1981-04-03

Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the European Economic Community has issued a decree that, as of June 30 of this year, it will require a certificate stating that all fresh and frozen horse meat exported from Canada must come from horses which were located in Canada for at least three months before slaughter, a decree which will put all horse abattoirs in Canada out of business since at least 80 per cent of slaughter horses come from the United States, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Kushner):
That the government make the strongest protest possible to the European Economic Community to withdraw this decree which would have such a devastating effect on the viability of all our horse meat plants throughout Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the confusion and multitude of problems which plagued the herd maintenance program were due primarily to the fact that the minister in charge of the program is from the other place, and not directly responsible to either the House of Commons or the electorate, and in view of the fact that the program is designed to assist livestock producers who suffered as a result of drought, which logically falls within the purview of the Department of
Agriculture, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton):
That the responsibility for any similar programs in the future be delegated to the Minister of Agriculture and that guidelines for future programs be referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture for consideration and study before they are finalized.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. On April 1 of this year the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) introduced a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 which dealt with a charge laid by the Ontario Provincial Police under the liquor licensing act on the Tyen-dinaga Reserve in my constituency. The statements made in the motion were false to the point of being scurrilous.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


John Raymond Ellis: Neither the present nor the previous band councils have approved the sale of liquor. The band police force participated fully in both the raid and the charges. The proprietor knew that his actions were in contravention of the law. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That the members of the NDP attempt to get their facts straight before they make accusations about events in other ridings which give an erroneous and injurious view of those ridings.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

April 3, 1981


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, in view of a letter which I have just received from the chairman of the Public Service Commission which states that it is not practical or in the best interests of the public service to open all job competitions to everyone in Canada, and I quote further from the letter:
At times, an area of competition may be restricted to those persons residing in a province or territory, or indeed, to those residing in a city or town.
I therefore move under the provisions of Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes):
That this House hereby recognizes that the government's promise of complete mobility rights for job seekers to gain employment anywhere in Canada is nothing more than a hypocritical charade, being completely opposite to the hiring practices of the federal government.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
urgent and pressing necessity. Given the renewed hostilities in Lebanon, and particularly the reports of shelling, property damage, and now the loss of life in and around the town of Zahala and the city of Beirut, and given the large number of Lebanese-born Canadians calling upon the federal government to use its good offices to call upon the combatants to cease and desist the destruction of life and property, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Bossy):
That this House deeply regrets the loss of life and property resulting from the resumption of hostilities in Lebanon, and calls upon the combatants to cease hostilities forthwith and return to the negotiation of differences which exist, in the democratic and peaceful manner for which Lebanon and its people have always been historically recognized.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[DOT] (mo)


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Since the government's well-hyped pension conference has now been held, and since the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) has declared that there will be no improvements in our public pension system in the foreseeable future, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the Minister of National Health and Welfare spend this coming weekend contemplating the ways and means she can use to convince the Minister of Finance that the much needed improvements to our public pension system be introduced now so that Canada's pensioners can at least get pension payments which will bring them above the poverty level.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



CALL FOR RESIGNATION OF MINISTER OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Given that, as the result of pressure by the Quebec Liberal caucus, bidding on the F-18A fighter aircraft has been reopened, six months after the deadline, and given that as a result of this unfair action Ontario plants may be deprived of some of those contracts, especially industries in my riding, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges):
That the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources-who has been appointed minister responsible for Erie riding-resign as his kind of assistance is not appreciated.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Robert Daudlin (Essex-Kent):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of



THE CONSTITUTION


Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity to millions
April 3, 1981

of concerned Canadians of all faiths and beliefs. Whereas the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) has received a letter dated March 26, 1981, from the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops; whereas this letter focuses attention on a question which is described as of "primordial importance", namely "respect for human life", and requests that assurance be given that provisions of the new Constitution will "enhance the respect for life from its very beginning"; and inasmuch as Emmett Cardinal Carter is today quoted on the subject as saying, "I must state categorically that the charter of rights as presently phrased does not enjoy my full and unqualified support", I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the Prime Minister provide all members of Parliament with his answer to this question raised in the letter from the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



CANADIAN ACCESS TO EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY HIGH QUALITY BEEF QUOTA-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Madam Speaker, I rise under standing order 43 on an urgent matter arising out of current GATT discussions. Under the GATT Agreement Canada is eligible to participate in the 10,000-tonne high quality beef quota into the European Economic Community; however, the EEC has only allowed access under this quota to the U.S.A.
In view of a recent GATT council ruling that the EEC should not deny access to Canada to this high quality beef quota, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cariboo-Chil-cotin (Mr. Greenaway):
[DOT] (ins)
That the Minister of Agriculture take appropriate action at ongoing GATT discussions, to ensure that Canadian high quality beef is able to participate in this EEC access quota with the U.S.A. and not be excluded as is presently the case.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions CONVENTION AIDS



AID FOR WINNIPEG PROJECT-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the federal government has recently been able to entertain and grant financial assistance totalling $10.8 million to four more Canadian cities in spite of the fact that last October the city of Winnipeg was told that it could expect no help from the same program-that is the government's trade centre program-for at least three or four more years due to current commitments creating a situation whereby the federal government now provides aid to convention centres in Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, Halifax, Windsor, Hamilton and Charlottetown, while in Winnipeg the cash is flowing in the opposite direction, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper):
That the city of Winnipeg which pioneered the establishment of a major convention facility designed to attract large internationally based conventions be given renewed consideration; that financial assistance be made available, and failing this, that the Minister of Employment and Immigration be reassigned within cabinet to look after the interests of some region other than Winnipeg because Winnipeg has not received one red cent of extra money since the minister's term in office began, despite all the breast-beating and well orchestrated announcements of old programs for which he has become so famous.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, I promise I will not tax your patience.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Miss Begin:: Bonjour.


