimated that it costs five times more to produce oil from shale than from the oil sands. The minister quoted the president of Shell who also said that the investment climate in Canada is not conducive to private industry investing in the economy.
In the first full year of the National Energy Program the income of major integrated oil companies has fallen an average of 30 per cent. In the first quarter of this year the profits of Gulf Canada are down 62.6 per cent, and Shell Canada's income has dropped a disastrous 73 per cent. These are the two companies that the minister wanted to develop the Alsands project at Fort McMurray on a risk basis. I want to ask the minister how stupid he thinks these oil companies are. When is he going to change the disastrous policy that is robbing these
Oral Questions
oil companies of their cash flow so that they cannot invest in projects of this nature?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would refer my hon. friend again to the statements made by the president of Shell. He did not refer to the current cash flow problems as the reason that led to their decision. The decision they have taken is related to medium and long-term problems having to do with uncertainty with regard to oil prices and with the rate of inflation.
My hon. friend mentioned the decline in profits of some of the oil firms in Canada. I would remind him that Texaco just announced a 44 per cent decline in profits in the United States, Occidental Petroleum announced a 70 per cent decline in profits in the United States, and the Ashland corporation announced a loss of $11 million in the last few weeks.


Walter David Baker: What about Canada?


Marc Lalonde: The oil industry in North America is meeting difficulties at the present time which result from lower sales and the fact the price of oil has not increased as rapidly as had been anticipated in the world markets. We are living in a world economy in this regard, and I would invite my hon. friend to reflect upon the statements made by the president of Shell Oil.


PRICE OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Before tying this sector of the industry in Canada to that of the United States, can the minister tell me why the price of petroleum products is going down in the United States whereas the price of petroleum products is going up in Canada because of the massive tax grab by the Liberal government, amounting to $1.60 for every gallon going through the pumps? Can the minister answer that question?
Why, and what will it take for him to realize the disaster that his national energy policy is causing this country? When will the minister address the following facts, first, that the investment climate is no longer looked upon as stable by the major oil companies and, second, that the majors will not invest in these kinds of projects as long as this Liberal government remains in power?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, as far as the question raised by my hon. friend is concerned, I have already indicated in this House that the price of a barrel of oil in Canada is still significantly lower than it is in the United States. Today the blended price for oil is only 70.4 per cent of the international prices. What happens is that you have a large provincial sales tax in most provinces-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Horton McDermid: Come on, Marc.

May 3, 1982
Oral Questions


Walter David Baker: Keep your face straight.


Marc Lalonde: I remind my hon. friend that the price of a litre of oil in Calgary today is cheaper than it is in the United States because there are no provincial taxes there. The provincial taxes vary from 20 per cent to 40 per cent in some provinces. Those taxes are much higher than they are in the United States. That is the explanation for the difference. The best evidence of this is that a litre of heating oil today is as much as seven cents to nine cents cheaper in Canada than it is in the United States.


JOB CREATION STRATEGY
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. He will be aware that both the throne speech and the budget papers state that the government's general economic strategy is to provide jobs from spin-offs of the major energy projects. In the November, 1981, budget paper under the heading "The Development Opportunities" we find this sentence:
The leading opportunity lies in the development of Canada's rich bounty of natural resources.
In the next paragraph we find this sentence:
Major projects task force, for example, identifies $440 billion of potential projects, predominantly in the energy and resource sectors.
The minister has seen the collapse of Alsands, and the Cold Lake project is on hold. The Alaska pipeline is on hold at best, and is perhaps dead. I do not hold any brief for the oil companies, but I am concerned about jobs for ordinary Canadians. What is left of the government's economic strategy in the way of jobs from these energy megaprojects now that we are seeing them fall one by one?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of my hon. friend the number of projects in the energy field that are still in progress and under active construction. I could refer him to Dome Petroleum's Beaufort Sea oil and gas exploration project for $500 million, the Norman Wells oil fields development for $600 million; the Revelstoke hydro project in B.C. for over $1 billion-


Mr. Siddon:: You are grasping at straws. That has nothing to do with you.


Marc Lalonde: -the Trans Quebec and Maritime PipeLine for over $1 billion, the Quintette coal development project for $700 million, the Ridley Island and the grain terminals in B.C. with an investment of over $400 million. I could go on and mention to the hon. member other projects in the energy field that are under active consideration at the present time by provincial and federal governments and by private industry.


John Horton McDermid: Why are there so many unemployed?


Marc Lalonde: There is still a lot of activity taking place in spite of the fact, regrettably, that the Alsands project is not proceeding.


PIPELINES
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, before hon. members opposite applaud, those figures amount to $4.2 billion. Alsands is worth $13.5 billion, and the Alaska pipeline is worth $40 billion. The minister is on the hot seat and he has some explaining to do. I want to give him some explanation about the Alaska Highway pipeline project.


Erik Nielsen: Which you voted against.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: As the minister knows, we opposed the prebuild of the line because, without the financial guarantees, there was no way the whole project could be completed. Now we are left with one quarter of the job completed. We are left with no Dempster lateral and we are left with an export pipeline to the United States. Does the minister still have the naivete or the gall to stand up in this House and to say that this project can still be financed in the immediate future?
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Madam Speaker, with regard to the first project to which the hon. member referred, again I would have to tell him that his party should make up its mind. Last week that party objected to the offer which we made to the private companies and found it excessive and too generous; today it is deploring the fact that the project is not going ahead. Make up your minds, my friends.
As far as the Alaska gas pipeline is concerned, I can only refer my friend to the statements issued by the partners in the Alaska gas pipeline in which they quite clearly and specifically declared that their plan is still to proceed with the project and that they wanted to use the next while to arrange for the financing of the project, since the detailed engineering was sufficiently advanced to proceed. That was the statement of the partners in the project on the weekend, and I refer my hon. friend to it.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: While the Alsands matter is serious enough for the minister, the minister should, under British parliamentary tradition, offer his resignation forthwith since he stuck out his neck on the pre-build.


STATEMENT MADE BY PIPELINE COMMISSIONER
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, Mr. Mitchell Sharp, the pipeline commissioner, was quoted this weekend as saying that the sponsors of the project must "provide solid evidence this project is not just being put on hold" and that without such evidence Canadian support, which
May 3, 1982

is crucial to the project, could not be guaranteed. Considering that Canada has no power to bargain at all-we have given it away; the minister knew that and said it when he was in opposition-will the minister be offering his resignation on this matter? Could he explain what Mr. Sharp was talking about in this statement?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I will be very happy to ask the question of Mr. Sharp and to report to my hon. friend. However, I must remind him quite clearly that if, for any reason, the partners were to abandon the project for the time being, even, and not demonstrate a clear commitment to the particular project, there is no assurance once we have wound down our operations here that Canada could wind them up again expeditiously and meet the United States commitment.


PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF ONTARIO SOLICITOR GENERAL, HON. GEORGE TAYLOR
Madam Speaker:: May I draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of the Hon. George Taylor, Solicitor General for the province of Ontario.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, the symptoms of energy disaster are as prevalent today on the Atlantic coast as they have been in Canada's west. All offshore explorers in Atlantic Canada have repeatedly announced slowdowns and delays as they tried to cope with the pernicious inertia of the government's energy policy. Having learned a lesson in western Canada at the expense of all Canadians, would the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources now recognize that his policies are on a collision course with economic disaster for Canada? Would he immediately change his tax and royalty terms and Petro-Canada's expropriation rights, and would he thereafter immediately endeavour to negotiate viable energy development programs for all potential offshore resources in Atlantic Canada and negotiate with Atlantic Canada premiers and researchers in the oil fields?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I remind the hon. member that we have been negotiating with the maritime premiers. As a matter of fact, we recently signed an agreement with the Premier of Nova Scotia, an agreement which the government of Nova Scotia and the people of Nova Scotia have hailed as very positive and constructive and as one which augurs
Oral Questions
extremely well for development in offshore Nova Scotia. Also I advise my colleague that there has already been a meeting between Nova Scotia and Government of Canada officials and that a new agreement was arrived at and several issues were dealt with at that meeting. As a matter of fact, the Premier of Nova Scotia indicated that he was looking forward to very dynamic development in offshore Nova Scotia. I advise my friend that we have received a number of applications for further exploration offshore Nova Scotia. This is only one example among many. I suggest my hon. friend should get his facts straight as to what is happening in the maritimes.


Fred Alward McCain: Madam Speaker, all Canada, except apparently the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, is aware that the provinces submitted to inexorable pressure by the federal government to submit to rules, regulations and taxation which they knew full well would deter, if not destroy, the development of oil resources in the nation of Canada. The west is our example, and all the rhetoric of the minister is a waste of time.


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Fred Alward McCain: Last year Canada spent-


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Fred Alward McCain: I would ask hon. members opposite-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Hon. Members are quite correct in asking the hon. member to put his question. I was about to rise to ask the same thing.


Fred Alward McCain: I will be very brief, Madam Speaker. I only wish they had as much patience with the questioner as we have with the answerer.


Madam Speaker:: Order.


REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF INCENTIVES PROGRAM
Fred Alward McCain: Madam Speaker, last year we imported almost $7 billion worth of oil, at a time when our balance of payments was very unfavourable. Would the minister now swallow his pride, his jealousy, his greed, and come up with a realistic, dynamic, incentive-loaded, petrochemical oil and gas developmental program which would not extract from Canadians all the money he wants and would put fuel in the hands of Canadians at a price which they can afford?
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Madam Speaker, I suppose I would need a lot of time to go through all that rhetoric, but I will try to limit myself to telling the hon. member that the subsidiaries of American companies investing in Canada in the oil and gas field will increase their expenditures in Canada this year by 28 per cent.


Fred Alward McCain: Over what?

May 3, 1982
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: This is well over the increase in expenditures in other countries by United States subsidiaries.


Fred Alward McCain: That is over last year. What about five years ago?


Marc Lalonde: Second, I remind my friend that offshore expenditures in the Atlantic provinces, which are of concern to him, will increase very significantly this year. We have taken steps to encourage development in the oil and gas industry. These are taking place at the present time. If my hon. friend takes the trouble of inquiring as to what is happening offshore in his own province, he will find out what is happening in eastern Canada at the present time.


DEVELOPMENT OF HIBERNIA FIELD
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. He will know that last March the government of Newfoundland submitted a very reasonable compromise proposal to which the minister has not yet responded. The proposal called for revenue-sharing, management-sharing, and joint ownership, to get on with the development of the important Hibernia field and was approved in the provincial election by the people of Newfoundland.
Now that the SIU question of jurisdiction has been set aside and now that the Alsands deal has been shattered, will the minister sit down with the government of Newfoundland to discuss this very reasonable compromise proposal so that Canada can get on with developing the very important Hibernia field?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, obviously the Government of Canada is very interested in developing the Hibernia field, an area which is the property of all Canadians. On January 25 the government of Newfoundland put forward a proposal. We let our views be known on that proposal. There were meetings of officials on February 3 and February 4 in Montreal, at which time we gave a reaction and also enunciated a number of views on the subject as far as we were concerned.
We also indicated on February 15 to the government of Newfoundland that we would come up very soon with a full-fledged, fully-developed counteroffer as far as we were concerned. The government of Newfoundland preferred to walk away from the negotiating table at the time, took us to court, and then decided to hold an election. We did not walk away from the negotiating table. We have been there ever since, but no one showed up from the other side. We are not that touchy on these issues.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: Today my office has been in touch with the office of the minister of energy for Newfoundland. I suggested that we should hold a meeting within the next few days.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration and concerns the closure of the B.C. Packers' Seal Cove facility at Prince Rupert. I think the minister is aware that over the last 70 years the facility has operated both viably and profitably. The question of the closure was raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Alberni, on April 7. The minister indicated at that time that he would meet with representatives of the workers from that plant on April 23 while he was in British Columbia. That meeting never took place despite the fact the workers asked for it.
Since it is fairly clear that the operation is economically viable and increased from one million pounds in 1974 to nine million pounds last year, would the minister do two things? Number one, would he instruct that there be a marketing analysis of the groundfish operation and, number two, would he at least keep that plant in operation until such time as that marketing analysis is completed?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member suggests that I was to meet with the workers. I indicated that if we had an invitation, we would do so. When I was in Vancouver, I did meet with many of the organizers of the B.C. Federation of Labour and discussed a wide range of items. At the time, we were meeting in an open, public forum.
However, I would say in answer to his request that we are certainly prepared to help and work within the limits of our department within a variety of labour adjustment areas, but we are not in a position to offer the kind of support the hon. member is recommending. That is something which would have to be negotiated with the provincial government and others in terms of considering what kind of assistance might be available. We have a wide variety of programs at the federal level. We can offer them. However, in some cases there are serious problems in markets, and we would have to look to see what they possibly could be. Therefore, I will ask my department to continue to meet with the employees and employers to see what might be done, but I am not so sure that the hon. member's suggestion is an appropriate one.


SUPPORT FOR INDUSTRY
James Ross Fulton: My supplementary question, Madam Speaker, is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. It concerns the philosophy, which seems to be predominant on that side of the House, involved in supporting industries which are bankrupt or are not able to stay afloat, whether the industry is Consolidated Computers or something else. The fish plant in Prince Rupert has operated for 70 years, it employs 250 people and provides $7 million a year to the local economy. This year B.C. Packers has written off or deferred $8.5 million in taxes, and has two $10 million deals going on right now with the cabinet in British Columbia. I wonder if the
May 3, 1982

Acting Prime Minister would comment on the political philosophy and the nature of supporting only those industries which are going bankrupt while no support is being given to one which is economically viable and is providing very important jobs in an area which is currently suffering a 40 per cent increase in unemployment from last year. Would he tell the House-


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, of all the hon. members in this House, my hon. friend should be the last to complain. The port of Prince Rupert has been the object of great attention on the part of the federal government in recent years. Three major developments are now taking place there in terms of the grain elevator and the coal facility, and in terms of the petro-chemical facility in future months. The federal government contribution to each one of those is really very substantial.
Concerning the particular point the hon. member raises with respect to the fish plant, unfortunately, or fortunately, it does not come under my jurisdiction. I will take responsibility for bringing it to the attention of the responsible minister and providing an answer to the hon. member as soon as possible.


DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES TO ALSANDS PROJECT
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the recent statements and announcements with regard to the Alsands project, could the minister tell the House which projects the federal government envisages to replace the kind of investment and employment that the Alsands project was intended to provide?


Erik Nielsen: He read his list already.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, first of all I would like to point out that, contrary to what one hon. member said a minute ago, the Exxon project in Colorado would not cost five times the cost in Canada. As a matter of fact, it would cost $5 billion to produce 47,000 barrels of oil, while Alsands would cost about $14 billion or $13 billion to produce 130,000 barrels of oil. Therefore, I suggest that the mathematics were all wrong.
As far as the question asked by my hon. friend is concerned, I would like to point out to him that Canada can still reach self-sufficiency by 1990 by concentrating its efforts and money on the exploration and development offshore, the Atlantic coast and the Beaufort, and also by constructing upgraders in Montreal and Saskatchewan and by accelerating the activities with regard to heavy oil and enhanced oil recovery in the prairies, in the western provinces. We are confident that those activities will enable Canada to meet all of its needs by 1990.
Oral Questions PIPELINES


ALASKA GAS PIPELINE-QUERY RESPECTING START OF CONSTRUCTION
Dave Nickerson: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Last week, and even earlier today, he was unable to give us any straight answers concerning the Alaska gas pipeline, and I am now giving him the opportunity to redeem himself. Will he tell us when this project will start, or has he completely botched it?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, as I indicated earlier, I would like to refer my hon. colleague to the statement made by the Alaska pipeline project partners. In their statement, the partners made it quite clear that they remained entirely committed to carrying out this project, and that in the coming months they would be developing an appropriate financing formula, in view of the fact that they had already completed the necessary engineering work.


Dave Nickerson: Let me remind the minister of what he said on July 17, 1980. At that time he said that "the government of Canada has accepted the United States' commitment, assuring timely completion of the whole project". I repeat the words, "timely completion of the whole project".


REQUEST FOR MEETING WITH UNITED STATES AUTHORITIES
Dave Nickerson: If the minister is serious about the thousands of Canadian jobs that this project would generate, and if he is concerned with the billions of dollars of spin-off benefits, would he undertake, either personally or through the Prime Minister, to meet with his United States counterparts so that we are not faced with another Liberal Alsands disaster?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, meetings have taken place with the U.S. administration concerning this matter. I am sure there will be further meetings. However, I want to point out to my hon. friend that the problem is not with the U.S. administration at the present time. The problem is that the private sponsors have had difficulty amongst themselves. The pipeline commissioner, Mr. Sharp, has been in touch with them on a regular basis. We will continue the pressure with regard to that matter.
I refer my hon. friend to the statement made by Foothills over the weekend, which indicated, and I quote, "The companies have, as a group, reconfirmed their commitment to the project". It went on to state, "Pre-construction work for Phase Two will be maintained in both Canada and the United States, funded by the companies in today's meeting and fitting to this schedule". That is the statement by the companies.

May 3, 1982
Oral Questions


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. A total of 18,230 direct jobs would have been created in Alberta if the Alsands project had proceeded, including over 1,000 electricians, 1,860 pipefitters, 1,890 operating engineers, and 1 could continue, not to mention the thousands of jobs which would have been created in the rest of the country, especially in Ontario and Quebec, which would have supplied over 50 per cent of the major equipment to the project. Since the National Energy Program has been a disaster and has not produced the jobs promised by the government, could the minister explain why the people of Canada should believe anything he says, especially when he says that future jobs will be created by his pie in the sky programs?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, as far as the Alsands project is concerned, I may remind my hon. colleague that the government of Alberta and the Government of Canada made an extremely generous offer which was, in fact, considered as such by the other partners. The latter decided, however, considering the international oil price situation at the present time and the prevailing uncertainty about inflation rates over the next ten years, that they were not ready to embark on a project that would involve tremendous expenditures on their part. I may point out that, throughout these negotiations, both governments said there was a limit to what the taxpayer and the consumer should be asked to pay or to contribute toward the realization of such projects. I suggest that both governments went as far as they could, within reason, in making concessions to these companies. The companies decided that the concessions were no longer adequate. Well, that is unfortunate, and we are going to proceed with other projects which, I hope, will be less costly, both to the taxpayer and to the consumer.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER RESIGN
John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, if the minister had been as generous a couple of years ago as he thinks he is now, the project would have been 75 per cent completed today and Alsands would have a permanent work force of some 5,000 Canadians. That is all gone. "Black Friday", April 30, 1982, will be known as the day the minister lay down and pulled the coffin closed. Will the minister now admit that most of the NEP is faulty, is wrong for Canada, and will he resign before he eliminates any more jobs for Canadians?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, as I said before, our present energy policy is guided by agreements concluded by the Government of Canada with the governments of Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan. The agreements were adjusted during the last few months to benefit the industry. A number of substantial concessions were made. Here again, there is a limit to the concessions that Canadian taxpayers should be prepared to make to the oil industry. As far as we are concerned, we are going to make sure that all reasonable projects that can be carried out, are carried out. However, we are not going to ask the Canadian taxpayer to pay whatever the oil companies care to ask. We are not going to do that, because we take the interests of the Canadian public to heart.


INCREASE IN NUMBER OF DEPARTMENTAL EMPLOYEES
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. We have heard today in this House how the loss of the Alsands and Cold Lake projects, plus the delay of the Alaska gas pipeline, will mean the loss of about 100,000 man-years of direct and indirect jobs during the construction phase alone. In fact, Madam Speaker, the only employment opportunities created by the minister's National Energy Program are in his own department, which has increased by 160 per cent in the last two years and 300 per cent in the last three years-according to the estimates 717 additional people in the first two years, and 873 over the last three years. Is the minister preparing to cut back on his own staffing requirements, or is his NEP geared only to promoting public sector rather than private sector employment?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, in previous answers I already indicated that activity in the oil industry during 1982 is expected to be greater than it was in 1981, and an even higher level of activity is expected for 1983. I may say that our energy policy had two objectives with respect to energy supply, namely, to increase supplies and to reduce consumption through conservation and by substituting other forms of energy for oil. Both approaches are working since, at the present time, there is heightened activity in the search for new oil in Canada, while oil consumption dropped 7 per cent last year. Both achievements are a result of the National Energy Program, and we intend to continue stressing these two aspects, namely, to increase oil exploration in Canada and reduce consumption through programs intended to help consumers conserve oil or substitute other forms of energy for oil.
May 3, 1982


Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, the minister has failed to explain why his departmental staffing has increased over 300 per cent when we have lost $50 billion in direct capital investment.


PROPOSALS TO INCREASE ENERGY SUPPLY
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, the minister says he plans to accelerate the Beaufort Sea and east coast developments, both of which are years from on-line production. Since the industry says Hibernia production is at least ten years away, and there are as yet no commercial oil finds reported in the Beaufort Sea, and major technical problems prohibit the immediate transportation of natural gas, is the minister planning to command the oil to gush forth and the waves to part, or does he have some practical proposals in mind?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I have indeed very practical proposals in mind, and that is to work with the oil companies to make sure these projects are going to-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jack Wendele Shields: When? When?


Marc Lalonde: -come into production. We will work with the government of Newfoundland to that effect. I would say my hon. friend is completely at sea when she says Hibernia production is at least ten years away. She must be the only one who believes that.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture about stabilization programs. After the hog stabilization payment in 1981 and the piggy-back arguments which followed, the minister promised to bring in a new federal-provincial agreement for these programs. Last week's announcement on lambs, which ruled out payments to producers covered by provincial plans, points up the fact that the minister has not completed his promise to have a new program in place by March or April of 1982.
Since it appears that the main impediment to a new agreement is money, can the minister tell the House what financial proposals are being made to offset the drastic drop in returns for livestock producers, particularly in light of the fact that the old formula, based on 90 per cent of the previous five years' market price, is totally inadequate with the current rate of inflation?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows that we recognize that
Oral Questions
program was inadequate in 1978, and we proposed a new program at that time guaranteeing 100 per cent of income assurance for farmers. That was turned down by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, and by every province including his own. Now they are asking for pretty near the same thing.
We are proposing a new plan for them and I hope to be able to do that shortly. The pork producers talked about bringing forward a plan for four years; they submitted one just in the last few weeks and want me to adopt it immediately. The Canadian Cattlemen's Association have adopted one along the lines we proposed in 1977-78. I have some different thoughts on that.
We are proposing a plan, and we will be discussing it with the organizations and the provinces when it is presented. But they have run ahead with helter-skelter programs; the rich provinces with rich programs, the poor provinces with hardly any programs at all, hoping that we are going to piggy-back their programs. We made it pretty plain to them that there would be no piggy-backing of those programs any more. And we are doing what we said we would with the stabilization program for lamb.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL MEETINGS
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, the minister mentions that piggy-backing will not be allowed in any future agreement. What other principles is his department taking into the discussions, and will he outline these to the House? How many meetings have been held at the officials' level and at the ministerial level?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, there have been many meetings and I do not have a list in front of me. There has been a lot of consultation over a period of time and some of these officials are saying now that I refused to have my officials involved in any other meeting until the final proposal is presented. That is true; I said, "Quit wasting your time, get on with preparing the paper I suggested to you; bring it forward. We have had a two-person committee, we have had the Senate report and other studies; put them together and bring forward a paper." That is what we are doing at the present time.


MINES AND MINING
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Mines who will know that 100 per cent of iron ore production from northern Ontario mines, particularly in the Timiskaming and Wawa areas, goes to the Ontario steel industry. She also

May 3, 1982
Petitions
knows that the budget has had a very negative impact on that industry to date, and with the announced shutdown of the Alsands project and the delay in the Arctic gas pipeline project we are likely to see substantial increases in the number of layoffs. The minister knows there are over 2,000 lay-offs in the northern Ontario area scheduled for this summer alone, and I want to ask her what she is going to do when these thousands of mine and steel workers are faced with permanent unemployment as a consequence of the Alsands and Arctic gas pipeline decisions.


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State (Mines)):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows quite well that the reduction in the consumption of iron ore is not due to termination of these projects, but to a worldwide decline in the use of iron ore. He knows very well that this government has a number of projects under way to accommodate those men who are unemployed. As a matter of fact the Minister of Employment and Immigration, the minister in Ontario, and I are working very closely to ensure that there is work for these unemployed miners by invoking Section 38. A great deal is being done.


QUERY RESPECTING PLANS FOR UNEMPLOYED MINE WORKERS
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, Algoma Steel, Dofasco and Stelco all draw their iron ore supplies almost exclusively from northern Ontario and the United States. I might point out that the steel orders for the northern gas pipeline were already placed and were to be filled this summer, 55 per cent by Stelco's mill in Welland, Ontario, and 45 per cent from IPSCO using Canadian-mined iron ore. With the shutdowns and lay-offs that are already prevalent in the iron ore industry, what does the minister propose to do now when thousands more mine workers are likely to be faced with permanent unemployment this winter because of the termination of these two very important projects?


