1978-10-25

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As was the case yesterday, today there are five successful candidates from the recent by-elections to be introduced, and I will follow the same practice as yesterday regarding the time for motions pursuant to Standing Order 43, and questions.
I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the election and return of Howard Crosby, Esq., member for the electoral district of Halifax-East Hants.
I also have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the election and return of Jack Hare, Esq., member for the electoral district of St. Boniface.
I also have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the election and return of Richard Janelle, Esq., member for the electoral district of Lotbiniere.
I also have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the election and return of Bob Rae, Esq., member for the electoral district of Broadview.
I also have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the election and return of Tom Siddon, Esq., member for the electoral district of Burnaby-Richmond-Delta.


NEW MEMBERS INTRODUCED
[Stage Direction]
Howard Crosby, Esq., member for the electoral district of Halifax-East Hants, introduced by Mr. Joe Clark and Mr. Robert C. Coates.
Jack Hare, Esq., member for the electoral district of St. Boniface, introduced by Mr. Joe Clark and the hon. W. G. Dinsdale.
Richard Janelle, Esq., member for the electoral district of Lotbiniere, introduced by Mr. C. A. Gauthier and Mr. Adrien Lambert.
[DOT]	(1412)
Bob Rae, Esq., member for the electoral district of Broadview, introduced by Mr. Edward Broadbent and Mr. Andrew Brewin.
Tom Siddon, Esq., member for the electoral district of Burnaby-Richmond-Delta, introduced by Mr. Joe Clark and Mr. John A. Fraser.

[DOT]	(1417)

Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, under Standing Order 43, arising out of the fact that this week has been declared by the United Nations to be a week devoted to fostering the objectives of disarmament.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Rae):
That the Secretary of State for External Affairs be asked to make a statement in the House on the government's plans on the area of disarmament and, particularly, on the transfer of expenditures from the production and purchase of weapons of destruction to development so as to meet basic and human needs within Canada as well as throughout the world.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REQUEST THAT TRADE CONFERENCES BE HELD IN EACH PROVINCE-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. As it is essential that this country start immediately to overcome our yearly trade deficit in fully manufactured products, the ones that produce the jobs, which is at present running at a record annual rate of
448

October 25, 1978
more than $12 billion a year, and as one of the first important steps that must be taken is to have small and medium-sized producers become familiar with the assistance which the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce can give them to get into the export market and expand their sales of these very important products, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempiing):
That the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce be directed to organize large trade conferences in each of the provinces, the purpose of which would be to advise Canadian producers how they can expand their present operations by getting into the export market and, in this way, make available the additional jobs our people need.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to propose the following motion:
In view of the fact that the drug problem is increasing, particularly in this nation, the appropriate ministers of the government should give immediate consideration to appealing the preposterous and more than lenient suspended sentence imposed yesterday in Toronto on Keith Richards, of the Rolling Stones, on the charge to which he pleaded guilty, the possession of drugs, which sentence, among other things, provides that he and his associates should undertake to give a musical concert, a sentence which will be an encouragement to potential wrongdoers all over this nation.
I make no apology for proposing this motion, but I must say, as a member of four provincial Bar associations in this country, that I regard this as a very serious encouragement to drug users.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion, pursuant to Standing Order 43, can be presented for debate at this time only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PROTESTED SALE OF ELEVATORS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter that is urgent and pressing. In view of the fact that the federal government wishes to sell five grain terminals in western Canada and lease two other terminals in central Canada, even though these elevators are making money, since the sale of the
[Mr. Hees.J
western elevators could result in foreign multinational corporations using the facilities to undermine the Canadian Wheat Board and the farmer-owned country elevator system, and since Mr. Justice Emmett Hall termed their planned sale "a very retrograde step", I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton- Melville (Mr. Nystrom):
That this House direct the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Transport to reconsider their decision to turn the federal elevators over to private interests, and in no case shall lease or sale of federal elevators be made to foreign multinational corporations.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for discussion at this time, pursuant to the Standing Order, can be done only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Richard Janelle (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with an urgent matter of national interest.
In view of difficult conditions in the furniture and textile industries during the past few years, conditions which have somewhat improved especially in the furniture industry through the abolishment of the Quebec sales tax, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the House remove the 12 per cent tax on Canadian manufactured products to reduce inflation, provide an economic stimulus and allow competitive prices which would boost employment in our country.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, presentation of such a motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion under Standing Order 43. In view of the statement the
October 25, 1978

Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Buchanan) made in a speech yesterday, that Canada lags far behind other industrialized countries in research and development, causing Canada to lose out on employment and trade opportunities, and that the minister puts much of the blame on the private sector, which provides only one-third of Canada's R and D effort, and points out that our branch plant system causes us to import 80 per cent of our technology, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That this House instruct the minister to convince his colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, to stop using the Foreign Investment Review Agency as a "welcome wagon" and begin to restrict foreign ownership and its growth in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the presentation of such a motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The oral question period will continue until ten minutes past three.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Solicitor General. Is it the policy of the government that RCMP officers acting with the expressed or tacit approval of their superiors be protected or indemnified in the event that in the course of their duties they transgress the criminal law, civil law or common law, such indemnification to take the form of such things as payment of fines, legal fees, assurances of continued employment, and so on? Is that the policy of the government?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman undoubtedly is referring to matters that came out of the McDonald inquiry yesterday. The matters which he is addressing have been dealt with in that context. I can assure the hon. gentleman that this government has indicated in the past, and will continue to indicate, that it will not condone or tolerate any illegal act on the part of the RCMP, and it follows from that policy that indemnification is not forthcoming.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, in view of his answer that that is not the policy of his government, would the minister indicate to the House the date upon which that policy ceased to be effective, and which of the minister's predecessors was responsible; or did it cease since the hon. member became Solicitor General? Also, would the minister undertake to table in the
Oral Questions
House the directive by the Solicitor General ordering the cessation of that particular policy?


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge, that has never been the policy of this government.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General has referred to the events of the past 24 hours or more. Is the minister saying that he has not consulted with one or more of his predecessors, particularly in the last 24 hours, to determine the nature of that policy, who was aware of it, who approved it and who approved its continuance as government policy since 1970? Is the Solicitor General saying that he has had no consultation with either the Prime Minister or his predecessors to determine when that policy ceased to exist?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I find it most unfair for the hon. gentleman to imply by his questions that any policy of this nature has been one of this government. I indicated to him, and my predecessor indicated previously, that there was not to be any carrying on of any illegal activity by the RCMP or any of its branches. That has been clearly defined, Mr. Speaker.
When there was any indication of questionable conduct on the part of the RCMP, those matters were raised and referred to an inquiry which is studying those matters at the present time. That is quite categorical, and we hold by what has been advanced in this House previously.


TESTIMONY BEFORE MCDONALD COMMISSION
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. I am sure that all members of the House were under the misapprehension when 1 asked a question yesterday about documentation relating to ex-Commissioner Higgitt's testimony yesterday-all of us, including the Prime Minister, were under the misapprehension that no such documentation had been forthcoming. In actual fact, a memorandum was filed yesterday which reads in part:
You will be aware that certain tasks performed by SIB or CIB personnel require that the law be transgressed, whether it be federal, provincial or municipal law, in order that the purpose of the undertaking may be fulfilled.
There is no question there that members of the force would have to transgress the law. My question to the Prime Minister is simply this: because of ex-Commissioner Higgitt's very definite declaration that the principles and policies emanating from that memorandum were discussed by him with one minister, Mr. George Mcllraith, with one Mr. John Turner who was then a minister, with the Minister of Supply and Services and the present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, would he reiterate, or state again for us that each of these ministers has denied to him that they had knowledge of or any discussion relating to the need for this policy?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I did not know yesterday, and I did not know today until this moment, that such a document was tabled by the commission

October 25, 1978
Oral Questions
yesterday. If such a document was tabled by the former commissioner of the RCMP, it just proves the wisdom of my suggestion yesterday that we should not embark on a running commentary on what is happening before the commission, that being unfair to a lot of people including those just named by the hon. member. No doubt if Messrs. Mcllraith, Turner and the others had been informed that their names would be produced in this way and would be repeated in the media and by the opposition, they would have wanted to instruct counsel and have their point of view exposed and presented to the commission as I am sure they will now.
Therefore, I think the conclusion is quite evident that we are doing great unfairness to a lot of Canadians by just listening to one version of a particular set of facts and not hearing the other side. The commission itself must be aware, of course, of this unfairness which results not from its procedures but from the way in which they are constantly being interpreted in this House and repeated by the media.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, of course, I hope the Prime Minister was aware that I was not talking about a defence which I am sure will be forthcoming by these particular individuals. I was asking the Prime Minister if he would indicate that, to the best of his knowledge, each of these ministers has indicated to him or has denied to him that this topic was discussed. But because this memorandum reached right into the Prime Minister's own committee on security matters and, as a matter of fact, was endorsed and sent along by the secretary of the Prime Minister's own committee, and because I have seen no indication yet that the Prime Minister is going to appear before the McDonald commission, may I ask the Prime Minister if he denies that he had any knowledge of the principles, or discussion or need for the policy enunciated and reiterated by people who are on his cabinet committee?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I said I did not know until a moment ago that this document existed and had been produced. Therefore, how could the hon. gentleman ask me if I had discussed this testimony with any of the people mentioned by the hon. member? I did not know it existed. Therefore, surely I could not phone them and say, "Were you aware of this? Did you know about this?" I just said I did not know it had been deposited in testimony. I have no recollection of the existence of such a document.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I do not intentionally mean to mislead the Prime Minister or the House. I am not talking about the document; I am talking about the principles and the policies which were enunciated and which obviously flowed from the document, and the document talks about the need for illegal acts. I am talking about the policy, the principles and the discussion relating to that, not necessarily the document.
I ask the Prime Minister again: is he denying to the country at large that there was any discussion of the need within the

government for such a policy? I am not talking about the document.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is not talking about the document, but he is talking about principles and policies which flow from a document of which I have no knowledge and which I have no recollection of ever having seen.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I suggest that the hon. member is indeed mischievous in his questions.
TESTIMONY OF FORMER RCMP COMMISSIONER BEFORE McDonald commission


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, agreeing with the Prime Minister's expressed concern about fairness to all the people whose names have been mentioned particularly in the last 24 hours before the McDonald inquiry, I would like to ask him in a most serious way concerning the fact that the former commissioner has said that the acts of illegality were, and I quote, "discussed with the ministers from time to time, orally and in written form".
Given the gravity of this accusation about ministers of the Crown which has been made by a former commissioner of the RCMP, in order for the public to see that fairness is being done will the Prime Minister now give the House unequivocal assurance that when the minister so named gives testimony before the inquiry, the government lawyer will not be instructed to urge the discussion related specifically to these illegal matters be held in an in-camera session?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party talks about the gravity of the accusations made by former Commissioner Higgitt. I do not believe former Commissioner Higgitt made accusations about anything yesterday. He was stating to the best of his recollection what he thinks took place. I indicated that the best of his recollections may have been contradicted by himself on some other occasion. But in a sense that is secondary. I think the important point is that he is not making any accusations. I could not say as much for people on the other side of this House; they are obviously making accusations and entertaining suspicions about a set of testimonies which have shown one very partial aspect of the whole question.
The government has set up this commission and has said repeatedly that ministers would testify as called upon, that we would produce and have produced every document asked for. I just continue to make the plea, let's hear every side of the question before making any decision on this and casting any aspersions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister took a minute and a half not to answer the question. The question
October 25, 1978

was an attempt to get fairness for the ministers involved, fairness that would be perceived by the public. The Prime Minister may not consider the statements made by Mr. Hig-gitt to be grave, but 1 can assure him that all Canadians interested in the principle of the rule of law do indeed consider them to be grave, if accurate. So I would like to ask him a question, and I hope he will give a straightforward answer. When these accusations or statements made by Mr. Higgitt, namely, that ministers were informed both orally and in writing about the illegal activities that were undertaken or about to be undertaken by the RCMP, are discussed before the McDonald inquiry, will the Prime Minister assure the House that counsel for the government will not request that those hearings be held in camera but, in fact, will do the opposite: request that they be held openly so the people of Canada can hear all that ought to be heard?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member corrects me and says that the matter is grave. Of course it is grave, and it is because it is grave that I have urged members on the other side and members of the media to report this in a way that does not suggest that there is any guilty person involved. We will see. That is the job of the commission to find if indeed- and they, I believe, are the first two items of the terms of reference-there has been any breaking of the law by police officers, by ministers of the Crown or by anybody in between.
We believe that if the commission made such a report, we would not hesitate to refer the subject matter to the attorneys general of the provinces where the alleged misdeed would have been committed. The Minister of Justice said this a few days ago. I said it a couple of weeks ago in this House. We even went on to say that in matters where confidentiality and secrecy were involved, we would bend over backwards to make sure that no privilege or secrecy was invoked if it were a matter of attempting to hide some guilty person. But this being said, I leave it to the commission to decide if a hearing of any minister or of any commissioner or former RCMP officer of whatever rank be in camera or in public. 1 think that when the hon. gentleman is suggesting that if something happens in camera, the people of the country, Canadians, and members of the House can have no confidence, I am suggesting they are casting very serious aspersions on the commission itself.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is not the credibility of the commission which should be attacked here. I understand the credibility of the government is attacked. We have said to the commission "okay, you hear the matter". But surely we have to trust somebody. If we are taking as a definite position that the commission cannot be trusted when it operates in camera, then let's abolish the commission.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to suggest that the Prime Minister needs a little lift in the lower part of his anatomy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: He took almost two minutes, again, Mr. Speaker, not to answer the question, which is very serious.
This morning before the commission, Mr. Nuss, acting on behalf of the government, once again intervened, once again requested a certain matter not be discussed, and in fact he was following the general request made earlier by the government, acting under the old cabinet secrecy provision that could undermine the credibility of this whole commission. I ask the Prime Minister: will he give a clear answer this time? When the matter of whether or not the ministers were informed, orally or in writing, is discussed before the commission by the ministers themselves, will he make sure that counsel does not request an in-camera session at that point but urges that the session be in public?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we are, again, discussing some testimony before the commission of which 1 have no knowledge. I do not know under what circumstances-


An hon. Member:: Check with your staff which was there this morning.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the opposition would shut up a little bit, I could-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not know under what circumstances the lawyers of the commission made that representation. It may have had to do with some Privy Council secrets; I do not know. That is why I say it is unwise to ask me or any minister, day by day, to comment on the ongoings before the commission, whether it be testimony by a witness or whether it be actions by a lawyer. I do not instruct them daily and I do not follow daily what is happening, nor should I. I trust the commission.
When the hon. member is suggesting that the course pursued by this lawyer undermines the credibility of the commission-I think his words were-he is precisely showing that I had answered his question. I had even anticipated his very feeling that somehow when the commission goes in camera, its credibility is being undermined. That is what the Leader of the New Democratic Party says. I say that is not the view of the commission: we trust the commission whether it operates in camera or publicly.