James Aloysius McGrath: Bonjour to you, Madam.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: I can assure you this is a very serious matter, Madam Speaker.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. He told the pensions conference that the government attaches a high priority to pension reform and that it is totally committed to

April 3, 1981
Oral Questions
pension reform. His colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, also told the conference that several European countries were able to affect pension reform without bankrupting the economy, those are the words I think the hon. minister used.
Can the Minister of Finance tell us what the government intends to do to help bring some relief to Canadians who are on fixed incomes and pensions and who are seeing their pensions and fixed incomes being eroded day by day by double-digit inflation?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, obviously one of the main concerns expressed at the pensions conference was the question of indexation, especially of employer and private sponsored plans. We are now embarked on a major consideration of pension reform in this country. We have had a very successful conference. Now it will be necessary for the government to consider what it ought to do, based upon the views that were expressed.
Following the government's consideration it will be necessary to have consultations with the provinces whose participation is absolutely essential if changes are to be made, either to the Canada Pension Plan or to private pension plans, through changes in the law. It is not possible at this stage to indicate what the final outcome will be.


GOVERNMENT PRIORITIES
[Stage Direction]
Hod. James A. McGrath (St. John's East): Madam Speaker, my supplementary question to the minister deals in an area in which the government has total jurisdiction and control. The minister also told the conference that improvements to old age security must be determined by economic realities. That is, of course, consistent with what the minister said in his budget, in which he said the government intended to achieve net savings in the social policy envelope in order to finance initiatives in other envelopes.
Is the Minister of Finance in a position to tell the House what steps the government is prepared to take, given the fact that the last initiative the government took was almost a year ago when it increased the guaranteed income supplement, which is now being eroded by inflation, to bring some form of relief to the old age pensioners of this country for which the minister has complete and total jurisdiction? Is he able to change his priorities, because I think the need speaks to that kind of change?
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned that we increased the guaranteed income supplement a year ago. That supplement is fully indexed and is not eroded by inflation. There is absolutely no basis for the assertion that the protection provided to the recipients of old age security and the guaranteed income supplement is in a
deteriorating position as a result of the inflation that we are experiencing. What I said yesterday, and that came out of the conference, was that there is a segment of recipients of the GIS, namely, single persons, and women in particular, who face a more difficult situation. I also stated that that was obviously a priority that had to be dealt with as economic circumstances warranted. That is the situation at the present time.


CANADA PENSION PLAN
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The Minister of Finance will find that increases in the cost of fuel, food and shelter have overtaken the indexing of the GIS which the minister talks about. That is my concern. That is the concern I want to express to the minister. Is the Minister of National Health and Welfare able to tell the House that she is going to discharge her commitment made to the homemaking spouses of this country with regard to coverage under the Canada Pension Plan? Perhaps, Madam Speaker, you might also permit me to ask the minister if she anticipates any changes in the funding of the CPP to accommodate the change in demographics in the country and the additional burden that will be placed on the CPP in the future.


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased with the sudden interest of the Tory party in pension reform.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Monique Bégin: This is very important and welcome. The hon. member has asked three questions. I will try my best to answer them. The first question was with regard to indexation of the GIS. I can inform the House that special indexation for seniors, over ten years would have been one per cent different from the general indexation of all our programs. The addi-tioned $420 a year which we provided last July is fully indexed to the cost of living.
With regard to the second question concerning coverage for housewives, there are three million housewives in this country. I have repeatedly said that it is in that dossier of pension reform that we have the most work to do. There seem to be two major avenues open to reform. One is opening the Canada Pension Plan on a voluntary basis to housewives who want to build a pension in their own name. The other is the pension credit splitting everywhere in the country. These questions will be discussed by the government and we will make a final decision as to our preferred avenue for reform. Of course, the whole CPP is under review and is part of that reform.
April 3, 1981


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the same minister. In light of what she just said to my colleague, what does she intend to do about the fact that 12.1 per cent inflation hurts pensioners more than any other group in society? What does she intend to do about one of my constituents who has $109 left at the end of every month after paying his rent and utilities? Is she prepared to consider appointing a parliamentary task force to consider funding, given this double digit inflation, with regard to the OAS, GIS and CPP?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, I would recommend to the hon. member in the case of the constituent to whom he is referring that he should apply and would probably be eligible for the full GIS which would provide him, on top of the basic $208 a month of OAS, because it has been indexed this month, an additional $209 as of this month. This surely is a case for full GIS.
Other than that, I should like to repeat to the hon. member that the objective of the government is that we define our responsibilities, having all seniors in Canada above the poverty line. We have often said that we succeeded in that regard last July for couples, but we still have one more reform regarding single pensioners.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, he is getting the GIS which gives him and his wife a total income of $409 a month which, after paying their rent and utilities, leaves them $109. It is just not enough, and I would again ask the minister to answer the question of whether or not she is prepared to consider a parliamentary task force to study the funding of these various government pension plans.