Judith A. Erola: Madam Speaker, as I indicated to the hon. member earlier, the iron ore industry across the world is in great trouble. To attribute all these problems to the cancellation of these projects is totally unfair. I suggest the hon. member examine those programs that we have in place to ensure that we have work for the unemployed miners.


PETITIONS
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, I wish to present the petition of the undersigned citizens of Canada and the Niagara Peninsula, including the riding of Erie, Ontario, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus
to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy.
We the undersigned, a group of 77 concerned Canadian citizens, declare our opposition to the proposed budgetary legislation that would make employer contributions to health, dental and vision care plans taxable income to the plan participants. Wherefore we the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to instruct the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) to withdraw this proposed legislation which would deny organized labour the benefit and indeed a right to which they are justly entitled.


Madam Speaker:: Order. I must remind hon. members that a statement concerning the petition has to be extremely short, just sufficient to tell the House the substance of the petition. The petition itself may not be read.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Madam Speaker, it is my privilege today to present a petition to the House of Commons signed by a large number of citizens of the constituency of Oxford together with other Canadians from the surrounding area. These Canadians have endorsed the petition sponsored by The Canadian-Polish Mutual Benefit Society which laments the forcible rule of Poland by the Soviet Union and supports the call for free elections in Poland to be supervised by the United Nations. The petitioners urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) to bring their views to the attention of the appropriate officials.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 3,727 and 4,225.


Mr. Herbert: What percentage of public servants working in the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in Quebec indicate English as their first official language?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The
reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: On a total of 616 employees working in Quebec, 213 (35 per cent) indicated English as their first official language. The distribution is as follows: Hull, 198 of 397, regional and provincial offices, 15 of 219.
May 3, 1982


Mr. MacKay: According to the decision by the government of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic on March 16, 1977, can Canadian residents, formerly citizens of Czechoslovakia, "normalize" their legal status with their former country by making an application to the Czechoslovak Consulate in Montreal and must the application be accompanied by other personal documents and, if so (a) what role, if any, does the Bureau of Legal Affairs of the Department of External Affairs assume in the process of Canadian residents presenting such applications to the consulate (b) is it the policy of the department to keep records of all the cases involving such applications?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: As a matter of general practice, the Bureau of Legal Affairs of the Department of External Affairs is often requested to authenticate the signatures on official Canadian documents such as birth certificates, marriage certificates or citizenship certificates. However, in doing so, it is not necessary for the Bureau of Legal Affairs to be told of the reason(s) why such authentication is requested. It is therefore not possible to determine whether the person requesting the authentication is in the process of normalizing his or her legal status with his or her country of origin. The mandate of the Bureau of Legal Affairs in this respect is primarily to provide the service in question.


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


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: I have a notice of an emergency debate from the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell).


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, for the serious reasons I made clear to Your Honour in a letter which I sent to your office earlier today on the important subject of the postponement, due to lack of financing, of the Alaska highway natural gas pipeline, the biggest construction project to be undertaken in Canada since the CPR, I seek leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the failure to find financing for the Alaska highway gas pipeline and its effects on the Canadian economy and energy export policy.
The reasons in the letter include the treaty with the United States, the validity of existing legislation-


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I have a point of order. I realize that technically an opposition day, designated as it has been by the government and concerning which a motion was tabled last Friday around two o'clock, is normally an item of government business, but traditionally since this practice has been extant, it has been an opposition day. We now have a member of an opposition party, at a time when an order of business has been put down on behalf of the opposition, moving a motion which, if granted, would displace that opposition's right to debate the subject of their choice during the supply period.
I question the right of the hon. member to do that at this stage when the motion is on the table and the House is seized of that motion. Under the circumstances I question, with great respect, the freedom of the Chair even to consider accepting a Standing Order 26 motion from a member of the opposition.


Madam Speaker:: The point made by the hon. member is noted. However, I do not believe there is anything in the Standing Orders to prevent that. I will deal with the matter of the urgent debate if the hon. member will continue his very brief presentation.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, it will just take seconds. Let me say for the record that we heard about this at 5.30 on Friday. Suppose Canada had gone to war over the weekend, does the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) say that we could not have an emergency debate on Monday? His point of order is absolute nonsense. Let me continue. Before I was so sillily interrupted-


An hon. Member:: "Adroitly".


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Stupidly interrupted. I will start all over again.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member is trying to get more time. I urge him to continue from where he left off.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: As I was saying, the important matter requiring consideration is the financing of the Alaska highway gas pipeline. I sent a letter to Your Honour stating the reasons, including the treaty with the United States, the validity of existing legislation, the Dempster lateral problem, the future of gas exports and the fact that it is a most complicated matter to deal with, as question period today showed.
I would like to add that I was not able to include in that letter that Bill C-93, which we will be debating this week, does not really give us the opportunity to debate what I set out in my letter and the issues herein involved, because that bill deals with taxation. Your Honour has all my arguments set out in detail in the letter.

May 3, 1982
Supply


Madam Speaker:: In his notice the hon. member raised two points to try to convince the House that he did have the substance of an emergency debate. The announcement of a delay of two years or more of the Alaska highway natural gas pipeline was the first point he made. The second point was the possible collapse of what he believes to be the largest construction project in our history. Neither seems to me to constitute a matter that requires immediate and urgent consideration. If the hon. member feels that the subject requires early consideration, it could be dealt with on a supply day, of which there are nine remaining.
For these reasons, it is not possible for me to set aside the normal business of the House today, which, by the way, is a supply opposition motion, to consider the matter referred to in the hon. member's notice.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe) moved:: That this House condemns the government for its increasing use of Canadian taxpayers' dollars for self-serving advertising and public opinion surveying, and in particular, for spending millions of tax dollars for unnecessary advertising at a time when it demands financial sacrifices from ordinary Canadians.
He said: Madam Speaker, as hon. members were coming to work over the course of the last month or so, they would have noticed just two blocks south of Parliament Hill a billboard which featured in recent days a picture of a woman who was apparently a mechanic working on some heavy equipment. The Caption on the large billboard was simply "Making Canada Work". Underneath that, in small letters were the words "Employment and Immigration Canada".
Previously, there was another advertisement there which showed a man in front of three computer screens with again the same caption "Making Canada Work" and in small letters "Employment and Immigration Canada".
Anyone who was coming to work, Mr. Speaker, and saw that billboard, after the announcement that there are a million and a quarter Canadians who cannot find a job, must have marvelled at what it was that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) was trying to get at. If you read that billboard, would you know anything about any government programs? Would it help to put any Canadian to work? Would it do anything to inform Canadians about their rights or about the need that there be full employment? No, it would not. What we find, Mr. Speaker, is that at a time of massive unemployment, unprecedented unemployment, when we have a million and a quarter unemployed, the government does not have the money it needs to create jobs, to give Canadian workers an opportunity to have a job of their own. But somehow the government has been able to find the money for selfserving advertising on billboards across Canada, to rent
promotional campaigns in the media across Canada designed to enhance the image of the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
The government itself says that the total cost of the advertising campaign, for Phases I and II, will be some $4.6 million. Any unemployed Canadian who sees those advertisements must ask himself this first question: How can the government justify its priorities in spending $4.6 million on advertising to promote the government's corporate image, instead of putting that money where it is necessary, to get Canadians back to work?
Mr. Speaker, there is no more graphic example of what is wrong with the government's advertising programs than that particular campaign which ended at the end of last month with the billboards. But there is more to come. We will be seeing them on television and in the media across the country. We simply do not know what the exact total is for federal advertising spending. The available figures that we have do not include Crown corporations such as Canadian National. We see the CN advertisements every night on television. The figures do not include advertising by Air Canada or by the CBC. Yet the government, in its own estimates for this year, projects that federal advertising spending will go to a total of $70 million. That is only for advertising which is handled through the Department of Supply and Services. It does not include the Crown corporations to which I referred earlier, nor does it include a wide range of other agencies which were exempt from having to place their advertisements through Supply and Services.
That $70 million figure, Mr. Speaker, is likely to grow by another $10 million; it is far more likely that the Department of Supply and Services this year will be responsible for placing some $80 million worth of advertising. Why do I say that? Because the projection in the blue book for last year was that the federal government would spend some $60 million. Now they concede that that figure was up to $70 million by the time the fiscal year came to an end. Mr. Speaker. It is far more likely, then, that this year federal spending through the Department of Supply and Services will total more than $80 million. By the time we have added in advertising by Crown corporations and other government agencies, the figure will be well in excess of $100 million in this fiscal year, 1982-83.
That money, that $100 million to which I have referred, does not include, for example, the close to $200 million which the government intends to spend this year on government publications. If we want to see the government's true promotional budget, we have to go beyond even that $100 million.
While figures for previous years are not available, we simply do not know exactly how much was spent by governments going back over the years. I put a question on the Order Paper about a year and a half ago but the information has not been forthcoming. It appears as if we can divide growth in federal government spending over two periods. The first began, Mr. Speaker, in 1972 when the Liberal Party lost its majority and
May 3, 1982

slipped into minority government. Then there was a major increase in that year in federal advertising. The second major increase occurred following the 1980 election.
If you look at the figures produced by the government itself in the estimates, Mr. Speaker, the government indicates that in the year in which the Clark government was in office, federal spending on advertising was less than $40 million. The federal government projects for this year that it will be over $70 million. What that indicates, Mr. Speaker, is that in three years a massive explosion has occurred in federal advertising with the return of this government to office.
The federal government is the largest advertiser in Canada today. If you look at the private sector, perhaps the best example to make a comparison with would be General Foods. Yet General Foods' total budget to promote all of the goods and services they produce in Canada is less than half of what the federal government will be spending this year.
The government will say that it is unfair to make a comparison with a private sector corporation, but what about the situation in the United States, in contrast to the situation in Canada? The Wall Street Journal of March 4 of this year reported that the American federal government ranked twenty-fourth among advertisers in fiscal year 1981. Their expenditures were $173 million. That means that on a per capita basis the federal government in Canada is outspending the federal government of the United States for each citizen by four times; that is, spending four times as much per citizen in Canada for federal government advertising than is spent in the United States by the American government.
When these figures are pointed out to members on the government side, Mr. Speaker, they say that the provinces are doing it. This is a new standard of political situation ethics, Mr. Speaker. It is said that other people are doing it so it is all right for Ottawa to do it. There is no question of morality there; there is no question whether the government can be justified in spending that sum of money. Yet the most valid reason that can be made, in comparison with the United States, shows that our federal government on a per capita basis outspends the federal government by a ratio of some four to one.
I think it is worth making the point, Mr. Speaker, that government is different from the private sector. If you were running a corporation in the private sector-for example, General Motor or General Foods-you would have a responsibility to sell your product, to get out and hustle in the marketplace, to develop a good corporate image to convince Canadians that your product was better than the competition. Your job would be to sell and to promote a particular product. By contrast, the prime responsibility of the federal government should not be to sell a product but rather to inform Canadians about the law, about changes in the law, about their rights, about health programs and about how programs work so that services can be provided.
Yet we find, Mr. Speaker, that since the 1980 election there has been a dramatic change in the philosophy behind federal advertising. We find that today the federal government sees its
Supply
job as selling federal policies and promoting the policies of one political party, the party in power, the Liberal Party. This is a dramatic change from the policies that have been followed by all governments of any stripe in the past. Yet now we find this government feels that it can take public funds and convert them to the private use of the Liberal Party.
Members opposite probably would like to have examples of how this is done. The best example, of course, is the bill board notice which appeared two blocks from Parliament Hill, the Employment and Immigration advertisement. It was not designed to inform Canadians about a program or about their rights but to promote the corporate image of the Liberal Party and the corporate image of the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
There are other examples, Mr. Speaker. You will remember when the federal government called out the Canada geese in support of the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau's) constitutional policy.


Walter David Baker: "Goose Canada".


Henry Perrin Beatty: They proposed a second advertising campaign, a hard-sell campaign, to follow which even Mr. Michael Kirby, in the infamous leaked Kirby memorandum, said would raise serious doubts about the morality of the federal government in promoting such spending.
The minister then responsible for federal advertising, the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Fleming), when he was questioned about it, said this was all right because Parliament had approved in principle the concept of changing the Constitution. He said that as long as he was the minister responsible for federal advertising the federal government would not be involved in the promotion of ideas and policy until after Parliament has at least expressed itself in principle.


Mr. Fleming:: Read the whole thing.


Henry Perrin Beatty: That is a policy which he maintained on behalf of the government. Now apparently the minister does not believe he made that statement.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: I did not say that. Read the whole thing.


Henry Perrin Beatty: If the minister does not want to be associated with that statement, he should think again because that statement was infinitely preferable to a statement made last fall by the Secretary of State (Mr. Regan). After the Minister of State for Multiculturalism made that statement about not advertising until Parliament had made a statement in principle on a policy, he was stripped of his responsibility for government advertising, and that responsibility was transferred to the Secretary of State.
At a conference on advocacy advertising sponsored by the Conference Board of Canada, the Secretary of State spoke, on November 25, about advocacy advertising and said that there now was a policy of the federal government that the federal government would use public funds to promote federal policies

May 3, 1982
Supply
prior to Parliament's taking a position. We see that there is a striking break with the past, even in terms of the policy stated by previous ministers.
What was so striking about the speech given by the Secretary of State, who has responsibility for federal advertising, was that in one breath he condemned private sector advertisers who engaged in advocacy advertising. He said to them and bluntly, "We want you to know that advocacy advertising cuts no ice with the Government of Canada." Then in the next breath he said that the government sees its responsibility as promoting policies even before Parliament has passed judgment and at a time when they are only the policies of the Liberal Party, and the government feels free to use tax dollars to do that.
As another example of self-serving government advertising, on Remembrance Day, the day before the federal budget, the Government of Canada spent over $130,000 to put ads in over 100 daily newspapers across Canada which had the headline: "In the past 18 months the Government of Canada has resolved over 200 items dealing with our economic development." In the copy the ad gave a long list of programs. It was not designed to tell people how to apply for the programs; it simply listed them and said this:
We all know there is no one answer to the economic problems that confront Canada and the rest of the world, but here is a selection of projects that, taken together, are promoting sound economic development.
That was on Remembrance Day, November 11. The next day the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) stood before us in the House of Commons and introduced his "tighten your belts" budget which demanded that ordinary Canadians show restraint and give up their jobs, their homes, their businesses and their farms because, the government said, this was what was necessary in the war against inflation. What sort of restraint is there when public funds are used in this way to promote the policies of one political party and when on the next day the Minister of Finance makes a statement like the one he made?
Let me cite another example of advertising which is highly suspect. On Monday, November 16, just a few days later, in the "Report on Business" there was a full page ad showing a beautiful scenic picture of the Rockies and the prairies. The headline was "Canada-we have a lot to offer each other".


Mr. Peterson:: That is true.


Henry Perrin Beatty: It was part of a series. These full-page, full-colour ads ran at $16,000 apiece, and there was a series of seven. Each one in the series ended with this statement:
Canadians, working together. On the land, in industry, in the mines, on the seas. Working together, and with the help of government-
Which government?
-helping Canada grow. Canada. We have a lot to be thankful for.
To whom, one might wonder.
And a lot to offer each other.
Indeed. When I questioned the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Peterson) on this a few weeks ago,
he said this was designed to defeat separatism. The government was fighting separatism on Bay Street with $16,000 ads in the "Report on Business". Does anyone seriously believe that separatists will somehow be miraculously converted to supporting Canada because of this ad? Surely not. I suggest instead that when ordinary Canadians find that this government's policies are costing them dearly, this sort of frivolous, dangerous and self-serving advertising on the part of the federal government can only embitter Canadians and destroy support for the federal system in Canada.
As a further example, hon. members will remember the energy ads which were run a couple of years ago by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). At the time those ads were begun there was the infamous leaked memorandum from Mr. D. C. Hanright, director-general of information services for the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, Mr. Hanright described what he saw as the purpose of this advertising campaign. He said this:
Federal "control" will be suddenly, forcefully gained with announcement of the "package". This, however, will be a lumpy, almost indigestible mass of policy.
He was referring to the National Energy Program.
Unless that initiative is retained by merchandising both the package and its individual elements, and existing programs in the fields of supply, allocation and conservation, that initiative will go by default to the inevitable detractors (including a largely hostile media, the producing provinces, the foreign-owned multinationals, and the Opposition).
"Opposition" was spelled with a capital "O". To whom was Mr. Hanright referring when he spelled "Opposition" with a capital "O"? He was referring to the opposition in Parliament. The purpose of the advertising was to take energy off the list of pressing public concerns and to convince Canadians that the Liberal government had energy matters under control. If the federal government did not spend federal funds to do that, according to Mr. Hanright, the inevitable detractors-the opposition in Parliament, a "hostile" media, the multinationals and the producing provinces-would convince Canadians that there were serious problems in relation to energy. That was the purpose of that campaign. Surely no one can look at that statement and say that the federal government was not designing to use public funds, taxpayers' dollars, to promote the policies of one political party to the disadvantage of other political parties in Canada.
I am sorry the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) is not here at the present time. Last May he gave a speech, and in that speech he likened the federal government to a multiproduct corporation. In his speech he said:
Government is too complex nowadays to rely on "policy by press release". Programs must be explained-and not by reporters, but rather by the people who created them.
This is what he said to the Association of Canadian Advertisers in Toronto:
Imagine in your own companies if you had a $60 billion product and the only advertising you relied upon was word of mouth, reports in the media or comments by your competitors.
The "competitor", again, is the opposition in Parliament. According to the Minister of Supply and Services the role of
May 3, 1982

federal government advertising should be to sell federal policies, to overcome opposition from Members of Parliament, to overcome a hostile media and to ensure that there is public acceptance of the good works of the government and that public funds will be coerced from the taxpayers of Canada to pay for this. What does this say about the morality of the government in federal advertising? What does it say about the claim that this federal advertising is not designed to promote one political party?
But even if one sets aside for a minute the issue of whether the federal government should be advertising to promote the views of one partisan political party, there comes the question of truth in advertising. At the time those Department of Energy, Mines and Resources ads began showing up in our media, Mr. Murray Coolican of the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee wrote to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to ask for an investigation into false and misleading claims made in those ads. ETe felt that much of the content of that advertising was simply untrue and, because the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs goes to great pains to police the private sector and can lay charges against any corporation involved in false and misleading advertising, Mr. Coolican wrote under the Combines Investigation Act to the director of investigation and research of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and, on September 10, 1980, Mr. K. G. Decker, director of the marketing practices branch, wrote back to Mr. Coolican in this way:
As you know, a necessary element of an offence under Section 36 of the act is that a misrepresentation must have been made for the purposes of promoting the sale of a product or a business interest. Since the advertisement was placed by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources it is in my opinion, unlikely that a court of criminal law would consider that this element would be present. In addition, there have been some cases in law which appear to have established that agents of the Crown, which would include most government departments, cannot be prosecuted.
There are two standards when it comes to the truth. There is one standard for the private sector. Criminal charges can be laid against a corporation engaged in false and misleading advertising, and these charges are laid regularly by the federal government. However, there is complete carte blanche and freedom for the federal government to advertise however it sees fit, and there is no check upon it whatsoever. When Mr. Coolican wrote to the federal government he was told, "Well, you see, we cannot police this because the Crown is exempt from standards of truth in advertising."
Let me discuss another aspect of federal government activities. The Canadian Unity Information Office is fast becoming the tax-funded propaganda arm of the Liberal Party. At the time the Clark government left office there was a budget for the CUIO to fight the Quebec referendum. If hon. members want to check the main estimates for that year they will find that the budget was $10.6 million. The referendum is over, yet last year the budget for CUIO was $32 million, or roughly three times what it was when the Clark government left office and roughly three times the budget for Information Canada at its peak. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, the concern that Canadians expressed about Information Canada.
Supply
CUIO is engaged in massive tax-funded advertising campaigns which are designed to promote the image of the Liberal Party. In addition, it commissions polls in the private sector, the results of which are made available only to the Liberal Party and the Liberal government, not to the people of Canada. Quite recently a great deal of publicity attended the the leak of a poll in Quebec which indicated that since the last Quebec election, the Levesque government had fallen dramatically in public esteem. The reports were selective, however. The Liberal government gloated over the result of that poll but it did not mention other elements of it. Indeed, when I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) to table the results of the poll in Parliament, he refused.
I have a copy of that poll, Mr. Speaker, and I think it would be useful for Members of Parliament to know what was contained in it. The poll found that people felt that in the ability of the two levels of government to deal with economic problems, there was more dissatisfaction than satisfaction. In the case of the Quebec government those polled indicated dissatisfaction over the satisfaction by two to one. In the case of the federal government, dissatisfaction over the handling of the economy was three times as high as satisfaction. That is the opinion of the people of Quebec according to a tax-funded federal government poll which is being withheld from the people of Canada and from the Parliament of Canada.
The poll found that the majority of people were unhappy with both governments. You will remember the publicity to the effect that the majority of Quebecers were dissatisfied with the Quebec government. It was pointed out that some 55 per cent of Quebec electors who responded indicated that they were unhappy with the Parti Quebecois government while 39 per cent were happy with it. What the government neglected to mention to the Canadian people was that the poll showed that some 54 per cent were also unhappy with Ottawa; that is, 1 per cent less was unhappy with the Trudeau government than was unhappy with the Levesque government and 1 per cent more was satisfied with the actions of the Trudeau government. But that information was withheld from us.
I invite members of the House to call the office of the Minister of Justice or CUIO to ask for a copy of this poll which was funded by tax dollars. No doubt they will receive the same response I did, which was that it was not available. It is secret. It is information that is to be made available for Liberal Party and Liberal government use but is to be withheld from Parliament and from the people of Canada.
Every single poll that was commissioned during the tenure of the Clark government has been made public. That was at the insistence and urging of my leader and members of that former government. Every poll commissioned during the tenure of the Clark government was on the understanding that the results would be made public. But the number of polls commissioned by the present government since the last election is secret. When I questioned the executive director of the Canadian Unity Information Office about this matter in December, he refused to tell a parliamentary committee how
16830

May 3, 1982
Supply
many polls it had commissioned which were paid for out of public funds. Shortly after that, the executive director of CUIO left and went to work for the new leader of the Liberal Party of Ontario.
Surely an agency such as the Canadian Unity Information Office must not be allowed to have a budget of up to $30 million which is designed to promote the image of one political party and to gain intelligence only for one political party. When one questions this sort of advertising, the response from the government is that it is essential that the federal government explain to Canadians what their rights are, what services are available and what can be done for them. If it was serious about all that, surely in two years we would have seen a tough and comprehensive freedom of information act such as that which was introduced by my colleague just a few days after Parliament met during the Clark regime.
What we have today is the most secretive government in the history of Canada. It is secretive about how it spends taxpayers' dollars, it is secretive about public opinion polling, it is secretive about its activities and it is secretive about how decisions are made.
According to officials in the Privy Council Office when this party was in government, the cost of a comprehensive freedom of information act would have been about $10 million per year. Mr. Speaker, the cost of federal advertising this year will be about $80 million. I think Canadians are entitled to ask if the $10 million would not be better spent. Surely it would be infinitely preferable to open up this information for Canadians so that they can get the information they want instead of being propagandized with their own tax dollars and a message promoted by the Liberal Party.
A number of things can and should be done to clean up the federal government's advertising. The first thing would be to wind up the Canadian Unity Information Office. Massive savings could be made in that way. It is becoming a dangerous rogue elephant which operates on behalf of the Liberal Party. Those elements of its publications which are non-partisan or beneficial could be provided elsewhere. We should not have a central agency doing public opinion polling on behalf of the Liberal Party and financing advertising which is designed to promote the image of one political party.
Second, we should scrap federal advocacy advertising. The time has come to draw the line and to say that this must stop.
Third, we could save money for Canadian taxpayers by reducing the level of federal advertising by at least one third. A good place to begin would be to scrap CUIO and advocacy advertising.
Fourth, every public opinion poll commissioned by the Government of Canada should be made public. It should be commissioned only on the understanding that when the results are in they will be made available to Parliament and the people of Canada. We must do away with the secrecy that attends public opinion polling in Canada.
Fifth, when individual Canadians have concerns about the truthfulness of government advertising there should be an independent body whose decision would be binding on the federal government. Complaints could be made to it and
claims adjudicated and it could decide whether the federal government is using tax dollars to disseminate information that is plainly false. There is no such body today.
Sixth, what we need desperately in Canada is a tough and comprehensive freedom of information act. The time is long past when government can claim that information about how it acts and handles tax dollars is its own property and not that of the people of Canada.
If the present situation is allowed to continue unchecked we will find that the essential equilibrium between government and opposition which has existed over the centuries of parliamentary democracy will be destroyed. Instead, we will have one political party with a slush fund of $70 million or $80 million with which to promote its own policies and interests. It will be able to reach into the taxpayer's pocket to promote those interests and gain support while other political parties do not have similar funds to promote their point of view. I do not argue that the opposition parties should be funded from tax funds; it is the responsibility of those parties themselves to raise the money. I say, however, that this abuse must stop if our system of parliamentary government is to remain healthy.
If this trend continues we will find that it is yet another attack on the press in Canada. What we see now is that when the federal government cannot earn good publicity it uses tax dollars to buy good publicity. It simply drowns out competing points of view by purchasing as much time or space as is necessary to get its message across.
This is just one example of a series of attacks on freedom of the press, which includes the Kent commission report, the raid on The Toronto Sun under the Official Secrets Act and threats by cabinet ministers, including the Prime Minister, against Radio-Canada because they did not like its political coverage. It is essential that this trend not be allowed to continue.
In his book "The Government Party", Reginald Whitaker quotes from a memorandum that was sent to the Liberal Party in 1948 by Walsh Advertising Agency entitled "A Formula for Liberal Victory". I think it sums up the message that the Liberal Party believes in. On page 217 of that book there appears the following:
-we stripped away all the mysticism of political campaigns and "sold" Liberalism as we would sell any other product or service-by modern merchandising methods ... Walsh has always approached its political assignments with the same techniques that it employs successfully to sell automobiles, fountain pens, hosiery, etc. for other clients . . . Given a free hand, Walsh proceeded to formulate a plan that would sell a government to a people, just as we would sell any other product or service to people . . . Inferior products can annihilate superior ones, if shrewdly, consistently and heavily impressed upon the public.
That was in 1948, Mr. Speaker, before I was born. In the intervening 34 years the Liberal Party has learned that lesson well. They have discovered that by using massive amounts of tax dollars, they can convert those dollars to the use of the Liberal Party and sell inferior policies and get their point of view across in a way no other Canadian can do. This represents
May 3, 1982

a dangerous trend in our government, one that must stop, and a good place to begin to draw the line is on this motion today.