October 25, 1978
Oral Questions


FINANCE
Richard Janelle: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance who, by the way, had a rough time when he came to my riding. I wish him more luck with his next budget.
Given the fact that the abolition of the sales tax on clothing and furniture in the province of Quebec has proven profitable, does the minister intend to follow the example set by the government of Quebec and abolish the 12 per cent sales tax on manufactured goods, which is a federal tax?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the hon. member that he has made a good start, but also that he shows some partisan spirit. I would also like to remind him, about the sales tax in Quebec, that in January of last year, the Quebec finance minister, who had received representations from the footwear industry, said the abolition of the sales tax was totally out of the question. He changed his mind only after the federal government and myself had taken that initiative in our budget. It goes without saying that I consider all proposals in that field and I will provide in my budget what is in the best interests of all Canadians since I represent all Canadians and not only a part of Canada.


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT PROPOSES BUDGETARY CUTS-MINISTER'S POSITION
Richard Janelle: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Finance seems more inclined to reduce provincial sales taxes rather than his own under the guise of economic recovery, would he tell the House why he is making budgetary cuts, supposedly to sustain such a recovery, and lets the Bank of Canada increase its prime rate to 9.25 per cent, a policy which goes against his decisions?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is going to learn that monetary matters go far beyond the Creditiste theory and that there are national and international realities which have to be accounted for. As to what I am going to do with my budget, I will be glad to announce it to all members in the House when I introduce it in a few weeks.
[Mr. Trudeau.)


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. It would appear from a reading of the transcript of the proceedings yesterday before the McDonald commission that there was a practice to have weekly meetings, sometimes twice a week, with the Commissioner of the RCMP and the Director of Security and Intelligence in attendance with whoever might have been the minister at that time responsible for the Department of the Solicitor General, that the RCMP were very meticulous about informing the Solicitor General about such matters and actually required that he signed the documents relating thereto.
Was the Prime Minister aware of this practice of regular meetings with the Solicitor General? If so, was he aware as to whether policy matters were discussed at those meetings relative to those matters under inquiry by the McDonald commission?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the first part of the question, Mr. Speaker, the general answer is yes, of course. When I appointed ministers, one of the first pieces of advice 1 gave them was to meet very regularly with their staff and the various heads of agencies which came under their general authority. Therefore, I would have been surprised if the contrary had happened, that there had not been regular meetings between the Commissioner of the RCMP and the head of Security and Intelligence and either the minister or deputy minister according to the necessities of the day.
As to whether they discussed the matters which are before the McDonald commission-and I believe that is the question-I suppose they did. It was their job to discuss matters which are handled by the police on a day to day basis and as a policy basis. However, I do not know the details. I do not know if they signed documents on that occasion. How could I be expected to know?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, that raises an interesting apparent contradiction between the government's stance, that the Prime Minister and his respective solicitors general knew nothing of the policy referred to by the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot and by the previous questioner on this side.
There were nine exhibits entered into the proceedings yesterday, all of them shot through with policy statements. In view of his answer that the government had no knowledge of the policy upon which he was questioned, is the Prime Minister saying that the RCMP made this policy and did not inform the solicitors general? If that is the case, it seems that the solicitors general were, respectively, very negligent in their duties by not requiring the disclosure of that kind of policy.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If that were the case, Mr. Speaker, not only the ministers would have been negligent; obviously, the police would have been usurping powers if they were determining policy. I have made it quite clear to this House on many
October 25, 1978

occasions that the policy was determined by the government. It was enunciated in various ways. It had been enunciated in this House by the former solicitor general, the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes. He gave a very lengthy statement of policy when the whole subject matter became available to the government. Various committees, including the committee on security and intelligence, were set up by myself precisely to give policy guidance to the RCMP.
In policy matters it is, of course, obvious that the government should give the direction and the police should obey. I have said on other occasions that on the day to day operations, the detail of operative so-and-so at the end of the line, and the way he was collecting information or conducting an investigation, was not a matter of discussion in the committee which I chaired. I suppose, except in exceptional circumstances, when the police ask for guidance it probably would not be the business of the respective minister to every day find out all the day to day actions of the police in the ten provinces across the country.


Erik Nielsen: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the exhibits that were introduced in evidence yesterday, and the fact that they dealt with the policy of indemnifying RCMP officers as described by the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot, how then can the government now deny that they were aware of that kind of activity and policy? How can they deny it at this stage?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says, in view of the exhibits deposited yesterday. I said three times today- and I say it a fourth time-I have not seen those exhibits; I do not know what is in them.
If there is a general accusation, as I understand from one of the questions, that the government had decided to indemnify police who broke the law, the answer has been given by the present Solicitor General. There is no such policy. I know of no such policy. If there is such a policy, it will be up to the royal commission to find out where this policy originated, whether from the minister or the police, and what was its justification. However, that is the job of the commission, not of the hon. member nor myself.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General. We all know that the Postmaster General has, by notice under date of October 24 from the desk of Postmaster General, advised the membership of CUPW that if they do not return to work by 12.01 a.m. tomorrow, they will be out of a job. Section 27 of this act reads as follows:
An employee . . . may by an appropriate instrument in writing to the commission be declared by the deputy head to have abandoned the position he occupied and thereupon the employee ceases to be an employee.
Oral Questions
Has the Postmaster General made up his mind as to whether he will instruct the deputy minister to follow the strict provisions of section 27? Has he made up his mind about whether the deputy minister should write to the Public Service Commission indicating that certain employees have abandoned their jobs and are no longer employees?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, section 27 of the act is very clear. I think we will have to act on that legislation the way it is written. However, I do not think it has ever been the intention of this government to penalize good, honest and law-abiding workers. Obviously, every case will be considered. All evidence regarding each worker will be considered and each case will be judged on its merits. The 14 district directors will review the facts presented to them, because some workers might have reasons for not coming back to work. I will give examples of those reasons in a few moments. Those 14 district directors will then report to the deputy minister, who will notify the Public Service Commission and then a decision will be taken.
I think it was very wise to allow our workers to be on notice that this section is in existence. Most of our workers did not know it was, so I think it was wise to make them aware of the position into which their leaders were putting them and the risk they were taking by listening to the counsel of their leaders not to abide by the law and to refuse to go back to work. I can inform the House that at one o'clock this afternoon, 34 per cent of CUPW membership was back to work and about 89 per cent of the membership of the LCUC.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Canadian people will be interested in the answer just given, but if my memory serves me correctly I do not think the Postmaster General actually answered my question. I asked the Postmaster General if he has made up his mind to instruct the deputy minister to follow the provisions of section 27 of the act. Has the minister instructed the deputy minister to follow those provisions or is this matter being held in abeyance?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What would you like, Line?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I would just like an answer, and I thank the Prime Minister for helping me. Would the minister kindly answer that question?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Whose side are you on?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am not on your side.


Mr. Lamontagne:: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer is very simple: the section is there and it will be applied wisely and in fairness to the workers. It will be applied, but as I said before-and I do not want to repeat everything-I have many communications. I spoke to Vancouver this morning, and I have heard from many parts of the country about good, honest and law-abiding workers who want to go to work but because
8006S-30

October 25, 1978
Oral Questions
of intimidation, fear of picket lines and some of the acts of their leaders, they do not want to go back to work. I am not going to penalize all these people. This section will be applied, but in fairness to all workers. It will be applied justly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FISHERIES
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, in the last few days hon. members of the opposition have been fishing around about the McDonald commission; I should therefore like to do the same with regard to the Gulf of $t. Lawrence and Chaleur Bay. My question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. I should like to advise him that the people of Gaspe are happy to participate in the national program for the promotion of fish products. However, it is impossible to promote a product such as herring since the minister has yet to issue the licences to both the fishermen and the fishing boats in the province of Quebec. Does the minister feel that the riches of the Gulf of St. Lawrence belong as much to Quebeckers as to maritimers', and does he expect to announce soon the number of licences that will be issued in Quebec for herring draw-net fishing since Quebec fishermen would like to have their share of the Canadian quotas?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the representations of the hon. member and some of his colleagues in the last few weeks in this regard have led me to reassess completely herring fishing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence for the coming season. I trust we shall be able to make changes which, up to a point, will go against the proposed objectives. On the other hand, I must say to the hon. member that quotas are not at all allotted on the basis of geography, and provincial boundaries. On the contrary, it happens that some fisheries develop well in certain areas, for instance, tuna in Prince Edward Island, and very little in other parts of the maritimes. In the case of herring, we find considerable development in New Brunswick but rather little in the immediate vicinity. In the case of shrimps, there is much development in the Matane area but less elsewhere. We shall try to be fair with everyone but I must say to the hon. member that I shall resist allotting quotas on a strictly provincial basis.


FINANCE
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bob Rae: -I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In its annual report released this morning the Economic Council recommended a selective reduction in personal income taxes, a cut in the federal sales tax and a major federal-provincial capital works program, all of which this party has been recommending that the government bring in to deal with the serious problems of slow growth and high unemployment in the country. Does the minister agree with the recommendations of the Economic Council of Canada?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have a new adviser in the House today.


Mr. Gillies:: You can use all the advice you can get.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I have read the recommendations of the Economic Council. I met with the Conference Board but the hon. member for Ottawa Centre was not there.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: He is here now.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I met with the C. D. Howe Institute, and I will meet with other advisers. That will help me to make up my mind for the budget next month, and I will also take note of the views of the hon. member.


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, I may be a new boy in town, but I think I can recognize when a question has not been answered.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bob Rae: Since I have been appointed an adviser to the minister, I should like to draw his attention to the fact that the Economic Council has also stated that the federal government's austerity and cutback program would require a sustained increase in private spending which would be unprecedented in the last 50 years in Canada. If the minister does agree with the council's analysis, and if he does agree with my advice, will he reconsider and suspend the government's present policy of restraint and cutback which is only increasing unemployment insurance payments and welfare expenditures?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, one piece of advice I will not take from that corner of the House is that we should impose exchange controls in Canada at this time. I am glad that the hon. member now says he does not recommend that, but that is exactly what the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge is recommending all the time on television.
However, I will consider the advice of the Economic Council. I will make up my mind, and I am sure that whatever I do, the hon. member will be very quick to disagree on the night of the budget.
October 25, 1978


TRANSPORT
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport in connection with the strike of Nordair pilots, which is complicated to quite an extent by the pending acquisition of Nordair by Air Canada.
Since this proposed acquisition has already been partially responsible for two strikes involving pilots and will probably be a contributing factor in a third strike involving Nordair machinists, and since the delay by the cabinet in rendering a decision with respect to the appeal regarding the takeover is causing much confusion and uncertainty in the transportation industry in Canada, I wonder if the minister can explain to the House why the decision is taking so long, and will he tell the House when a decision will be reached and when it will be announced in this House?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport and Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, first I should say that it is surprising to me that the issue of Air Canada's acquisition of Nordair keeps being linked with various labour disputes, because the CTC has made it very clear that in its view the operations should be kept quite separate and independent.
Certainly, anything this government has said has indicated that we support that view at the very least. In addition, of course, the fact that in the case of Nordair an agreement might have been signed for one year, which would have avoided the problem, and negotiations could have included any such issue in the future, seems to be another reason why it should not have complicated the issue, notwithstanding that the government is very close to concluding its consideration of the issue, and I am optimistic that we will be able to make our views known on the various appeals of the CTC decision quite soon.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The matter is indeed clouded by the fact that it is part of the negotiating parcel that the pilots are considering, and the fact that it is now being considered by the cabinet certainly adds to the confusion.
May I ask the minister whether the government is considering any other options or alternatives vis-a-vis the takeover, and may I also ask him, when the decision will be rendered, whether it will be accompanied by a statement on the domestic air policy in this country which would cover the operations of third-level regional and trunkline carriers so that we could get some stability and sanity and some degree of continuity in the application of an air carrier policy upon which such acquisitions could be based, with some clear understanding?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the possibility of resolving a good number of the questions to which the hon. member refers is among the reasons for the longer time that cabinet is taking in considering this matter. I cannot say, in advance of the final
Oral Questions
decision of the cabinet, how much of that we will be able to do at the time of the decision in relation to the Air Canada acquisition of Nordair shares.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Public Works regarding the $750,000 that was wasted last year in paying for empty office space under a lease agreement, and also another $3.5 million which will be wasted in the next six years if this nonsense keeps up. I want to ask the minister what action he or the government will take to stop this waste of money.


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is referring to the building in Montreal which was leased about 15 years ago for ICAO, the United Nations' agency, which Canadians were most anxious to have established in this country in the period following the Second World War. It was a 20-year lease. Approximately 15 years into that lease, ICAO indicated they were not happy with those quarters, and they were relocated in other quarters. Unfortunately, we had to comply and assist them in finding alternate space.
What we are doing now is endeavouring to negotiate with the landlord a quit lease, and we expect to do so for substantially less than the $3.6 million to which the hon. member referred. In addition, we would save the operation costs which would normally be paid over the coming years, as well as the taxes.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Why has the minister's department continued to build lavish new office space for the government, while the space I mentioned was available? I can think of many small post offices throughout different parts of the country, the building of which has been delayed because of the minister's program and because all this other waste of money has been going on.


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, we were in the position of having a binding lease. Frankly, we looked at the option of revamping or bringing the building up to standard, which would cost approximately $11 million. Since we were a tenant, as opposed to being the owner, we felt that it would be a bad investment. We have been endeavouring, for the last year and a half, through calls for public tenders, through negotiations with developers and also through working with local realtors, to find tenants. Unfortunately, we were close to having one in the latter part of 1976 but this particular developer backed off after the election of the Parti Quebecois government in the province of Quebec, and since that time we have not been successful in finding an alternate tenant.
80065-30'/2

October 25, 1978
Oral Questions


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State concerning the budgetary cuts and their potential effects on payments under federal-provincial agreements regarding official language teaching which end in March 1979.
My question concerns the use the provinces make of these federal funds and the lack of public information regarding the manner in which this money is allocated by the provinces.
Given the interest expressed by several members of the House and the concerns voiced by spokesmen for non-government organizations over the renewal of these programs for another five years, can the minister tell the House if a total freeze or a cutback will apply to these payments, and if the new agreements provide for an accountability procedure to make public the breakdown of federal funds spent by the provinces to help and encourage the learning and use of the country's two official languages?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, there is indeed a freeze on funds available for these payments, which means that another agreement is to be signed for 1979 to 1984. Such an agreement is being negotiated and if we are successful there will be a freeze of about $140 million on these payments.
The funds may be available if another agreement is signed. The issue raised by the hon. member that concerns the lack of accountability, specific objectives, evaluation of criteria, is precisely one of the aspects which greatly interests us. It must be discussed during the negotiations with the provinces for a new agreement.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister a question. The reason and purpose of the question is the following. It is not in reference to what has been the evidence at the McDonald commission, and I agree with the Prime Minister that the commission must weigh the evidence, the pros and cons, and the credibility of witnesses.
My question arises because of the fact that the solicitors general have made statements in the House, in answer to questions asked in the House, which are diametrically opposed to the evidence contained in the depositions yesterday of Mr. Higgitt found at pages 13,757, 13,758 and 13,780. Has the

Prime Minister read the evidence of Mr. Higgitt and, if he has, has he taken his responsibility as Prime Minister and discussed that evidence with the solicitors general to determine whether the credibility of those ministers in answering questions in this chamber is in question?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I did answer that question yesterday when it was asked of me and I indicated that although I had not read the testimony of Commissioner Higgitt, nor do I intend to read the testimony of the various witnesses before the commission, I had been informed of the particular allegation that he made.
In the short space of time after I learned this at lunch time and the opening of the question period, I asked one former solicitor general who happened to be around whether there was a contradiction. I indicated the answer to that yesterday. But I think it is important to add, because the hon. member used the words that ministers in the House have made statements which are diametrically opposed, and so on, that indeed they have made statements in the House, sometimes prepared statements, sometimes in answer to questions, and I suggest that, unless I am mistaken, it is the rule of the House that we must take a minister at his word-or, in fact, any member of the House at his word-when he makes a firm and clear statement. If members on the other side are claiming to do the contrary, let them stand up and say so and challenge the minister with having in some way made a misstatement or a false allegation. Then the due process of debate will follow. No doubt there will be a reference to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections or the committe on orders and regulations. Until that happens, I suggest that the hon. member for Calgary North and others should take members at their word.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Prime Minister has set out the rule that we must accept the statements of ministers. Also, I appreciate his other statement that if we take the opposite view, that credibility is in question, we can challenge that question. But we have to get at the facts.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am asking the Prime Minister, now, if he will read the depositions, then discuss it with the ministers and give us the facts so that we on this side, and parliament, can decide whether those ministers have told us the truth or not.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I suggest, Mr. Speaker-and perhaps we could appeal to Your Honour's ruling-that the member has no choice but to take the member's word.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is not the question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If he states clearly a matter on which he has personal knowledge, and states a certain thing to be the fact, we in this House have to accept his word. If we do not, it is not to cross-examine on further questions to challenge his word and then the regulation takes effect.