Monique Bégin: The hon. member should know that the couple in his riding would get twice $208 for basic OAS and, if they do get the full GIS, they each get an additional $161 a month. The figures the member is giving are not the right figures and I want that to be made very clear. These people have been brought up above the poverty line since we increased their pensions by $420 this year. I know we are not talking of a luxurious way of life, but they have been brought up above the poverty line. Our next priority will be with respect to people alone living in situations of poverty.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the minister responsible for the environment I have a question for the Prime Minister. This question relates to acid
Oral Questions
rain. In view of the fact that there is a tremendous lobby building up in the United States, with over 200 industries at the state level, publicly and privately owned, as well as the coal industry, mounting a tremendous campaign virtually to do away with those provisions of the U.S. clean air act which control acid rain emissions, and following the Prime Minister's meeting with President Reagan and other government officials, what specific accomplishments has the federal government been able to attain so far in the negotiations with the United States in respect of acid rain?


Mr. Roger Simmons (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, it is much too early to address that particular question as to what the accomplishments have been. We are very much on schedule with the memorandum of intent between the two administrations; the four task forces are now doing their work and have submitted their preliminary report. We are anxiously awaiting the subsequent report with a view to beginning negotiations this summer.


CANADIAN REPRESENTATION AT UNITED STATES HEARINGS
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Madam Speaker, I would again attempt to get through to the Prime Minister because this question really does not relate directly to the parliamentary secretary.
The clean air act in the United States is in trouble. Will the Prime Minister assure this House that he will ask the United States federal government whether Canada can send a delegation to the hearings when the U.S. clean air act comes up for review in order that we may at least be present while that act is under review and, hopefully, have some input?


Roger Simmons: Madam Speaker, we are slightly ahead of the hon. member as, indeed, is the American administration ahead of him. We have already had an invitation to participate in those hearings and we are at the present time contemplating doing so.


DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION AT BORDER CROSSINGS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister and it requires a commitment from him. The Brookhaven Institute in New York estimated that 5,000 Canadians died last year as a result of acid rain, half of which comes from American sources.
In view of the fact that 38 million Americans came into Canada last year, would the Prime Minister give a commitment that he will seriously consider giving out information to Americans entering Canada at the border crossings and at

April 3, 1981
Oral Questions
airports, regarding the bilateral health and environmental seriousness of acid rain to Canada?


Roger Simmons: Madam Speaker, the Department of the Environment took that initiative a number of months ago. We have been handing out that kind of literature to people entering Canada from the United States.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport I will direct my question to the acting minister for the day.
The pension trust fund of the CNR made sufficient profit this year to invest $53.5 million in oil and gas properties. This is just one investment in a huge investment portfolio. Due to these enormous profits, would the Acting Minister of Transport instruct the president of the CNR to grant an immediate pension increase and to establish at least a partial indexing of railway pensions, especially since today's pensioners must cope with 12.2 per cent inflation and the devastating effects of the National Energy Program?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I will refer the gist of the question of the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine to the Minister of Transport so that it can be dealt with and a reply made.


HALL REPORT RECOMMENDATION
A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the parliamentary secretary, if he is answering for the minister today. Would he have the minister consider implementing the recommendation of the Hall report calling for the establishment of a heritage fund for pensions based on a levy of 1 per cent of current payrolls, shared equally by employees and the companies? I would like to point out to the parliamentary secretary that CNR pensioners are amongst the lowest paid pensioners in Canada.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Transport has dealt with the CNR on a number of occasions. The CNR voluntarily upgrades its pension fund each year and tries to meet the inflation rate which exists. We will simply carry the message. I am not sure whether it is within the purview of the Minister of Transport to give that kind of direction to the CNR, but I will bear that message and turn it over to the Minister of Transport when he returns.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. He will be aware that he has received a telegram from Chief William Beaver of the Big-stone Band, the members of which are presently walking from Wabasca to Edmonton, a distance of 280 miles, to demonstrate the plight in which that band is at present. What will the Prime Minister be doing about that telegram?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I regret to say that I have not seen that telegram as yet. I have had no notice of it, but I will look it up. I thank the hon. member.


MEASURES TO INCREASE EMPLOYMENT
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The Minister of Employment and Immigration is also in receipt of a telegram from Chief William Beaver of the Bigstone Band outlining that that band is presently experiencing 75 per cent unemployment on the small Wabasca reserve. What will the minister be doing about that?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, as I have indicated to the hon. member for Athabasca in the past, I would be very pleased to meet with representatives of the band to talk about their specific employment conditions. As the hon. member knows, we did apply extra employment measures to his region and to his constituency to deal with the problems of native unemployment, but I would certainly be prepared to meet with the representatives of those native organizations to see how other additional measures might be taken.


IMMIGRATION
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Since the United States government has already deported two illegal entrants from El Salvador and, I understand, is about to deport a third back to E! Salvador, since those deported have immediately disappeared, and recognizing the fact that Canada has already made it easier for Salvadorans to settle here, I would like to ask the minister whether it would not be possible under our policy to invite these people to Canada rather than see them returned to certain death.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I am certainly sympathetic to the

proposal put forward by the hon. member. We have relaxed the refugee conditions for El Salvadorans, but if they are located in a third country such as the United States it is somewhat more difficult for them to make application. It would be something which perhaps my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, could take up with his counterpart in the United States. I could indicate that if there is some arrangement made, we would certainly be prepared to consider sympathetically any application from those in a third country to come to Canada.


REQUEST FOR TALKS WITH UNITED STATES AUTHORITIES
Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he would be willing to join with his colleague to ensure that these illegal immigrants in the United States can come to Canada? Would he talk to his opposite number in Washington and say that we are willing to have them come to Canada rather than have them deported back to El Salvador?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, if I understand correctly from my colleague that he is prepared to admit such people to Canada, we will certainly do everything possible to facilitate their applications to come.