Hon. Gerald Regan (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, it is my belief that the essence of responsible government is that government informs the public of its initiatives, policies and laws. We cannot have a responsible government if we do not have an informed electorate. I do not believe it is possible for any government to discharge its responsibility of informing the public without utilizing advertising as a very important tool in the process. So I guess you could mark me down as one who rather strongly believes not only that it is responsible for governments to advertise, but that governments have the responsibility to advertise.
In a country as vast as Canada, with our scattered population and the proliferation of television channels, many of them carrying American programs, it is not a very easy task for any government to reach all of the public and get a message across on important policies or laws. It is a very difficult task which requires a variety of approaches to reach a far-flung public. A suggestion has been made to report on laws, policies and programs available to taxpayers. 1 know that immediately a lot of people will say that that is the job of the media. However, on reflection I think almost any fair-minded person will come quickly to the conclusion that it is not the responsibility of the media, and it is not something they are well equipped to do. The media is equipped to select the most newsworthy items which occur in government, and depending on the type of media, whether it be print, radio, television or whatever, they are often able to highlight the major features of a particular program in only a relatively superficial way. They do not have a responsibility to report on every government program or its details. It is not their job to tell a person exactly how to qualify for a home insulation grant. That is not what they are about at all. Therefore, we must immediately conclude that the media cannot perform the task, nor should they be expected to, of informing all Canadians in relation to government programs. That is not the way you are going to do it.
The question then is, are there ways in which the public can be reached other than by advertising? Well, there may be a variety depending on how broad a construction one were to put on the word "advertising". But I believe most would recognize that a public well-informed by factual advertising is better able to utilize existing government programs, better able to judge the wisdom of the programs, and is better able to make its representations through elected members or in whatever manner they desire. So I think that is a pretty good argument in support of the idea that governments have the responsibility to advertise.
I think the message of the young hon. member for Welling-ton-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) is not a very constructive one.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Supply


Gerald Augustine Regan: What bothers me about it, Mr. Speaker, and what bothers me sometimes in this House, is those who think we are here with the task of carrying on a political election for all the time we are elected members. I do not believe that is the case. I think the parties should fight each other for election at election time with great vigour, and that the responsibility of a Member of Parliament at other times is somewhat higher.


Mr. Blaikie:: You are a real democrat.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I am glad to have that endorsement. What bothers me about this particular subject is those people who say one thing when they are in government, and something totally opposite when they are in opposition. I say this in relation to the young member who has just spoken, because he had some responsibility in relation to advertising during the interim government, which government did not stop advertising. That government gave no indication that it did not feel government should advertise. It continued to advertise. So what does he do? He comes here and tries to pick out individual ads and how they are applied, and use that as a reason to say that this government is different from his government and other governments with respect to advertising.
He says these are hard times and therefore government should not be advertising. Does he feel, for instance, with the tremendous amount of money spent advertising tourism in this country by the Government of Canada, which brings immense returns to the economy and employment, that if times are difficult we should shut down the advertising? I am not sure that that is his position, but it seems to be the one he expresses.
Then, of course, on the basis of having had some responsibility in government for advertising-for eight months-he sets himself up as an advertising expert. I am far from being an expert-


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gerald Augustine Regan: -but I happen to believe that the job of the person responsible is to use the advice of experts in that field as in other fields. The hon. member comes in here and says: My goodness, I have discovered that there is a billboard which just says "Making Canada Work" and it shows a woman working and says "Employment Canada" down below. Therefore, he says, that is all this ad is conveying. The hon. member shows his absolute ignorance of the subject of advertising. He does not look at the entire program. Any man who has been in the advertising business for any period of time will tell him that a comprehensive program using a slogan ties together the radio, newspaper and television ads with the billboard. The billboard plays a very important role of jogging a person's memory about a message conveyed by television in more detail, or in newspapers.


John Horton McDermid: The land is strong.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Either he does not know that or he does not care, because he thinks the game is to come into Parliament and when in opposition to scream about advertising. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, I think we have a lot of pretty serious

May 3, 1982
Supply
problems in this country, and if the hon. member was able to convince his caucus to use an opposition day in these times to talk about the slight difference between the advertising when this government is in office compared with when his government was in office, then they were either feeling sorry for him because he has not had an opportunity to put forward anything in recent times, or they were pretty hard up for something to talk about.


Henry Perrin Beatty: What is $40 million to you, Gerry?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, I talked about the fact that when they were in government, they advertised, but they take a different stand in opposition. What do their friends do in the provinces? The province of Ontario, according to the best information I can find, is spending $18.6 million a year on advertising. How would you like to apply that per capita as against the Government of Canada reaching a public that is spread across the entire country and is, therefore, much more expensive to reach on each subject with which the government has to deal? Or would the hon. member like to talk about-[DOT]


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point or order. I do not think the minister would like to mislead the House when he mentions government advertising by the province of Ontario. 1 think he would find a good portion is tourist advertising-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Corrections can be made when the hon. member is recognized in the debate.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had been paying attention, he would have heard me talk about the fact that the Government of Canada is spending a lot of money on advertising for tourists. Not only in Ontario but in all of the provinces, substantial advertising programs are undertaken.
The other quarrel I have with the hon. member, before I move on to some other matters, is that he keeps talking about advertising being done for the advantage of one political party. Advertising done by a government is not done for a political purpose. It is not done for the advantage of one party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald Augustine Regan: The hon. member's problem is that he cannot accept the fact his candy was snatched from him after only eight months in office. It is not a question of two political parties; it is a question of government having responsibility to the public while it is in an elected position, quite apart from political responsibilities. The government has the responsibility to advertise those programs which the public needs and about which it wants to be informed. Frankly, based on my experience, I doubt whether we advertise enough. I doubt whether any government advertises enough. I find again and again, not only while this government is in office but under other governments that a tremendous number of people do not know about government programs which they should know about. Does the
hon. member feel that it is enough that we pass a program to provide assistance to people who apply for insulation grants?


Miss MacDonald:: Look at what you did with UFFI.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Is it enough to allow it to be reported by the media despite the fact that many people in the country do not get a daily newspaper? Or is there a responsibility to sell that program and have all Canadians know about it? A government that is not visible is not answerable. A program that is not visible will not be fully used. Government functions better if people are well informed. I believe that electoral decisions, when they come, should be based on solid information and that a government has its opportunity, its right and its responsibility to place factually-and I stress factually-before the public its policies and laws.
The hon. member says that government should not in any way be placing any adversarial information before the public. I suppose he recognizes that both opposition members and government members are allowed to send out householders at government expense. If you want to start looking at truth in advertising, the first thing to look at would be some of the householders compiled by backbenchers of the Conservative party-the real redneckers-and read some of the things which have been put in their householders over the past two years.


Mr. Huntington:: Read Ken Robinson's householders. They make good reading.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Political parties at election time are given funds for advertising that are certainly adversarial in nature. Those are the sort of exceptions to adversarial advertising, and I think they are probably justified. All parties have supported them in the past.
What sort of things do we advertise as a government? Let us talk about the fact that 75 per cent to 80 per cent of government campaigns are informational, that examples of such campaigns are aimed at attitude changing. Should we advertise water safety as the Department of Transport does? What about anti-smoking? Should we advertise that as we do? What about Hire-a-Student which is advertised by the Department of Employment and Immigration? What about the advertising of seat belt use by the Department of Transport? What about RCMP recruitment? What about the advert for moderation in drinking? What about the availability of government services? What about nutrition? What about the Department of Public Works tender calls? What about armed forces recruitment and what about public service recruitment? What about those sorts of things?
I think what the hon. member is doing is thrashing old straw. If he took the time to find out, he would see that advertising by this government is of the nature I have already outlined.
Let us discuss the self-serving nature of some of the more important government investments in advertising. A little while ago I used the example of the government office of
May 3, 1982

tourism. Travel and tourism represent 5 per cent of Canada's gross national product. Tourism generates 1,130,000 jobs in Canada annually. There are well over 100,000 small businesses whose livelihood and profitability depend on tourism. Total receipts last year were $16.5 billion. When you use the most accepted multiplier effect formula, you are talking about total personal incomes of $28.2 billion last year. To support that important industry and to make it grow, we will invest a total of $11,838,000 this year in advertising that works. That is a pretty tiny investment in such a vast industry which brings such returns.
What about energy? Do hon. members think that we should be advertising the importance of conserving energy and the various government programs that exist? That is something else that is done. I have talked about the Canadian Armed Forces. To honour our commitments to our allies we have to maintain our shelled manpower strength at appropriate levels. To do this, armed forces recruiters have to interview a considerable number of young men and women before one recruit is accepted and processed.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Right now it is the only place they can find a job.


Gerald Augustine Regan: What about public works? Is it fair that Canadians in every part of the country have an equal opportunity to tender? Or is it only those who happen to be in the immediate Ottawa area or the immediate area of an undertaking who have that opportunity?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Or friends of the Liberal Party.


Gerald Augustine Regan: For this government, it is a matter of considerable pride and achievement that the Canadian Unity Information Office is able to perform as effectively as it does in the service of this complex and sometimes difficult confederation of provinces. Keep in mind that threats to our unity continue to exist. Indeed, hon. members opposite will tell us on certain days that they consider the Western Canada Concept to be a threat similar to the Parti Quebecois. Unity is certainly a subject which needs to be pursued in our advertising.
I could talk about other areas, but I want to outline clearly and rather proudly the principles that I adhere to and which I think are important in relation to communications by a government. There are principles which will guide the government's communications policies and activities, and which we have conveyed to the public service so that it can understand its role in the non-partisan provision of information.
The first principle has to do with the basic reason for good communications, which is that Canadians have the right to full, accurate and timely information, in compliance with the Official Languages Act, about their government so that they can exercise their rights of citizenship and take part in the democratic process fully, responsibly and in an informed manner.
Supply
The second is an expression of the government's policy on open government. Canadians have a right of access to government records, with exceptions to be legally defined and interpreted by the courts, designed to protect essential public and private interests.
The third principle makes clear that in addition to explaining programs and legislation which have been approved by Parliament, the government has a duty to inform the public of its proposals before they are decided by Parliament. This confirms my position which caused the charge of the hon. member that this principle was wrong. 1 think it was the right principle. It recognizes that without factual information about government proposals and the issues being addressed, the public does not have the opportunity to make its views fully known to legislators, based on good information, to write to their members and to effect through public opinion the shape of changes which may be made to bills. The government has the responsibility to provide the public with full, accurate and timely information about the policies, programs and legislation approved by Parliament. It also has the responsibility to inform the public of the factual content of its policy proposals and of facts, as it is aware of them regarding the public issues addressed by its policies.
The fourth principle emphasizes the duty of government to pay attention to the public in every region. It reads:
Government has a corresponding responsibility to make every reasonable effort to learn of the concerns and views of Canadians, with particular attention to difference of views in different regions of the country, so as better to inform itself in establishing priorities, in developing policies, and in implementing programs which serve the interests of Canada.
Let me say that I think this last one touches a bit upon the subject of polling. It is highly justifiable for government to undertake to know public attitudes on matters so that policy can reflect public attitudes. If we are to have a democratic, responsible government then that is quite important. I agree with the hon. member opposite that the result of those polls should be made public. That is the policy, as outlined by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien).


Henry Perrin Beatty: When?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The policy is that these are used and then made available to the public.


Donald W. Munro: What about the McDonald commission?


Gerald Augustine Regan: I will come to the points of hon. members opposite later. The fifth and last basic principle recognizes that good government and good citizenship require earnest effort. Effective communications between citizens and government imply a reasonable effort on the part of citizens to seek the information they require to exercise their rights of citizenship and an obligation on the part of government to make every reasonable effort to provide access to information on an equal basis in all regions of Canada.
I believe we have approached the subject of advertising in the best way. I do not like to be critical, but I would tend to be

May 3, 1982
Supply
critical of what the Conservative Party did during its eight months in office. It set up one private company to handle all advertising business. It really amounted to a conflict of interest when it set up its friends in ultimate centralized patronage.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Gerald Augustine Regan: That was shameful. I am glad we in this government have followed a very different course.


Henry Perrin Beatty: You hired the Canadian Media Corporation which did not exist before.


Gerald Augustine Regan: The hon. member is not well informed. To the best of my knowledge the Canadian Media Corporation was only hired by the Conservatives after they came into office in my province.


Henry Perrin Beatty: It is a Liberal agency which was created after you took office.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Not at all. Perhaps the hon. member could talk about that at another time.
The hon. member made a comparison between the amount being spent in Canada on advertising and the amount spent in the United States. He should keep in mind the basic difference between the Canadian government and the American government. This is a government which has very, very important social programs which do not exist in the United States. Thank heavens we have them. I know that he and some of his colleagues would like to see those programs done away with, but that people on this side of the House believe those programs are important and they carry with them the responsibility that they be communicated. It is a very different situation as between the Government of Canada and the government of the United States.
When it comes to the contents of individual ads, of how one gets one's message across in the best way, we must keep in mind that it should not be decided by amateurs but by experts. I hope the hon. member will take the lesson of talking with people who are in the business and recognizing that in a coordinated program we do not judge the billboard alone but determine the impact of the entire co-ordinated message.
We can well be proud of our approach to advertising. I assure the House that we have no intention of having advertising used for narrow partisan purposes or of allowing public dollars to be used for that purpose.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald Augustine Regan: We are determined to see to it that the public has the facts before it through factual advertising. I notice the hon. member did not mention the Constitution. He did not go on record as saying whether it was wrong or right to advertise the Constitution. As a result of ads being placed with mail-in coupons for further information on the Constitution, there was a demand in the short days for which the Constitution ad ran of something in the vicinity of 120,000 replies. Any advertising man will tell us that that was a phenomenal response. It indicated a vast level of interest on the part of the Canadian
public and that the advertising was well justified because the public responded and wanted additional information.
Those of us who are so close to matters in the House of Commons, because we come here every day, tend sometimes to think that everyone in Canada is leaning on their television sets, turning to the channels carrying the debates of the House of Commons, and living and dying on the basis of every witty exchange across the floor. That is not how the real world is at all. Out there the people are preoccupied with a great number of problems of their own. A great number of the people know little about government programs. I believe we are fulfilling our responsibility by advertising those programs so that all Canadians benefit from them.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would the minister confirm to the House that all polls taken in the province of Quebec will be released when they are made, as soon and as promptly as possible?


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


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by thanking the hon. member for Welling-ton-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) for providing us with the opportunity to debate this issue. I disagree with the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Regan) about the importance of this issue; I think it is about time we had the opportunity to debate the role of polls and the role of advocacy advertising in Canadian politics.
The Secretary of State went to a great deal of trouble to avoid the issue. I do not think, if I understood the mover of the motion correctly, that anyone was taking issue with the government's making information available to Canadians about social programs or the promotion of tourism. We are talking about the increasing role which advocacy advertising and the taking of public opinion polls are playing in Canadian politics. We are really talking, as in so many other areas of life in the late twentieth century, about our morals and selfunderstanding-in this case the morality and self-understanding of politics-catching up with available technology at this particular time in history.
One of the things we have available to us now which we did not have when many of our political standards were first established is the availability of mass-media advertising, and the explosion of scientific ways of measuring public opinion. I think it is about time that we did have this kind of debate, because how we handle this at the early stages of what I consider to be a dangerous trend will determine the future course of Canadian politics.
Government polling is becoming more and more significant as a vehicle of determining government policy and advocacy advertising is becoming more and more significant as a way of selling government policy. After his re-election in 1974, the
May 3, 1982

Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is said to have jokingly remarked that all he had to do was what Martin Goldfarb told him to do. He was referring to how he won the election. During the Conservative interregnum, we switched from government by Goldfarb to government by Gregg of Decima Research. There was still some evidence that the ruling party felt it was wise to use polling as "the creative arm of government", which is how the Gallup people describe themselves.
As I move into the debate, I want to say that I think this is an issue which all parties and all governments, provincial, federal, Liberal, Progressive Conservative and NDP, must wrestle with in that none of us is pristine pure when it comes to this particular technology and politics. Therefore, I do not think that any great self-righteousness on the part of anyone is justified. I like to think, however, and I think it could be established, that the Liberal Party has in fact pioneered many of the dangers to which I will refer over the course of my remarks.
I would have felt better about the speech of the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe had he seen fit to mention the "Preserve it, Conserve it" campaign in Ontario which was clearly a subliminal way of implanting within the Ontario population a positive identification with the words "Progressive Conservative". So let us not kid ourselves. This is an issue which all of us need to be thinking about because all of us, when we are in government, are tempted to use these kinds of instruments.
In 1980, the polls released by the Liberals cost an estimated $5.2 million. The budget for advertising that year was $60 million. It would appear that the government spent about $5 million-plus to take our pulse and about 15 times that much telling us what our pulse was and how they would go about fixing it up. It was expected that advertising costs in 1981 would increase by 8 per cent to 20 per cent. The size of the increase in advertising expenditure, however, was much higher. It is estimated that 1981 spending was up in the neighbourhood of $100 million, a 66.6 per cent increase in spending. The size of this outlay is responsible for the federal government's leap in position from the seventeenth major advertiser in the country in 1970 to the largest major advertiser in the country in 1980.
Typical of government attitudes to this expenditure of tax dollars is Frank Miller's observation. I am referring to a Progressive Conservative cabinet minister in Ontario, I believe. He was quoted as saying, "You do not always follow the polls, but at least you know what is saleable". This theme of saleability also appears in federal documents which point out that public relations campaigns "will be an ideal environment in which to begin to sell and keep selling the legitimate notions of our own policy initiatives."
There are a number of issues involved when we discuss the role of polls and the role of advertising. First, of course, there is the considerable waste of public spending to influence public opinion, a spending which is not only criminal when one contrasts it with the more useful ways in which this money could often be spent, but whicn in the long run also emasculates the concept of parliamentary democracy. The use of
Supply
public opinion polls and advertising was particularly evident in the constitutional debate. However, as horrible as the constitutional advertising was, it may have done us the long-term favour of stimulating the debate about government and advocacy advertising, because what we saw was an attempt on the part of the government to circumvent Parliament.
I will not go into this area in my speech on the role of polls and advertising, but I think that this discussion goes along with the discussion of parliamentary reform and reform on the part of the fourth estate, the media. We must do a great deal of work to make Canadian politics more alive, more relevant and more human so as not to concede to the trends which the increase in polling and advertising represents. What polling and advertising does to our parliamentary system of government'and politics is to make political organizations redundant, in a way. That is why we have Members of Parliament and constituency organizations. That is what we are supposed to have in grass roots movements which keep in touch with the people. The job of everyone here is to try to take as good a reading as possible of the opinions of the people, however diverse, because the opinions of the people are never homogeneous. We must bring that back and give fair voice to the opinions of the people. We do not always have to agree with the people, and I will refer to that later. But what we are seeing here is an increasing redundancy of our traditional party system and it is not a good thing. The cabinet should not be able to circumvent its own caucus, its own government backbenchers and find out public opinion from Goldfarb. Surely, that is why there are Liberal backbenchers. If they do not provide that particular function, then what good are they?
The second concern is the threat to free speech which is represented by this trend when so much media time and space is devoted to advocacy advertising by the government, spending public money frequently for very partisan purposes. Many groups do not have the money to go on prime time TV to sell their particular points of view. These are groups with opinions which are different from those of the government, groups with different opinions about the environment, groups with different opinions about the validity of megaprojects, and groups concerned about the way in which Crown corporations, such as CN, go about the business of economic development. These groups do not have the money. Where is the justice in this? Where is the free exchange of ideas in that, I ask Your Honour? We see a very serious threat to the ability of all Canadians to make their ideas known and have them debated. The Canadian public should have equality of access to the media.
The third concern is the moral dishonesty of spending money in the first place to detect biases and then spending more money to feed them, first through polling and then through advertising. This is very vividly demonstrated in the way in which the government advertises it is changing unemployment insurance legislation to curb abuses when what it is in fact doing is setting up the climate for further emasculation of the unemployment insurance program. That is what is really

May 3, 1982
Supply
going on. So what we see is that in the same way as we hear arguments about the marketplace, arguments that people are able to make free choices and that this collection of free individual decisions is the way the world unfolds, we hear the same fallacy here. In the same way as the marketing people in the private sector go out and attempt to create a want, in order to meet that want and obtain a profit the government is doing the same sort of thing. Both the government and the private sector are claiming that they are simply responding to public opinion. They say they are neutral and are simply trying to meet the needs of the people. This argument, given 30 seconds' thought, falls to pieces. Nevertheless it is employed by the government.
The other thing, and here the Liberal Party is particularly culpable, is the void of leadership created when politics bears so little relationship to principle. I remind my Conservative friends, who often fall into the trap of wanting Members of Parliament to respond to a sort of delegatory view of democracy as opposed to a representative one and have Members of Parliament do whatever it is the majority of their constituents want them to do, regardless of the issue, of a quote by Edmund Burke, a Tory of some renown, who said:
Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
This is a way to introduce into this debate the appalling lack of principle which people have come to accept from the Liberal Party in this country. It has done immense damage to the quality of political debate and political life in this country.
What we have here when we talk about government by poll and by advertising is the death of policy, the death of debate around issues and the death of ideas. This is something which cannot continue for very long-indeed it has continued far too long already-without doing serious damage to the ability of Parliament to be properly seen as a place in which ideas are held, held firmly, are debated independently and for which people are prepared to defend their ideas by doing something more than quoting a poll.
We saw enough of that sort of politics on both sides of the constitutional debate. It was particularly regrettable when people wanted to defend their position, whatever it happened to be, by citing the latest Gallup poll. It got to be sickening after a while.
The fifth point 1 would like to mention is the abuse by the advertisers, and I talk here about Liberal advertisers, of the legitimate symbols of a country. Note for example the Liberal use of the advertising consortium known as Red Leaf Communications and the co-opting of other Canadian symbols in Liberal ads. Hon. members will recall Bob Rae, the former member for Broadview-Greenwood, who remarked following a series of ads on the Constitution in which Canada geese were depicted, and I quote:
I'll never be able to look at Canada geese or a beaver in quite the same way again, I'll see them as Liberals in disguise.
I said this in my first speech on the Constitution, but I will say it again because nobody paid attention. The Liberal Party did a disservice to this country by co-opting a lot of our symbols. One day I wore a maple leaf here, but only for one day, because so many people came up to me and said, "Blaikie, why are you wearing a Liberal pin?".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The Liberals think that is funny. That is a terrible thing the Liberal government has done to the maple leaves. You can hardly pick up a Liberal pamphlet without being blinded by the red maple leaves. Members opposite may laugh. They see it as a good political strategy in the short run. In the long run, however, if all our symbols are associated with one political party, when we finally need to talk about unity, there will be nothing left to give the people which transcends the various political parties in this House. Thank God for the Queen. She is the one thing the Liberals have not yet contaminated, although they are probably trying.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: She is on government stamps.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: There are other issues which the increasing use of polls and advertising touch upon. I will not have time to go into all of them. However, I want to deal for a moment with constitutional advertising. It was really bad that the Liberals were advertising their views of the Constitution before it was even passed in this House. As far as I am concerned, that broke all the barriers of political morality as far as advertising is concerned. I guess they were trying to equal their record in all other aspects of political life.
An advertising campaign will now be conducted on the Constitution. The people will not fall for that crap, this stuff they must watch on television. But there is one practical part of the ad, and that is that people may send in for information on the Constitution. That is the one useful part of the ad, and as the Secretary of State said, thousands have sent in requests.
People are amused by the advertising, but it does not do anything for national unity. When will the Liberal Party see that national unity is something you build from the ground up with a substantial sense of community and nationhood? It is not something you can foster through corny Canada Day celebrations and all sorts of other advertising that is amusing and nothing else. The stuff that passes for patriotism when it comes to the Liberal party is something to behold.
I think they are still feeling guilty about the whole constitutional process. Perhaps we should all feel guilty about the constitutional process. I do not think any of us were that great in that process. If we have to go out now and sell the thing through an advertising campaign, then we have really done a number! We now need a multimillion dollar advertising campaign to convince the Canadian people that what happened in the last two years was a good thing. That is really something!
It is up to Members of Parliament and all political parties to discuss the implications of the Constitution and the changes

May 3, 1982

which it represents for our country, not to rely on the equivalent of a political Kellogg's cornflakes routine to sell something as important as the Constitution. Indeed, we should not be selling the Constitution at this stage because so much remains to be done. What we should be doing is carrying on the debate about further changes that are needed to make the House of Commons more relevant and representative, to give voice to the legitimate perceptions of the regions of Canada that they do not have enough clout at the centre.
We should get on with reform of the Senate, change it from being a sort of lawn bowling club, making it more politically viable and representative. These are the sorts of things to which the government should give its attention. It should also give attention to the way it now spends money on advertising. That money could be put in the hands of the 75 per cent of Canadian women over the age of 65 who now live below the poverty line. That is one example of what could be done with the money rather than spending it in this way.
There is the other issue of secrecy. Not only do they conduct polls, but they keep the information to themselves, releasing them after they are out of date so that they are of no use to anyone but themselves. That is what happened to the polls on the Constitution. It is what you call Liberal generosity. They give out the information after it is of no more use. This is just part of the whole cloud of secrecy which hangs over the Canadian government and our whole political process.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: 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 Gaspe (Mr. Cyr)-Hazardous substances- Inquiry whether government will aid Gaspe ureaformaldehyde foam insulation victims; the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields)-National Energy Program-Alsands project-tax and royalty structures; the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro)-External Affairs-French claims to St. Pierre and Miquelon.
______________________________________16837
Supply



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Beatty:
That this House condemns the government for its increasing use of Canadian taxpayers' dollars for self-serving advertising and public opinion surveying, and in particular, for spending millions of tax dollars for unnecessary advertising at a time when it demands financial sacrifices from ordinary Canadians.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington). Order. Usually we alternate from opposition to government benches. I was given a name. The hon. member was standing. I will recognize the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Parent).
I just want to correct something, with the permission of the House. If I do recognize the hon. member for Capilano, I want the house to know that the Chair will have the liberty, and will take the liberty, to recognize one, two, three or four members of the same party-from the government benches or from the opposition. I wish to explain that we always have gone alternately from government benches to opposition benches. In following that tradition I would have to go to the hon. member for Welland. I did recognize the hon. member for Capilano. If the House thinks, and if the hon. member thinks, that he should be recognized now, that will be breaking the tradition. I want the House to know that then the Chair will feel free to recognize two, three, four, five members in a row from the opposition or from the government benches. I leave that in your hands. I do recognize the hon. member for Capilano.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that it is a hard and fast rule that the speakers alternate in the way you have described. However, if it is your wish to recognize the second Liberal member in this debate-the minister has spoken-as long as I am recognized following him, I will yield.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: You will be recognized following him. The hon. member for Welland.