Mr. Clark:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
October 25, 1978

Mir. Speaker: The hon. member for Yukon on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not take lightly any application by the hon. Leader of the Opposition to put a question. However, my hands are tied. The question period was to adjourn at three-ten o'clock. If I were to recognize the hon. Leader of the Opposition for a supplementary question now, I think I would be extending the question period too long. I am afraid my hands are tied.


PRIVILEGE
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a very serious question of privilege to raise. It involves the Minister of Transport and Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), so I hope he stays with us. My question of privilege has to do with a deletion in Hansard of a most gross nature. Throughout my comments, I want the minister involved to understand that I am not making any allegations that he made the deletion, because there is a possible second explanation.
To present the problem to Your Honour, I might refer to page 402 of Hansard of yesterday's date. At the top of the page, the Minister of Transport and Minister of Justice was answering questions put to him by the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis). The first full paragraph at the top of the page reads as follows:
I shall not engage in theoretical discussion about whether or not at some point we might get into some kind of confrontation. I do not foresee it. I foresee our making statements to the commission when the commission wants advice on issues of confidentiality.
It is at that point that the deletion has occurred. Hansard goes on to read:
As I see it, that approach has worked well up to this point.
Then it continues. I have examined the blues. I am not aware at this point whether the minister examined the blues personally yesterday. As we all know, the personal aides to ministers sometimes exercise that responsibility. At page K-2 of the blues, toward the bottom of the page-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder whether the hon. member would want to consider putting his point in a different form. We are into a rather serious departure here by making reference to what are essentially galley proofs before the final print is made. Obviously there is no difficulty at all in any member indicating, having been in the House yesterday, or having in some way brought to his attention, that he recollects remarks by a minister which do not appear in Hansard. I think that is a perfectly proper way to put it. I am not sure that we ought to depart from our past practice and introduce into the record of the House what are essentially galley proofs for the purpose of the final edition of Hansard. I can understand, if a
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen
dispute were to arise, that they might be referred to, but I do not think that we ought to introduce them at this stage.
I have no objection to the hon. member saying, as I think he is developing, that it is his recollection that words were used by the minister which do not appear in Hansard. That may have been an editorial fault on the part of Hansard, or someone may have moved to delete them. But I am not sure, at this stage, that reference ought to be made to what are essentially preparatory copies to the final edition of Hansard.


Erik Nielsen: I will certainly abide by your directions, sir. If you will tolerate my development of the circumstances, I think you may well come to the conclusion that the integrity of the electronic system in this place may be an explanation for the deletion. So I am afraid I must make such reference because of that fact.
At the foot of page K-2, the last word is "confidentiality". That is the last word in the printed Hansard. At page K-3, it goes on as follows:
As I see it, that approach has worked well up to this point.
So much for the blues. But there was a whole phrase which was said by the minister yesterday that has been omitted. The Chief of Hansard has explained that it was a recording error, very unusual for this to happen, but nonetheless it happened. This is what the minister said. If he or you, Mr. Speaker, wish to listen to a tape of it, I have it on tape. I did not make the tape; it was provided to me. As you know well, sir, members of the press gallery are privileged to make tapes of our proceedings. What was actually said, taking it up with the word "theoretical"-the minister also said "hypothetical", but that was deleted and I take no quarrel with that-was:
-about whether or not at some point we might get into some kind of confrontation. I do not foresee it.
So far, so good. The quote continues:
I foresee us making submissions to the commission when the commission needs advice or wants advice on issues as to confidentiality.
Here is the deleted part:
The decision will then be taken by the commission, and as far as I am concerned, what has worked well up to this-
And then the minister goes on. Those were the precise words which were said by the minister. I suggest to you, Sir, that the omission of those words very emphatically changes the whole sense of the minister's answer as recorded in Hansard, and indeed eliminates entirely one of the most important elements of that answer.
The words I speak of as being so important and which have been omitted are: "The decision will then be taken by the commission". There is no doubt that the minister uttered those words. He may even recollect them. It may well be that the minister or his aides had nothing to do with eliminating this from Hansard. That seems to me to be the probable, logical conclusion. But obviously there has been either a failure of the recording equipment in this age of electronic miracles in this place, or there may be other explanations. I prefer to believe the latter.

October 25, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen
You dealt with this question, Mr. Speaker, when I raised it some time ago. In 1973 You reviewed the procedure with respect to alterations in Hansard, and said that suggested changes by members are normally confined to corrections of errors and essential minor alterations. Then, sir, you went on to explain the procedure which should be adopted with respect to revision of Hansard, at the suggestion of members. Your ruling will be found at page 613 of the Journals of this House, No. 162, November 1, 1973.
I do not want to make this a substantive question of privilege because of the possibility of several explanations for the omission, but certainly I leave the matter, for the moment, in your hands, sir. As I have said, if you or the minister wishes to listen to the tape, you are perfectly welcome to do so. Because of the grossness of the omission, certainly there should be a revision of Hansard with those words re-entered as part of our record, since there seems to be absolutely no doubt that they were uttered by the minister.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think it is obvious even from the words used by the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) that he has explained the way in which Hansard has come to be as it is. I have no hesitation in saying that had he brought this matter to my attention I would have joined with him in trying to be sure that the record was as correct and as complete as possible. After a day or two one never is exactly sure what words one used, and I am glad now that we have both the electronic and Hansard records.
I may say though, to help the hon. member, that whether or not the words are shown on the record I have no trouble in telling him that I would be glad, in effect, to repeat the answer I gave with those words in it, because obviously if the commission is considering an issue before it, a decision of the commission will follow after that consideration. I think that is so obvious that the words are not as important as the hon. member seems to think.
Having said that, I now say the words; so I give it to him both ways. I do not necessarily look at all of these words myself, as the hon. member has suspected, but in this case I am quite sure from what he has said that it was not an error or a change on my part or of any of my staff in any case. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that I would leave the matter in your hands as to whether there is sufficient in the record or available to Hansard to make the correction.
I would appreciate if the correction which the hon. member brought to my attention in respect of the omission of the word "hypothetical" were to be made. My use of the words "theoretical" and "hypothetical" was intentional, and I do not consider them to be substitutes, one for the other, but very important additions. I would like to see that word restored, if that can be done, and if the record shows that I did, indeed, say both words.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, for your own consideration, sir, it somewhat alarms me, and I am sure all members, that Hansard would fail, with our recording system in the House here, to have recorded those words, yet they were picked up by the recording equipment above your chair, sir. Those words may be on the electronic recording equipment in this House. But if they are not, then a very serious question arises as to the integrity of that system.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I feel quite confident that the language which has been referred to and has now been ascribed to by the minister on both occasions, both the word "hypothetical" in conjunction with the word "theoretical" as described by the minister, and the words that were referred to by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), were in fact spoken by the minister, as he has said today, or probably were, and that in any case the electronic recording devices will have them as part of yesterday's proceedings. Certainly the minister was giving an answer during the course of the question period, and we have the additional advantage of being able to examine the television tape of that question period yesterday, which I am sure will be a full and complete reproduction of the minister's words yesterday.
That being so, it leaves us with the problem of examining the breakdown in reporting or the editing of Hansard. Certainly that falls within my area of jurisdiction, and I will look into it at once and report to the House.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), following the Prime Minister's undertaking on Monday to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), copies in both official languages of the proposed agenda for the first ministers' conference which is being held from next Monday, October 30, to Wednesday, November 1.

[ Translation]


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 75C, I wish to advise the House that the representatives of the parties have been unable to reach agreement under Standing Order 75A or 75B on the
October 25, 1978

allotment of time on second reading of Bill C-7, an act to provide supplementary borrowing authority for the fiscal year
1978-	79, to provide borrowing authority for the fiscal year
1979-	80 and to amend the Financial Administration Act. Therefore I want to give notice that a minister will move, at the next sitting of the Elouse, that another sitting day be allotted for consideration of the bill at second reading.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, questions Nos. 3 and 243 will be answered today.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	For the past two years, what are the names of all Cabinet Ministers who have been paid an automobile allowance and, in each case (a) what was the amount (b) was it paid in one sum annually and, if not, on what basis was it paid?
2.	Did all ministers accept payment and, if not, what are the names of those who did not accept or who returned the money to the Treasury after receipt, and on what date was the return made?
3.	What are the names of all ministers who have made use of government owned vehicles at public expense from any government department, at any time, during the past two years?
4.	Are there any ministers who have permanent government cars and chauffeurs at their disposal and, if so, what are their names?
5.	What are the reasons justifying the continuance of such an allowance to Ministers who do not drive their personal cars on government business any more than other Members of Parliament?


Yvon Pinard: 1. (a) See reply to question No. 4,126 answered June 11, 1976. Names of ministers available elsewhere (see Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, citation 171 (ff)). (b) $166.66 monthly.
2.	Yes.
3,	4 and 5. Ministers make use of official cars in connection with their portfolio duties; ministers use their statutory motor car allowances for transportation in connection with their general role as ministers of the Crown.


Mr. Epp: 1.	Was Mr. Robert Rempel appointed to the Canadian Consultative Council on Multiculturalism and, if so (a) on what date and for how long (b) what are the terms of reference of the position (c) what are his qualifications for the position?
2.	Is Mr. Rempel receiving any remuneration for serving on the Council and, if so, how much annually?
3.	Does Mr. Rempel receive an expense allotment annually and, if so, in what amount?
Motion for Papers


Hon. Norman A. Cafik (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Yes. (a) On May 25, 1978, until December 1979. (b) The council shall provide a source of consultation to the government directly through the Minister of State (Multiculturalism) on matters pertaining to the development of the multicultural policy and on such additional matters affecting multiculturalism as the minister may from time to time refer and may bring before the public matters of interest and concern on multiculturalism. The council will examine and keep under review the policies, programs, and services of government, and recommend improvements or new activities to accomplish its objectives, (c) Members shall be chosen on the basis of their ethnocultural heritage and for their expertise and knowledge of Canada's ethnocultural communities.
2.	Members of the council do not receive an annual allotment but receive a $75 per diem allowance when participating in official council meetings.
3.	Members of the council do not receive an annual expense allotment but are entitled to expenses encountered on council business as per Treasury Board travel directives.


Mr. Towers: 1.	As of March 31, 1978, what was the total number on staff in the Chief Electoral Office, Ottawa?
2.	Does the Chief Electoral Officer have personnel under his jurisdiction, other than at his Ottawa office and, if so, what is the number of persons and the location in each case?


Yvon Pinard: See answer to question 1,480, House of Commons Debates, No. 151, third session, Tuesday, October 10, 1978, page 7051.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

October 25, 1978
Borrowing Authority Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, October 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien that Bill C-7, to provide supplementary borrowing authority for the fiscal year 197879, to provide borrowing authority for the fiscal year 1979-80 and to amend the Financial Administration Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, a moment ago, during the oral question period and while answering a question put by the newly elected member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Janelle), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) seemed to be annoyed by the hon. member's remarks which had to do with the Social Credit monetary theory. However, the hon. member for Lotbiniere can consider himself lucky because, to use a phrase that is becoming common in this House, the minister could very well have offered him to put his foot somewhere or to kick his ass.
Very seriously, Mr. Speaker, to come back to our subject when the incident occurred last night I was saying that it is not normal that a sovereign state not be courageous enough to draw credit corresponding to the real economic capacity of the nation, through its own bank, at least to finance the public sector. Again I repeat that when the government borrows money through the sale of bonds, the banks hold a special privilege when buying these bonds, as compared to individuals. Mr. Speaker, Canadian citizens who buy Canada Savings Bonds must use their own savings, their own income, whereas banks have the power to create money to buy such bonds. In support of my assertion, I will quote from pages 322-323 of the report of the inquiry on banking. It says:
The member of parliament, Mr. Spencer, is asking questions, and Mr. Wilsons, General Manager of the Royal Bank is answering.
and I quote:


Mr.   Spencer@: Bankers have the power to expand the money supply by creating circulating credit?


Mr. Wilson:: Yes.


Mr.   Spencer@: By granting loans?


Geoff Wilson: Certainly, this is what is going on.


Mr.   Spencer@: By purchasing bonds?


Geoff Wilson: This puts money in circulation.


Mr.   Spencer@: There are therefore the two means that I have suggested to create money?


Geoff Wilson: Yes.
Mr. Speaker, there were only $286 million in currency minted under sovereign authority, but the ten Canadian banks had granted loans on long-term bonds totaling $1,426 million and $1,200 million on notes for a total of $2,626 million. In

view of these revelations, the member of Parliament, Mr. Coote, asked Mr. Wilson:


Mr.   Coote@: How could the banks ever pay everyone in cash?


Geoff Wilson: The whole banking theory is based on the assumption that everyone will not lose his head at the same time.
This answer is found on page 316 of the report on the banking inquiry.
This means, Mr. Speaker, that the banking system is supported only by public ignorance as concerns its operation and by public confidence, therefore by the credit of a society. By granting loans and purchasing Canadian bonds, banks issue credit money which the government uses to finance public works, which increases the amount of money in circulation and on which Canadians must pay interests, and this increases at the same time the amount of the national debt, which, in my opinion, is ridiculous.
Mr. Speaker, this process is now recognized by the banks. Experience has shown it, statistics prove it, legislation authorizes it, and this is the cancer grawing at our so-called sovereign governments. I say to the members of the majority party in this House, who claim to follow a right of center philosophy and who accept this monetary dictatorship, that they attack everything except the financial powers, that they act as though money were a God beyond the influence of men, as though the regulations established on the basis of money could not be changed for regulations established on the basis of the normal needs of man and existing possibilities. They come empty-handed to face all sorts of disasters in all areas, they are rightists, because they refuse to do anything about the major disorder which exists in the monetary system.
Mr. Speaker, when will the government which claims supremacy have the courage to call on parliament to check that dictatorship of monetary powers and force soulless money to serve human capital. Mr. Speaker, if you want to embarrass a big banker, all you have to do is ask him this question: What will you be doing in ten years? And to embarrass the young people in which I put all my hopes, again I ask: What will you be doing in ten years if the system of public financing which is currently burying you under debts to the tune of $50 million a day is allowed to continue? Young people of my country, I urge you to consider and get interested in the administration of this country and to challenge a financial system which allows the people to be exploited to the benefit of those who control the monetary levers and hence the economic blood of the nation.