URGENCY OF TALKS STRESSED
Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Madam Speaker, my question is supplementary to the one previously asked. I think it is a matter of some urgency because news reports have indicated that the two who have been deported have not been heard from since. The third one is either in the process of going through a deportation hearing or may very well be deported soon. I wonder if the Secretary of State for External Affairs would undertake to contact his opposite number today, because it is that urgent.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, with the support of the Minister of Employment and Immigration I will certainly do that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. During the preliminary period leading up to the application time for summer works projects there has been very little publicity, and many communities were not aware that the program had a deadline of, I believe March 16. Would the minister consider advancing that date, for example,
Oral Questions
to April 20, to allow for additional information, and for applications to come from communities which have not hitherto had any way of knowing when that deadline was?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I am a little surprised at the observation of the hon. member because a national advertising campaign was undertaken. Advertisements appeared in newspapers right across Canada, as well as in a number of student and university publications, so there was sufficient advance notice given. If, however, the hon. member is facing difficulties in his own riding, as he knows, because of the establishment of an advisory board in his own constituency, he had some degree of control.
I will speak to the regional director in his province to determine if there has to be any special measures in his particular location, but my understanding now is that in almost every part of Canada there are more than enough applications to consume the money available for that summer program.


DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION
Fred Alward McCain: Madam Speaker, I have checked with the weekly publications in my constituency and with the only radio station located within my constituency, and no advertising or publicity has been carried by any of those in that area, which I think emphasizes the point I made about lack of publicity and warning with respect to the closing date.
Would the minister authorize the regional director to accept late applications from Carleton-Charlotte in view of the fact that publicity did not in fact exist in that area?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I want to point out to the hon. member, as I have several times in this House, that we have tried to put a substantial amount of responsibility on individual Members of Parliament to provide information on the conditions under which the employment programs would be operated. So I suggest to the hon. member that he had a great deal of power in his own hands to make sure that the information about that summer program-which was in his hands by late January-was disseminated in his riding.
I will undertake to talk to the regional director to determine if there has to be any form of special requirement in the hon. member's area, but that will not be a general application.


NUCLEAR ENERGY
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources a question regarding the government's nuclear energy policy and

April 3, 1981
Oral Questions
recent events surrounding the transfer of funds involving AECL where the government was asked to forgive $700 million worth of financing. This indicates that the government's nuclear energy policy is not able to deal with the sale of Candu reactors because we are not able to provide a market for the heavy water that we produce. This, coupled with the fact that the uranium mining industry is also in a questionable state of health, indicates that the manufacture of nuclear equipment in Canada is clearly at stake here.
Could the minister clarify a comment made by the president AECL when he said we would have more sales this year of nuclear reactors, particularly to Korea and Mexico?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, there is not much to add to the statement of the president of AECL. Indeed, the government is actively pursuing the possibility of the sale of a 600 megawatt reactor to Korea, and the government of Mexico has expressed interest in receiving a bid for the construction of additional reactors and AECL intends to submit a bid. We are one of three countries from which the government of Mexico intends to order additional reactors. We are very hopeful of success and AECL is working very hard on that.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, I hope the minister's optimism expressed in his response will indicate to the nuclear industry that they have a future, but I wonder whether this optimism comes from the internal review the government has undertaken and whether it means this review has been completed and whether or not it has given the government a new sense of its management responsibility for nuclear sales abroad, and also whether there is any change in the nuclear safeguards policy that would indicate to the minister a more optimistic future for the sale of nuclear reactors.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the review is not yet completed. However, I hope we will be able to make public a document in this respect in reasonable time. The nuclear industry in the international field is extremely competitive. Although we are quite confident that our system is the best and safest in the world, we have to face very stiff international competition. At the same time we face somewhat lower projections domestically in the rate of growth of electricity consumption, so I would not want to paint an over optimistic future for the industry.
I think we will have to work extremely hard in the decade ahead to make sure our industry remains very much involved in and a major contributor to this field in the world. We are going to make, and are making, a renewed and vigorous effort in the international field and I hope that we will be successful in the next few months in obtaining more international orders because I think this is how we will be able, over the next few years to ensure that our industry remains very dynamic.


TOURISM
Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for tourism. According to the government's own figures, the deficit in tourism in Canada for 1980 reached $1.14 billion, up from the $1.07 billion the previous year. Would he tell the House what plans he has, if any, to attempt to narrow this gap, and if in fact the government intends to do anything in the near future to indicate it is not just paying lip service to this untapped industry?


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question, for I believe he has just pinpointed a very significant problem in Canada's tourist industry. When we managed to bring the deficit from $1.8 billion down to $1.07 billion in 1979, we were hoping we would be able to maintain that trend. Unfortunately, for various reasons our deficit went up from $1.07 billion to $1.2 billion in 1980.
What do we intend to do? Just as we committed ourselves in 1978 during consultations with the industry and the provinces, I am now busy preparing a tourism strategy in which we will attempt to spell out more precisely the provincial and federal jurisdictions. We will also try to obtain the necessary resources to shore up the statistical base of the tourist industry, and we will combine all provincial plans with the federal tourist industry plan in such a way that we will have a greater impact on foreign markets with a view to attracting an increasing number of foreign tourists to Canada.


ADVERTISING BY AIR CANADA OF UNITED STATES ATTRACTIONS
Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is to the same minister. In view of the tremendous need for a boost in this industry, which he has already acknowledged, would the minister tell us why Air Canada consistently advertises pictures of United States attractions on its schedules and why he does not encourage the use of Canadian scenes in its publications?
[ Translation]


Charles Lapointe: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for drawing that problem or that fact to my attention. I will make it a point to raise the issue with my colleague, the Minister of Transport, and also directly with the president of that corporation.
April 3, 1981


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.