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for recognizing me; and I thank the hon. member for recognizing that which we have considered to be a tradition for some time, to recognize speakers from side to side.
1 find it somewhat, if not amusing, at least strange that the hon. member who preceded me from the New Democratic Party is belittling the fact that the Government of Canada, which represents all the people of Canada, should take its time, talent and money to let the people of Canada know exactly what it is doing in different programs. That is especially so, Mr. Speaker, when I see in the Ottawa Citizen of May 1, 1982, an article written by Mr. Bert Hill, The Citizen staff writer:

May 3, 1982
Supply
The Canadian Labour Congress will launch a $500,000 television advertising blitz next week to encourage Canadians to fight the government's economic policies.
I was in the House some time ago when Mr. McDermott, the leader of the CLC, said that he was really the leader of the New Democratic Party. Perhaps they should get their acts together. Mr. Hill continues:
In place of the exhortations to remember past Canadian achievements, Canadians will see a tumbling house of cards and hear the message that "high interest rates threaten all you've worked for: your home, your job, your security."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gilbert Parent: He goes on:
The month-long advertising campaign, which the CLC says will rival campaigns to introduce new commercial products, is the latest effort to build on last November's big demonstration on Parliament Hill.
It will all end in a public relations crescendo later this month when the CLC convention in Winnipeg will provide a major focus for opposition to government economic policy.
It seems all right for these members of the New Democratic Party to go ahead and have all their advertising as they go along, but when it comes to the people of Canada, when it comes to the Government of Canada to advertise, to use the legitimate ways that we have of disseminating information, that does not seem to be right at all.
The Member of Parliament for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty), in speaking about the Canadian Unity Information Office, questioned the use of evaluations and surveys. It is an ongoing activity for CUIO, through the advertising management group and other advertising agencies, to perform pre and post-evaluations of advertising campaigns in line with approved Treasury Board regulations. It also conducts surveys to evaluate its program's effectiveness, that is, federal government participation at major fairs, such as the CNE, in accordance with cabinet decisions. With regard to surveys, the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe has criticized CUIO for conducting and keeping public opinion polls secret from Parliament and the public. He has placed several questions on the Order Paper requesting the costs and full disclosure of information about all government public opinion research.
The fact is, as was said here a little while ago by the minister, that this is part of the government's ongoing monitoring of public attitudes on issues related to national unity. There is nothing new there. Opinion surveys are a long accepted method in the formulation of government policy, supplementary to other expressions of public opinion. Contrary to what the New Democratic Party member said, we on this side are not guided by polls as some parties are; we do listen to our backbenchers and the backbenchers in this party and will continue to do so in the months and years head.
The government's policy and practice with respect to release of such polls has been stated in this House by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), who said: "Our policy is very clear: when we are through using these polls for policy development purposes, we shall make them public." Someone asked when that is going to be and there is the answer right there.
With regard to the constitutional information program, the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe through media interviews-and I guess that is a form of advertising-has said that the CUIO is not stating the exact cost for its recent information program on the Constitution. He believes that the full $8.9 million supplementary budget approved by a committee of Parliament in December, 1981, is being spent, rather than the $7 million recently quoted by the CUIO official. He also believes that this $7 million figure is strictly for advertising.
I would like to point out two facts, Mr. Speaker. First, CUIO's estimate is that the cost of this special project will be less than the previously budgeted amount of $8.9 million. Secondly, CUIO approximates that the total cost will be closer to $7 million, which includes $3.5 million devoted strictly to advertising in print, in radio, in television and in bus shelter posters. There is $3.5 million for publications available free of charge, such as the December, 1981, resolution and its highlights, "A Canadian's Guide to the Charter", and a household mailer. Others include copies of the charter, small and large format, as well as three travelling exhibits beginning in May.
With respect to the information campaign which the hon. member said is secret, all advertising was supported by a mail-in coupon or an address to which the public could write for further information. What is so secret about that, Mr. Speaker? The advertising campaign quoted earlier, as well as the return coupon, has had overwhelming response from all across Canada. We have had approximately 150,000 requests since the week of April 13. The average response is 10,000 to 15,000 requests per day. Numerous requests have also been received for special exhibition material to be used for Canada's birthday, displays in shopping malls, and so on.
The New Democratic Party member referred to Canada Day and said something to the effect that it was another circus.

And, Mr. Speaker, when it pleases an hon. member to call our national holiday a circus, I wonder what is going through his mind when we want to talk about Canadian unity across this country. I wonder what he can be thinking of when he says that all the members in this House are like performers in a circus, and that we, Canadians, do not have the right to celebrate our country's holiday and, this time, our Constitution. This is the first time in our entire history that we shall have had an opportunity to celebrate in this way, and the hon. member is telling us we should not celebrate that day. Mr. Speaker, is that what we want to hear hon. members say? Is that going to bring us closer to unity throughout Canada?


Mr. Tousignant:: Shame!


Gilbert Parent: Shame, indeed, as my colleague just said. I hope we are not going to hear anything like that again in this House, since we have only one holid- y, Canada Day, and we shall all be together, not just the western provinces, or the
May 3, 1982

eastern provinces, but the North and all the other regions, will be together to celebrate that day.
Mr. Speaker, we referred earlier to information sent out to our fellow citizens across Canada, and I would like to say a few words about the campaign launched by the Canada Unity Information Office.
Most of the advertising of the Canadian Unity Information Office has been utilized by the opposition as a means to develop criticisms about federal government advertising and also to imply that the Canadian Unity Information Office is rapidly being transformed into the propaganda arm of the Liberal Party.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: It is.


Gilbert Parent: I reject that completely. I wish my hon. colleagues opposite would listen to me relating some of the things we have been doing, rather than criticizing without even listening.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: We watched your geese.


Gilbert Parent: Examples of some advertising in the last year included television advertising aired at different times during the year describing federal government programs and services. That is going to be an arm of the Liberal Party, is it? Those are services the Government of Canada provides to all the people of Canada. One of the commercials in that campaign was entitled "The Environment", and it described areas in which the federal government is actively involved, including the management of national parks, the management of forest resources and water management. Do those belong only to the Liberal Party? I hear no answer from hon. members opposite. No, they belong to all of us. They belong to Canadians. It is a shame hon. members opposite would even suggest otherwise.
Another example of a television campaign was the national unity message entitled "Contributions". This commercial described the wealth and potential of Canada and gave examples of each province's contributions to our national wealth. So much for the propaganda arm of the Liberal Party.
Probably the most controversial campaign to which the hon. member referred was the series of ads run last year in the "Report on Business" section of The Globe and Mail. The theme of the campaign was "Canada-we have a lot to offer each other", and the ads described the wealth and potential of Canada. The hon. member's argument was that there was no service and no program being sold in those ads except the image of the Liberal government. I must say that as a Member of Parliament I take strong exception to such allegations.
The following quotation might help to refute allegations. It is a quotation from the Breau report, the report of the all-party committee on fiscal arrangements in 1981:
Federal spending without federal presence or participation in provincial programs without visibility in the provinces, is not just frustration for the
Supply
politician, it is also a denial of the citizen's right to see the government's work and to judge it. When the federal role is not evident, it cannot be assessed.
Therefore:
-government that is not visible cannot be answerable.
In addition, the need to achieve understanding of Canada's evolution, the integrity of the federal system of government, the realization of Canada's vast potential and the future security and wellbeing of its citizens may ultimately depend on the government's ability to communicate its role, policies, programs and services.
Advertising is but one means of communicating to the public. Its intent is not to replace the traditional information role of the media or that of Members of Parliament but to complement it. To quote the hon. member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) during a media interview:
We have to use twentieth century techniques for communicating with Canadians to try to show the advantages of staying together. The threat of separation in Quebec has not yet gone away. We now see separatism rearing its head in the west with the Western Canada Concept. We are also in the business of delivering services to Canadians and if Canadians are not aware of what those services are, what is available to them, then we have failed as a government. Unless the people know what we're doing, they won't know where to hold accountable.
There are 57 different publications currently produced by the Canadian Unity Information Office, and over 7.6 million copies have been distributed since May of 1981, mostly in response to requests from parliamentarians, the general public and order forms from our counter-top displays in post offices. For example, in a one-week period from March 14 to March 19, 1982, we received 1,611 letters from the general public, for a total of 19,378 items distributed. Over 2,200 requests for materials were received by members of Parliament and senators last year, and approximately 32 per cent of responses from our post offices countertop displays are from the western provinces.
Since the Canadian Unity Information Office was established in 1977 we have distributed well over 80 million brochures. Examples of some of these include brochures such as "The Government of Canada and the Construction Industry," "How Canadians Govern Themselves" and "The Government of Canada at Your Service." And still hon. members opposite say this is a propaganda arm of the Liberal government!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: It is.


Gilbert Parent: Was it the propaganda arm of the Conservative government when hon. members opposite were in power and the former minister advertised the things his government was doing at that time? Was it ever said at that time that the Canadian Unity Information Office was the propaganda arm of the Conservative government? No, and I will tell the House why. At that time the Conservative Party made up the Government of Canada. Hon. members opposite were the Canadian government, just as we are today. It is true they did not like to govern very much because at the end of nine months they simply packed it up and went off and hid their tails someplace.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Look at what went on.

May 3, 1982
Supply


Gilbert Parent: The former secretary of state for external affairs says we should look at what went on. Let us recall some of the things that went on when she was a minister. Well, the people of Canada passed their judgment in the election of 1980. Hon. members opposite will have their chance again a few years down the road. I just hope they are all still around then.
Publications on government programs and services are available. They constitute the major part of publications requested by the public. There are publications on the nature of our political system and facts on Canada.
One way by which we are able to explain to the people to let them know what their government is doing is through exhibitions. Thirteen exhibits are travelling across Canada, mostly to communities which do not always have easy access to federal government departments.


John Horton McDermid: Brampton? You are crazy.


Gilbert Parent: We offer information on various subjects including, first, programs and services available to Canadians through their federal government. This exhibit is entitled "Self-Service". A second exhibit is on the subject of energy and resources and is entitled "A Resource-full Country". A third exhibit is called "Canada's Far North".


Walter David Baker: You have a freak show called the Liberal caucus.


Gilbert Parent: There is a freak show going on across the floor.
The following are statistics on the number of locations to which our exhibits travelled in Canada last year as well as the number of visitors. The exhibit entitled "Self-Service" was viewed by 105,000 visitors at 46 sites in British Columbia. There were 90,000 visitors in Alberta at 48 sites. In Saskatchewan there were 65,000 visitors at 57 sites. I could go on and on with these, but it should be noted that since the inception of our exhibits program in 1979 close to three million people have seen the exhibits. These are exhibits of our government, the Government of Canada. I see an hon. member nodding in agreement. Even today this is his government.


John Horton McDermid: That isn't what the editorial in the Brampton Daily Times says.


Gilbert Parent: I cannot wait for whatever it is the hon. member has coming.
Our evaluations indicate that over 90 per cent of the visitors appreciate this type of doorstep information and find it very useful. That is contrary to the baying we hear from across the floor right now.
There are other matters to which we should address ourselves. Just last week there was a press release about the type of program we want to advertise and the type of program for which we as the Government of Canada are being criticized. I refer specifically to the expansion of the Katimavik program to
provide work opportunities for 1,650 young people across Canada. Are they opposed to young people getting jobs? Are they opposed to knowing where these jobs are?


John Horton McDermid: Tell that to the 600,000 young unemployed.


Gilbert Parent: Conservative members on the other side laugh because we want to have jobs for our young people. They make fun of us because we want our young people to experience the good things in Canada. That is the way they look at it but we think it is important.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: What are you doing about it?


Gilbert Parent: I will tell the hon. member what we are doing about it. The Government of Canada will provide $17.6 million in 1982-83 for the program, which will now be funded on an ongoing basis for a period of five years rather than on a year to year basis. The number of work opportunities for younth in 1982-83 has been increased by 25 per cent over 1981 when there were 1,287 participants in the Katimavik program, involving 117 community projects across Canada.
Hon. members laugh at this type of program but we make known what is going on across Canada. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that if they were more interested in Canada they would not try to hide the good things we are doing in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I am going to skip over the speech of the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Parent) now that the Secretary of State (Mr. Regan) is back in the House. I am glad he is here because something is happening in this chamber, particularly on the frontbenches of the Liberal government. Every time members there find themselves without answers they seem to move to a personal attack on an individual. In the House today the minister referred to the "young member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe". This young member, who informed us he was born in 1948, is my benchmate and I want to tell hon. members that he is a very bright and able young man.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: When he was minister of state for the Crown he was one of the most able we had. He did a magnificent job and is still doing a magnificent job in the area of information.


Mr. Chretien:: Minister of nothing.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: He has expressed our concern about advocacy advertising, which is an extremely serious matter to many people in this country. Even the bidding practices that have been historically built in to the federal government system are being totally ignored by the government.
May 3, 1982

Today the Secretary of State referred to the Canadian Media Corporation. I would remind him that the Liberal government created this by putting together four Liberal advertising agencies. The information that he put on the record in his speech today certainly needs to be corrected. If he wants a further reference he should read the testimony in issue No. 66 of the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. His colleague the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) appeared before that committee and put that information on the record. The minister should not shake his head at me but should go and talk to his colleague about this.
When the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) was in office and was responsible for advertising, he did everything he could to bring the $60 million budget down to $45 million. There was a retrenchment of advertising, particularly in the advocacy area. Every time a request was received from Treasury Board, two questions were asked. The first was whether the project was necessary, and if that could not be answered satisfactorily the project was disallowed. The other question was whether the PC Party should be carrying out the project. That is one of the great differences between what happened in the short period of time this party was in government and what is happening today with the quarter billion dollar information service. Advocacy advertising is running up to $70 million and this year, with the supplementary estimates, it may hit $100 million.
Some government advertising campaigns are designed to take control of energy debates, to take control away from what we do in the House in terms of getting information out to the public and retain that control through action, leadership and advertising. That is what the government is trying to do with the National Energy Program. The advertising says that it wants to remove energy from the list of high-ranking national concerns. It gets value for its money, Mr. Speaker. That is why we get all these full-page advertisements about energy, how marvellous the government is and the great things it is doing. I do not know why it cannot use the TV cameras, Hansard and the press gallery that is full every day. But that is not good enough for the government. People hear and see and read what these geniuses do with their tax dollars and it is creating anger. The government thinks it can put that anger down with advocacy advertising that is about as dishonest as the rhetoric it gives us in this House.
The former president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce-he has now resigned that post-is a very great Canadian and a very great Liberal. He used to be an old-fashioned kind of Liberal but now I believe he fits into the neoConservative slot. Mr. Stanley Roberts has been in the riding of Capilano making speeches, trying to see if Capilano might be available to him as a Liberal candidate. I hear that he has now gone to Lachine and that the hon. member for Lachine (Mr. Blaker) is rather concerned that he has a nomination battle on his hands now because Mr. Stanley Roberts wants to
Supply
be the new leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. Referring to the advocacy advertising of the Department of Employment and Immigration, he said that the money should have been used for manpower training and added that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) claims that he does not have enough money for job training but then spends this kind of money on advertising. One has to wonder about his priorities, he said. That is the opinion of Mr. Stanley Roberts, the potential new leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.


Gerald Augustine Regan: He has as much chance as you have of being the leader of the Conservative Party.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: My colleague the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe told the House that Crown corporations are spending over and above the $70 million on advocacy advertising and that we have no control over it. The advertisements tell us what a wonderful country this is, what a great job Petro-Canada is doing with all the new oil it has brought into being, and how the national energy reserve has been expanded. It is all hogwash, Mr. Speaker. Yet these Crown corporations that now have agency status are outside the purview of the law. They are untouchable. A whole subgovernment has been created and it is beyond our touch, purview and control. There is no control over it by Parliament.
The government will not bring in a Crown corporations act or an information act. It wants secrecy. It wants to impose its propaganda on an apathetic Canadian public. That is what advocacy advertising is-it is propaganda.
Last Thursday I had the unpleasant task of completing my income tax reform-I mean my return. After completing my return I want income tax reform, Mr. Speaker. It made me so angry that I could no longer stay on the Hill and had to go for a long walk to get free of this environment. I am paying for these full-colour advertisements which cost $16,000 every time they are printed. And what do they tell me? They do not tell me anything. That is your advocacy advertising, Mr. Speaker.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tousignant):: Order, please. The hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) on a point of order.


Mr. Lapierre:: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that our hon. colleague, with his experience and during his long walks outside the Parliament buildings, reflect on the rules of the House which are preventing him from taking undue advantage of this instrument we call a camera and from trying to exhibit all kinds of documents.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I understand what the hon. member is saying, I think, but is it not interesting that they spend $16,000 each time this is printed to show it to the people of the country, and you cannot show it in the House?

May 3, 1982
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I have just come into the chair, but I heard the point raised and I hope the hon. member will abide by the rules of the House.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: It just shows you how sincere and how proud they are about all this advocacy advertising. 1 think I have made my point. Taxpayers have to stand there and see their money dribbled away on this garbage. It does not buy them anything out there, believe me. I have a list of advertising which has come to me from constituents in Vancouver who are absolutely furious every time this kind of stuff comes out.


An hon. Member:: Junk mail.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: These are ads which say that if you are searching far and wide for markets, there is help near at hand.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: What do we do? We build monuments in Algeria for maybe $90 million. Now the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Lumley) is announcing a megaproject in Algeria for hotels. What about convention centres and job-creating activities right here at home?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: All this nonsense is being fed to the nation. I know we cannot show this stuff, Mr. Speaker, but there is this beautiful little thing on the Constitution. This stuff is being fed out with things like this backing it up. At last we have a charter of rights! There are countries all over the world with a charter of rights-


Donald W. Munro: And lots of wrongs, too.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: -and they would like to see some of those rights allowed. So why the need for this $9 million to condition the Canadian public, which really has not been awake?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Why did you vote for it?