Charles Joseph Clark: I intend to take part in this debate, Mr. Speaker, only very briefly, and I do so because of the most recent and desperate act by the government of imposing closure on this bill. They have indicated in their behaviour last night and today that they cannot even impose closure efficiently in this House of Commons. I think
October 25, 1978

that there has probably been rarely seen in this House a farce to equal the farce last night when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) attempted, against the rules and practice of this House, to interrupt the Speech of my hon. friend, the member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), and impose closure in a way which broke the rules of the House. He was prevented from doing that.
Today, however, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) has come forward to give an indication that he intends to impose closure on a bill which only a few days ago the members of this government itself were actively filibustering. On Friday of last week the debate in this House saw five government members in a row, including three members of the Privy Council, three of their senior members, standing up and seeking to filibuster.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council on a point of order.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition but he who wants to give us lectures on procedure is precisely making a speech that would belong much more in tomorrow's debate on the motion under Standing Order 75C. 1 ask you, Mr. Speaker, to call him to order and urge him if he wants to participate in the debate on the motion for second reading, to deal with Bill C-7.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to talk about any aspect of the policy of the Liberal government without referring to their general incompetence because their general incompetence underlies their whole policy, and we just had another indication of that incompetence in the parliamentary secretary's intervention. I am now telling you, Mr. Speaker, why we in this House think the government is taking an extraordinary action. It is trying to break the established rules and practices to force parliament into accepting a proposed borrowing by the federal government without giving any details as to the expenditures being contemplated. That is unacceptable to the members of the opposition.

As I was saying, not only have they been incompetent in trying to impose closure, but they are here imposing closure on a bill the debate on which they themselves have extended by the very incredible performance of last Friday when five government members got up and filibustered a bill which was not urgent on Friday but is now so urgent that they have to impose closure to get it through.
What has been suggested by various ministers and spokesmen on the government side is that all we are dealing with here is a routine financial bill. This, sir, is not at all a routine financial bill. This is a very extraordinary activity. It is an attempt by the Government of Canada to seek an unprecedented borrowing authority in an unprecedented way.
The government is seeking here the authority to borrow $17 billion, much of that to cover spending regarding estimates which the House of Commons has never seen. To my knowl-
Borrowing Authority Act
edge, there is no precedent for that at all in the long history of the House of Commons of Canada. This is the first time that a government has come in here and asked for a blank cheque, a $10 billion blank cheque, without giving parliament any indication at all of the purposes to which they intend to put this money.
What makes this even more offensive and unusual is that this is the third time this year that this government has come back to this parliament to seek an increase in borrowing authority. Already since March, 1977, they have sought and received the authority to borrow $21 billion, and here they are back again asking for the authority to borrow $17 billion, $10 billion of that for expenditures that they will tell parliament and the people of Canada nothing at all about. It is unbelievable, it is unprecedented, and it is unacceptable to this House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: There is the question why this measure is so urgent that we need it now. I have been trying to get from the Minister of Finance for a long time an indication of revenue forecast for this fiscal year of the Government of Canada. We know that the revenue forecasts that the minister gave some months ago are wrong. The only question is, we do not know how wrong they are, and he will not tell us. The Minister of Finance, with his absolute faith in keeping secret from the people of Canada information which they have a right to know, even though his officials are probably telling him, refuses to tell this House of Commons what revenues the Government of Canada expects in this fiscal year and, consequently, we do not know how deep the deficit will be. We do not know how much deeper into debt this country is going to be plunged by the incompetence of this government. All we know is that today they are seeking the authority to borrow an additional $17 billion. We do not know about the revenue projections, we do not know why it is so urgent, and we do not know why the government has rushed this bill in and interrupted the throne speech debate. Now, even though it filibustered its own debate, it is trying to force this matter through by closure. What is so urgent? Why is there such an urgent need on the part of the Government of Canada to gather unto itself an additional $17 billion in borrowing authority? What is going on? What is being kept secret? What is the urgency that leads them to introduce this bill in this form at this time?
We are told there is going to be a budget. They will not give us a date-they rarely give us dates-but some time in the middle of November there is going to be a new budget. Why is the Government of Canada rushing through this demand to increase its borrowing authority before it gives us a budget? A budget should contain a projection of spending estimates, it should contain a statement of the revenues, expected by the Government of Canada, and it should contain an indication of the priorities the government is going to follow. That is coming in three weeks, so why do we have this extraordinary request for an additional $17 billion borrowing authority right now?

October 25, 1978
Borrowing Authority Act
Why not wait three weeks? What is so urgent? What is being hidden? Why can they not come forward now and give us the information that would be part of a budget or, if they are not prepared to do that, why do they not let this matter wait until after the budget is before the House of Commons?
A very real question for the people of Canada to ask is: Why is the first piece of legislation that this government introduces a borrowing bill? Why is it the first priority of the Government of Canada to borrow $17 billion? What does that say about the state of our economy? What does that say about the state of our future? The most urgent action they turn their attention to when they come back here is a determination and an attempt to borrow an additional $17 billion, in many cases without giving us any reason for seeking that extra amount of money.

Mr. Speaker, there are two factors in the bill now under consideration. First, a proposal or a request for the authority to borrow $7 billion for this fiscal year. This is perhaps normal but what is not at all normal is that the government is now trying to borrow another $10 billion for the next fiscal year without indicating what are the anticipated expenditures or for what purposes the borrowed money will be used.

We have these two distinct elements, Mr. Speaker. We have $7 billion for this fiscal year ending March 31, 1979; then we have this mysterious $10 billion for the next fiscal year ending March 31, 1980. We are particularly concerned about that because this government is asking to borrow $10 billion without giving us any estimates, without giving us any forecasts, without giving us any indication of its spending plans and, indeed, without in any sensible, concrete way giving us any indication at all of its restraint plans. As I said earlier, they are asking for a $10 billion blank cheque, and that is something that this House and the people of Canada should not be prepared to let slip by easily.
There are some implications here that are quite important and one of them relates to the public debt. The total borrowing authorities requested for the fiscal years 1978, 1979 and 1980 are $38 billion. If these authorities are fully utilized, the unmatured debt of Canada will be 90 per cent higher in 1980 than it was in 1977-90 per cent higher in three years, Mr. Speaker. That rate of public debt expansion is unprecedented in Canadian peacetime history. The interest costs of serving the public debt are skyrocketing. Debt charges will be 80 per cent higher in 1979 than they were the year before. These new borrowing authorities will guarantee that the debt interest spiral in which Canada is caught will continue at great cost to the country, and as so many of my colleagues have said in this debate, at great cost to the future of the country.
The other element of particular concern to us here is that this attempt by the government is particularly dangerous because it is coming from a government that has demonstrated time and time again its incapacity to deal effectively with the economic requirements and realities of this country. It is bad
[Mr. Clark.)
enough that a government is so incapable that it has to come back for increased borrowing authority three times in a single fiscal year, but it is totally unacceptable for it to seek a blank cheque for spending before the estimates have even been considered by this House of Commons. That is an abuse of parliament-not the first, and so long as this government stays in power for the brief eight months it has left, not the last, I am sure. It is clearly an abuse of parliament; it is an attempt, as we have seen so often, to operate in secrecy and keep from the people of Canada the facts about the public accounts and the future of Canada. It is a disastrous, deepening debt placed on Canada, a disastrous imposition upon future generations of the heavy, heavy burden of the improvidence and incapacity of this government.
The government is incompetent if it has to come back so often to borrow. This is the point I rise to make: it is absolutely improper, and I use the word deliberately, to seek authority for this kind of spending, $10 billion of spending, with no indication how that money will be spent.
There has been a long, long practice by this government of trying to use omnibus bills to push through objectionable matters. They tack on to something that might be accepted something that is absolutely unacceptable. That is what they have done here. It might have been justifiable for them to come and ask for borrowing authority of $7 billion to cover this fiscal year, particularly if they could show a projection or if they had told us the truth about the revenue projections of the Government of Canada this year. What is absolutely unacceptable is to tack on to that $7 billion borrowing request the demand for a $10 billion blank cheque.
We are operating under closure. The government has the power to limit debate. They use it with a regularity that is almost a reflex. That, too, is dangerous in terms of its impact upon the right of free debate, the right of full discussion, the right of knowledge of the facts on the part of Canadians. But they have done it, and we are faced with that demand as it relates to this stage of debate.
There are some very real technical devices that could be used to try to split this bill and we have looked at them, it is not impossible but it is going to be difficult. I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Martin) in the House as well as some members of the Privy Council. Perhaps if there is need for a filibuster they will join in. That seems to be the role of Privy Councillors in this government these days.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: There are only two.


Charles Joseph Clark: There are only two, but then I am only the Leader of the Opposition speaking.


An hon. Member:: You said it.


Charles Joseph Clark: I should say I am only the Leader of the Opposition for another six, seven or eight months, and then one of the several candidates for leadership of the Liberal party that we have seen asking questions these days to embar-
October 25, 1978

rass their own government will have the opportunity to aspire to the chair I now occupy in this House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The point I rise to make is that the House leader of the official opposition will initiate discussions today or tomorrow-as quickly as we can get a meeting with the government House leader or the Minister of Finance and his representatives-to get agreement from the government to split this bill. This is necessary so that we can deal with a measure that might be a proper attempt to increase the borrowing authority by $7 billion, and so that we will not be forced to deal at the same time with a proposal that is obviously improper-a proposal to try to tack on, to piggyback, a demand for a $10 billion blank cheque for which the government has not specified their reasons.
We think that this is a way out of a dilemma which the government has imposed. It is at least within the practices of parliament, within our customs and traditions, that government can come forward and ask for increases in spending authority in relation to expenditures whose nature is known. But what is new and being tried here, and what has to be resisted, is an attempt to obtain a $10 billion blank cheque. The House leader of this party will seek to enter into discussions with representatives of the other side to try to achieve a splitting of this bill so we can deal with what might be proper and parliament will not be forced to digest, or have forced through it by closure, a proposal which is deeply improper and quite dangerous to the country.
We are dealing here with a government that in recent months has tried to change basic Canadian institutions, and change them unilaterally in the first constitutional proposal that came through. We are dealing with a government that delayed a national election after its regular four-year term because it wanted to deal with the problems of the economy. And how does it deal with the problems of the economy? It starts by seeking authority to borrow $17 billion more. We are dealing with a government that is deliberately attacking former commissioners of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and calling into question the accuracy of testimony that they make before the McDonald royal commission. It is led by a Prime Minister who not long ago, speaking at Glebe collegiate, uttered a clear menace, a clear threat, to the royal commission relative to its power as set out in its terms of reference to establish its own rules as to the revelation of material that is brought before it.
We are dealing with a government that has consistently refused to state its tax revenues, the revenues expected this fiscal year, and consequently has kept Canadians in the dark about the degree of our deficit, that is, about how much in debt this country is. We are now dealing with a government that seeks a $10 billion blank cheque and asks parliament to approve that $10 billion blank cheque without any knowledge
Borrowing Authority Act
of the spending plans of the government. That, sir, is absolutely unacceptable.
I hope that some reason will prevail on the other side and that they will cease this attempt to violate the traditions of parliament and break trust with the Canadian people. I hope they will entertain very seriously the proposal that we will be putting forward informally to split this bill so that we may deal with the part of it that might be proper and in order that parliament will not be forced to have smuggled through it a most improper proposal to give this government, this government of all governments, a $10 billion blank cheque.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, this is my first speech in the House of Commons and in my opening remarks I would like to convey a tribute to my predecessor who is now a county court judge for the judicial district of York. I am fully aware, as I am sure all hon. members are aware on both sides of the House, that I have very large shoes to fill. I will do my best to do so. However, I have to follow a difficult act, that of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark).
I would like to agree with him in one respect concerning one of the issues raised by this bill, that of the question of the accountability of the government to this parliament. If I went to a bank and asked for a loan, that bank would want to know what I was going to do with the money. As a member of parliament I think I am entitled to that kind of knowledge, as would be any banker in the city of Toronto, the city of New York or for that matter anywhere else.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Or Saskatoon.


Bob Rae: Or Saskatoon, yes. It is a source of concern to me as a member of this House that the government is seeking the authorization to borrow such an amazing amount of money for such a long period in advance without specifying precisely what its program or its intentions are. As members of parliament I think we are entitled to a much better system of accounting than the one being provided in this two page bill.


An hon. Member:: A two-bit bill.


Bob Rae: A two-bit bill, but two pages which authorize the borrowing of some $17 billion. However, it is not with the details of the legislation that I want to deal in this speech because the bill is so short. It seems to me the question of why the government has borrowed the money that it has and the fact that it intends to borrow more is of far greater importance than a line by line reading of a request for a blank cheque. Why is it that the government is in the position of having to return to this House time and time again to borrow money? Why is it that the deficit which the government has built up over the years has not resulted in what we could call productive spending, but rather spending which will have no long term economic benefits?
I think that members of the Progressive Conservative party to my right-and I might add that in Broadview they were so

October 25, 1978
Borrowing Authority Act
far to the right they fell into the Don Valley, which was to my benefit-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bob Rae: -have been attacking and criticizing the government because of the size of the deficit. They have been saying that the days of deficit spending have to end. In a speech given by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) which I read this morning, he brought forward countless examples of misspending and mismanagement by the government. But, Mr. Speaker, we have to say to the members of the party to our right that they cannot have it both ways. They cannot criticize the government for deficit spending and at the same time make a proposal with respect to income tax benefits to be given on mortgage payments. This would result in a fiscal deficit far larger than the one which is currently being undertaken by the government of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bob Rae: So I say that the criticism coming from the hon. member for York-Simcoe and indeed from the Leader of the Opposition is hypocritical.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bob Rae: And if it is not hypocritical, and if the members of the Conservative party to my right are serious about reducing government spending in the way they are talking about, let them go to the people of Canada and tell them what social programs will be cut, because Canadians will be interested in knowing what those cuts are. When the hon. member for York-Simcoe speaks about reducing spending and changing the whole philosophy and strategy of government spending, as a citizen of this country 1 want to know what they will cut next, because I think that is of concern to Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Paproski:: Now start on the Liberals.