In view of the new and tragic outburst of violence in Lebanon would the minister inform the House as to the status of Lebanese nationals in Canada, and consider making special provision either for extending their stay or, as I would prefer, receiving applications from them for immigrant status?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, as it happens, just about four or five days ago I met with the Lebanese ambassador. As the hon. member knows, in the past we applied special measures to that country when there was serious civil strife. I want to have a further meeting with the Lebanese ambassador, with the cooperation of my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to discuss what measures could be taken. We would certainly not in any way want to have somebody return to a situation in which there would be any danger or serious disruption, so we are again prepared to consider special measures for Lebanese nationals in Canada. I would want to discuss that first with my colleague and the Lebanese ambassador, and then I would be prepared to make a formal announcement in the House.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Canadian General Electric announced earlier this year the closure of the distribution section of its Davenport complex. It claimed at the time that it could not compete in the oil-filled transformer business. I understand that CGE now has an application before FIRA to allow it to purchase Federal Pioneer Electric in Winnipeg which is also in the oil-filled transformer business. What action will the minister take to guarantee that FIRA is made aware of the fact that, at the time it is faced with a decision on the purchase, CGE is closing down similar operations in Toronto?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, I will ensure that this information is before the officials and will be taken into account by the cabinet in reaching a final decision on this matter.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, at the time this matter is being considered by FIRA and subsequently by cabinet, will the minister also take into account the fact that the vast majority of employees in the Toronto plant have over 20 years'
Oral Questions
seniority? They range in age between 50 and 60, and they stand to lose their supplemental pension benefits if the proposed purchase and subsequent closure are allowed. And will the minister make sure the CGE guarantees no loss of over-all employment as a result of any action by FIRA?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, discussions are continuing on these matters and I can assure my hon. friend that the employment implications will be a very important priority aspect of consideration and decision.


FISHERIES
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I acknowledge and thank the minister for the meeting I had with him a few days ago. I want to ask him whether he has anything to report about the matters we discussed which involved the maintenance and licensing affairs of fishermen along Northumberland Strait. I am receiving urgent requests from several small communities along Northumberland Strait for maintenance and repairs, and reports that small craft and harbours people do not have sufficient funds to carry out the needed repairs at this time. Does he have anything to report?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, the conversation on the sites which the hon. member asked me to check was followed up by officials looking at the plans for the area. I suspect some sites may already have been visited. I have had no further reports, but I will obviously ask for an update.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, would the minister consider checking with his colleague, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, and getting his support to see if more moneys can be allocated or obtained from Treasury Board for small craft and harbours which provide a very great economic impetus, as the minister knows, in an area where not only repairs are needed but jobs are needed as well?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I do not want to be partisan with the hon. member who never is himself. But the fact is that the budget was increased by about one third when the new government took office a year ago. The small craft harbours budget was increased by $10 million, from a budget of $26.5 million to $36.5 million. On the whole, I think we have been doing quite good work. The problem is that inflation is catching up with us, as it is with everybody else.
Large projects like Steveston in British Columbia, or some projects in the riding of the hon. member for South Shore, are becoming very expensive. The budget is stretched, but we will

April 3, 1981
Oral Questions
try to do what we can, using Canada Works or anything; I will beg and steal from everybody to give fishermen facilities.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Just beg.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. In reply to a question which I put to him on March 30, he mentioned that he had not read the Taschereau papers. I hope, nonetheless, he has read the Taschereau report which would give him an indication that there was more than one spy ring active in Canada at that time. Could the minister let us know whether there have been inquiries into the other spy rings that were identified but the membership of which was not all that clear at the time?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, I will take notice of the question, look into it, and be prepared to report to the member.


Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, while he is doing that, I wonder if the minister would ensure that he inquires into certain current stories that there was a stoppage of inquiries into some of these rings effected by the public service. Would he be able to identify those members of the public service who caused the inquiries to be interrupted, in fact stopped?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I will look and see if there is any truth at all to those allegations and whether any statement can be made about them.


FISHERIES
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The hon. minister has announced that commercial salmon fishing in New Brunswick, which has been banned since 1972, will once again be authorized this year on a limited scale. I would like to know whether the hon. minister has undertaken negotiations with the province of Quebec so that commercial salmon fishing can be authorized in the Gaspe peninsula in 1981?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, we announced several months ago that the ban which has been applied since 1972 or 1973 would be lifted in 1981, which is what we have done. No compensation has been provided for the fishermen for 1981 since they received compensation for nine years.
As for the decision in Quebec, this decision comes under the jurisdiction of the province of Quebec in accordance with the 1922 agreement on fisheries administration. I was to meet the Quebec minister a few months ago, but this meeting did not take place as he was ill at the time. I offered to see him in Ottawa, but I believe that the events currently taking place in Quebec might have something to do with his inability to come. In any case, I have not been able to meet with Mr. Lessard, who is the minister responsible for sport fishing. After the election in Quebec, the new government will have to decide what it wants to do. For our part, we have not provided any compensation for 1981, and we believe that salmon fishing could be restricted in the east coast waters.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. I would ask the minister whether situations exist where firms located outside the province of Quebec would be excluded from an invitation to submit a tender or a proposal in any area of supply and services which is purchased for use in that province by the federal government?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, I can advise the hon. member that no regional preferences are given. The whole process of procurement is through an invitation to tender process. We rely on sourcing lists. From time to time a decision may be made to source from within the region which is close to where the goods may be consumed as a result of our regionalization policy, but I can assure the hon. member that there is no exclusionary rule.