Walter David Baker: Here he comes!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I did not, Mr. Minister. I contested it and I am sure I will be shown to be right in the long run. Mr. Speaker, that advocacy advertising is there to support and justify the worst government in the history of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Millions and millions of our tax dollars are spent to justify and advertise the worst government and the worst budget in our history, the nationalization of industry without a mandate, the stopping of all wealth and job-creating activity in the country. Advocacy advertising is used to buy and control the press and media of the country, to support interventionist policies and programs of grants for industry which would turn the business community into a jungle of prostitutes who sell their souls for the favours and grants of this Liberal government. We have the bureaucratic slaves who say yes, you may have this; no, you may not have that. And the people in the wealth-creating sector who are trying to get decisions from this government will wait six, seven, eight, nine,
ten months, and then they will have to call a minister even to get a reply to a simple request on a national revenue matter.
That is what is going on in this country. I agreed with the former leader of the NDP, Mr. Speaker, when he referred to "corporate rip-off bums", because that is what government grant policy-


Henri Tousignant: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member if he would accept a question.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I hope you are adding the time of these interruptions to the time I am allowed because they are not fair, they are not right, and they are not points of order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I will answer any questions at the end of my speech. We have to remember, Mr. Speaker, that at the bottom of this issue is the fact that this country is in a deep philosophical struggle between those who want to intervene in everything, do all the planning and make all the decisions, and those of us who believe that the wealth we have to create to sustain this country and the welfare system can best be created by people working in widely diverse activities, under the rule of law, in something like a free marketplace. This government is burying the forces, the ideals, the dreams and the work ethic which made this country and delivered us into the era of affluence which we have so abused. Those values made this country the envy of the world because of its freedoms, because of the compassion we have shown to people at home and abroad, because of the wealth we have been able to create. People have come to share that with us and they have given Canada its multicultural mosaic.
People have come to Canada, Mr. Speaker, from oppressed countries around the world. They overcame prejudice, they worked and acquired property, educated their children, and a sense of wellbeing was their reward. That is what being Canadian meant to most of us. We are a blend of cultures and have been able to blend in with the more rugged melting pot culture of the great country to the south. We had a feeling of pride in our nation, we worked away at addressing the lack of equity, and we made progress which we were proud of. We achieved the rank of third in our standard of living among the industrialized countries, in spite of our national problems, and there were a lot of them. We overcame them all the way through the 1950s and 1960s but now, Mr. Speaker, we have slipped to thirteenth position.
If you really examine the policies of this government, Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that they want to be "numero uno" of the Third World, because that is where we are slipping, right into the Third World. The Liberals have used a political party which had the respect of most Canadians as a vehicle to implement a leadership democracy over its people, and that is what is happening. This country has been changed from a representative democracy to a leadership democracy, and that
	
May 3, 1982

is what the struggle is. It was back in the eighteenth century that David Hume said all government rests finally on public opinion. This government knows that; that is why it is into such an extensive and rapidly accelerating use of advocacy advertising.
I would like to remind hon. members that central Europe, particularly the German states, in the early 1900s was ruled by highly interventionist and socialist governments. They were elitists who believed their education and brilliance could make better decisions than a body of people working in widely diverse activity under the rule of law, and subject to the discipline of supply and demand, which is the natural law of the marketplace. It was government intervention which cost the people of those countries their freedom and led to the fascist dictatorships of the 1930s.
You had to live through those dictatorship regimes. I was born in 1921, not 1948, and the third most powerful man in the Nazi regime of Germany, Mr. Speaker, was a man by the name of Goebbels, the propaganda minister. It was his job to feed out the advocacy advertising of the government to keep the people unaware of the key issues and the tragedy that whole area was. That is why I am speaking in this debate, Mr. Speaker; that is starting to happen in Canada as we allow this government, in a leadership democracy, to move to advocacy advertising at the rate and to the extent it is.
It is very hard to swallow that 37 years later the same development is taking place in this country. 1 remind you, Mr. Speaker, that Robert Hutchins, an educator in the United States, said "The death of the democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush; it will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference and undernourishment."
The degree of rape by government intervention in the Canadian marketplace is indeed frightening to me. We are no longer talking about a mixed economy made up of half government and half private sector. The government sector has too many privileges and powers. These is too much exclusion from Canadian law, particularly from Canadian advertising law. With agency status there are guarantees. These agencies do not have to earn their capital; they just have to rape and pillage the Consolidated Revenue Fund.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman but I must advise him that his allotted time has expired. I did allow the hon. member the two minutes that were taken from him.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important debate. In order that we can put in on a much more rational and sane basis than 1 have heard coming from the opposition side today, I would like to set forth what this advertising campaign is about. I refer specifically to the Canadian Unity Information Office.
The Canadian Unity Information Office has three major purposes. The first is to make known to Canadians the services available from the federal government. By government, we are not talking about the Liberal Party; we are talking about what
Supply
this House has dealt with-what Canadians from every province and every political party have a right to expect from their government. I am speaking of the programs on which we have spent a lot of time working.
The second purpose is to make Canadians more aware of their own country, to make them more aware of their north, their peoples, their resources and of the potential and great future that we can have.
The third purpose of the Canadian Unity Information Office is to explain to Canadians the principles of our federalism, of our political system-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: And to sell the Liberal Party.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: -of our political heritage and the role played by the various levels of government in our country. In listening to the debate today, I am more convinced than ever that this type of information must be made available to all Canadians, but I think we should start with the opposition.
I recall the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) saying that some people in his riding thought that the maple leaf symbol was the symbol of the Liberal Party of Canada. What a travesty it is that Canadians do not understand their country better. I think we should all hang our heads in shame. This shows there is a need to educate and a need to make every Canadian aware of the fundamental symbols of our country and what they stand for. I am more convinced after having listened to the opposition of the job we have to do.
Let me talk briefly about some of the points made by the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty), the lead-off attacker for the Tory party who has clothed himself in a mantle of righteousness. He failed to tell us that when he was in the Clark government as the minister responsible for advertising his government carried on this type of program as well.
The fact is that we have elevated certain aspects of our advertising needs in the two years since we were elected. I do not apologize for those, Mr. Speaker. During the course of that time we have had a referendum campaign in Quebec which was aimed at splitting our country apart. I do not apologize for one minute for this government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and our Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), having gone to the province of Quebec to counter separation.
The hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe said that we advertise more than the biggest private sector corporation in Canada. That is true. But why did he not use the figures to show the true level? He did not talk about the percentage of expenses that go to advertising. The percentage of our government expenses that go to advertising are a mere fraction of what they are for General Foods. I am advocating that in some areas we have to do a far bigger job of educating Canadians about the future that we can have. If the hon. member is going to use figures, let him use ones that are just, rather than

May 3, 1982
Supply
tainted ones to make a partisan political point, because otherwise we are playing with the future of our country.
We do far more than just advertise with the few dollars that go into this type of program. The Canadian Unity Information Office is a co-ordinating body for all government publicity campaigns. For example, we have numerous publications. General Foods, when it advertises, does not have to have numerous publications; it just has to have a few TV ads. We have 57 different publications that are put forth by the Canadian Unity Information Office. More than 6.6 million copies have been distributed throughout Canada. The CUIO has held exhibitions right across this country in the smaller communities where people might not have the access to information that they would in the big cities. Over the past short while the CUIO exhibit has visited 1,289 communities throughout Canada and attracted over three million visitors. The exhibits show Canada's north, its resources and explain its different peoples to everyone across the nation. There are as well documentation kits. More than 52,000 of them have been sent to Canada's schools at their request. Special events have been arranged from the west coast to the east coast; including the Canadian Pacific Exhibition, the CNE in Toronto and the Quebec Exhibition. Government programs are set forth in booths so that people can see what their government is doing for them, what rights they have as people and what they should expect from their government.
We have other programs. Surely hon. members do not object to the Government of Canada publishing our national anthem and sending copies out to various people. As far as the Constitution goes, we have had increased expenditures over the past short while to fight the referendum campaign in Quebec and to explain certain of our programs.

Mr. Speaker, how do we acquaint new arrivals to Canada with their duties and privileges as Canadians? I am very proud that we fought against the PQ and its systematic plans for separation. Remember the publicity campaign against federalism, launched by the Parti Quebecois. There were huge signs throughout the province of Quebec, showing the hand of an English Canadian grasping the flag of the province of Quebec. What does one do against threats of this kind? What should have been our response to this threat to Canadian unity? No one, except perhaps the separatists, can criticize our attempts to protect Canadian unity. We have a duty to do everything we can to fight separatism and to fight for a united and strong country, because without Canadian unity, and I mean unity-
I am speaking not only against separatism in Quebec but about unity right across the country. If we as Canadians do not come to believe that we will never be as strong as our potential dictates if we break up, until that message is indelibly written in the hearts of every Canadian, and until we realize that only
by standing and working together can we achieve our true economic potential, we will never attain what it means and can mean to be Canadian.
The hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe attacked us in respect of the policies we have implemented. Flere again I refer to his hypocrisy. He said that the Tories made all their polls public. This is not true. In October, 1980, the Liberal government, in an unprecedented move, made public 129 polls, among which were a number of Tory polls. We made some of the polls public for which he is taking credit. Also I refer to the policy adopted by the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis) when he was the minister responsible for federal-provincial relations. When the Tories were in government their policy, as articulated by the hon. member, was that polls would be made public when their policy formulation objectives were met. That was a good policy; it is one to which we adhere and have adhered.
Another objection of the hon. member was that a number of our ads and publications were simply to advertise the Liberal government. He did not once show an advertisement with the name of any Liberal on it or an advertisement which talked about the Liberal Party or the Government of Canada. For example, I show an ad which was put out just before the patriation of the Constitution.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The Chair asked hon. members not to exhibit any materials during their speeches; this applies to all hon. members.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: I merely exhibit a colour ad which was put out by the government of Ontario under the names of Premier Davis and Thomas L. Wells. This was the use of taxpayers' money to promote the idea of Canadian unity and the patriation of the Constitution. I support that step. We used that step, and I am proud of it, but we did not put our names on it. The government of Saskatchewan did the same type of thing in another ad. It was not bashful and shy; it was not afraid to stand up and be proudly Canadian.
If this program were aimed strictly at Liberals, I am sure it would have been utilized more by Liberal Members of Parliament than by other Members of Parliament. I am sure it would have been used more by provinces wherein a majority of Liberals have been elected than by other provinces of Canada. The facts are not true.


Henry Perrin Beatty: "The facts are not true!"


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: The facts indicate that these programs were utilized equally in every province of Canada. Accordingly, our information programs have been made available to Canadians throughout the country and have been utilized in every part of the country. There has been flexibility in the program. In the budget next year we will be cutting the costs. I am not sure whether this is a good idea when I learn of the ignorance and misinformation which is being expressed across the aisle and across Canada. I am referring to misinformation about who pays for education and health plans. Very few people know
May 3, 1982

that the federal government pays for 60 per cent of these programs which are completely administered by the provinces.
I am shocked to think that hon. members opposite would object to our programs which deal with helping small business. What does the hon. member have against helping small business and setting forth federal government programs so that Canadians can make themselves aware? What does the hon. member have against senior citizens making themselves aware of programs affecting them? What about young Canadians and job opportunities which are available to them? What about farmers and what they can do? What about the Constitution? Since patriation more than 200,000 Canadians have written in requesting copies of the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) talked about an advertisement concerning the rights given to Canadians in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; he threw it on the floor and stepped on it. 1 do not share that approach. Perhaps there are hon. members on that side of the House who voted against the charter, who were not fighting for it or were not proud of it, but I am very proud of it. Canadians will find new ways to protect their equality and dignity. They will not have to supplicate to governments. Governments have put the people of Canada and their fundamental rights and freedoms above the rights of government. The charter means that people will have the right to fight against discrimination and intolerance. Canadians have responded in kind.
In my riding a week ago Saturday, more than 1,000 Canadians came out to celebrate the patriation of the Constitution. They were proud to be there; the look of pride was upon their faces. They were proud to sing "O Canada" and to take away with them copies of the charter. We ran out of them; I wish we had had more. I was positively thrilled to see the pride of Canadians for what was done in that area. I want more Canadians to write in for copies of the Constitution and for the booklet on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and what it means to Canadians.
What does the hon. member have against the book which outlines the great advantages of the programs available to the construction industry in Canada? If people do not know about these programs, how can they respond? He said that it was the obligation of Members of Parliament to tell their electorate everything they should know. Does he expect the people to know about every one of the programs of the federal government simply by Members of Parliament talking to them individually and sending out householders? Members of Parliament are the biggest users of our publications to inform their electorate. This is what the program is about.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: One Conservative member requested 40,000 copies.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: The Minister of Justice is informing me that one Conservative member asked for 40,000 copies of the
Supply
Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Is that not pride? Is that not what we should be doing?
The hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe said that he was against advertising. If there was a way to do it without advertising, I should like to know what it is. Does he think that we can just issue press releases, drop them in the press gallery and that the press will pick them up? Does he honestly believe that the press in Canada will advertise national programs? How many national press media are there? He objected to an ad on Canadian unity which appeared in The Globe and Mail. How many truly national newspapers do we have?
If he wants to cut off all government advertising in newspapers and on television, what alternatives does he offer? If he has reasonable alternatives to inform Canadians about their rights and to help them make more use of governments and their programs, he has not told us what they are. What are his alternatives? Is it more billboards? Is it greater access to householders? We welcome any comments he would have on constructive ways in which to make Canadians more aware of their rights. Having heard his comments today, I am more and more convinced that Canadians do not know their rights. We must consider very seriously what we can do to make them more aware of their rights in terms of government.
I do not apologize. I make no excuses for the efforts by this government to bring to the attention of Canadians what their government is doing for them. I make no excuse for the programs that we have undertaken across this country to inform Canadians about the advantages of remaining united and strong. I make no excuses for the efforts we undertook in the province of Quebec at the time of the referendum, for the efforts that were undertaken by the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister to fight the separatists on their own territory and beat them, because I, as a Member of Parliament, would have been ashamed had we stood back at that time and not done everything possible to ensure the outcome which resulted, f would only ask the hon. members opposite, individually, what were they doing during that period of time?


Walter David Baker: You know damned well what we were doing!


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Were they in the province of Quebec fighting that fight individually?


Walter David Baker: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: I simply ask the question.


Walter David Baker: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Pretty disreputable, Jim, casting slurs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) is rising on a point of order.

May 3, 1982
Supply


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman wishes to complain about the quality of the debate, I do not believe he should debase it even further by those remarks.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, that opposition members have been criticizing advertising, a large part of which goes toward the Canadian unity issue. I asked them what their alternatives are.


Walter David Baker: Now, that is different.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: I asked them their alternatives, and whether they had done their fighting. Do they think this is reasonable? Were they down there fighting? Advertising is a fundamental portion of our fight. They can answer to their own consciences. If they want to come back and give us some alternatives for keeping this country together, I would welcome that. In the meantime, I do not apologize for our efforts on behalf of the-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, there are those who will go to great lengths to conceal their sins. When one tries to extol patriotism, and I think we are all patriots in this House, as an excuse for advertising costing bundles of billions of dollars, then I submit to Your Honour that the House is being abused and the public is being deceived by the effort to make excuses for something which should not have been necessary in the first place.
It was rather interesting to note that the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Parent) and the hon. member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) were reading from the same script for the first five minutes or so. Someone must have got their wires crossed. However, that is the repetitive nature of the structure to Your Honour's right. I presume that the hon. member for Welland will probably want to apologize for his script when he gets back home. I do not think it is one which he will put into his weekly paper for public surveillance because it is certainly built on a foundation of sand. There is no stone to hold him up on that one.
I think we are seeing a situation where the government is trying to defend its own misdeeds. If ever there was anything which created disunity in this nation, it was the confrontation between this Liberal government and the province of Quebec. There is no time in 20 minutes to enunciate the total confrontation policies which have taken place.


Jean-C. Lapierre: When was the last time you were in Quebec? Tell us.


Fred Alward McCain: I have probably been in Quebec more recently than the hon. member has been in New Brunswick. I have probably read more Quebec press than the hon. member has ever thought to read of Atlantic press. Perhaps the hon. member would like to know about some of the divisionary
feelings which exist in Atlantic Canada and in western Canada. Perhaps the hon. member should come out of Quebec and take a look at all of Canada, which all hon. members of the House of Commons are supposed to do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fred Alward McCain: The fact is that this country's energy future isn't being managed, its being mismanaged.
Thus, the government found the necessity to spend $4 million on an advertising program to try to convince the Canadian people to the contrary. Again, from the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, dated August 1, 1980, it is stated:
According to the federal government there is no energy crisis in Canada, and Ottawa is undertaking to spend $4 million between now and next April to convince Canadians of the fact.
"Its part of a long-term reorientation of people's thinking", exclaims Peter Craske, director of communications for the energy department.
Please, Mr. Speaker, let me read that to you again to substantiate a statement which really does not need substantiation, on behalf of the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington). The article stated:
"It's part of a long-term reorientation of people's thinking,'' explains Peter Craske, director of communications for the energy department.
That was a pretty potent statement by a pretty authoritative individual as to the objective of this kind of advertising. Further on in the article it states:
The federal government has a great deal of explaining to do. Perhaps we are about to see the institution of a new propaganda department to be known, no doubt, as Propaganda Canada or, for short, as PropCan. With $4 million, it ought to be possible to prop something up. Dare one hope that it will be done in a proper fashion?
I submit to Your Honour that the accusations, the charges which have been made by hon. members on this side of the House are rather mild as compared with the interpretation which the press put on this propaganda structure as early as 1980.


Jean-C. Lapierre: It's their life.


Fred Alward McCain: Call the press liars. You cannot call me one, because it would not be parliamentary. But you can call the press liars. They will appreciate it.


Jean-C. Lapierre: I did not say that. I said that is what makes them alive.


Fred Alward McCain: That is the mentality that some people would apply to a structure such as this. I will return to the Kitchener-Waterloo Record of April 23, 1982. It goes on to read:
Apparently assuming that if you repeat something often enough folks may actually believe it, the Trudeau government has launched a $5 million ad campaign proclaiming it is "Helping Canada Work''-
Somehow, Canada's 1.2 million unemployed, its struggling businessmen and farmers and its consumers trying to make ends meet, have trouble seeing a humming economy. What they see, instead, is a tired old government devoid of ideas, pouring out tax dollars as a screen for inaction and incompetence.
It is funny how quickly members opposite are so anxious to take issue with statements by members on this side of the House but are silent when one reads from the press of this nation. I now quote from the April 15, 1982, edition of The Globe and Mail:
The federal government is spending $5 million on an advertising campaign- the message being proclaimed is Helping Canada Work-at a time when unemployment is at the highest level since 1940 and more than 1.2 million people are unable to find jobs.
Supply
Business, labour and consumer representatives have reacted angrily to the ads, condemning the campaign as a complete waste of taxpayer's money and an insult to those who are unemployed.
Shirley Northrup, policy director for the Consumers Association of Canada, said in an interview yesterday that "we are appalled and outraged that the federal government is spending more money on yet another advertising campaign ... The funds could have been put to better use.''
Going to 1981, I will quote from the Ottawa Citizen of Wednesday, March 11:
Federal officials are sketching in the details of a proposed $3.25 million advertising campaign aimed at promoting the National Energy Program, despite the controversy sparked by a similar proposal last year.
Obviously the writer, Jim Travers of Southam News, does not approve of this. He writes:
Energy advertising became controversial last year when a leaked memo revealed the government was planning a very aggressive campaign to sell the NEP.
The memo indicated that the government intended to use the campaign for politics as well as policy.
It pointed out that Canadians were more concerned about energy problems than the Constitution and that the government would have to deal with the oil problem quickly if it hoped to win public support for patriation.
I now quote from an article by Lindsay Scotton of the Toronto Star. This clipping does not bear a date. It is headlined "Drop in the bucket". It reads:
And this lavish display of a government congratulating itself at taxpayers' expense is just a drop in the bucket in terms of the Liberals' ongoing romance with "concept'' advertising.... the government has plans to spend more than $70 million on advertising within fiscal 1982-83. The minister responsible for government advertising, Gerald Regan, says this will allow the government "to see to it that the public knows of government programs, of government proposals and of government policies.''
His boss, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, put it more succintly when he said that governments use advertising to promote the "policies, advantages and glories" of their jurisdictions.
The traditional role of government advertising is to provide information on services or to advise of changes in regulations. But the current thinking of the ruling Liberals on advertising and its uses is somewhat more sophisticated. Its publicity compaigns have taken on the noxious odour of propaganda-
"I don't think that the government should have to wait until a bill is passed in the House," says Gerald Regan, chairman of the cabinet communications committee that assesses the need for advertising in a particular area.
Does that mean the government is indulging in advocacy advertising, by pushing a single, and often controversial, point of view on the public? "I don't think I could define it with any degree of exactitude," says Regan, "What's unacceptable is advertising that is obviously politically partisan."
That is the end of Mr. Regan's quotes. The article continues:
That must mean that subtle political partisanship is okay, because that is exactly what is going on. The Liberal government has decided that advertising is the best way to keep and expand its market share of voter support, and is as determined as any soft-drink manufacturer to keep 'em coming back for more.
It sounds like a Ringling Brothers-Barnum & Bailey production about all those suckers. You get a new one every day. Let us hope the public of this nation will not be sucked in.
I wish I had the time to go through the committee reports and report on some of the questions which have been asked of the minister responsible for the program. It seems to come under the budget of the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
May 3, 1982
Supply
Blais). However, time will not permit that. There are points which came out of that report. First, the Minister of Supply and Services has no control whatsoever over the moneys which he has to spend for advertising. He will be advised by his client, a department of government, as to what is to be spent, what the program is to be for and who is to be used. That means the Minister of Supply and Services has no latitude in seeking competence or economy in the administration of the budget approaching $70 million. That is something to be frightened of as well. We find ourselves in the position where he does not know how much we will spend this year. At the moment it is approaching $70 million-$66 million, $67 million, something like that. In his answers to questions he acknowledges that he has no idea what may come down the pipe to him from the advertising wishes of the department promoting our Constitution.
The problem is that the government has ignored its responsibilities. The place to do this kind of work is on the hustings. It should be done before the Chamber of Commerce, the Rotary Club, the political meeting, the fund-raising dinner. It should be done by means of press conferences and press releases. There should be good relations with the press and the electronic media. That is the way this must be done. The hon. member for Welland quoted from a document which, I believe, although I am not sure, was presented to the minister in the other place, Senator Olson, whereby the government was advised that it should be very careful in how it spent its money and should attempt to achieve the highest possible profile. There should be as few as possible cost-sharing ideas. That was when the hon. member across the way suggested we were not getting any credit for the money we spend, I suppose we will have to advertise to get that credit. It is probably because the profile is not there that the Government of Canada is reducing its payments to the provinces for health, welfare education and social services. Are we now going to see advertising in which the Government of Canada says it just paid 50 per cent of your last tonsillectomy? Is that the next thing to come down the pipe because the government thinks it is not getting enough publicity?
I fear, Mr. Speaker, and I fear seriously, for the wellbeing of the total political structure of this nation, if this government can get away scotfree with using as a propaganda weapon the advertising facilities of this nation, whether they be printed or electronic. No one has found any quarrel with the advertising for the promotion of business abroad; no one has found any quarrel with the advertising of business in exhibitions, worldwide or otherwise; no one has found any fault with the advertising for the armed services; no one has found any fault with calling for tenders or advertising positions. The criticism by the press as read in the House today, and the fault that is being found by members of this House in both opposition parties lies in the propaganda aspect of trying to sell to the
people of Canada what they know would not otherwise be bought.


An hon. Member:: Right on!


Fred Alward McCain: You are taking advantage of a democratic structure to propagandize the people of Canada. You are using the press to do things that neither of the opposition parties can do. One member had the unadulterated nerve to say that because a union spent a sum of money for advertising its particular cause, the government must respond. Are we then to assume, Mr. Speaker, that every time an alien or a dissident or a provocative or proposition type of advertisement appears in the papers of Canada the Government of Canada is going to spend public money to oppose a union advertisement?
It is incredible, Mr. Speaker, that the conscience of this government would drop to a level even to imply that a union advertisement must be answered by a government advertisement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I have to inform the hon. gentleman that his time has expired. He may continue, if there is unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


@Acting Speaker: There is not unanimous consent.
[ Translation]


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, after listening to a few opposition speeches, I must admit that I am frankly shocked at the narrow-mindedness and shortsighted attitude shown by the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) in asking to have the Canadian Unity Information Office dismantled. He seems to think that after the Quebec referendum results and the defeat of the Western Canada Concept in Saskatchewan, all our national unity problems are over. While the opposition is suggesting that we phase out the office, the Premier of Quebec has announced that the next election will be tantamount to a referendum settling the separation question once and for all.
It seems obvious then that the Government of Canada has an obligation to publicize the advantages of the Canadian federation, and at the same time, to inform Canadian citizens of their rights and programs available to them. I have seldom heard a proposal as devoid of common sense as the one voiced by the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe. His proposal is so laughable that he is the only member who has dared formulate it. I do not know whether that party has a common position, but we have heard three or four hon. members, and they all had different requests to make. The hon. member's insistence on dismantling the Canadian Unity Information Office is part of their craze for abolishing. Earlier, my colleague for Welland (Mr. Parent), in referring to the Katimavik
May 3, 1982

program, caused great hilarity among the Progressive Conservatives. Let them laugh. When they were in power, they wanted to phase out the program. They wanted to prevent young Canadians from taking part in community projects, from learning to know their country and thus consolidating Canadian unity, because Katimavik does, in fact, help young Canadians to know more about their country, to go and work in three provinces and to become better citizens.
They did the same thing with Loto Canada and Petro-Canada. One gets the impression that to them when you are in doubt you abolish. They are also asking us not to indulge in advocacy advertising or advertising with a favourable bias. What about our ads against smoking, on the use of seatbelts, on Canada and tourism? There is certainly nothing more advocating than a travel ad which tells people: Come to Canada, spend your money in Canada, visit your own country! This is very advocating and certainly not merely factual. And this kind of advertising is looked on favourably by all Canadians, by all private businesses whose interests the hon. members opposite are supposed to represent and defend. The Canadian tourist industry is very pleased with the efforts made by the Canadian Government Office of Tourism.
We are being asked to reduce advertising expenditures by one third. In other words, the Progressive Conservative Party opposite feels that Canadian citizens are too well informed, that the amount of information they get should be limited, that, for instance, they should not be told that they can save up to 30 per cent under a program for home repairs and improvements, that they should not be told that they can get grants from the Department of the Secretary of State to help them celebrate Canada Day on July 1, or that if they are having problems with urea formaldehyde foam insulation, they should apply for government assistance, or, for instance, about physical fitness and amateur sport programs, in fact, a whole series of programs that would otherwise be available only to those who are well-off, the friends of our neighbours on the opposite side. It is all very well to say that it is the member's responsibility, but it is perfectly true that hon. members do not have a propaganda machine like the members opposite, so that they can contact every citizen on the subject of government programs. Four bulk mailings are hardly adequate to inform everyone about what is going on.
And what about people who cannot read? I see here in the House a member from the Calgary area where there are
70,000	people who have reading problems. Do we tell these people: You cannot have access to information, you cannot have access to government programs? There is a case where television should be used to give people access to the government, because they may not have had the privilege of an education, like so many others. And that is what the Progressive Conservatives are asking us to abolish. Do not talk to those people, make it a very elitist proposition for people who are going to read Hansard or who can afford cablevision to
Supply
watch today's proceedings. Frankly, I find it shameful that the Progressive Conservatives should be pressing for that. And once again, we know theirs is the party of the privileged, theirs is the party of the elite, and they do not want us to be accessible to one and all. I am sorry but I cannot go along with these attempts at trying to make the government accessible only to a privileged minority, a minority which in many cases they represent. Obviously, the big oil companies are not going to have any problems getting information on legislation, but I am not so sure my constituents in St. Joachim can afford a trip to Ottawa to get information on the home insulation program or get to know about the Farm Credit Corporation's programs. I really think it is tantamount to asking the government to renege on its responsibilities in a democratic participatory system.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At 6 o'clock, the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8:00 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When the House rose at 6 o'clock, the hon. member for Shefford had the floor.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, when the House took recess at six o'clock, I was saying how inconsistent, meaningless and above all harmful the Progressive Conservatives' proposals are in this debate, for the ordinary citizen who, in these difficult times, should be able to avail himself fully of government services and programs. This points to the value of and need for large-scale advertising which will give Canadians the opportunity to keep abreast of and fully benefit from government services. The hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe has suggested the government should, at this time, reduce its advertising expenditures by a third or so or, according to his estimates, by some $20 million. I then pointed out that the effect of his proposal would be that the less privileged citizen, who does not necessarily have direct access to the government, or read all the press clippings, and may not know his Member of Parliament personally, would not be in a position to know about government programs if they were not advertised.
Again, the hon. member asked that the government make opinion polls public. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, for having witnessed this a number of times, the Minister of Justice or other ministers in charge have tabled government opinion polls in this House, and hon. members have made abundant use of them. The hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe is requesting that we make them public immediately. It is my view that in the policymaking process it may be important for the government to refer to a poll to establish its policies, and table it afterward, as is now the