Bob Rae: Do not worry, everyone will get their turn.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bob Rae: The fact of the matter is that it is pre-Keynesian economics coming from the Liberal party opposite and it is pre-Cambrian economics coming from the Conservative party to my right.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bob Rae: This is no longer possible at a time when there are one million Canadians out of work, it is no longer possible at a time when our economy is working at far less than its capacity, and it is no longer time for a party to talk about balancing a budget within a year or two. That is fiscally ridiculous and economically irresponsible. It is talking out of both sides of one's mouth at once, and it will not work. The Canadian public

wants to know. We have a right to ask the government, and we have a right to ask the opposition, about their income maintenance programs. Will they be cut? If so, which ones will be cut? Is it going to be unemployment insurance, the pension plan or old age security? These are the sources of expenditure that provide for the maintenance of income of a great many Canadians. If they are going to be cut, please let us know before the next election which ones it is intended to do away with.
We have to accept the fact that we have an economy where deficit spending will be with us for some time because of the fact that we have one million unemployed. We have to stimulate the economy. Therefore, we must look very carefully at what kinds of strategies and proposals a government or a potential government is putting forward.
The Canadian people are entitled to know that there has been no commitment from either of the larger parties to the concept of public spending. There has been no defence of the concept of public spending from any cabinet minister or any Conservative member to my right. It is time that someone had the courage to say that, unless we have a decently high level of public spending, we will have no pensions or unemployment insurance, and no government intervention in the economy to protect us from the malefactors of great wealth.


An hon. Member:: No medicare.


Bob Rae: As my friend points out, we will have no medicare. Canadians are entitled to know that. I would like to see one minister of the Crown with the courage to say to this House and the people of Canada that this is what they have done and they are proud of having done it, instead of having put it forward and then run away from it.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Wait until your father hears this speech.


Bob Rae: My father has heard this speech many times. It raises serious questions about the state of our economy and what strategy a government is going to put forward to deal with the economic problems faced by this country.
Cabinet ministers accuse the New Democratic Party of running down the country and having no confidence in the future of Canada. That is the opposite of the truth. We no longer have confidence, and we never did have confidence, in the Liberal party. However, we do not make the mistake of members opposite by identifying the future of Canada with the future of the Liberal party. If I could use technical language, we see there being a negative correlation between the two.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bob Rae: It is because we as social democrats are optimistic about this country and its potential that we are so concerned with the tragedy of unemployment and the difficulties being faced by many Canadians.
October 25, 1978

I have had the opportunity of becoming closely acquainted with my constituency over the past year. Anyone who has been through an election campaign knows how well you get to know your area. We said to the people, as did many members elected in the recent by-elections, "Send a message to Ottawa". I do not know what message came from the Conservative party. I do not know their intentions.
Speaking for the people of Broadview, the message that comes from the working people in that part of Toronto is that they do not want to see a reduction in government spending. They do not want cutbacks in public and social services. They want a government that is compassionate, one that is prepared to be generous to its people, willing to plan for the future of this country rather than leave the economy to foreign investors and large private interests in this country.
There are three options for the future of our economy. One is to continue on the present path of the Liberal government. Of all the options, that is the least comprehensible. It is very difficult to know precisely on what they are running, what are their intentions and what is their program. The lack of information in this bill is one more example of that. They are leaderless in their economic policies. They are rudderless. They have no sense of direction. They are incapable of listening to the people when they speak.
Nothing has made this more clear than the fact that there were 15 by-elections held, not one. It was not people in one or two constituencies in this country that voted; it was over one million Canadians voicing their dissatisfaction with the economic and social policies of this government. However, there has not been one iota of an indication that this government intends to change its course in any way. That kind of arrogance has become the hallmark of this Liberal government, and it is certain to be the cause of its inevitable downfall.
The second option is the one proposed by my Conservative friends to the right. It is a very familiar option, that of private gain and public squalor. It is an option of reducing the role of government, the level of services and the standard of living for the people of this country.
Yesterday I obtained from Statistics Canada the figures on income distribution for the year 1977. Those who talk about Canada being an affluent society are entitled to know these figures. These figures indicate that in terms of purchasing power, the average income of the Canadian family decreased by about 5 per cent in 1977. An additional 66,000 families fell below the poverty line in 1977 over 1976.
That is the record of this government. That is the implication of cutbacks in unemployment insurance. It directly affects the level of income of tens of thousands of Canadians. When you reduce the level of spending for joint programs with the provinces by S220 million, it is the working people whose incomes and standard of living are affected. It does not affect those who are able to get what they want on the market, those who are able to provide for themselves. When you cut back on education, it does not affect those who attend private schools and intend to continue doing so. It affects those who rely on public spending for their benefits and future.
Borrowing Authority Act
We say to the Conservative party that their program, with all of its implications, including this most recent mortgage scheme, will clearly mean that those who are able to provide and indeed make gain for themselves will be able to do so, but those who are not will not. That is the message. It is a message of meanness and of self-enrichment. It is not a message worthy of being taken to the Canadian people.
In the bad old days, the British Tories said to the people that they needed to have property before they could vote. There has now been a change. The Canadian Tories are saying to the people, that they need to have property before they can have an income tax benefit. This is just as unfair and discriminatory as the disenfranchisement of people in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. It is an economic equivalent of that disenfranchisement and the Canadian people are entitled to know that.
A speech made by the Leader of the Opposition a couple of months ago was reported in the Canadian press. He is quoted to have said that we should take the American tax system as our model in Canada. Does the Leader of the Opposition want us to have the same municipal services as they have in Cleveland, the same system of urban transportation as they have in Houston or the same system of medical care as they have in New York? Is this the model being put forward to the Canadian people? You cannot have lower taxes-and whether they are lower or not in the United States is debatable-and more services. If you have lower taxes, you have less services. If we are going to be giving less services, let us have the shopping list before the election.
I have spoken this afternoon about the programs of the Liberal party, which are pretty difficult to discern at the moment, and the programs of the Conservative party, which are becoming clearer and clearer as time goes on. I want to close my remarks by putting forward a third option which, I am proud to say, my party and my leader have been putting forward in this House and in the country for the past year. Some of the philosophical background to this option was provided in the very interesting remarks of my colleague, the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman), who spoke earlier in this debate.
Society is changing far more rapidly than we are prepared or willing to recognize. We can no longer talk seriously about government withdrawal from certain critical sectors of the economy because that would be politically and socially inequitable. If the government wants to withdraw from particular sectors of the economy, and if the government wants to sell off Petro-Canada and give all of the oil business back to those who are making tremendous profits at the expense of the people of Canada, the government can go ahead; but let us have no doubts as to what effect that would have on ordinary Canadians. Let us have no doubts about the political effect that would have on the sovereignty of this country.
We must recognize that in many ways Canada is an underdeveloped economy, yet we are not developing economic, social

October 25, 1978
Borrowing Authority Act
or political strategies to deal with this fact. We are not alone in the industrial world in having a difficult time dealing with multinational corporations and the effects huge private interests have on the public. Many other countries are in the same position, but no modern industrial country has done as little as Canada has done to deal with those effects. It is precisely because I am proud to be a Canadian and do not need to take lessons in patriotism from members of the Liberal party that I am ashamed of the performance of this government.
I see some Conservative hon. members to my right nodding. All I can say is that their policies would make matters even worse. If we increase reliance on foreign investment in this country, we will simply be digging a deeper hole. We are in a hole because we have a resource economy which is completely reliant on foreign investment for its survival, and unless we build up a secondary manufacturing sector which would allow Canada to take its place in the industrial world, we will simply go from pillar to post as other countries carry on their protectionist policies.
Canada is the only country in the world which is talking naively about free trade, as if this was the nineteenth century. This is not the nineteenth century. If we indiscriminately lower tariff barriers, the effect will be to destroy Canadian industry. Hon. members will be surprised to know that one of the first appeals to come to me as a member of parliament was from a company which has a factory in my riding. That company was concerned about the policies of the government with respect to fiscal and foreign investment problems and the effect those policies would have on it. That company was not talking about a free market. The president of that company, for all I know, might go home and talk privately about the fact that people on welfare are getting too much money, that some people are not working and that the government should not get involved in the economy, but I want to point out that when his company is in trouble, he knows where to turn because he knows the kind of economy he is living in and the problems with which he has to deal.
The government opposite has no industrial strategy. Hon. members to my right would make it even more difficult for the government to initiate such a strategy, and over the weeks and months ahead I look forward to the possibility of speaking in debates in which we will be able to make our proposals and options even clearer. We would be left with Hobson's choice, a choice between even more policies which would do nothing to solve the economic problems we have and the continued maladministration, incompetence and indifference of the government opposite, except that I am proud to say that I am doing everything I can as a member of the New Democratic Party to see that the Canadian people are not stuck with that choice.
There is a third possibility which provides for a recognition of the fact that we need to provide decent incomes for our people, that we need to redistribute income in favour of the poor and not in favour of those who have property, that we need to provide full employment in our economy, that we need to provide industrial jobs for our people, that we should not be

solely dependent on a resource economy for the future and that 3,000 miners in Sudbury should not be told by an energy minister that they can always pack up and move 500 or 1,000 miles to another job. That may be very well for the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) to say, but I suspect that in six or eight months he will be packing up and moving 600 or 800 miles to another job.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has no right to give that message to people who have families, homes and commitments in the city in which they have made their homes. The Liberals and Conservatives would treat people as commodities, move them around as the market dictates, and would have towns and resources in certain areas of the country dry up and die because some large industrial firm somewhere decides to make a greater profit in Guatemala, Gabon or some other place.
The New Democratic Party is saying that that is not the only option for the Canadian people. It is possible for working people, through their institutions, parties and governments, to express the confidence they have in themselves by saying that they come first, that they come before profits and that they come before the interests of private enterprise. That is the message we will be taking to the Canadian people, and there is no doubt in my mind that when that message is sent clearly and cogently, the Canadian people will listen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to speak today about what is probably one of the most ill-conceived pieces of government legislation brought before this House in the last decade.
I listened to an excellent speech last evening given by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Parker), a reasonable proposal put forward by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) today, and, of course, the speech given by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Rae), who put forward the socialist message, much as if the campaign had not stopped on October 16.


John Edward Broadbent: It is just starting, brother.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Indeed the campaign may not have stopped for the hon. member for Broadview because he squeaked in by only about 400 votes. When he was castigating the Liberals for talking out of both sides of their mouths, I suppose he had some difficulty because he does not know whether to set his sights on the Liberals or the Conservatives. I can only presume he spent so much time on the Conservatives because he fears them most.
Bill C-7 epitomizes what has been going on over the last number of years. Through stealth, deception, falsehood and other fraudulent means the government has been trying to mislead Canadians into believing that it really does care about Canada. This government does not care about the people of Canada; it is concerned only about preserving the power it has.
I would like to put these comments into a certain perspective. We remember when the Liberal party changed the date
October 25, 1978

of its annual convention from November of 1977 to February of 1978. It did so in order to have more television time prior to a spring election which never took place. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) appeared on television on a number of occasions in January, February and March. We find out now that he even requested television time on certain occasions.
We also found out how they tried to build a set of steps up to the podium, up to that level where they could launch an election campaign. But when they took a poll, they found the Canadian people had not bought it and the Liberals were in trouble. So what did they do on May 10? The Prime Minister came out and said: "We will not have an election either this spring or this summer. We will do what the Canadian people want us to do; we will get down to business in the House of Commons and we will get this economy going again". Then he promptly went on with the same legislation for the next six weeks, following which he adjourned the House for the longest recess in a decade.
Is that getting on with the work that Canadians want the government to get on with? We had no new initiatives or ideas from the government. So what happens now? The government, after the longest recess in a decade, has come up with a little bit of pap wrapped up and called it a throne speech. It covered the same ground which they tilled in August and early September when they did a slow striptease of a new economic era, which I suggest will not bring anything to Canada. For the first time since I have been a member, which is some six years, the government has interrupted the throne speech debate, as indeed they were requested to do by both this party and by the NDP if they were going to bring in some new economic measures or bring in a budget. However, they have not done that, but they have interrupted the debate anyhow.
What do they have listed on the order paper? Two of the bills deal with transfer payments; one is an amendment to the Income Tax Act, which will not be of any economic assistance to the country as a whole; and seven other bills deal with such important matters as an act to amend the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act and an act to appeal the Canada-France Trade Agreement Act. They have the usual fillers or housekeeping measures, but they do not have one legislative proposal before the House at this time to improve the econoic climate so that all Canadians can have a slightly higher standard of living.
The first bill they want passed, without indicating their intentions, is this bill to give them more money. They ask us to empower them, through Bill C-7 which we are debating here today, to borrow $17 billion, and they tell us, "We will not tell you what we will spend it on. It is not matched on the other side by revenues, and we cannot even raise it in Canada".
We are asked specifically to empower them to go overseas to raise the money. What will this do to our 85 cent dollar? Down we go again. I suppose that with some of the money he has borrowed, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) will rush out to try to prop up the Canadian dollar and maybe he
Borrowing Authority Act
will spend another few hundreds of millions of dollars, as he had to do in the last few months, propping up a dollar which he had inflated by going overseas to borrow money. This act will drive up inflation in this country, and because it will put downward pressure on the dollar, it will increase interest rates in this country and will make it tougher for the average person to maintain what he or she thinks is an adequate standard of living.
They want $7 billion out of the $17 billion just to finish this fiscal year until the end of March, 1978. If we go back to March 16, only about six months ago, we find that the Minister of Finance stated the following as reported at page 3859 of Hansard, when he was speaking on another borrowing bill:
The authority in this bill to borrow a further $5 billion, together with the unused portion of the $16 billion authority granted in March and December of 1977, should provide the government with sufficient borrowing powers to meet all cash requirements for the fiscal year 1978-79, and provide a margin as usual for contingencies.
Six months ago the minister said he had all the money he needed. Now we find he made a $7 billion error, but he will not tell us where the error is. He will not tell us if his revenues are down, he will not tell us if he needs the money because he spent many extra billions of dollars defending the Canadian dollar, and he will not say if he will bring in supplementary estimates which will shoot up our estimates by another $2 billion or $3 billion. He has made a $7 billion error. He said he had all the money he needed six months ago, and now he needs $7 billion more. What a wasteful government this is, a government which does not have the slightest clue as to management. You are a family man, Mr. Speaker; just try and run your family that way and you will find out how long you will stay away from bankruptcy.
I want to point out also another part of the bill which was never been heard of before in Canadian history. My leader made reference to it earlier this afternoon. Not only do the government want to borrow $7 billion until the end of this year, although they said only six months ago they had enough money to finish this year, but they do not even wish to wait until next year. They want to borrow $10 billion for next year. They have not even tabled their estimates for next year. Estimates for next year will not be tabled until February or March of 1979. When we see what they are tabling and what their proposals are, and when they have the courtesy to come to parliament and say: "We are a little short on cash requirements, may we borrow a little money to try to do the things we think are important?" Parliament might then give them that authority.
But they are presenting us, as that former Liberal minister of Finance used to say, with a pig in a poke. They want us to buy a gamble; they want us to give them a blank cheque. The sad thing is that it is the following generation who will have to pay that debt, and that debt is rolling over at the interest rate of 9.25 per cent, which is the rate this year, and every seven or eight years the amount doubles. It is the generations of the future which will have to pay this debt, and I do not have to repeat what my leader has already stated this afternoon and