QUERY RESPECTING JANITORIAL SUPPLIES
John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. Would he take a look at a request which came out of his department which required janitorial supplies for all regions of the country, excluding Quebec? Would the minister indicate whether requirements for that province will be handled by a future tender call to all of Canada?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, I will take note of the hon. gentleman's question. I might point out to him that we have adopted a policy of regionalization. As a result of that policy, 90 per cent of our
April 3, 1981

procurement for given government departments in given areas is secured from sources of supply within those given areas. But I will take a look at the representations and the facts the hon. member brought to my attention, and report to him.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In view of the fact that Toronto Board of Education officials have been saying for years that thousands of children of illegal immigrant parents are forced to live a life of fear in hiding and that these same children are unable to receive any education or health care services for fear of the families being identified and deported, would the minister clarify to the House what steps he is taking to remedy this undesirable situation? What steps does he intend to take to stop the increase of this illegal population in Canada?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, that is a very extensive question. I am not sure I can supply a full answer in this time period. But I indicate to the hon. member that the responsibility for children first resides with the parents of those children. We have established a very open and very compassionate immigration law which sets out proper procedures by which people can come to Canada. Our record is second to none in the world in providing a very open invitation and welcome. However, many people come here illegally and we provide some response to them in a compassionate way. We cannot in any way break the standards of those laws, because it would be unfair to those in other countries who are abiding by the law. It is my responsibility to ensure that the law is respected.
We have established a task force to look at improvements in the procedures of that law to ensure that it works properly, but at the same time the responsibility for the children really resides with the parents themselves. The best we can do is to ensure that they make application in a legal manner and do not come here in an illegal fashion.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Trade.


Mr. Clark:: Who is he?


Jack Burnett Murta: He is the Minister of State for Trade.


An hon. Member:: This must be his maiden question.
Petition


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Burnett Murta: I trust his answer will be as good as his reception on that side of the House. Back in December the Canadian Manufacturers Housing Institute, which represents manufactured home builders across the country, made application to supply some 10,000 manufactured homes to earthquake victims in Italy. The cost of the contract is about $100 million, and 99 per cent of it-virtually all of it-is Canadian-owned. They are a little upset because they have not received what they considered to be the proper backing of the federal government with respect to the making of the contract itself. Can the minister inform the House whether or not the government is, in fact, working with these people to ascertain whether this kind of very vital contract could be secured by the manufacturers of manufactured homes?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of State (Trade)):: Madam Speaker, I am very well aware of this particular situation. Our officials here in Ottawa, as well as those at our post in Italy, made representation to the Italian government at the time of the request of the Canadian industry. Unfortunately, at the time, the Italian authorities indicated that they wanted to manufacture many of the homes in Italy. They indicated that they were not specifically interested in buying pre-fab, manufactured units here in Canada. However, representations are still being made along this line.


Jack Burnett Murta: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. In view of his answer, which seems pretty pessimistic, and also in view of the fact that we could be talking about an amount of $100 million, if we were able to get into that particular market, is the minister optimistic that the chances are still reasonably good for manufactured Canadian housing to be sold to Italy?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, as a very positive-thinking individual I am always optimistic about Canada's chances in international markets. But I think some further discussion with respect to possible joint ventures with Italian manufacturing companies in Italy would be more appropriate than selling the finished product from Canada.


PETITION
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the forthy-fifth report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.

April 3, 1981
Privilege


PRIVILEGE
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, I rise in the interests of saving the time of the House. As we know, negotiations are under way between the government and the New Democratic Party, although our House leader has not yet been notified of the time of the next meeting.
There are a number of questions of privilege on the order paper, notices of which have been filed with the Chair. As you are aware, Madam Speaker, I have had consultation with the Clerk and notices of questions of privilege have been filed by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman), the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens), the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby), the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt), the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) and the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay).
In the interest of giving the negotiations every possibility of succeeding, and without prejudicing them, I have approached each of these members, with the knowledge of the Clerk, and requested that they defer their questions of privilege without prejudice to their bringing the questions before the House at a later time and without further notice.
I have not yet had the opportunity to speak with the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville; he is absent from the House, as will be noted. Nor have I spoken with the hon. member for Fraser Valley West, or the hon. member for Edmonton West, both of whom are out of Ottawa. I have spoken with all other hon. members whose names were provided to me by the Clerk and they have asked that their questions of privilege be deferred, without prejudice to the questions being brought before Your Honour at a later time.
I rise to make this statement on their behalf. It would also perhaps assist the business of the day if any other hon. members who may have questions of privilege arising out of today's proceedings were to defer those questions until Monday and if they would notify the Chair of any such intentions which might exist.


Madam Speaker:: I can assure the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) that those hon. members who deferred their questions of privilege will be heard on Monday, or at a time when they are in the House. Their notices stand. Since negotiations did take place between the members I can accept the hon. member's representations.
With respect to those members who are not in the House, I will have to renew the notices. I am not sure what the rules say on this particular point. I can give assurances to those members who have agreed to defer their questions that they will be heard later.


Walter David Baker: As House leader for the Conservative party, might I ask Your Honour to give the same
assurance with respect to those hon. members who are not in the House today? I undertake to do the canvassing and I will report directly to you, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: Yes. Those hon. members might have heard that questions of privilege were being deferred and perhaps they decided that theirs would be as well. I can accept what the hon. member asks with respect to the other three hon. members.