May 3, 1982
Supply
practice in Parliament. This in turn should provide this House with all existing data on public opinion available in Canada. He seemed to be somewhat critical of opinion polls being taken, although his own party, when they were the government, also made surveys.
Yet, members on both sides of the House use public funds made available to them, for householder mailings to conduct polls. They do so with the taxpayers' money, and they do not have to release the results of each one of these polls. On the other hand, the government has agreed as a rule, to make such polls public. There is nothing secret or magical about all these polls. The hon. member is asking us to set up an independent body to hear complaints about government advertising. Frankly, if he has any complaint about government advertising, he just has to refer them to the minister responsible. At this time, each minister is responsible for the publicity of his own department and I am aware of no case of fraudulent publicity by the federal government. Hon. members opposite would be the first to get worked up and to denounce us in the House if this occurred. In fact, if our publicity is improper, they have a privileged forum to denounce us.
I do not see why we should set up other independent bodies to do something or other. It goes somewhat against the principles of the members opposite to increase the size of the public service and I really believe that it is not necessary to have an independent body. If the hon. member is aware of cases of fraudulent publicity, the Secretary of State and the minister responsible will be glad to analyse the problem and revise such advertising if mistakes have been made. Finally, the hon. member objected to government advertising on the basis of morality. Let us talk about morality! How can the hon. member dare say that the government shows a lack of morality in its publicity when his own party was really guilty of fraudulent advertising on all the campuses during the negotiations on post-secondary education? And I can see the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), who not only supported this fraudulent publicity, but also repeated at every possible opportunity that there would be major cutbacks which would affect the students when we know that the minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) has increased post-secondary education financing by 13 per cent. I think that this is really a case of fraudulent advertising, and if the hon. member is really interested in morality, he should complain to his own party for making such statements for several weeks in all the student newspapers of Canada. How can they speak about ethics? If we had to rely on their own ethical standards, we would dream up all kinds of things.
Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that any responsible government has the duty to make the people aware of what it does for them. I believe that any responsible government has the duty to tell the public: Your tax money goes to pay for such and
such a program and you can use it. If only a small group of people knows about the programs and can use them, this means that we have a useless government of the conservative type. That is just about what the members opposite are now suggesting in their motion. They are asking us to inform the people as little as possible: To economize, do not tell the people what you are doing, because you could be showing partisanship.
First of all, the hon. member's argument to the effect that this whole advertising campaign of some $60 million is used only to promote the Liberal Party or the party in power is not really valid, and it is somewhat self-defeating. Let him just reflect upon the recent Gallup poll on the popularity of political parties in Canada, and he will see that we do not use this instrument as a propaganda vehicle, as he is trying to suggest. I believe that to carry out its mandate, a government must follow certain principles in advertising. First of all, it must be recognized that the Canadian public is entitled to full and complete information, in accordance, of course, with the Official Languages Act. I know that members opposite find this somewhat disturbing, but it allows people to exercise their rights as citizens and to participate fully in the democratic process, because without information, democracy becomes something of a farce, and I am convinced that information given to the public by the government through advertising promotes democracy.
A short while ago, the hon. member went so far as to say that in a way publicity does restrict the freedom of the press; I say to him that the contrary is true because thanks to publicity, the press can write even more, radio and television stations can survive. If that is suppressing the freedom of the press, then I think the hon. member and his friends opposite know absolutely nothing about how the press gets to be financed in Canada. They have so few ideas that when they were in government-we all know Canada has an ethnic press representing quite a few groups who depend on government publicity to survive, whether it be the francophone press outside Quebec, or that of the the various ethnic groups in Canada- as I was saying at the time when they were in government they applied those infamous principles to such an extent that the decrease in their demands on the ethnic press threatened the means of survival of several ethnic newspapers in Canada. By chance, after nine months, we managed to get rid of them. Several ethnic publications would have gone down the drain had we followed the example set by that government.
Mr. Speaker, surely it is the government's responsibility to give Canadians information pertaining to its proposed policies. In many cases, we are able to submit proposals through advertising to the Canadian people, who, in their turn, provide some feedback not only for Liberal MPs, but for members of the opposition as well. The reason why I contend this government advertising is not an instrument of partisan politics, is
May 3, 1982

that it can just as well provide the opposition with ammunitions against us. I suggest the government can fulfil its responsibility better this way than through "surprise" legislation, and that Canadians are better represented and have more input in the decision-making process.
Speaking of surveys, Mr. Speaker, certainly the government has the responsibility to do its utmost to identify the expectations, concerns and views of Canadians. The scientific means to achieve this aim today is through surveys, and any government really dedicated to the welfare of its people should avail itself of scientific surveys as privileged instruments. I am sure that the use of this technique is now recognized by all western democratic governments, and poll taking is something this government, as well as Progressive Conservative Party governments, both at the provincial and municipal levels, are relying on. I admit this is a new technique, and even the Progressive Conservative Party depends on it. I am advised that the only mistake our NDP friends made in Saskatchewan recently was to ignore surveys which could have warned them of their imminent downfall. That was their mistake. I feel that surveys can serve to pinpoint regional differences, and that it is really our government's duty to understand and assess the concerns of the people. In addition, there are many other means, including representations by hon. members within their respective caucuses; surveys are really excellent instruments, and their results are released to the public as soon as the government feels they have served their purpose in its policymaking decisions.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that there must be excellent means of communication between a government and the people in our present-day democracies. Through their opposition, hon. members of the Progressive Conservative Party apparently want to hamper our communicating with the Canadian people but I can assure them that they will never succeed. How glad 1 am for the sake of my fellow Canadians that they are not in power today, as it seems the only people they would deal with are privileged pressure groups who are well acquainted with this or that elected representative, and can afford to post vice-presidents in Ottawa in charge of government relations, while the grassroots in my constituency who are anxious to communicate with their government need an elected representative who is always available! But if there are 60,000 people in a constituency, I suggest a little advertising can go a long way to help them understand government programs better, that is why the government believes in communicating with people and is eager to know their views. I submit that the opposition's proposals are totally unacceptable and only demonstrate the narrow-mindedness of the hon. members opposite.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just taken his seat has got so far off the track that I think it might be an idea if we put not only him
Supply
but the debate back into perspective. The motion we are debating tonight is a simple one. It says:
That this House condemns the government for its increasing use of Canadian taxpayers' dollars for self-serving advertising and public opinion surveying, and in particular, for spending millions of tax dollars for uncecessary advertising at a time when it demands financial sacrifices from ordinary Canadians.
I want to say to my friend, in case he has forgotten about the significance of the amount spent in each year, that the spending in the advertising field for those departments which come under the Department of Supply and Services has been estimated at $70 million. If you add Crown corporations, Crown agencies and others engaged in self-serving advertising-by that I do not mean the peddling of products that they produce-you are probably closer to $100 million a year. So the amounts are very significant indeed.
When he spoke just before the dinner break, the hon. member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) said no excuse should be made for informing Canadians of what their government is doing for them. If by that he meant that the first objective he mentioned should be served, then there is no argument on this side. The first of three objectives he mentioned was that government should make known services that Canadians can receive from the federal government. No one is arguing with that. That is not self-serving advertising; it is legitimate information. His second objective is that Canadians should be made more aware of their own country. He is right, but there is a difference in making Canadians aware of their own country on the one hand, and making them aware of what the government has done to this country on the other. That is where I begin my theme about the necessity that must apply with respect to advertising in the public field as it does in the private field. That is where this government has failed.
The government has run some magnificent ads. The ad agencies salivate every time they think of those ads and the revenues which this government produces for certain agencies; the loyal, the tested and the true ones. The hon. member for Willowdale then said that the third objective was to explain to Canadians the principles of our federalism. So the ads talk about sharing and co-operation. But when the Canadians who read the ads, Mr. Speaker, watch the Prime Minister's Thursday or Friday press conference on TV, they see him sitting there in the shadow of the Canadian flag and hear him say that co-operative federalism is dead. That is what I mean by truth in advertising, Mr. Speaker.
If they were being truthful with respect to advertising, they should say that the sharing which was promulgated by Lester Pearson, the concern that was Louis St. Laurent's, the sense of belonging that was Sir Wilfrid Laurier's, has disappeared under the waves of the Trudeau government which has declared that the things those men stood for are dead. Cooperative federalism is dead. Now, that would be truth in advertising. But we do not get that; oh, no.
I was on the banks of the mighty St. Lawrence River on the weekend, Mr. Speaker, and I heard a honking in the sky. It was not my friend, the hon. member for Willowdale, it was a Canada goose. It was literally thousands of Canada geese

May 3, 1982
Supply
flying overhead. Real live geese, not the geese in the advertising, and they were honking a much more interesting speech than my friend made. Then I thought for a moment: if there was to be truth in advertising, then we would have to say how this government goosed Canada, because that is what happened to Canada.
Anywhere you go, Mr. Speaker, there are great publications for small businesses and other things, but if there was truth in advertising, why wouldn't there be an ad campaign with Canada geese flying overhead, with trumpeters playing, with the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) running ahead with a bottle of wine in his hands to advertise a great industry in his riding? There would be the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) with a copy of his November 12 budget-what a great thing that has been for Canada. It has driven investment out, it is beginning to tax medical insurance payments, it has destroyed investor confidence in the country. Why don't you advertise that?


Henry Perrin Beatty: The geese would be flying south.


Walter David Baker: As my friend says, the geese would be turning around and going south with the oil-drilling rigs, with Canadian dollars. Now, mount an advertising campaign from that point of view; that would be some advertising, as the hon. member for Willowdale says, of what the government is doing for them.
That would be the first one. Then let us have another advertising campaign. What it will show, Mr. Speaker, is a great oil sand extractor, that gigantic piece of machinery, sitting idle in a storage shed in northern Alberta. It will show a plan of the townsite for the Alsands project; just the plan, it will not show it built. It will also show lines of unemployed in the country. It will thereby herald the success of the national energy policy.
If this government, Mr. Speaker, had been an enemy of the state and had consciously tried to damage Canada with a national energy policy, no government which was an enemy of the state, let alone one which is sworn to uphold it, could have done a better job than the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) and his colleagues have done. None!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: They have succeeded in one fell swoop in driving 300 drilling rigs out of Canada. Now, that is performance, Mr. Speaker.
I talked on the weekend to a young man from my constituency who brought to me a reply to a letter of application he made to a drilling company in western Canada. He was a geology student and he had been accepted for summer employment. He has another letter which says: "No, don't bother coming out". If you go to western Canada, Mr. Speaker, you will find there are unemployment lines, unheard of in western Canada. The manpower offices are now having the same problem out there that they have had for some time in eastern Canada, in the province of Quebec, the province of my friend who has just spoken. That would be truth in advertising, to tell
the Canadian people what these policies have done. It would be equally truthful to say what the Lalonde triumph in terms of national energy has done to the rest of Canada, what these megaprojects such as Alsands mean. Advertise that, my friend, and you may be doing a service to truth in the country.
What does it mean to us? Is it just a western problem? No, it is not just a western problem. There are about 4,800 permanent jobs that would have been created by the construction of that project. How many jobs will the next set of government ads say have been destroyed by that project? There are 7,000 workers who would have been employed during the construction peak on that project. Will there be an ad to tell those
7.000	workers in Canada where they should go? There were
14.000	indirect jobs that would have been created if that project had gone ahead. That is 14,000 indirect jobs lost to Canada. While it was important with respect to the production of energy, which is vital to the question of Canadian oil selfsufficiency by 1990, are we going to see a set of ads trumpeting that great triumph, Mr. Speaker? That is a triumph of foolishness. What a waste has occurred as a result of the silly policies of this government.
I think it is time for the government to stand up and tell everybody what it has done for us lately. It would have been better had the government stayed quiet because we were better off before. You think it does not mean something to the part of Canada where I live in the province of Ontario or to the part of Canada where the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre), who spoke just a few moments ago, lives? The Alsands plant would have generated billions of dollars in spin-off benefits just at a time when the country badly needed that shot in the arm. That is the truth of the National Energy Program. That is the result, and that is the truth. I want to see an ad about that because it would not be wasting money. It would be truthful.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Pay for it.


Walter David Baker: Pay for it, my friend says. When I have had to pay for an ad, I have paid for it out of my own money. When my party has paid for an ad, it has been paid for out of the party's own money. But when that crowd over there advertises, it is public money, and that is the shame of this advocacy advertising.
A few moments ago my friend spoke about polls. Of course, governments should poll. They are as entitled as any other group to know the way in which public opinion is moving. But the public who pays for those polls is also entitled to know. We are entitled to know. This is part of the thing that would be in place if there were a legitimate freedom of information law in this country. Why does the government not trumpet in the newspaper its commitment to freedom of information? My goodness, the Liberal government is falling all over itself to shy away from independent judicial review, which is a cornerstone of freedom of information. If you mention Crown privilege,


May 3, 1982

Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) shudders no longer, because even if the government's bill went through, would the minister be able, by merely signing an affidavit, to walk away from opening up the processes of government in a courtroom to the public? Information is power. This government does not want to share power. The government does not advertise that, does it? It does not tell us that is the government's commitment, the commitment that it made in the Speech from the Throne; the same commitment that was made by the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) when he introduced Bill C-43-about which he nearly broke his arm patting himself on the back. The government does not advertise the fact that in the face of the slightest objection it is scattering. Its commitments mean nothing. But that would be interesting advertising. It would be truthful advertising. It would be advocacy advertising of quite an interesting kind if by chance some time the government should tell the truth.
Let us move on to some other triumphs of this government. I saw an ad in The Globe and Mail. I cannot show it to you, Mr. Speaker, because it is against the rules of the House.


John Horton McDermid: The hon. member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) did. Go ahead.


Walter David Baker: This ad described the mining industry in Canada, our $32 billion industry. It is a wonderful, colourful full page ad. It would cost a fortune to place this kind of ad. It is a picture of our hard-working miners. I will wager dollars to doughnuts that those hard-working miners in this former $32 billion industry are now marching up and down in front of the Canada Manpower offices or in front of the unemployment insurance offices because there are now
25,000	Canadians out of work in the mining industry. To quote the hon. member for Willowdale, that is something to talk about, what this government has done for the people of Canada. Why not advertise that as well? The multiplier effect of that unemployment is likely to amount to 115,000 people in related industries. Let the government advertise its triumphs in the forest industry in New Brunswick and in British Columbia. Twenty-five per cent of the work force-


Mark Willson Rose: At least.


Walter David Baker: At least, my friend says, and he is right, at least 25 per cent are unemployed in that industry. That industry shows very little prospect. There is a triumph and a truth for this government to talk about. Let the government talk, if it will, about the two-year delay in the Alaska gas pipeline project. That is another triumph of this government. Does anyone remember when President Reagan stood here in the House of Commons and said to the House that the pipeline would be completed and the Americans would stand behind it provided the private sector would do its part? That is what the President said. Do hon. members remember that? The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, with his ironclad guarantee that has grown rusty with time, stood up
Supply
and said, "Yes, we trust the resolution of the Congress of the United States. We trust the resolution of the Senate of the United States. We trust President Carter." I told the minister at that time that he had laid his political life on the line if he relied on that. He relied on that, and his political life is over, Mr. Speaker. There is no Canadian anywhere who would ever put any faith in the word of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. There is no Canadian anywhere, whether he or she is in western or eastern Canada or whether he or she is in the north, who would have faith in him. Let the government advertise that ironclad guarantee. That would be truthful with respect to our system. It would be refreshing.
What other programs do we have that could be touted and advertised on which this government has moved so quickly to fulfil its promises? You remember, Mr. Speaker, the promise to bring in Crown corporation legislation? Do you remember that? My friends down there remember it.


Mark Willson Rose: Hazily.


Walter David Baker: It is hazy with time, but it is also hazy with unfulfilment. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) for all the time he has had-two years-has not brought in one piece of legislation. I wonder if the government ought not to tout that ad in the newspapers.


Henry Perrin Beatty: What about double-tracking?


Walter David Baker: Double-tracking, yes, that is the salvation of the steel industry in Canada. As a result of not being able to build the steel for the Alaska gas pipeline, the government is going to double-track the CNR. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) is here. If necessary, he would promise that the government will triple-track the CNR. As well, I am sure, he will put an ad in the newspaper.


Mark Willson Rose: He will double-talk the CNR.


Walter David Baker: Yes, he will double-talk the CNR. Then we heard the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) when he came to office say that he was going to make Parliament live. He said he was going to reform this institution. He believed that the private Member of Parliament had some rights and it was overbalanced somewhere. Well, that lonely cowboy from Drummondville has had two years in the saddle. Where is the paper on parliamentary reform? It has gone the way of the dodo bird. It is like the Canada geese that I saw. It has been "geesed".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: Finally, we were to have all these magnificent things, such as low gas prices. It was going to be a pleasure to drive up to the gas pump. Why? Because the Minister of Finance said so. "Vote for us" he said, "and the price of gasoline will stay down. Vote Liberal and the price will not go up."

May 3, 1982
Supply


John Horton McDermid: Talk about truth in advertising.


Walter David Baker: Truth in advertising is a marvellous thing when it is displayed, but the problem is that we have seen very little truth in the advertising campaigns.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired.
[ Translation]


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Mr. Speaker, now we have had this last round by the member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), I should like to make a small contribution to this debate.

I am sure that not even the opposition would advance the proposition that governments in general should not use advertising. It is clearly the most effective way to get many different kinds of information to the people of Canada, information which they need and information which we in government have a responsibility to deliver. Provinces and municipalities follow the same approach because it makes good economic sense. We have to tell the public about the programs which are in place, and we have to explain those programs. Now that the accounts for the last fiscal year are reconciled, the discounts taken and the actual expenditures compiled, we have a total of $60.5 million for Government of Canada advertising. This compares with reported figures for only two of the ten provinces of Canada of approximately $30 million spent by Ontario and Quebec for their government advertising.
The Department of National Defence needs recruits for the Armed Forces. They spent $4.2 million on an advertising program last year. It is a vital component of its over-all recruitment effort. When Statistics Canada conducted its census last year, it decided to spend $1.8 million on paid advertising. It was a cost effective and vital component in the over-all marketing strategy according to which the department had to reach every household in Canada. It is very evident that had we not advertised in the way we did, the census results would not have been as encouraging as they have been in the sense of response by the Canadian population.
I should like to add that in the fiscal year 1981-82 roughly one quarter of the government's advertising budget was spent by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. A large portion was tourism advertising both in Canada and abroad, money which helps to strengthen Canada's tourism industry. In fact, all its advertising helps support Canadian industry in one way or another. I defy anyone in the House to take issue with the fact that the advertising budget of the federal government supports those programs and hence directly supports Canadian industry and jobs.
In these hard economic times it is even more important for us to ensure that we carry out this duty. Much of the information we put out in our advertising programs affects the social and economic welfare of Canadians. I know the opposition tries to conjure up an image of the federal government's
spending millions of dollars to beguile Canadians with their own money and to answer questions which no one is asking. This is simply not the case. Canadians are demanding more and more information, and the government is duty bound to ensure that its storehouse of information is open to every Canadian. The federal government has now developed a sound management system for its advertising activities. We now have a much better handle on government advertising expenditures. We monitor and control advertising programs and can now respond in a very timely manner, I hasten to say, to inquiries on government advertising, particularly the ones of the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty).
The administration of the system is to a large degree the responsibility of my department, but neither I nor the government can claim credit for its creation. The credit must go to the government of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). In fact his government thought of it and began to implement the system.


John Horton McDermid: Do you think that it was a good idea?


Mr. Blais:: Yes, it was a very good idea.


John Horton McDermid: Good.


Jean-Jacques Blais: In September, 1979, the Conservative government put into place its own management system. There was a private sector agency of management which advised the government through what was called the "executive committee of ministers on advertising". There was also a small group within the Department of Supply and Services responsible for contracting with advertising agencies, as well as the auditing and paying of government advertising supplier invoices. I believe this system was a vast improvement over what existed before. In fact, it was so good that when this government took office it decided to retain it, enhance it and expand it. I am proud to take credit on behalf of the Government of Canada for the improvements we have made.
We set up a system based upon what the advertising industry calls the "agency of record" concept. First, we decided against retaining a private sector company as the Tories had done. They had retained that company in order to advise them on advertising. We felt that in order to avoid conflict of interests we ought to have an in-house advertising management committee which in effect would not be going out and retaining services outside, but indeed we needed advertising expertise. In order to obtain that advertising background, we created the advertising review committee, comprised of four advisers to government from the advertising industry called the "advertising management group". We added senior officials from Treasury Board, from the Privy Council office, from the agency of record itself and from my department, as well as representatives from the client departments.
Second, we thought it best that the government's requirement for media time and space be consolidated. Therefore we engaged a private sector organization known in the advertising industry as the "agency of record" to consolidate all

May 3, 1982

government's media space and time requirements. They recommend adjustments to advertising plans. They order media time and space from suppliers and ensure that we benefit from all the advantages of bulk placement. Between January, 1981, and mid-December, 1981, the net savings to the Government of Canada under the "agency of record" concept were in the order of $1.6 million. This does not count for the improved effectiveness which we achieved through better placement.
Third, we expanded the role of my own department. It now contracts with the "agency of record" as well as with advertising agencies for planning, creative and production services. In addition to making payments to the agencies, the Department of Supply and Services pays the government's advertising media suppliers, which in the past all too often had to wait months for payment because of the inconsistencies between various government departmental systems. Now we are in a much better position to realize sizeable economies by capturing discounts offered by media suppliers to encourage prompt payment of their invoices.
Since the beginning of the new system, my department has been able to save in excess of $330,000 in the area of prompt payment discounts. Let me explain, because there has been much confusion with the hyperboles launched by hon. members opposite, as to how the system works. A sponsoring department will submit its advertising program to the cabinet committee on communications for review, program approval and concurrence on the budget. It then makes the final selection of the advertising agency best suited to do the planning, creative and production elements. The decisions of the cabinet committee are communicated to the ministers responsible and to myself who, as Minister of Supply and Services, has the sole contracting authority for government advertising. Under this authority my department sets up the contractual arrangements between the sponsoring department and the advertising agency for planning, creative and production services and with the "agency of record" for all media placements. DSS monitors the progress of the creative and production aspects of advertising programs and makes adjustments to the contracts where necessary. At the end of the day we pay the advertising agency for the work it has done. We also, as I described earlier, pay the media suppliers from whom the "agency of record" orders media space and time. At no time-and this is not in accordance with what went on when the Tories were in power-does money owing to the media pass through the Agency of Record. The "agency of record" has its own media-buying services, paying the suppliers and the agencies and being in constant conflict of interest. That is how the system works.
Now I would like to comment on some of the characteristics of government advertising. Federal government messages are often targeted to large segments. We do not advertise in the same way as the private sector. The private sector can have a very short campaign which it targets to a very limited group. The private sector does not have to go through translation. Our
Supply
campaigns must sometimes be translated into 11 or 12 languages, and we must, of necessity, advertise to the entire Canadian population. We cannot limit our advertising to certain areas. We must cover as wide a base as possible, and that makes advertising much more extensive.
In the private sector, advertisers can in effect run the same message again and again until its usefulness has passed. We cannot do that. Usually our advertising programs are on short notice for a short period of time because of the given program with which we are dealing. I therefore suggest that it would be unfair to compare the two systems.
We have heard the speech of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). He delivered himself of a fine afterdinner address. I hope that his food digests better than his thoughts. I would indicate that it is exactly the sort of performance which makes government advertising necessary. It is the sort of hyperbole which really twists veracity.


Walter David Baker: The truth hurts, J.-J.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I am not saying that he is telling untruths. I am just saying that he is stretching the truth to a point where it is hardly recognizable.
If Your Honour will recall, in this House we have been dealing with the metric system.


Walter David Baker: I did not mention the metric system.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I know. The hon. member was honest enough not to mention the metric system because he knows how hon. members on the other side-


Walter David Baker: I ran out of time.


Jean-Jacques Blais: [DOT]-have been using the metric system in order to make political hay. They have been distributing all sorts of information throughout the country. I will not say it is untruthful. I am too much of a parliamentarian for that. However, it really stretches the credulity of Canadians.