October 25, 1978
Borrowing Authority Act
what has been said by speakers before about how we have tripled the debt since this Prime Minister took office.
The government wants to attempt to spend its way out of debt. Previously I had not heard of such an economic theory, yet it is being unravelled before my eyes. As I indicated, at one point the government thought it had enough money for this year, and now it is requesting $7 billion. It has made a $7 billion error, and now it needs a little more money. I am not too sure if we should accept that fact, but even if we did and gave the government $7 billion for this year, why should the government be given $10 billion starting on April 1, 1979, through to March 31, 1980, at which time this government will not be the government; government members will be sitting in opposition. The government is requesting a complete blank cheque, and I do not know how the money will be spent. Perhaps the entire $7 billion will be spent between April 1, 1979, and election day.
I must emphasize that never before in Canadian history has a government ever had the audacity to come before a legislative assembly requesting borrowing authority for a year in the future for which estimates have not been tabled. I beg the House to consider realistically the intelligent proposal of splitting this bill. We could deal with the money they require for this year, even though that is dubious, but definitely we should not give the government a blank cheque for a year, before the estimates are received. 1 do not care if it is the Liberals under the present Prime Minister, the New Democratic Party, the Progressive Conservative party, the Social Credit party, or any other party in any other legislature; no legislation should request a blank cheque before the estimates are tabled for a particular fiscal year. It has never been done in the past. No parliament should sanction this.
This situation demonstrates the arrogance of the government. It epitomizes how parliament is losing control over the purse, over how much money is spent. At the present time the estimates go through because of a rule which was rammed through by the Liberal majority in approximately 1968. The estimates are deemed to have passed committee stage when perhaps a vote on the estimates has not been held or perhaps the estimates have not been discussed. If the estimates are not discussed by a certain date, automatically they are passed, even though the committee has not looked at them in detail. In many cases that has been the situation. They are deemed to have been passed, so there is no control over government spending. The government is requesting a blank cheque for a coming fiscal year, even though the estimates have not come in. It is apparent that a deficit is anticipated.
What would happen to a person who went to his bank manager wanting to borrow $10,000 and giving no reason for such a loan? I will use the example of $10,000, because I am sure a bank manager would not understand $10 billion. We all know what the bank manager would tell such a person. Perhaps Parliament should tell the government the same thing,
[Mr. Dick.)
since it does not want to tell us what the $10 billion will be spent on.
The reason for some of the deficits and problems at the present time is the complete mismanagement and waste of the government in the spending of Canadian funds. I should like to refer to one small example in an attempt to explain the situation. In late May 1978, the Progressive Conservative government of Ontario and the Parti Quebecois of Quebec made a joint request for proposals on a new lottery computer, a technological gaming device. The greedy old Liberals opposite on June 19, after that joint proposal had been made, granted a $24 million contract to an American firm without tenders.
I have had occasion to speak with the legal advisers of that firm in New York. Also I have spoken with its directors and officers who live in Maryland. These gentlemen are officers of the Canadian subsidiary. They told me that every screw, rivet, piece of metal and wire will be manufactured and assembled in their plant in Maryland. The government said that no Canadian company could perform this task; apparently no Canadian company could bring up these little computing machines in order to assemble the $1 gaming device for the new lottery. I did not buy that for a minute. I made inquiries and found out that the government was wrong.
On approximately July 15, the Ontario government awarded the very same contract to two Canadian firms. One of those Canadian firms is owned 66 per cent by the federal government, yet the federal government would not go to that company. The name of the company is Consolidated Computing Devices, and it is located in the east end of Ottawa. That firm will be doing the majority of the work under contract. The other firm is called Digital, and it is located approximately 14 miles outside of Ottawa. Digital will be doing the computer part of the work, and Consolidated Computing Devices will be doing the terminal work. The Ontario government has given the entire contract to two companies within a 15-mile radius of Parliament Hill at a cost which is less than that quoted by the American firms. The greedy old government said that no Canadian company could do the work, yet it did not even look around.
As part of that contract, the Quebec and Ontario governments held two meetings, one in Toronto and one in Montreal. Approximately 125 people from the computer industry of Ontario and Quebec attended the meeting in Toronto, and over 90 attended the one in Montreal in order to exchange ideas, make further inquiries and discuss computer technology, manufacturing and what was needed. We had been deceived. These things could be built in Canada.
Then the government came forward with a second line of attack. Apparently it was necessary for us to get into the field first and not have to worry about competition. It has been said that by November we will be into that field. We are looking forward to that. At the present time there has been a run on the Ontario government computing devices. They could have been in the field a week or ten days ago. They beat the federal government to the punch. I understand that General Instru-
October 25, 1978

ments is 48 days late in delivery. That is the American firm, the only one capable of building this equipment. Yet Canadians are already there.
Realizing that it was beaten to the punch, the federal government ended up negotiating and agreeing with the provinces to get out of all lottery games of $9 and under if the provinces would in turn leave lottery games of $10 and over to the federal government. The point I want to make is that the federal government entered into a $23 million contract, and it has thrown away $5 million already spent. It has thrown away $300,000 on consultants' fees; it let a $2 million contract in early July in telecommunications services to effect the $23 million contract; and it had already incurred the cost for marketing in respect of the new game. It had already incurred costs in leasehold improvements on buildings for outlets it had leased or arranged for in order to instal the machinery. This amounts to some $5 million over and above the $23 million which has been thrown away or lost down the drain. The federal taxpayers will never see anything of that again. That is only $5 million and the Liberals are dealing in bigger figures than that, so it is just a small amount.
In addition, the government made such a rotten contract with General Instruments that it cannot get out of it, and if it does get out for less than the $23 million it will probably cost in excess of $10 million in penalty, simply because it negotiated a contract in which it had no rights. The government was just leasing and therefore cannot now even purchase the equipment and sell it to those running the western or Atlantic lotteries. The government cannot transfer the technology because it was all left with General Instruments.
This is a contract which is entirely different in principal than the contracts I understand were negotiated by the provinces in respect of their games. Those provinces have been more shrewd with their taxpayers' dollars. This government will perhaps incur a penalty, therefore, of $10 million, $12 million or, $15 million. The two provinces involved in order to get the federal government out of this mess, have said they will contribute 25 per cent each in respect of any penalty up to a maximum of $10 million. Even with that, if there is a $10 million penalty the federal government will have to pay at least $5 million, and anything over the $10 million will be paid by the federal government.
This government will have lost probably $10 million unless it gets hardnosed and asks General Instruments to deliver the goods. If that company cannot deliver the goods, or is 48 days late, for example, the government could then say it does not want the goods because they were not delivered on time. I am afraid that this bunch of softies over there are not capable of that kind of hardnosed bargaining. That is one small example of mismanagement, as a result of which the government will lose at least $10 million.
The frustrating and maddening thing is that the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) (Mrs. Campagnolo), the hon. member who comes from the riding of Skeena-I am sure her constituents will be embarrassed to hear of this but they should know the truth-held a meeting in Toronto following
Borrowing Authority Act
which she said to the reporters that the government did not really want to get into the game, and was just using this as a bargaining tool in order to gain access to a certain segment of the lottery business.
There is $23 million for the contract and an additional $5 million in taxpayers' money the government is using as a bargaining tool, all of which has been lost. Some $28 million of taxpayers' money has been used as a bargaining tool, even though the minister has said the government is not interested in this dollar game. That is one hell of a way to bargain.
I wanted to point out that one small example because I have followed this process from the beginning of the problem back in early June, through the summer and the fall. I was very interested in it, perhaps because one of the Canadian computer firms capable of handling this work is in my riding, but also, over and above that consideration, because of Canadian jobs and Canadian content. In spite of this situation this government is worrying about our trade deficit in manufactured goods. I suggest ministers over there do not know what is going on.
This is small example of how, within four months, this federal government, through one small ministry in a very small area, has thrown away millions of Canadian taxpayers' funds, this illustrates the mismanagement, the inability to govern, the inability to administer and the general inability of this government to take care of these funds.
In the first bill presented to this new session the government is asking us to give it $17 billion with no strings attached. They have to be lunatics, but I suppose with the majority over there they will vote this through. The taxpayers of today and the taxpayers for generations down the road will be the losers because of the greed of this government.
I hope this government will accept the very reasonable proposition put forward this afternoon by my leader. That is an intelligent and courteous proposition for any legislative body, whether it be a town council, a county council, a city council, a provincial legislature or whatever. My leader has suggested that the government does not ask for the $10 billion which it does not need until the next fiscal year until it has at least tabled the estimates showing how it intends to spend the money. Up until now this government has been getting away with what might be called theft, and certainly with the squandering of Canadian taxpayers' money and the future of Canadians as a whole. We must pay in the future for what we borrow now. That is the case according to my banker, at least, and probably according to your banker, Mr. Speaker, and everybody else's banker except the banker for those spendthrifts who presently occupy the government benches.
It is my hope that the people of Canada wisen up and send a message even stronger than the message which lies in the loss of 13 by-elections out of 15 about ten days ago. I hope before this bill is passed Canadians will write to their members suggesting that perhaps the government deserves the $7 billion, but not the $10 billion for the next fiscal year.

October 25, 1978
470________________________________________
Borrowing Authority Act
I hope this government will accept my leader's proposition and sever this bill.
[ Translation]


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, recently without further ado, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) introduced a very short bill, not all that thick, which will have such serious effects that Canadians are entitled to know the state of our national affairs. In the bill, the gouvernment is requesting a small amount of $7 billion to complete the current fiscal year and, as a cushion for the beginning of next year, a small additional amount of $10 billion. This is considered as an urgent and important measure by the government. Mr. Speaker, an emergency session has been going on since October 11, 1978, the opening date of this parliament. Since the beginning of our proceedings in the House, we have held emergency sittings on the postal service, we have considered an emergency bill about shipping on the Great Lakes and today we have before us an emergency legislation on the unquenchable thirst of a government that wants to borrow, a careless and inefficient government.
Mr. Speaker, this emergency bill comes as confirmation of the fact that our economy is in very bad shape and the government in totally incapable of a sound administration. The government announces last minute measures and tries to ram them through as quick as possible. We do not have any economic policy nor any economic incentive program; we only have last minute measures, which all in all means a policy of improvisation. We have before us a government which is exhausted and which proposes to contract an unprecedented debt, a perpetual debt, for what is left of the fiscal year. The government requires an additional borrowing authority for $7 billion. This is a fantastic sum, given the time period for which it is allocated. In other words, if all Canadians are to share this amount each family will end up with an additional debt of $1,000, and that is over a six-month period only. And these billions will not be transformed into special programs or improvements which the population has a right to expect. They will be used only to pay back old borrowings and the interests on them.
Mr. Speaker, the discount rate has been raised to 10.25 per cent, an unprecedented rate for the Bank of Canada, apparently to strengthen a dollar which nothing seems to stabilize. As a result, the prime rate for Canadian chartered banks went up to 11 per cent and we are led to believe that it will probably reach 11.25 per cent and even 11.5 per cent between now and next December.
This horrendous increase in the interest rate is really concerning. Has the government not been taken by surprise by its own policy? Has it not been forced to readjust its interest rate on new saving bonds issues? The day before yesterday newspapers referred to a third drop in one week at the Toronto Stock
[Mr. Dick.)
Exchange, the most important in Canada. And what is the reason for this drop according to analysts? Mostly the rising interest rate. The situation is therefore uncertain. When even our own financiers have no confidence in our economy, how can we expect foreign investors to regain confidence in our money? That staggering increase in interest rates will surely have a disastrous impact. We already see some examples of that. The impact is already obvious in the residential construction area.
During the last session, we have increased the Export Development Corporation's capital to allow them to make loans to many countries which are not always, as one would believe, poor countries. Those loans are made at very advantageous rates, much more advantageous than the rates we can get from various government loan programs within the country with the rates we have now. For the economic development of our great and beautiful country, for the development of our resources, we must call for huge capital investments.
Those funds will, of course, be supplied by the financial institutions and chartered banks which control that market. What will happen to those huge projects as a result of those consecutive increases in the rates of interest? Possible investors, especially small ones, will prefer to wait till the situation has again become normal before going ahead and investing their capital. Canadian businesses, already weak, will grow even weaker and will soon give under the weight of that new burden grown too heavy, while attemps are being made to help them, through all sorts of measures like those the minister responsible for small and medium businesses announced last spring.
That situation points out the fact that the monetary and fiscal policies of the government do not agree. They give to businesses with one hand and remove with the other. As our economy is in danger, this is no time to announce measures that smell of electoral promises. Nor is it the time to go deeper into debt. The burden of our national debt is already heavy enough to carry.
In short, that borrowing power adds substantially to our debt and, anyway, was not expected at the start of the year; it will mortgage us for years to come. How then can we remain financially solvent? When we think of the interest of $18 million we pay on our debt every day, and of our debt that increases visibly, we must of necessity think of future generations, of our childen and our children's children who will have to face tremendous difficulties. How can anyone explain this bill otherwise, Mr. Speaker, a few weeks before a budget is brought down? For we all know here that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) will shortly be bringing down a budget for the current year.
How can we not be reticent when faced with the amount of interest the government will have to pay if parliament passes the bill which is before us? Just when will the Minister of Finance finally announce tax measures which will speed up our
October 25, 1978

economic recovery instead of always increasing the burden of the national debt? Mr. Speaker, I will save you from all the statistics and economic indicators which only serve to prove how far our economy has slumped. They are too depressing. Let us remember that the last times the government borrowed it was from the United States and West Germany. Foreign countries are getting richer and profiting from our poverty. Our policy in that area is clear cut.
We, of the Social Credit party, believe that we have in this country all the monetary and fiscal means necessary to develop our resources on our own. First of all we have the Bank of Canada, which is not far, which is nearby in fact, this bank belongs to all Canadians, it is the government's bank. It should finance the public and parapublic sectors by issuing new funds. The means is there, why not use it? Why must we always count on others to get us out of trouble? This economic slump is certainly welcome by our lenders who profit, as I just said, from our distress, our poverty, our inability to turn the wealth of our country into money and provide all Canadians with a decent and fair income, a credit rather than a debt system, like the one we have now and which the government seems bent on perpetuating.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, nine days ago when we came back to the fourth session of the thirtieth parliament I little realized that the first opportunity I would have to speak in this House would be for the government to seek to borrow some $17 billion. It is with a very deep sense of sadness that I find myself in the position of having to debate a bill with the throne speech uncompleted, two acts passed to put labour unions back to work, and an emergency measure before as for the government to borrow another $17 billion, after three times already this year having come to parliament for power to borrow.
Ten years ago when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) came to office he had a vision and a dream. When he came here he wanted for Canada a United States economy, a form of British government and a style of French culture. He has been here for ten years and what we have ended up with is United States culture, French government and a British economy. I submit that what we have in fact is literally the "Artful Dodger", pickpocketing from the Canadian people in the sense that he has overtaxed, overspent, overborrowed and overgoverned, and has done all of that under the sheets in the dark of the night, shrouded in secrecy.
It is audacious of this government to request authority for the borrowing of funds without submitting to parliament the reasons for such borrowing. This puts all economic sense aside, puts all sense of the judicial system aside and means that the government assumes that, by its election to power, it is given dictatorial authority over the nation. I think it is shameful that today the government should be placing before the citizens of
Borrowing Authority Act
this country a request to borrow money without exposing the purpose for which they need it.
Nothing more or less can be said about this government than that they have a crass disrespect for the Canadian people. They believe they can belligerently ask for money without telling how it is going to be spent. Like kings of the old days, they think that citizens are now subjects and that there is no longer a sense of democracy in the country.
I find it abhorrent that members on the other side could even think of sitting in this House at this moment believing they can support a government that has come to this parliament on three previous occasions asking to borrow money, and now comes a fourth time with its hands out but never indicating how the money is to be spent. No private person, no private institution and no business firm could function using such irresponsible ploys.
There are no words expressive enough to show how disappointed I am with this kind of tactic, Mr. Speaker. If you took all the ministers of finance that have served under the Prime Minister and laid them end to end, a simple conclusion would be, "So what?" What we have had in this country is a long succession of economic virgins, none having any common business sense. This government has earned the disrespect that the people of Canada hold for it now and which is so obvious from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from the north pole to the United States border. They have earned that disrespect because they themselves have had disrespect for citizens-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. Minister of State (Small Business) (Mr. Abbott) rises on a point of order.