POINTS OF ORDER
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to a different matter. During the presenting of motions under Standing Order 43 earlier this morning, the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis), in referring to a motion made yesterday by my colleague, the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly), used the word "scurrilous."
On Thursday, March 26, I used that word. The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) both complained and said that I should not have used that word and should withdraw it. As Your Honour will recall, I was co-operative. I wasted no time and I withdrew it.
I am surprised that the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton and the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta were not on their feet complaining about their colleague's use of the word. If it was unparliamentary for me to use that word, I submit it is also unparliamentary for a Tory to use it.


Madam Speaker:: I want to apologize to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and to the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly). I thought I heard that word used today. I asked the clerks to ascertain whether they had heard it, and they were in doubt as well. But since the hon. member raises this issue, and since the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis) is in the House, I think he would want to put the record straight and substitute another word.


John Raymond Ellis: Madam Speaker, of course I did not look at the list of unparliamentary words in moving my motion under Standing Order 43. I wanted to use the strongest word possible. I withdraw the word if it is inappropriate and substitute the word "disgusting", or some other equally strong word.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, I rise on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I know that he is a man of precision and that he would like the record to be accurate. I would point out to him and to Your Honour
April 3, 1981

that he never did withdraw the word "scurrilous". He said that he would if Madam Speaker asked him to do so, but since, in your graciousness, you did not really compel him, he never did withdraw it.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre did withdraw the word, and he replaced it with another.


Mr. Manly:: Madam Speaker, I wish to reserve my right to raise a question of privilege on Monday with respect to the motion proposed under Standing Order 43, by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member can send me a written notice of his question of privilege, informing me of what it is about.


MR. McCAIN-RESPONSE OF MR. AXWORTHY DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Fred Alward McCain: Madam Speaker, my point of order is this. I do not think the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) intended to mislead anybody, but the information he gave in his answer is somewhat confusing. For instance, the ministerial advisory board can only deal with the subject matter put before it. However, I wish to discuss misleading answers-


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry. The fact that an hon. member is not satisfied with an answer, thinks that it is incomplete or might be misleading in some way does not form the basis of a question of privilege. If an hon. member wants clarification of a matter, he can come back in the House and ask a question of the minister, but it certainly does not constitute the basis of a question of privilege.


Fred Alward McCain: Madam Speaker, hon. members have been charged by the minister with a responsibility which is not, in fact, theirs, namely the responsibility of advising everyone in the constituency who might wish to apply for assistance under a government program that such a program exists. I submit that while hon. members do their level best to advise everyone in their constituency of any program which is in existence, it is always supplemented by advertising, and it is very misleading to lay the onus-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The reason I cannot accept the hon. member's question of privilege is that I would have to make a judgment on the quality of the answer which was given by the hon. minister. When answers to questions are not satisfactory to hon. members, they do have recourse. They can seek clarification during the question period or at some other time.
[ Translation]


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam Speaker, if I understand correctly, your policy concerning questions of privilege applies to all hon. members and, in this case, will my question be deferred as well?
Order Paper Questions


Madam Speaker:: Of course. If the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier wishes to defer his question of privilege, I will give him the same opportunity to raise it at another time.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,642, 2,067, 2,091, 2,133, 2,205, 2,206, 2,207 and 2,209.
I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Herbert: What was the value of Quebec imports and exports with (a) the Atlantic provinces (b) Ontario (c) the prairie provinces (d) British Columbia (e) the territories (f) foreign countries, for the year 1979 or the latest year for which such information is available?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Statistics Canada reports that there is no comprehensive set of data available at this time on the value of Quebec imports and exports by region of Canada and the rest of the world. Administrative systems have not been designed to capture interprovincial trade data, nor are provinces identified in international trade statistics. The provincial economic accounts published by Statistics Canada estimates the aggregate provincial net export as a residual and sheds no light on interprovincial import/export. A project initiated in May, 1979, to estimate commodity detail of provincial trade holds promise of supplying interprovincial trade data, but results are not yet available. Some information of oblique pertinence to the question is implicit in the 1967, 1974 and 1979 surveys of origin and destination of manufacturers shipments in transportation surveys. But the analysis needed to focus this information onto the particular question is not available and would be complex.


Mr. Cossitt: Does the government intend to sell 78,000 acres of land adjacent to the Mirabel Airport and, if so (a) was the land originally purchased by the government along with other land for the airport (b) what was the total cost that was paid by the government for the land that it now plans to sell including all acquisition costs of any kind (c) what is the net estimated or budgeted figure expected to be recovered by the government from the sale of the land (d) on what date will the sale begin and what restrictions, if any, will be placed on the use of the land by purchasers?
8950

April 3, 1981
Order Paper Questions


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: The Minister of Public Works Canada announced on February 3, 1981, that 78,000 acres of land adjacent to the Mirabel Airport would be disposed of by the federal government. Some lands will be sold, others will be leased.
(a)	The 78,000 acres was acquired by expropriation on March 27, 1969, along with the other land for the airport operational area.
(b)	Total cost for the 78,000 acres was approximately $120 million.
(c)	There is no estimated or budgeted figure at this time.
(d)	A plan of action for the disposition is being prepared which will include an analysis of the restrictions that may be required.