Walter David Baker: Explain!


Jean-Jacques Blais: They have even implied that somehow metrication is something of a Liberal government conspiracy. They have also advised the Canadian public that it was never approved by Parliament. The metric system was introduced to Canada back in 1871 by the greatest of Liberals, a fellow named John A. Macdonald, at the time when we really, in effect, introduced the decimal system to our monetary system. He was the one who introduced it.
As to whether it was passed in Parliament, eight separate times in this House we dealt either with resolutions or amendments resisting legislation concerning the metric system. These gentlemen on the other side would want the Canadian public to believe that that has been the case. Now I hear the whip for the Tories on the other side. He was the one who, in 1975, as a great Canadian, said in the House in relation to the metric system, "We will support it"-


Mr. Kempling:: That is right.

May 3, 1982
Supply


Jean-Jacques Blais: -"but we are appalled at the lack of progress being made. Metric conversion must go forward."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William James Kempling: Read it all!


Jean-Jacques Blais: Those gentlemen on the other side-


William James Kempling: Read the rest of it.


Jean-Jacques Blais: The hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie), when he was a member of the government, came out in support of the metric system.


William James Kempling: Be honest.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Bill Davis, a Tory in Ontario, came out in favour of metrication.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) rises on a point of order.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I regret to interrupt the minister in full oratorical flight, but was it Your Honour's intention to request that he deal with the order of business before the House, which deals with advertising, and not the metric system?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton can talk about the National Energy Program and every other piece of legislation and policy that we have introduced, surely I can point to the lack of veracity on the part of the opposition relating to something which is absolutely abject in its presentation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Nepean-Carle-ton rises on a point of order.


Walter David Baker: Excuse me, J.-J. I was talking about advertising in relation to government programs of which the government should be very proud, like the National Energy Program.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the Minister of Supply and Services has listened to the comment.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, if you can understand how the public misunderstands metric as a result of the concerted effort of the Tories, who are trying to make hay and who have done a complete flip-flop on the issue, you can see why it is important for us to advise the Canadian public of the necessity of introducing metric and show them how to transform their own habits in order to accommodate themselves to the new metric system.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Why did you make it compulsory?


Jean-Jacques Blais: We listened to all the gentlemen on the other side. Talking about the National Energy Program, does Your
Honour know what really irks the hon. members concerning the National Energy Program?


Gordon Edward Taylor: Why did you make it compulsory?


Jean-Jacques Blais: It is that they lost an election on one of its elements, namely, Petro-Canada. They cannot accept for one minute that Canadians today go to the pumps in order to obtain-


Walter David Baker: To get hosed.


Jean-Jacques Blais: -gas from Petro-Canada because they fundamentally believe that the asset, which is oil, should belong to Canadians and should be under Canadian control. That is what the Tories have never been able to understand. The reason they have not been able to understand it is that national issues are completely foreign to their comprehension, completely foreign to their ken.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Why did you make it compulsory?


Jean-Jacques Blais: They have not been on the right side of a national issue since confederation itself. They have not been on the right side of a nationalist issue in this country, including the flag, including conscription, including the Constitution, since the beginning.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William James Kempling: Tell us about the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and conscription.


Jean-Jacques Blais: That is the fact.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, they just do not understand! Here in Canada we have the best communication system in the world. We can truly inform Canadians about what we are doing. The fact is, we have television in the House to be able to communicate with Canadians, but most of the time, what is being communicated by the opposition members is entirely inaccurate and motivated by petty politicking. They are past masters in this art. They are dyed-in-the-wool partisans, and are they frustrated! After all, they were in power for only nine months. During that time they tried to introduce all kinds of new systems, including advertising control, and then they spoiled everything. They lost, and they could not do a thing, and since then, whatever we have been able to do is terribly frustrating for them, and has made them go so far as to communicate inaccurate inanities to Canadians, and that is why, Mr. Speaker, we have an obligation as a government to inform Canadians, to let them know how we are spending their tax dollars.

Mr. Speaker, I basically think that the resolution presented by the hon. gentleman ought not to receive any sort of approval by the House.
May 3, 1982


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: You surpassed your usual standard.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to arise and join in the debate on what I consider to be a very important topic and a very important resolution. Today we have heard hon. members of the government explain to us how important government advertising is in order to inform members of the Canadian public of the various programs of the government. For example, the Secretary of State (Mr. Regan) maintained that the press is not capable of doing their job. In fact, he even went so far as to suggest it really was not the job of the press to inform Canadians of the ins and outs of government programs.
We just heard the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) give us a tremendous oration. It really boggled my mind. He suggested that the Conservative opposition to the metric system justifies the government's using public funds to counter their arguments. That statement by the Minister of Supply and Services really shows what the government intends to do with its advertising money, that is to use it primarily for political purposes.
All their attempts to wrap themselves in the great nationalist flag, is phony, totally phony and has always been phony. The Liberal Party is master at wrapping itself in the Canadian flag and insinuating that anyone who disagrees with them is not nationalistic, is against Canada, is against the country. The Liberal Party does not have a monopoly on being Canadian. It is the government that is defying and soiling some great Canadian traditions.


Walter David Baker: They are giving government a bad name.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Indeed they are. The symbols that are important to us as a country, the flag, the coat of arms and our institutions, have all been soiled by the propaganda efforts of those opposite. No wonder as a country today we lack a sense of purpose, a sense of unity and a sense of direction. It is because of the shallow propaganda that is being used to brainwash the people of Canada, particularly in the last decade, by members opposite.
They have developed these tools of propaganda to ever finer and finer degrees. They have used information from the Department of National Revenue, for example, to get selected mailing lists in order to direct their propaganda missiles to particular groups among the Canadian population. No longer is there a sense that the information from the Department of National Revenue should be kept within that department and not be used by the propaganda effort of the government.
All these types of traditions have long gone out the window with the desperate people sitting opposite. They talk about the need for public polling in order to create a sensitive, responsive government. What a laugh! It is really a 1984 type of doubletalk and rhetoric. They use public opinion polls to mould and change public opinion rather than to respond to it.
Supply
For example, in the early part of this year the Ministry of Transport apparently got Mr. Goldfarb to do an extensive survey on the opinions of western Canadians on the Crow agreement. In the last few weeks, that information leaked out. Through some articles in the Regina Leader-Post we learned that the vast majority of producers in Saskatchewan are adamantly opposed to any changes in the Crow rate. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) visited Saskatoon and apparently forgot his briefing notes and somebody picked them up, the result of the poll was described in terms of having discovered widespread misunderstanding in western Canada as to the intentions with regard to the Crow.
It is not a case of misunderstanding. If anybody reads the results of that survey, they will find that the farmers of Saskatchewan know what it is all about, in fact to an amazing, sophisticated degree. There is not a misunderstanding.
The fact is that the Liberal government decided it had better first test public opinion in the west. They discovered it is totally against their proposals for changing the Crow rate. I suggest that in the not too distant future we will see a whole advertising campaign trying to correct these "misunderstandings". They call that responsive government. It is straight out of 1984 double-think and double-talk. It is frightening.
To say that my friends to my right are innocent and blameless would also be stretching the truth a little too far. Surely the short experience of the Clark government demonstrated that they too were seduced by the power of polls and advertising. They did their Quebec polling just before the referendum brought out that the people of Quebec were not quite taken in by the Clark government. As well, they did polling among the ethnic community to determine what that community felt about the Clark government. They are not innocent. The Ontario government is not innocent. I might suggest that no political party, including my own when in power, is not seduced by the polling and advertising efforts.
That is why the resolution before us today is so important. I regret the type of debate we have had, particularly from government members. It is important because as techniques for propaganda and psychological manipulation of masses get further and further refined, some very fundamental dangers face the Canadian people.
It is unfortunate that I did not have an opportunity to discuss the Constitution when it was before us. I felt in many ways the Constitution was a nineteenth century liberal document dealing with old struggles. The problems we will be facing in the twentieth century are a lot different. This is one area of propaganda, not just by government but by private power groups as well. There are new techniques and new ways through the electronic media of controlling the flow of information and being able to create illusions and impressions. There are some very real dangers, dangers that this Parliament should in all honesty be addressing and looking at seriously. Unfortunately, the debate today does not begin to recognize the seriousness of the matter before us.

May 3, 1982
Supply
I mentioned that it is not just my concern to deal with government propaganda. Propaganda from the private industry, I also find repulsive. I accept advertising if you have something to sell. If you want to tell the public what you have to sell, the conditions of the sale and the price, then there is a flow of information. However, when I see ads from CP telling me how much they mine and how much lumber work they do, I am reminded that when they were still in the passenger service business, they never advertised that service. They did not ask me to buy something that I as an individual could purchase.
It is all image-building, building the image that the CPR is a great, grand enterprise with tremendous public concern. We all know it is nonsense, yet we allow private corporations to deduct this from their income tax. They can claim this as a legitimate expense. They can rip off the Canadian public while at the same time brainwashing them. I find that repugnant. A serious consideration of the matter before us today would have produced less political rhetoric than we have heard and more serious consideration as to what this is really all about. Government by polls, to be worked in with advertising campaigns, to me is a repugnant way of running government, of directing the course of a nation.
In the short run, Mr. Speaker, it could be claimed that some gain could occur from this. The government gets away with another little trick on the people. But in the long run we will all pay. This institution will pay, the institution of government will pay; I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that we are already paying. First of all, the people do not believe any of your fiants that are being pumped out. There is an automatic negative reaction, at least from my part of the country, every time they see the little stylized logo, the bastardization of the Canadian flag, and our symbol. There is a negative reaction when they see the billboards. They know the billboards add no meaning to any particular program; they know it is not connected to the transfer of hard core information, telling them where or how to apply for this or to do that or to insulate, or whatever. They recognize it is all image-building and they get angry because they realize that it is their tax money trying to mould their public opinion.


Walter David Baker: They get cynical.


Simon Leendert de Jong: They get angry and they get cynical. It is because of the people opposite that every government from coast to coast is totally mistrusted. There are some of us who believe that government can be and should be a useful and important instrument in helping to solve and cope with some of the economic and social changes we are faced with in the twentieth century in Canada.
As the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) has mentioned, Mr. Speaker, the members opposite have given government a bad name. People mistrust government. They view government as an instrument trying to brainwash them , as something that takes money out of their pockets and then
does a propaganda number on their heads. The result is anger and cynicism.
It is unfortunate, very unfortunate; and again it is something we will all have to pay for. That cynicism and that anger will prevent us from coming and finding solutions to the problems that are so important, that stare us in the face, the economic problems, the environmental problems, the social problems. To begin to resolve these requires a sense of trust among the Canadian people, trust in each other and in their institutions. That trust has been traded away. That trust is gone. It has been eroded, it has been debased. Unfortunately, the members opposite must accept a great amount of responsibility for that, Mr. Speaker.
As a people, we are now hampered in our ability to come to terms with the problems that confront us all. That, I find unfortunate. We are now paying for the short-term gains, the short-term little adventures of the members opposite in attempting to manipulate public reality to benefit them and to get themselves back into power one more time. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the chickens are coming home to roost. Unfortunately, as I mentioned before, we will all pay.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the remarks which have been made in the House today will cause some concern to the members opposite. I hope that they will, in the stillness of their own home or wherever they come face to face with themselves and re-examine their own soul, also begin to realize that they might possibly have gone too far, that it is time to withdraw from this insanity to propagandize the Canadian people. 1 hope that at some stage we will begin to have a little more enlightenment, a little more consideration, and a little more concern for the Canadian people. Their opinions should be respected. They should stop dealing with Canadians as people who should and can be manipulated. Only then can we really begin to look for some of the solutions that we search for, solutions that are so necessary for us to find.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I sat here the entire day listening to the debate and I found it most interesting. It was not enlightening, from the other side, but interesting. 1 rise to participate in the consideration of the motion moved by my colleague, the member for Welling-ton-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty), the opposition motion, saying:
That this House condemns the government for its increasing use of Canadian taxpayer's dollars for self-serving advertising and public opinion surveying, and in particular for spending millions of tax dollars for unnecessary advertising at a time when it demands financial sacrifices from ordinary Canadians.
I listened to the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) say that the Progressive Conservatives are frustrated. I want to tell the minister through you, Mr. Speaker, that it is the Canadian people who want some action out of this government. They would dearly love a chance to go to the ballot box and mark their X for anyone but the Liberal government. They are the ones who are frustrated today, not the Conservative Party but the people of Canada. This government does not
May 3, 1982

listen to them but, through its multitudinous avenues of government advertising, pours out all this-


Walter David Baker: Pap!


John Horton McDermid: I will not use the terminology that my colleague just did-this pap as my friend, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) would say-to the people of Canada. This is one of the frustrating things for the people of Canada, to listen to these advertisements telling them how wonderful things are, how great things are, when my unemployment insurance benefits run out and I have to go to the social services department to keep a roof over my head and to keep my wife and children with some food in the belly. That is the frustration. When they take a look at the advertisements that say how wonderful things are and what the government is doing for them and then they realize there are 1,200,000 unemployed, the people cannot understand that because they do not see that this government is doing anything for them.
1 listened to the hon. member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson), whom I will mention throughout my remarks tonight, stand up in his pious and pompous manner, wrapping the Canadian flag around himself and saying "Wait a minute, I am a Liberal, I have a Canadian flag around me. Don't shoot." That is the way they operate over there. I am afraid the Canadian people are asking us to shoot and asking for action from this government, not fancy ads, not ads that fill the pockets of their friends in Vickers & Benson, and Maclar-ens where they get their 15 per cent commission, plus their setup charges or their creativity charges. Probably one third of the advertising budget goes into the pockets of their friends.
The minister stood up tonight and said, "We saved $1.5 million this year because"-


Jean-Jacques Blais: It is $1,600,000.


John Horton McDermid: Very well, $1,600,000, "because of the program the Progressive Conservative government introduced." The Liberals have been in power for many years, that combined buying of media advertising has been available for many years, but it took the Progressive Conservative government in its very short time in office, to introduce that program. That helps them in the buying and placement of all these fancy advertisements. It does not answer for the $25 million or the $30 million which goes into the pockets of the friends of the Liberal Party. These advertising expenditures are just another example of the horror stories about mismanagement with which this administration has been identified.
You have been here a long time, Mr. Speaker, and you know that this government opposite is insensitive. Those Liberal members are out of touch with the people. They are trying to maintain their public image by spending the taxpayers' money to try to reassure them of their wellbeing. I am frightened to see how little control Canadians have over how their tax dollars are spent and I am frigthened as a Member of Parliament about how little control we in Parliament have over how
Supply
tax dollars are spent. There are some in the front benches on the other side who, along with their bureaucrats, intend to tell us how tax money will be spent. The Liberal backbenchers just agree with what they say.
My colleague, the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe examined the estimates and decided to introduce a motion to reduce those estimates by some $8 million. But what happened? The hon. member for Willowdale magically disappeared so there was not a quorum to take a vote. That is recorded in Hansard.


Mr. Frith:: Shame.


John Horton McDermid: The hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) says, "Shame". He is right. That was a shameful act. The hon. member for Willowdale knew that they would lose the vote which would result in $8 million being cut from the advertising budget. Rather than face the consequences, he left the room. That is shameful.
It is a sad day when a political party which has a majority government uses that majority to yield power beyond belief instead of using it to govern responsibly. All the Liberals want is power. That is the name of the game for them.
It brings to mind this statement made by Dag Hammarsk-jold: "Only he deserves power who daily earns it". That is not the case with this government because they have not earned power. They do not have a mandate for what they are doing.
The estimate for advertising expenditures this year is approximately $70 million. The majority of these expenditures should come out of the Liberal coffers. I am amused by the government's latest advertising program on UFFI which explains all the benefits available for people who have UFFI in their homes. What will happen to Charles and Jeanne Vaillan-court of Mercier? They have to wear gasmaks in order to go into their home. Where is the action? Why does the government not take those advertising dollars being spent to promote that UFFI program and help those people with problems with UFFI in their homes?
Bill C-109, which is an act to provide for payments to people with dwellings with UFFI was introduced. The government should not advertise about it. This bill should be passed on second reading and sent to the committee so we may have an opportunity to improve it and thereby help those people. The government should not advertise instead about what it is doing. Do not advertise about the wonderful things you are doing because you do not have the right to do it. You do not have the right to fool the people.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his remarks should be addressed to the Chair.


John Horton McDermid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that break. And also, I am pleased you, Mr. Speaker, were listening to my speech.
One would think that the Canadian Unity Information Office, with the size of its advertising budget over the last number of years, could claim a certain amount of success in

May 3, 1982
Supply
promoting unity. Instead, there is a prevailing climate today which indicates a fragmented country. That office would be better advised to change its name back to Information Canada or "Government Propaganda Canada"-"PropCan" would be an excellent name.
While I am on the subject of national unity, I heard the hon. member for Willowdale say today that the Tories were nowhere when the unity debate was happening in Quebec.


Jean-C. Lapierre: That is true.


John Horton McDermid: The hon. member says that it is true. If the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) were here tonight, he would probably support our claims of participation in that debate. I can remember our leader sitting on platforms with the Minister of Justice while visiting Quebec and I know very well that there were some very prominent Conservative members on the committee for voting No. As well, I know of the arrangements made between the government and this side of the House with the whip and House Leader in order to enable Quebec members to campaign in Quebec. So do not tell us in the House that the Conservatives did not have an interest in the Quebec referendum debate. That was a misleading statement made by the hon. member for Willowdale.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Tell us about Roch La Salle.


John Horton McDermid: I saw the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) fighting with the WCC in Saskatchewan, and he did a great job of it.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: They got fewer votes than the WCC.


John Horton McDermid: There is no question that there is a lack of control over the government's advertising. The Minister of Supply and Services enunciated very well the program for buying advertising time. However, I do not think ministers know the sort of advertising which occurs in their departments and how it is arranged. We saw an example of ministers being unaware of what happens in their departments when the Minister for Public Works responsible for housing (Mr. Cosgrove) blundered when organizing for his department advertisements which were made by an advertising agency in Montreal. When they were released before or very close to the time the budget was announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), obviously he did not know what was happening in his own department. Therefore, hearing members opposite speak today about their ability to have better control over advertising I believe is somewhat misleading.
I know that we cannot display brochures, but we can quote from them. I would like to quote from a brochure from the Canadian Unity Information Office, but there is no writing on it, Mr. Speaker. It is a beautiful multicoloured pamphlet, however. It is something which is really beneficial for those people who are trying to renew mortgages at 19 per cent. They are shown this pamphlet, which is meant to show what a wonderful country we have, these people are having a hard time saving their homes.
I do not believe that any amount of advertising will help the government. Canadians cannot be expected to believe something just because it is being rammed down their throats through every available medium.
I would like to quote from an editorial in the Kitchener-Water loo Record of April 23. It is headed, "Advertising Bankruptcy". It says:
Apparently assuming that if you repeat something often enough folks may actually believe it, the Trudeau government has launched a $5 million ad campaign proclaiming that it is "Helping Canada Work."
Officials say that besides promoting job training and skills development, the campaign is intended to subtly suggest that whatever its problems, the Canadian economy as a whole is working.
Later the article goes on to say:
Somehow, Canada's 1.2 million unemployed, its struggling businessmen and farmers and its consumers trying to make ends meet, have trouble seeing a humming economy. What they see, instead, is a tired old government devoid of ideas, pouring out tax dollars as a screen for inaction and incompetence.
It's a kind of political bankruptcy not even the Liberal ad agencies can cover up.
That is true. Today we heard glowing reports from the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Parent) who said that the 13 vans that are travelling around the country to show how wonderful the government is, are meeting with a great reaction and that people think the idea is wonderful.
I should like to read into the record some excerpts from an editorial in The Daily Times of Brampton of Thursday, February 25, 1982, as follows:
We suppose that a government spending $76 billion a year would think that the portion of a $70 million annual advertising budget being spent to send a fleet of public relations trailers around the country is pretty small potatoes. It's a pleasure then to hear some of the residents of Brampton and some of our politicians think differently.
M. P. John McDermid again correctly sees the exposition set up this week at the Bramalea City Centre-
That is free advertising.
-as an insult to residents of this city forced to struggle along in difficult economic times.
More satisfying, though, was word reaching our ears that many people at the shopping centre were expressing their displeasure that the travelling road show is still travelling and didn't like the idea of being in our city.
It's clearly a bloody waste of time and money and an indication that the federal government just isn't trying all that hard to cut back on expenses.
That sums things up pretty well, Mr. Speaker. I do not think there is any doubt that when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) tells people to tighten their belts and cut back, such information as this makes it difficult for us to explain things to constituents who are having a difficult time meeting mortgage payments or putting gas in their car or finding the few dollars necessary for daycare so that their wife can go out to work. It is difficult to explain to these people why the government is wasting money on advertising and on sending vans around the country to tell how wonderful things are. It is very difficult to explain that type of nonsense to people. It is very difficult to explain to people how the Prime Minister can raise the salaries of his staff by 19 to 23 per cent or how his milk and bread and
May 3, 1982

booze and everything else is paid for by the taxpayers of Canada. Try telling that to a single parent who is having such a tough time feeding her child that I have to get food for her from the Salvation Army. Can that be explained through an advertising campaign? Not on your life, Mr. Speaker.
I will wind up my remarks by quoting from a book that sums up the advertising campaigns and programs of the federal government. It was written by a public relations man, an adman. The book is entitled "The Government Party. Organizing and Financing the Liberal Party of Canada, 193058". I think it probably sums up in this sentence what the Liberals are trying to do with their advertising:
Jello isn't very solid either, but they sell a hell of a lot of it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to take part in this debate today because I realize the necessity of the Government of Canada communicating with the citizens of this great nation. When the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) was speaking of the stand that party has taken on the issue of the Crow I wondered if they had told the people of Saskatchewan and western Canada that the federal government's total contribution to grain transportation since 1970 has been $1,798,000,000. Have they told them of the steps that the federal government has taken to subsidize and expedite the movement of grain over the past decade whereby it paid over $1 billion in branch line subsidies alone? In 1973 the government purchased 8,000 hopper cars at a cost of $258 million. Do the people of western Canada know this? These are some of the reasons that the government has had to take out such advertisements to communicate with the people of Canada.
Since March of 1974 the government has shared with the railways half the cost of rehabilitating 7,215-


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) rises on a point of order.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member allow a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Ferguson) accept a question?


Ralph Ferguson: After my 20 minutes is up, Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to entertain any questions the hon. member might have.
Between 1968 and 1982 the government spent $23,957,000 for improvements at Churchill, Manitoba, and it committed $30 million for the site development of the grain terminal at Prince Rupert, British Columbia.
Has the hon. member told Canadians that the government is prepared to contribute $3.2 billion for the movement of grain
Supply
over the next four years? Has he explained that the government wants to replace existing legislation with a new statutory framework?
It has become increasingly clear in the last several years that the majority of western constituents want a change in the Crow. The government wants to hear and, as much as possible, to accommodate the views of the affected parties. In order to find a solution which is fair and acceptable the government has decided on a course of consultation with western farm organizations and railways. It has appointed Dr. Clay Gilson of the University of Manitoba to lead these consultations.
These are some of the reasons why the government has had to advise the Canadian people of the direction it is taking. It is not being done by the opposition parties. In fact, I was approached just recently by a resident of one of the western provinces. He asked me about a clipping that appeared in one of the riding's newspapers quoting an MP from the area. He told me that he was furious as well as almost sick to his stomach at the garbage, at the poisonous effect this garbage was having on the politics of the province. He said that the WCC party must be gleeful as the devil at this drivel as it confirms all their worst paranoid fears of shadows in the dark. He said that he did not know what I or this House could do about such irresponsible nonsense but he hoped and prayed that something could be done to calm the waters and remove the poison.
It is for such reasons that the Government of Canada has had to launch a campaign to advise the Canadian people of what is happening in this great nation and to point out the direction that the government is taking, and its aims, objectives and hopes for this great nation.
The Canadian Unity Information Office tabled estimates for the fiscal year 1982-83 of $25.4 million. Last year's budget was $32.6 million and it included an $8.9 million supplementary estimate for a constitutional information program which was approved in the parliamentary committee last December.
There is another matter that 1 should put straight, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) mentioned that the metric system was brought in by the first Prime Minister of this nation, Sir John A. Macdonald. It seems an irony that "operation humbug" started in the city where this great Prime Minister had his residence. The minister overlooked the fact, however, that on November 15, 1979, through order in council No. PC 1793093, a weights and measures regulation order in council was put through by the government of the day, headed by the Right Hon. Joe Clark.


Walter David Baker: The Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. With all respect, it is customary to refer to hon. members by their constituency or their function.