Mr. Abbott:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would the hon. member permit a question?


Arnold John Malone: I would not permit a question from the Minister of State (Small Business), Mr. Speaker. If they cannot run a country, how can they possibly ask a question?


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


An hon. Member:: Chicken.


Arnold John Malone: Chicken? If the hon. member wants to call people chicken, let him call an election. We will see who is chicken. I am sure-


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand from one of my colleagues in the House that the hon. member made a scurrilous reflection on the French speaking members of this government and this House. I was going to ask him- because I did not hear it-whether he could say that again.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I did make a scurrilous reflection on the whole government, not an ethnic, not a religious reflection, but a reflection on that government. They earned that reflection and they are stuck with it. If they want to call people chicken, let them call the election. We know where the chickens will be roosting.

October 25, 1978
Borrowing Authority Act


An hon. Member:: What was the mention of the French government?


Arnold John Malone: The hon. member is probably the one who thought it was scurrilous. Read the record.
To get back to Bill C-7, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of which is for the government to borrow $10 billion and not account for it, let us examine some of the hypotheses of how they might use that $10 billion. One of the things they might very well do is build a swimming pool at Stornoway. The Prime Minister could easily look forward to living in a home with a swimming pool and $10 billion could well build that. Hon. members on the other side might warm up to the fact that they are only about six months away from having a leader without a swimming pool. In their arrogance they refuse to let this parliament and therefore the country know why they want a blank cheque to spend any way they please.
The other more reasonable possibility is that they are borrowing this $10 billion without indicating how it is to be spent because they want to use it as an election ploy-to give money away through government programs. 1 submit that is the dangerous, crass, dictatorial kind of administration we have had for ten years and which this government is again trying to impose upon the people of this country. They have taken away the concept of citizenship; there is no respect for the people and, therefore, the people have no respect for the government.
In ten years there have been ten speeches from the throne and in every single one the government has underscored that the major issue will be the economy. Today, everything is in a worse situation than it was ten years ago, however. Our balance of payments situation is worse, our debt is worse, national unity is fragmented. The fact of the matter is that on every dimension this country is worse off than it was a decade ago.
The Prime Minister has underscored the economy as the most important issue facing the nation in every throne speech for the last decade. In 1969 he said we would be on the road to financial disaster if nothing was done to bring spending under control. Little did he know at the time that he was roaring down the road at one hundred kilometres per hour headed for disaster. Our spending has increased some 230 per cent in the period he has been Prime Minister. He has literally robbed the people of this nation and unfortunately the debt will fall upon our children and grandchildren. It is generations ahead who will have to pay off this enormous debt.
The only people working productively today are those at the Canadian Mint. The government likes to point to the increase in the gross national product, but it must be related to what we are borrowing. The only reason the gross national product has increased is that the Mint is working double or triple shifts printing money in order to keep this government from falling into complete disorder. But the economy of this nation is already in disorder. Our balance of payments would be even worse today but for the fact that we are selling off our raw and primary resources.

There is a tremendous shortfall in end product production in this country. We manufacture goods which create jobs and this puts money in Canadian bank accounts. This is a sector of industry which is very unproductive. If this government were running a 4-H club it would not know the difference between Herefords and heifers. If it was running a Boy Scout club it would give merit badges to the boy who could borrow and spend the most money. The truth of the matter is this government could not run either of those clubs, nor do they have the right or the prerogative to run this country.
This government over the past ten years has indicated three times that it would make significant cuts in its budget. While the government tells us about the cuts, each time a cut has been indicated without exception we have had an enormous increase. Frankly, I am scared when the government talks about cutting. When the government cuts, the increases are massive.
I have used words today which I used in all sincerity when talking about a dictatorial government. For example, during this past summer the Prime Minister went to Bonn where somehow he formulated an idea. He then travelled to Morocco where he consoled himself on the sands, finally to return to Canada. But within a few hours of his return he notified the national television networks of his intention to speak on the air in order to announce a $2 billion cut in government spending. He did this without consulting the people of Canada, without consulting business, without consulting labour, but, most important of all, without consulting parliament and his cabinet. That is one-man rule. Here is a decision made to slice $2 billion from government spending.
In my opinion this government never once intended to make cuts, because the Prime Minister has already attacked our party for suggesting some of the cuts should not have taken place. He is now saying: "Look, I have tried to make cuts and the opposition simply says we should not have made them there."
I believe that the cuts which the government made were made unilaterally by the Prime Minister, and he made them in the most popular sections of each of the departments of this government. It appears to me that the Prime Minister did this deliberately and for the precise reason of getting the opposition members and the country mad so that he could shrug his shoulders and say: "Look, I have tried to make cuts but it is the reverse they want". I say look where the cuts have been made. The Prime Minister did not do away with Petro-Can, as our party is advocating. We do not need an oil company run by the same mentality as the post office. Instead the Prime Minister cut CanFarm and research to the fisheries and forestry. The Prime Minister cut weather stations located off the Atlantic coast which are vital to the fishing industry.
Those cuts were made deliberately in order to anger the population, so that when that anger reared its head the Prime Minister could shrug his shoulders and say: "I tried to make cuts, the public are angry. Obviously they want more government spending." That was the most dictatorial act this country
October 25, 1978

has ever seen, carried out by one man after his sojourn on the beaches of Morocco. He returned to Canada and announced on national television that there would be a cut of $2 billion. From what we hear the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) did not even know that CanFarm was to be cut until after he returned to Ottawa.
This government should be locked up. The Senate is not even good enough for them. It is high time that we recognized the country has been run by people of crass determination to stay in power rather than to govern, whose mentality it is to treat the people of the nation as subjects and not as citizens, a government that assumes that once it is in power it has total authority. Programs have been cut intentionally to make people angry. Programs have been cut without feeling and without feedback regardless of the need for some of those research programs which have been taken away.
This government claims to be cutting some $500 million from this year's budget. However, the fact of the matter is that the federal government has increased its spending by some $4 billion over last year. That is no cut at all, Mr. Speaker. That is growth like the growth of mushrooms in the dark fed by the kind of fodder this government gives. We all know what this is. That is the largest dollar increase since the restraint program was implemented in 1975. On the one hand we have a situation where the government is claiming to make cuts, while on the other hand it has the largest dollar increase and that in its restraint period.
The government is projecting another spending increase of $4.3 billion between now and 1980. I cannot think of anything more hypocritical than to suggest to the Canadian people that the government is holding back while it is in fact galloping forward with glee. The government and its members ought to be ashamed and embarrassed to sit on that side of the House. If they had any courage or integrity at all they would rise, leave their seats and sit as independents. Surely this nation deserves the right to have its citizens heard without the crass disregard we are exposed to from day to day here.
An increase spending rate of 8.7 per cent was promised for 1979. In the first three months of this year the spending rate was more than double that, at 17.3 per cent. Yet the government somehow leads people to believe that it will be in the ballpark of 6 per cent to 8 per cent by the end of the year. The government dishes out one set of facts knowing full well that it is simply not the case. It makes one wonder if there is an ounce of integrity left when one piece of information is given and they know that they have no hope of ever reaching the objectives set forward.
The government claims $71 million in savings and cuts in the CBC budget. It should be noted, however, that during the past three years the budget of the CBC has increased 48 per cent. By cutting $71 million the government is simply holding the CBC to the same level of spending as last year. Over the last three years the budget of the CBC has increased 48 per cent to something in excess of $500 million. Here again the government is trying to pull the wool over people's eyes in order to create some sort of an illusion that it is cutting back.
Borrowing Authority Act
That is what this government is, government by illusion, by disguise, men and women of many masks, people who simply do not have the courage to speak with straightforward honesty to the Canadian public. It is high time that the frustrations the Canadian electorate took out on this government on October 16 are allowed to express themselves nationally.
For the past two decades federal government spending has increased from $6.2 billion to $47 billion. Then there is a whimper on the other side that we are now going to cut back when we know that the rate will increase again by more than 8 per cent. That is government by disguise. As I mentioned earlier, the Trudeau years have been a period of increases in spending of some 230 per cent. Yet they choose to shroud their information, place themselves in darkness and fail to be open.
This government believes in secret courts. It will not be open to its commissioners and hides information from members of parliament and the House of Commons. In every way they have lost the right to govern. In every way that message will be told when the time comes and they dare call the next election.
Ten years ago the Post Office deficit was $67 million. Through the mismanagement of this government it has increased to $567 million. In ten years the Post Office deficit has increased $500 million.
Somehow this government still believes that because you can buy a five cent stamp for a nickel, inflation has not taken place. As we all know, the 14-cent stamp is no different than what it was in the Diefenbaker years. You can still mail a letter for five cents. The other nine cents is for storage.
The government is at fault. It has labour, business and the citizens of this country against them. Everyone is against this government except itself and its will to hang on. It is high time for that will to be tested.
In ten years the number of postal employees has increased from 26,000 to 72,000, an increase of 172 per cent. Even those with the dutiful job of analysing this government have made crass statements about it. The former Auditor General, Maxwell Henderson, when he addressed the Palliser Wheat Growers Association in Saskatoon on January 4, 1978, gave a litany of examples of gross government mismanagement. Maxwell Henderson spoke very plainly about the extreme dangers facing this country. In a fairly lengthy speech, he documented how this government is out of control. While I have that speech before me, I will not quote it at length. The bottom line states that this is a government which has lost control over spending in Canada. ,
If this were to happen in the United States, the government would be impeached. Because it has happened in Canada, they are afraid to call an election. The least we can say about this group of people is that silence may not be golden, just plain yellow. If they had any courage, they would ask their Prime Minister to test himself with a vote of confidence from the people of this country.

October 25, 1978
Borrowing Authority Act
If the government have any love for Canada, they will not continue to sit in their seats, crassly letting the economy erode, watching national unity in our nation become more divided rather than united, watching our productivity decrease day by day. There is among Canadians a spirit of ill feeling about the country in which they live.
This is one of the saddest starts to any parliament that we could have. We hardly got started when the throne speech debate was interrupted in order to put two labour unions back to work. It was again interrupted so that the government, for the fourth time in one fiscal year, could come to parliament to ask to borrow more money which it does not know how it is going to spend. It has given no estimates to parliament and, therefore, to the people of Canada.
This has to be a sad day in Canadian history. It is a day of precedents. Never in the history of this country have legislators been asked to issue any government in any legislature any amount of money without some notion as to how it would be spent.
This government, with all the audacity it can muster, is asking for $10 billion. For what? We do not know. Perhaps it will be used to build a swimming pool at Stornoway for the Prime Minister's retirement. Perhaps it will be used for gifts to give away at the time of the next election.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arnold John Malone: I hear the noise on the other side. As long as we are not told how it will be used, we have the right to guess. If the government will not expose how the $10 billion will be spent, we have the right to go before the media in this country and make wild guesses with no more responsibility than a government which asks for $10 billion without wanting the people to know why.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Arnold John Malone: I hear them on the other side. Perhaps this is a good note on which to end. The shame is on those who think they have the right to ask the Canadian people for $10 billion without telling them how the government are going to spend it. The shame is a clear indication of the credibility of the source. I will resume my seat. We will let the Canadian people judge after the government have the courage to call the next election.


Mr. Duclos:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Will the hon. member who just spoke be courageous enough to indicate to the House what he meant in his preliminary remarks when he referred to this country as having a British economy and a French government?


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I suggest the hon. member read Hansard tomorrow. It is well explained in there. If he wants to draw conclusions that are erroneous, that is typical of this government. I never did and never would slur against my brother who is French. I hold him in great respect, as I do all ethnic groups.

There are those on the other side who may cause more division than unity in this country by doing as they have done. Whenever the words "French" or "English" come up in this House of Commons, they somehow try to reflect that it means something of a division. Surely the hon. member is of an age and has an education whereby he can interpret what he reads. If he wants to be suspicious, let him. However, if he has no facts, he should get some.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest to both hon. members that is not a question of privilege.


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-7 is to permit the government to increase Canada's indebtedness by a further $7 billion in the current fiscal year ending March 31, 1979 from the debt level outstanding at March 31, 1979. It also permits the government to increase its indebtedness by an additional $10 billion in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1980. It confirms the authority of government to borrow funds in any currency. Also, it amends the Financial Administration Act to confirm that borrowing authorities are cumulative and do not lapse with the maturity of debt issues.
Before this bill was introduced, the government had obtained borrowing authorities totalling $2 billion in the current and previous fiscal years, 1979 and 1978. The $7 billion borrowing authority requested by Bill C-7 will raise the total to $28 billion. With this authority the government may increase the unmatured debt of Canada by 66 per cent in two years. What a disgraceful record! It clearly indicates that there is no control and no proper management. This government can be termed a blank cheque government headed by a lot of blanks.
This is the third time the government has requested an increase in the borrowing limit for the current fiscal year. That is hardly indicative of sound financial management. When the previous borrowing authority was requested in March of 1978, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) claimed that it would be sufficient to cover all cash requirements for the current year. The minister has now proved his own claim to be false. He has not offered a proper explanation of what happened. The government seeks borrowing authority amounting to $10 billion for 1980 without telling parliament or the Canadian people of its spending or revenue estimates and without specifying anything about the expected economic situation or the federal fiscal stance. The request for 1980 amounts to a request for the approval of a $ 10 billion cheque which specifies neither the payee nor the financial status of the payor.
We have objected in principle to Bill C-7 and attempted, through a second reading amendment, to have the legislation defeated and withdrawn, which it should be. It is an absolute disgrace. Instead of trying to eliminate waste and provide proper management in the country, the first thing this government does is borrow more money. One would think the least it could have done would have been to give the new Comptroller-
October 25, 1978

General a chance to clean up the unholy mess which has been created in this country over the last 15 years. This uncontrolled spending and this Liberal madness actually started in January 1963 under the Pearson government. It has accelerated since 1968, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) took over.
Mr. Rogers, the new Comptroller-General, pointed recently in Edmonton to the appointment of the Lambert royal commission to study the quality of financial management and accountability in the government and the recently completed reviews of Crown corporations by the Privy Council. He said that the challenge now is to maintain and extend these good management practices across the whole range of government operations. Why not give that a chance?
Why not try it out for a couple of years? Let us see if we can find this money internally, as is being done in the province of Manitoba. The Manitoba government has told all provincial institutions and government departments that they will not get a blank cheque or a big handout every year. They have been told that they will have to manage their affairs better and cut out waste, and that is what government departments in Manitoba are doing. I refer to one hospital alone which has reduced its operating costs by $3.7 million because the government asked it to clean up its act. That is just one example. Administrative costs in that hospital were reduced by $400,000. Why will this government not try a plan like that? We have an expert in Mr. Rogers. Let us give him a chance to work. Then perhaps later on we might consider authorizing more borrowing. But this government is not interested in cutting out waste and improving management. As far as this government is concerned the only solution to all our problems is to borrow more money, print more money and spend more money.
Mr. Rogers went on to say that there are three key changes which must occur: a reduction in communication delays between government departments and managerial sectors of government, better medium-term planning, and better evaluation and control of government programs. Mr. Rogers also said:
What my office and the departments need is a comprehensive status report, across the whole spectrum of financial management and control, on where we are now, what plans are in place and what further we need to do, department by department.
That makes sense and it should have been done a long time ago. Let us find the money internally instead of borrowing, borrowing, borrowing. Mismanagement is highlighted almost daily, and a glaring example was revealed this week. We learned that the government is paying $750,000 for empty office space and that the Department of Public Works will shell out an additional $3.6 million for a vacant ten-storey structure through 1984 unless Treasury Board approves a leasebreaking plan which would carry a $2 million penalty. On and on it goes in the Department of Public Works as well as every other department.
I would like to cite another example which shows that this government is not really sincere when it talks about restraint
Borrowing Authority Act
and cutting back. This week I received in my office the document I have in my hand. I am sure it cost a lot of money to print. I placed questions on the order paper yesterday in an attempt to find out the cost of printing this document, how many are being distributed and so forth. It is entitled "Ojib-way Language Course Outline", and the introduction says the following:
This Ojibway Language Course Outline was prepared to assist teachers in instructing beginners, young and old, to speak the Ojibway language. Hopefully, it will fill a need and serve as a guide.
No one could object to that, but I have absolutely no use for this document. There is no need to distribute it to every member of parliament and to everybody else across the country. Our Indian affairs critic should probably receive a copy as well as perhaps PC research and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), but it is of absolutely no interest or concern to me. It is just a waste of taxpayers' money.
I referred to one hospital in Winnipeg and the new Manitoba government program of eliminating waste and mismanagement in government departments and all institutions. The president of the hospital to which I referred released an excellent report on how expenditures were reduced by $3.7 million. It was done by creating committees comprising nurses, medical staff and laboratory people. Teams were set up to review all operations of the hospital, and in one year costs were reduced by $3.7 million. It is unfortunate that the government is not giving Mr. Rogers and the Auditor General a chance to implement their plans to eliminate waste and mismanagement and to save hundreds of millions of dollars within the government. The government does not want to do that. That is not the way it wants to operate. It wants to borrow more money.
It is interesting to hear some Liberal backbenchers talk. The other day the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Lee) defended the government and its record and told us of the wonderful job it is doing. He criticized us, saying that it is just terrible that we have the audacity to criticize this government's uncontrolled spending. The hon. member says one thing in the House of Commons and another thing when he is in his riding. I would like to quote from an article which reported what the hon. member said in Vancouver. This news report states:
Federal Liberal backbencher Art Lee criticized his government Saturday for failing to restrain spending and inflation.
Lee, MP from Vancouver East, told the party's B.C. convention that "this government has fallen short of handling the Canadian economy as well as it might have."
That is the understatement of the year.
-"the federal government has lost control over its own bureaucracy and over it own purse strings."
That is what he said back home, but what does he say here? He defends this irresponsible government. The report went on to say the following:
"The federal government must balance the budget and declare a moratorium on the growth of the public service," Lee told about 250 applauding Liberals.
That is probably all the Liberals there are left in British Columbia.

October 25, 1978
Borrowing Authority Act


Mr. Lee:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the hon. member would care to look, he would find that that speech was made in 1975.
What the hon. member quotes me as saying in 1975 is something I fully subscribed to at that time, but because of speeches of backbench members of the Liberal party, who have great influence on members on the Treasury benches, since 1975 the government has been reducing its expenditures below the level of the rate of growth of the gross national product. Last August the government announced a very sincere program with respect to government restraint. The government said it would curtail financial requirements by $500 million for the current fiscal year and projected a further curtailment of $2.5 billion for the next fiscal year. Because of the influence of members like myself, that is the kind of action this government takes. The hon. member deliberately did not tell us the date of the news report.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, the date is at the bottom of the article. For the convenience of the hon. member for Vancouver East, I point out that the date is September 29, 1975. If his statements were relevant then, they are more relevent today. He speaks about a restraint program. If there is a restraint program, why is the government wanting to borrow $17 billion?
The hon. member went on to say that this was not only a necessity, it was a matter of paramount importance if we were to cope adequately with inflation, and the government was not doing enough to bring its expenditures into line with the economy. If that was the way he felt, I do not know how he can possibly sit over there now with that political party after that statement in 1975 and what is facing us here today.
We have had a series of finance ministers who have been complete failures. Probably the biggest failure of all was John Turner. Federal government spending more than doubled when he was finance minister. When he departed, Mr. Macdonald took over, but he could not straighten out the mess so he too resigned and departed. He did not do enough damage here, so now he is travelling around the country making a series of statements. Speaking in New York recently he said that personal attacks on the Prime Minister may polarize Canadian opinion and destroy confederation. Let me remind hon. members that the Prime Minister is responsible for introducing the rule changes in 1968; he is not the type of man who wants to be accountable to parliament or the Canadian people.
Also, officials, whether it is at the federal, provincial or municipal level, want to reduce the accounting system so there is no proper examination of the expenditures. Prior to 1968 there used to be approximately 450 votes with itemized accounts of every federal government department so you could see what was going on. That number was reduced to approximately 160 votes. Now when we look at the estimates of every department we see that "others" went up 43 million and "miscellaneous" went up $5 million, and this sort of nonsense.

The article to which I referred earlier goes on to read:
Macdonald, who resigned from the Trudeau cabinet a little more than a year ago, blames what he calls "very substantial prejudice" in English speaking Canada against the Prime Minister because he is a French Canadian.
That is absolute nonsense. Our concern lies with the way the government has handled tax dollars and the economy of this country. The previous prime minister, Mr. Pearson, started all this in January of 1963. We criticized the government's record then, and Mr. Pearson was an Anglophone. So it has nothing to do with the nationality of the person running the government. What Mr. Macdonald said was a lot of nonsense and he will not kid anybody in western Canada or any place else with such statements.
Dennis Braithwaite said it very well in a recent article in the Toronto Star when he wrote about the Liberals clamouring to get rid of the present Prime Minister and wanting to bring back John Turner. I did not hear Mr. Macdonald, in his statement in New York, say anything about the Manitoba Liberal candidates who want to dump the Prime Minister. Do they want to dump him because he is a French Canadian? Why does Mr. Macdonald not raise that? They are having a squabble in Manitoba.


Mr. Martin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are in the process of debating a bill which is before this parliament, namely, Bill C-7. I can find nothing in the remarks of the hon. member opposite in the last several minutes that has had any bearing whatsoever on the bill. I wonder if that might be drawn to his attention, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I suggest the hon. member revert to the terms of Bill C-7.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, the terms of the bill cover the borrowing of large amounts of money, and if we had a responsible government, we would not be presented with such a bill in the first place. That is why I am highlighting all the squabbling within the Liberal party over their present leader and the confusion this is causing around the country. Apparently they are upset, and I can understand their being upset, with regard to the way the Prime Minister has allowed the government to get out of control and has handed a blank cheque to every cabinet minister to spend just as he likes. Of course, their main concern is to run the Liberal Party in western Canada in the next federal election. I think their candidates will not qualify under the Election Expenses Act, as was the case with the Liberal candidate in Burnaby-Rich-mond-Delta. He did not get 15 per cent of the votes; in fact, he got less than 10 per cent, and 51 Liberals lost their deposits in the provincial election in Saskatchewan. So I can understand why nobody wants to run for the Liberal party out in western Canada.
Here is another example of what is wrong with Canada and how this government mismanages the country. We want to encourage entrepreneurs in Canada and we want products to be manufactured in this country. I will read an article about a gentleman who resided in Saskatchewan but who is leaving Canada now because he cannot get anywhere here. He said he
October 25, 1978

is fed up with Ottawa. The article is entitled, "Fed up with Ottawa, disgruntled inventor heads south". The gentleman resided in Ebenezer, Saskatchewan.
Add John Appelt's name to the long list of disgruntled Canadian inventors.
Earlier this month Mr. Appelt, his wife Molly and son Russell packed all they could carry in a converted bus and headed for the United States, frustrated at the treatment the Canadian government and industry gave his latest invention, a grasshopper harvester.
Mr. Appelt, 42, who also works as an upholsterer, said he doubts he will return to this village 120 kilometres east of Regina, or to Canada to stay.
"A year ago, I was a solid Canadian and I thought it was the best country to be in," he said.
He goes on to explain his invention.


Mr. Condon:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I ask the present speaker a question?


A. Daniel McKenzie: The hon. member may do so at the end of my speech, Mr. Speaker. The gentleman went on to say that he reserves his most scathing criticism for the federal Department of Agriculture which, he says, thwarted his attempts to get the grasshopper harvester recognized as a legitimate machine. The article goes on:
He believes the department discouraged him because his invention would use mechanical means, not chemical sprays, to control the prairie pests. "I solidly believe Agriculture Canada is bought and sold by the chemical companies," he said.
That is quite a charge, Mr. Speaker. The Montana Energy Research and Development Institute welcomed the gentleman down there and they will help him develop his new invention. This is another example of mismanagement and a very serious charge against a federal department's operation.
The Liberals are so anxious to replace the present Prime Minister that they want to have John Turner back. That is understandable. They would not want to look for a responsible person who has had a good record in office as minister of finance; they want somebody who was a total failure.
I would like to give some examples from the time when all this highly accelerated waste and mismanagement started. During the period in which the Hon. John Turner was minister of finance, spending by the federal government jumped by 99.8 per cent. To put it another way, it took us 105 years to reach a federal spending level of $17,004.4 million. Mr. Turner doubled that figure in 44 months, taking the level of governmental spending in his brief term to twice that reached by federal governments since confederation. He is the person they want to bring in to replace the present Prime Minister! That is jumping from the frying pan into the fire.
Under the budgets which Mr. Turner brought into parliament, $113 billion of taxpayers' money was spent, or at least borrowed. When Mr. Turner took over from Edgar Benson, inflation was running at 4.9 per cent. When he left, it was 10.6 per cent. Under the aegis of Mr. Turner, the cost of living jumped 38.5 per cent and the dollar, if one assumes it was worth 100 cents in January, 1972, was worth only 72 cents
Borrowing Authority Act
when he walked out to Bay Street. Is this the man who should replace the present Prime Minister?
At the time John Turner was given the mantle in January, 1972, there were 544,000 people out of work. When he left, 732,000 Canadians were unemployed. In spite of record spending and all the measures he took to promote employment in business, only 69,000 jobs were created in the manufacturing sector from December, 1971 to December, 1975.
In 1972 there was a surplus of $700 million in our current account balance, which is the equivalent of our country's checking account in international trade. In 1975 there was a deficit of almost $5 billion. In the aggregate, since Mr. Turner took over the nation has had a current account deficit every year. It goes on and on. It is a disgraceful and unbelievable record. Apparently Mr. Turner has charisma. We have seen that in the past, but it is not one of the qualifications for running the country in a sound and businesslike manner. This is not Hollywood show business. The charisma gimmick has outlived its usefulness. That is the only reason why they want to bring this man back, but he will not fool Canadians.
The devaluation of the Canadian dollar has been caused mostly by mismanagement of the nation's business and government borrowing. No longer are we an attractive country in which to invest money. We cannot even encourage Canadians to invest in Canada. The Canadian dollar was overvalued because the present administration damaged seriously the financial solvency of Canada. In the 1978 fiscal year, the government could raise less than 80 per cent of the revenues required to finance its wild spending habits. In 1979 the government will be able to raise only 75 per cent of the required revenues. The international investment community distrusts a government willing to live so far beyond its means. They are unwilling to buy a currency which the government persists in debasing through excessive deficit spending. When will it end? It goes on and on. It never stops. It is completely and totally irresponsible.
The Canadian dollar was overvalued because of the government's inability to cope with any of Canada's current economic problems. Low real growth, high unemployment and high inflation have prevailed in Canada for four years. There are no signs of improvement. Meanwhile the government continues to take actions which harm business and investor confidence. It continues to make policy changes regarding wage and price controls, foreign investment controls, and a harsher competition policy. There is an increasing burden of regulation and government interference. Also, we are faced with continuing threats by the Prime Minister regarding increasing federal intervention.
The fall of the dollar was triggered by the election of the Parti Quebecois in November 1976. Between the two of them, they have done a great job of downgrading Canada.


An hon. Member:: They supported you in the by-elections.


A. Daniel McKenzie: I should like to refer to a few of our proposals which are supported by the Economic Council of Canada.
478

October 25, 1978
Borrowing Authority Act


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


A. Daniel McKenzie: It is interesting to listen to the comments of backbenchers opposite. They criticize us and they criticize you.
I will defy you-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order.


An hon. Member:: Address the Speaker.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Address the Chair.


A. Daniel McKenzie: All right. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I defy them to find anyone in Canada who knows anything about economics and government and has anything good to say about the government, or will support anything it does.


An hon. Member:: Address the Chair.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Name one.


Mr. Beatty:: Name 40.


Alan Gray Martin: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


A. Daniel McKenzie: The Canadian dollar-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The Chair recognizes the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Martin).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Speaker, has the hon. member looked at any part of the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)? Does he know where Canada stands in relation to the other 15 industrialized countries in the world?


James McPhail Gillies: Thirteenth.


Alan Gray Martin: It is in first and second place in most cases. I am quite sure the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark)-


Steve Eugene Paproski: Order, order!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is a point of argument.


Alan Gray Martin: -and the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens)-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. parliamentary secretary is getting into debate.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is correct.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


A. Daniel McKenzie: In an attempt at continuing-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. Minister of State for Small Business (Mr. Abbott) is recognized by the Chair.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that approximately two days ago Mr. John Bulloch, President of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, had high praise for the economy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: He felt that there was a considerable degree of hypocrisy about it, I would assume from his remarks.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: So does Eugene Whelan.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. McKenzie) has the floor.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is a record number of small business bankruptcies. I am sure Mr. Bulloch was praising your records respecting small businesses.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


An hon. Member:: Address the Chair.


A. Daniel McKenzie: There has never been so many bankruptcies in the country as there are today. If I want any statistics as to where this country stands, certainly I will not refer to the speech made by the Prime Minister. His speech-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I suggest the hon. member return to Bill C-7.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Call it six o'clock.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Call it six o'clock.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Your Honour allowed the intervention of the parliamentary secretary on statistics.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The parliamentary secretary rose on a point of order. I suggest the hon. member return to the terms of Bill C-7.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


A. Daniel McKenzie: May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, October 26, 1978