Ralph Ferguson: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. It was the prime minister of the day.
80114	14

May 3, 1982
Supply
There is another area which concerns us, Mr. Speaker. We have recently discussed the federal-provincial fiscal arrangements, but where do we see a province telling its people, for example, that a certain amount of those expenditures come from the Government of Canada? In 1980-81 the federal government transferred to the province of Ontario 66.7 per cent of its hospital insurance costs, 58.9 per cent of medicare and 35.4 per cent of health care. During the same year the Government of Canada paid almost 62 per cent of postsecondary school education, including part of the cost of grade 13, and various amounts for research projects as well as the academic costs. In some universities in the U.S. the tuition is several times higher than here, but do we as the federal government get the credit for the contributions made when they are administered by the province? Not at all. The federal government pays half the premium for crop insurance and the farmer pays the other half, but it is administered and advertised as a provincial program. These are the reasons we have to communicate with the people of Canada. If we have to be accountable for our expenditures, then we certainly have to advise where those expenditures are being made.
In 1980 the federal government paid $219 million to the provinces in the community services contribution program, and these were joint funding programs with the municipalities, the provinces, and the federal government all contributing. But the federal contribution is seldom recognized by either of the two levels of government. Then, of course, under the Canada Assistance Plan the Government of Canada pays 50 per cent of the total cost of the program. In fact, the federal share of total tax expenditures has decreased from 52 per cent in 1959 to 33 per cent in 1979. If people are complaining that their taxes are too high, they should be advised where the increase has taken place. These are the areas of information which are always ignored by the opposition and the provinces. Canadians deserve to know, and if we are to be honest with the electorate, surely they should know, the amount of the federal contribution to their welfare, education and communities.
Between 75 per cent and 80 per cent of government advertising, Mr. Speaker, is educational. Very recently one of the commodity groups in Canada was assisted in an advertising program to assist their particular product which was in trouble because of poor markets and low producer prices. Should we not promote the tourism industry in Canada as we have in the past? These are government advertising programs to advise the people not only of Canada but in other nations of the world about the diversity of options we offer for tourism. Certainly this is one of our highest earners of foreign exchange-


John Horton McDermid: We have a deficit in that, too.


Ralph Ferguson: It is one of our highest earners of foreign exchange. Perhaps if some of the hon. members opposite would take holidays at home instead of going to Africa or some other exotic place, we would not have such deficits. It is a lack of understanding which has created confusion in the minds of
citizens in some parts of Canada, and certainly we as a government have to keep the people advised because we simply cannot leave it to the opposition.
I have to reflect back to the constitutional debate and some of the letters we received about property rights. They instilled fear in the hearts of Canadians that they would no longer have property rights under the Constitution. They did not tell them that property rights come under provincial jurisdiction; they did not tell them that the only property rights we can guarantee are those in the Arctic, the Yukon, or the Northwest Territories. This is a vital area of concern as far as I am concerned, and that problem is still surfacing in western Canada. The people out there are under the impression that they have no property rights, and that was one of the main issues in a local byelection held not long ago.
Another fact I should draw to the attention of the House is that not long ago one of the members of the opposition mischievously interpreted a bill in a way which struck fear in the hearts of all the churches. As a matter of fact he sent a copy of that letter to many of the churches across Canada, and even sent along a suggested letter of reply which they could send to their local Member of Parliament. That letter read into the bill several things which, if the bill were taken in its total context, there would be nothing to fear, but if you pulled out a clause here, one somewhere else, and another one later on in the bill, and took them all as single clauses that are not interrelated, then, yes, perhaps there would be cause for concern. According to this letter the churches could not remove a person even if they had bylaws protecting them. This is the type of mischievous political red herring which has been coming from across the way, and we cannot accept this in the society we have in Canada today. So if we are spending taxpayers' money in advertising and communications-


John Horton McDermid: Your deputy House leader agrees with us.


Ralph Ferguson: -it is a situation created by the opposition. They have forced us to do this, to set the record straight, and this we intend to do.


John Horton McDermid: Ask his brother who is a preacher in London.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I have a letter from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) explaining what I have just pointed out, that if these things are taken out of context, perhaps you could read into them something which is not there and was never intended to be there. However, this bill has not even received second reading, or come before the committee, and already they are striking fear into the hearts of the Canadian people, using as a weapon the very principles upon which this nation was founded relating to the supremacy of God and-


John Horton McDermid: You took long enough to put it into the Constitution.


Ralph Ferguson: It makes me very sad, Mr. Speaker, to see this type of propaganda coming out.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Very sad, indeed.
May 3, 1982


Ralph Ferguson: The hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) referred to a letter soliciting funds for a political party. I received one of these the other day. I get a kick out of them. A neighbour came to me with his letter and wanted an explanation of it. There are five questions, which would appear to be skill-testing questions. I asked him what he made of it? He said, "Well, I get from this that if you donate $100, you get $75 deducted from your income tax. If you donate $200, you get $150 deducted from your income tax". But he could not understand the skill-testing questions which went along with it. Apparently this man was under the impression that if you got all the questions right and made the top donation, you would be able to dine with some fat chap by the name of Mr. Mulroney. I do not know what he had in mind here. I said it was worth a try, anything can be an improvement over what we have already. But the fact is, Mr. Speaker, that this income tax write-off is money which would ordinarily go into the coffers of the Government of Canada. When you see such skill-testing questions as these and realize their source, then of course we have to ask, are we wrong as a government for letting the people of Canada know what the facts are through the medium of advertising? I think not. We have heard a great deal tonight about the energy policy and some of the problems with it. But at no time did I hear the opposition stand up and tell the people of Canada that the federal government does not set retail prices. We have no jurisdiction over retail prices. The federal government establishes a price paid to refiners for their crude oil. The price, called the blended price, is now 70.5 per cent of world prices as of January, 1982. The opposition does not tell the public this. As a matter of fact, the old conventional oil is now at 54.4 per cent of world price. Is the opposition going to tell the people of Canada how much the province of Alberta and the Government of Canada offered to contribute to the Syncrude project and the guarantees they were willing to provide on the balance of the funding?


Walter David Baker: We will let you tell them.


Ralph Ferguson: I doubt if the opposition would do that. In fact, I have heard the ads about taxation on a litre of gas and 1 have been asked questions about this. I passed by a gas station the other day. 1 saw the price at 39.4 cents a litre and I went in to check. The Ontario government road tax amounted to 6.3 cents a litre. The Government of Canada's total take was 7.41 cents. Of this, 72 cents was the Canadian ownership charge which is paying for Petrofina and will be paid for in September; 2.04 cents is sales tax; 1.5 cents is excise tax and 2.79 cents is upstream corporation tax. The producing province gets 4.86 cents and the industry takes 16.87 cents of 42.9 per cent of the total. On top of that, the petroleum compensation charge is returned to the oil companies. In fact, the total to the oil companies is not one third; it is slightly over 50 p er cent.
1 would like to draw hon. members' attention to the statement in the annual report of Suncor by the president of the corporation. He said that after months of uncertainty we have
Supply
obtained a higher oil sands price effective January 1, 1982, and Suncor now stands on the brink of a new era of opportunity.
1 hope that members of the opposition will realize the necessity of communicating these facts to the people of Canada, which is something they have failed miserably to do in their role as opposition.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) rises on a point of order.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, is there enough time to ask the hon. member a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired. A question can be asked only if there is unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having the opportunity of this extended period of time to debate this important issue. I have flown in from my constituency to be here. I have an opportunity now, for a very short period, to summarize exactly what has happened during the course of the day as I have followed it winging my way from the west to the nation's capital.
I was very interested to hear the thrust of the debate today. What the motion deals with is a very serious problem of advertising. It is a specific kind of advertising. It is advocacy advertising on the part of the government and the self-serving polls that have been put out by this government.
We are criticizing the practice that has evolved under this government. I want to give some advice to the government as I believe there is a role for a party to articulate the conventional and traditional liberalism started at the time of confederation. But under this Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and this government there has been a deterioration in those principles of liberalism that would cause Sir Wilfrid Laurier to whirl in his grave and Mackenzie King to look up or down, whatever the case may be, at this chamber in which he spent so much time, wondering what has happened to the Liberal Party which once was a proud party in this country.
In trying to be as helpful as I can to the government, I can only say that it should look at the most recent example of what has happened to the New Democratic Party government in Saskatchewan. It launched itself into a very expensive, slick advertising campaign outlining the merits of all the things that democratic socialism was going to do in the province of Saskatchewan. That government spent millions of dollars telling the people of Saskatchewan about the family of Crown corporations. The people of Saskatchewan, as have the people of Canada, asked themselves a very simple question. If things are so good according to this slick, expensive government advertising campaign, how come 1 cannot meet my mortgage payments? How come I cannot meet the food bill for my

May 3, 1982
Adjournment Debate
family? That is what the people of Canada are saying with respect to the waste which this government is incurring in its advertising campaign.
This is not advertising by way of giving people information or of advising them about factual situations. This is a program of advertising that would make Goebbels proud. This is the kind of advertising campaign in which policies of the Liberal Party are being promoted at taxpayers' expense. In essence, that is the problem we face in this debate. We are trying to make the government realize that it is quite acceptable to spend money on legitimate advertising campaigns that are for the benefit of the voters and the taxpayers of this country, but it is wrong to spend money promoting the policies of a particular government party.
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the paranoia which has run through this government since it has taken office has been manifested in a number of ways. This is the same party which sees itself-as spokesmen on the government side keep telling us-as having to respond to the untruths that are told by the opposition, the untruths that are spread across the country by the wicked press, that these people are not to be trusted and so the government must spend taxpayers' money to speak the truth to the people. Goebbels would be very proud of that philosophy. Goebbels would understand that kind of mentality. But that is wrong. It is wrong in terms of the economy of it. It is wrong in terms of the political direction.
I see it is almost ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker, but there are still two minutes to go. This is a government which would attack the CBC because it felt that its policies were being misrepresented, say, in the province of Quebec, by the various actions being taken by that government. To have Mr. Goyer, a former colleague of the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) draw up a list of extra-parliamentary opposition, enemies of the government, shows the kind of mentality that operates in this government and makes it think that it must spend taxpayers' money in order to tell the people what are the facts as opposed to having the courage, conviction and ability to go across the land, as we in the opposition must do-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being ten o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 58(11) proceedings on the motion have expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, on April 7, 1982, I asked the Minister for Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) to inform the House about the measures the Government of Canada intended to take to assist UFFI victims. On April 23, the Minister tabled in the House a progress report on the financial aid program for urea formaldehyde foam insulated homes. Referring to this document, I see it mentions that an instrument working on the principle of a chemical filter could prove to be an effective method for reducing urea formaldehyde levels. However, to date, none of the instruments tested has been considered to be safe and economical. The UFFI Centre and the National Research Council are now proceeding with tests of several instruments that could be used in homes.
The same report also refers to a system of priorities, and I quote:
Since the program is supposed to provide assistance to several thousand home owners, it will be impossible to deal with all applications simultaneously. Consequently, a system of priorities has been established, and home owners with serious health problems will be given top priority. The Centre has asked home owner associations and provincial governments to provide names and addresses of persons who would require assistance on an urgent basis.
Mr. Speaker, in the next few minutes I would like to address this matter of urgency.
In the Gaspe, several hundred home owners with homes that are 50 years old or more, have insulated their homes with urea formaldehyde foam. Most of these people are at least 60 years old and living on pensions or fixed incomes. The walls of their homes are from seven to nine inches thick, and the roof is typical of the Gaspe with a very pronounced curve and dormer windows. The owners followed the instructions given by the Government of Canada to save energy and applied for a grant to insulate their homes. Most owners who used urea formaldehyde foam insulation are now facing a health problem and must find another place to live in and this is not easy in an area such as ours.
Mr. Speaker, even if the Government of Canada provided a $5,000 grant to remove that foam from the walls of a house whose owner is unemployed or is on welfare, where will this owner find the additional $10,000 to have the work performed? Even people who have permanent jobs and whose property was mortgaged to have that insulation put in can no longer afford to borrow at 20 per cent to have the foam removed from their walls and ceilings. 1 have evidence including medical certificates indicating that young children and older people who have health problems must leave their homes. Conditions are worse in wintertime when the windows are shut and the heating system is working. It is obvious that we need, in co-operation with the provinces, further financial assistance for. those families, and this is urgent. Work should be done


May 3, 1982

during the summer of 1982 because UFFI victims can no longer wait. It is unfortunate that the federal and provincial governments are not considering more seriously and with greater sympathy the problems faced by UFFI victims. Mr. Speaker, the minister has tabled Bill C-109 entitled: an act to provide for payments to persons in respect of dwellings insulated with urea formaldehyde foam insulation. Speaking of assistance, Section 3 of the bill says, and I quote:
On application to the minister by a person who provides evidence in the form and manner prescribed by the regulations that he is, pursuant to the regulations, qualified to receive a payment in respect of a dwelling insulated with urea formaldehyde foam insulation, the minister may, subject to the regulations, make a payment to the person of an amount not exceeding such amount as is prescribed by the regulations.
As my time is almost up, Mr. Speaker, I should like to advise the House that I intend to participate in the debate on second reading of this bill in order to defend the interests of the people I represent here in this House, the victims of urea formaldehyde foam insulation, and especially those who are in a precarious financial situation.


Mr. Gary F. McCauley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the obviously genuine concern of the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Cyr) for home owners who are experiencing severe problems as a result of UFFI, let me deal in more depth with the questions he raises.
With regard to the minister's ongoing representations to the provinces for increased assistance to UFFI victims, the prospects for success seem no brighter now than they did in June of 1980. At that time, during the Saskatoon federal-provincial conference of consumer ministers, the minister was seeking to have them assume their legitimate responsibility for the training or licensing of companies installing insulation. Having received no response by the time of the 1981 conference in Quebec City, he felt obliged to repeat his request, adding the reminder about the responsibility of the provinces to ensure the competence of insulation installers. Most merely took the comment under advisement.
In the wake of the government's decision in December, 1980, to issue a temporary ban on urea formaldehyde foam insulation under the provisions of the Hazardous Products Act, some provincial legislatures began establishing programs to enable their UFFI home owners to have their homes tested for excessive concentrations of urea formaldehyde gas. It was a belated acknowledgement of moral responsibility, a hiccup of concern, which was hastily cured with word of the development of a federal testing program in the fall of 1981.
Today, virtually every province has abandoned any process of easing concerns of its population through testing. The federal government has been left to shoulder the logistics of this load while the provinces snipe from the sidelines. In spite of these two examples of provincial indifference, on the one hand refusing to ensure installers of UFFI were competent
Adjournment Debate
and, on the other, starting a testing program and then abandoning it, we shall continue to press for more provincial assistance to home owners.
As the hon. member for Gaspe is aware, I am sure, the federal government has not been idle while the provinces run for cover. The establishment of the UFFI information and coordination centre in June of last year served to focus the efforts and expertise of all federal government departments and agencies concerned with the urea formaldehyde foam insulation problem. The $110 million assistance program for UFFI home owners launched in December of 1981 was accompanied by a national advertising campaign urging these Canadians to register for it.
The federal government is offering free screening tests to all concerned UFFI home owners across Canada to determine the levels of formaldehyde gas in their dwellings. Where remedial action is indicated, homeowners are offered full-scale testing and free technical advice and are eligible for non-taxable financial assistance up to $5,000. In addition, we know that many of the difficulties with UFFI have been caused by improper installation. In order to ensure that remedial measures are properly carried out, training will be provided to contractors and individual home owners. Moreover, to ensure a high standard of accuracy in testing and laboratory work, a special registration program for private firms is being implemented.
Finally, to respond to the hon. member's question about using CMHC's residential rehabilitation assistance program, I would reiterate the minister's previous statement that the $110 million program already in place is far superior.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM-ALSANDS PROJECT-TAX AND ROYALTY STRUCTURES
Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, on April 29 I questioned the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) about the delay and subsequent demise of the Alsands project in Fort McMurray. I specifically asked the minister whether he had offered or agreed to reduce his massive tax grab, the petroleum and gas revenue tax which is drying up the cash flow of the companies and leaving them with insufficient funds to service the debt incurred from their investment in a massive, $13 billion project of this nature in northern Alberta.
The disaster of Friday will go down in history as one of the blackest days in this country. The initiative of the Canadian people has been killed. That is the effect it has had right across the country. Continually in this House today when the minister was being questioned on his reaction to the delay, ceasing, shelving and indeed killing of the Alsands, we saw him skirt around it. It did not matter to him. He said, "We have all sorts of projects we will be working on over the next year". It never ceases to amaze me how the Minister of Energy, Mines and

May 3, 1982
Adjournment Debate
Resources can stand up in the House day after day and, it appears to me, be misleading the Canadian people by these statements. Under no circumstances, has the minister recognized or addressed the problem that exists, that is the National Energy Program which took aim at the only strong industry in this country. It is located in the western provinces. He fired a shot and killed the industry.
There are bankruptcies galore in the industry. The industries servicing the oil companies are going bankrupt. Small businesses are going bankrupt right across the province. Unemployment is now at an all-time high. There is a wave of despair descending across Alberta that is hard to describe. People who invested their life savings in these massive projects that were to be built are now facing the reality of bankruptcy, losing everything they worked for over the years.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is responsible. It is an indisputable fact that if the minister had allowed those plants to go ahead two years ago as they should have rather than attacked the cash flow of those companies, they would have been half built right now. That is what would have happened if there had not been a Liberal government sitting in those benches. What has happened is an absolute crime.
The newspaper headings across the country on Friday and Saturday proclaimed that Alsands died. This country from coast to coast is dying. Despair has set in. There is a mental attitude of absolute depression. It is unbelievable that the minister would not make an attempt to get those plants going immediately.
The minister need only pick up the phone and call the Alsands consortium, which is committed for another month, and ask for a meeting to sit down and attempt to revamp the national energy policy to create the feeling across the country that this government wants private investment to develop our economy. That is all that is necessary. It is all I suggest to him tonight.
Mr. Dave Dingwall, (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources): Mr. Speaker, following the announcement on April 30 by the private oil firms associated with Alsands that they were withdrawing from the project, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) announced the terms of the last offer made jointly by the federal and Alberta governments. That offer would have removed a large part of the financial risk from the private participants. In total, the direct and indirect support by Canada and Alberta would have covered 84 per cent of the $13.9 billion project cost. This degree of support would have been provided to a specially created "stand alone" corporation which would be exempt from taxation until the loan was repaid.
The offer before the companies when they made their decision to withdraw would ensure that Alsands received benefits equivalent to those of a guaranteed loan promised earlier by Alberta as well as the assured benefits comparable to what a taxable firm would normally receive through the use of the conventional tax write-offs.
I would like, Mr. Speaker, to emphasize that the offer was carefully designed to address the cash flow and price risk problems which the companies had previously stressed were their major concerns.
May I briefly, Mr. Speaker, spell out some of the specific provisions of the offer made jointly by the governments of Canada and Alberta to the Alsands companies.
First, private sector participation would be at least 50 per cent but in lieu of normal tax write-offs the two governments would provide loan guarantees for 68 per cent of private sector expenditures in the pre-production period.
Second, Mr. Speaker, no repayment of interest or principal would be scheduled until after start-up. Interest on the guaranteed loan could be capitalized and added to the outstanding loan balance, and the guarantee increased accordingly.
Third, after production start-up, 58 per cent of the net revenue accruing to the private sector would be paid on the loan guarantees. Net revenue is equal to gross revenue minus 110 per cent of operating costs minus capital additions minus the Alberta 5 per cent gross royalty.
Fourth, Mr. Speaker, net revenue accruing to the private sector would not be subject to income tax or to other taxes or to Alberta's net revenue royalty until the loans are paid. After loan repayment, the private sector's revenue share would be subject to income tax, PGRT and royalties.
Fifth, Alberta's maximum 25 per cent equity interest would not be subject to taxation by the federal government. Alberta would have a gross royalty phased in after the first five million barrels at the rate of 1 per cent every 18 months to a maximum of 5 per cent until the guaranteed loans are repaid. Thereafter, Alberta would have the greater of a 5 per cent royalty or a royalty equal to 30 per cent of the net revenue.
Sixth, the federal government's equity interest, to a maximum of 25 per cent, would pay provincial taxes and the same royalty as the private sector interest.
Seventh, when the PGRT becomes effective after the guaranteed loans are repaid, the rate of the tax would be 16 per cent, but the private sector's liability for the tax would not exceed its royalty liability.
Eighth, these proposals would replace all provisions relating to the Alsands project in the Canada-Alberta agreement of September 1, 1981, except for those relating to the price to be received for the project's synthetic oil output.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, synthethic crude production would receive such quality price premiums as it could obtain in the market, and production would not be prorated to demand.
With an improvement of international conditions relating to oil surpluses, high interest rates, and price trends, I believe there might well be new consideration of the Alsands project, possibly in a year's time. In fact, the project might then proceed on terms less costly to Canadian taxpayers. In the meantime, co-operation with the government of Alberta will continue to be a priority, with special emphasis on providing
May 3, 1982

industrial development activities as a partial offset to the work that had been expected from Alsands.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-FRENCH CLAIMS TO ST. PIERRE AND MIQUELON
Donald W. Munro: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. During the visit to Canada last month of the President of France and subsequently of France's Prime Minister, it was the hope of many Canadians that there might be some progress in the sticky issue of the maritime claims made by France on behalf of St. Pierre and Miquelon stretching out into the Gulf of St. Lawrence. It was for that reason that on April 23, as recorded on page 16555 of Hansard, 1 asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) about any talks that he may have had with the President or the Prime Minister on that subject; and in his usual, flippant, none-of-your-damned-business sort of attitude, he turned the question aside as if it concerned no other Canadian but himself. I would like to assure him, Mr. Speaker, through you, and also through the parliamentary secretary who will be replying to me this evening, that there are Canadians interested in this matter, and that his flippancy and insouciance are quite out of place and are no comfort at all to them in their concerns over this issue.
The claims are extensive. The first questions I would like to put before the government are these. Will they reveal how extensive those French claims are? How many thousand square miles at the entrance of the Gulf are at issue? What principles are employed by the French in developing their claim? Does it extend 200 nautical miles into the Gulfs approaches?
My request for more detailed information on France's claim over these waters stems from the belief that, if made public in Canada, France's negotiating position would be considerably undercut because, as I understand it, France's claims are verging on the outrageous. Why not, then, make France's outrageous claim public so as to win support in Canada in opposition to it?
1 have a second set of questions which relate to a set of documents, initiated as long ago as 1972 at the level of ambassadors, being an acceptance of France's claim over these waters. That set of documents which, I suppose, were negotiating documents, has since, 1 believe, been repudiated by Canada and yet they were used, I am told, by the French at the Hague in their attempt to settle with Britain the demarcation of the Anglo-French maritime boundary in and around the Channel islands.
Adjournment Debate
My request is this: will the government table that exchange of documents outlining an agreement in principle, presumably? Their reluctance to do so, especially after repudiating it, as I believe to be the case, can only suggest a desire to keep from the Canadian people a stance that they once held on maritime boundaries in the Gulf of St. Lawrence which they now hope will be forgotten.
As the government knows, the 200-mile "exclusive economic zone", unilaterally declared almost five years ago by Canada, is within an ace of becoming enshrined in international law. One of the steps in that process was taken only last Friday in New York by a vote of 130 to 4, with 17 abstentions, of the International Convention on the Law of the Sea. I hope we will be able to discuss that matter on another occasion.
What concerns me tonight, however, is that in the midst of that 200-mile zone which will be Canada's exclusive economic zone, the French are claiming a substantial enclave and probably demanding as well free access to it from the open sea. What assurances do our fishermen have that even without such a guaranteed corridor the French fishermen will not fill up their batches in transit? Do we have enough power in Fisheries patrol vessels to monitor these vessels? What about the territorial sea around St. Pierre and Miquelon? What about transit rights for civilians and overflight rights? What about subsoil resources and the claims being made by France? Will Canada throw away even more of its riches to placate a passive ally in NATO for domestic reasons? The government must come clean on France's claim some time. I suggest that it is better now than later.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the concern expressed by the hon. member. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has already spoken on this question, especially about the stopover made by the French Prime Minister in St. Pierre-Miquelon before visiting us in Ottawa. The Prime Minister of Canada has indicated that there is no cause to speculate on why the French Prime Minister visited St. Pierre and Miquelon before Ottawa or why he went there, except to say that the visit was a natural one since the islands are a French overseas department and it is thus fitting that the French Prime Minister should stop there when the occasion arises. The visit to Canada was such an occasion.
There is not necessarily much connection here with the present disagreement with Canada and France over delimitation of the maritime boundary. The French Prime Minister could well have visited the islands. Nevertheless, going there would give him a personal insight into the situation and into the feelings of the local population. As you know from their joint press conference, the subject of delimitation of the maritime boundary off St. Pierre and Miquelon was discussed by the two Prime Ministers in a positive way. The French

May 3, 1982
A djournment Debate
Prime Minister naturally outlined the concerns of the islanders, and both sides agreed that a negotiated settlement was preferable to any other course. The position of the Government of Canada is known to the French and we are prepared, as always, to resume negotiations in order to reach a mutually acceptable solution. Thank you.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m.
At 10.25 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.



Tuesday, May 4, 1982