Mr. McKinnon: Did the Department of National Defence place a contract for $23,541 with the University of British Columbia to develop a life quality improvement program data bank and, if so, what exactly is the life quality improvement program and what is the purpose of the data bank?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: On December 29, 1980, the Department of Supply and Services awarded a contract to the University of British Columbia on behalf of the Department of National Defence for the investigation into the development of a Life Quality Improvement Program (LQIP) Data Bank for $23,541.00. The Life Quality Improvement Program is a preventive medicine program designed to shift emphasis from costly diagnosis and cure of disease to the hopefully more cost-effective identification and reduction of health risks for a given population. The purpose of the data bank is to integrate accumulated results from divergent sources including departmental fitness programs, smoking cessation research and lifestyle patterning research at various Canadian universities and government agencies.


Mr. Lambert: 1.	In the four western provinces, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, what Canadian Forces Bases are manned by ground elements personnel and which units are located at such bases?
2.	Which units are on station and which units are in service elsewhere?
3.	What is the establishment strength of all ground element forces in western Canada, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories?
4.	What are the actual strengths as at February 1, 1981?


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1. Canadian Forces Bases are no longer exclusively manned by one element or another. However, there is frequently a predominance of one element or another depending on the functional command to which the
base belongs (i.e. Maritime, Mobile or Air Command). In providing the following data it is to be noted that maritime, land or air elements are predominating rather than exclusive on the bases so annotated.
Canadian Forces Base Element CFB Winnipeg, Man. Air
CFB Shilo, Man. Land
CFB Calgary, Alta. Land
CFB Edmonton, Alta. Air CFB Suffield, Alta. Land CFB Chilliwack, B.C. Land CFB Esquimalt, B.C. Maritime
Land Element Units
2nd Bn Princess Patricia's Light
Infantry (2 PPCLI)
3rd Regt Royal Canadian Horse Artillery (3 RCHA)
1 Canadian Brigade Group Headquarters and Signal Squadron (1 CBG HQ ANDSIGS)
1st Bn Princess Patricia's Light Infantry (1 PPCLI)
1 Service Battalion (1 SVC BN)
Lord Strathcona's Horse (LDSH (RC)) 1 Military Policy Platoon (1 MP Platoon)
1 Field Ambulance (1 FD AMB)
Detachment at Wainwright, Alta.
(DET Wainwright)
Canadian Airborne Centre (CABC)
1 Combat Engineer Regt (1 CER)
3rd Bn Princess Patricia's Light Infantry (3 PPCLI)
2. All above units are in their home garrisons at present. 3 and 4.
	Establishment	Strength
	Strength	Feb 1,81
2 PPCLI	599	4713 RCHA	479	3821 PPCLI	603	5161 SVC BN	727	652LDSH (RC)	357	3051 CBG HO ANDSIGS	266	2401 MP Platoon	35	331 FD AMB	135	111CABC	69	63DET Wainwright	167	154CFB Suffield	31	301 CER	286	2523 PPCLI	599	479CFB Calgary	162	143CFB Shilo	329	3164844	4147


Mr. Herbert: How many persons are employed by the Department of the Secretary of State for the translation of Hansard, parliamentary documents and translation service for members of Parliament?


Hon. Francis Fox (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: As of March 12, 1981, 30 translators or revisers are employed by the Department of the Secretary of State for the translation of Hansard, and 34 for the translation
April 3, 1981

of parliamentary documents and translation service for members.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	How many persons are employed by the Department of the Secretary of State for interpretation work and are they divided between the House of Commons, the Senate and committee work?
2.	How many are for (a) official language (b) multilingual interpretation?


Francis Fox: 1. As of March 12, 1981, 77 persons are employed by the Department of the Secretary of State for interpretation; of these, 12 are assigned to House of Commons and Senate work, and 29 translator-interpreters and reviser-interpreters are assigned to committee work.
2. (a) Interpreters in the official languages number 72
(b) The number of interpreters in the multilingual section is 5.


Mr. Herbert: How many persons are employed by the Department of the Secretary of State for the translation of Committee Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence?


Francis Fox: The number of persons employed by the Department of the Secretary of State for the translation of Committee Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence is 33.


Mr. Herbert: What was the amount of the lapse in expenditure authority in each of the past five years and what is the amount estimated for the current year?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: The actual lapse of expenditure authority over the last five years and the estimate of the lapse in the current year are provided in the table below:
$ millions
1975-	76	1,2701976-	77	1,9541977-	78	2,2081978-	79	1,4961979-	80	1,2761980-	81	946	(estimated)
The apparent reduction in the magnitude of the lapse in 1978-79 and 1979-80 is attributable to the fact that final authority for spending in each year was derived from Governor-General's Warrants, as Parliament was not in session. The reduced estimate of the lapse in 1980-81 is due to the anticipated impact of the introduction of the pay-at-year-end method of accounting.
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82
[ Translation]


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, March 20, consideration of Bill C-59, to provide supplementary borrowing authority, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and on the motion of Mr. Blenkarn (p. 8463).
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. Evans) take his seat. I was afraid I would be speaking in the absence of someone representing that department today. When we were last in this House, we were talking about a juggling act, and I am very impressed with the act being performed by this government.
The day this debate was cut off, the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) referred to our desire to eliminate increased expenditure on social programs. The reason increases are required is that this government's spending programs are out of control, and inflation causes increased spending.


An hon. Member:: Ridiculous.


Thomas Scott Fennell: We are not against social programs, but we are against increased government spending. This government is perpetrating a continuous fraud on the Canadian public. This fraud would not be permitted in any other part of the world. If the government was a corporation, the board of directors would be thrown out. In other democracies the government would be thrown out. That is what should be done.
This government has the nerve to come before this House and ask for $14 billion. It already has $4.8 billion in the bank. That would give it a total of $18.8 billion. It is bad enough that it anticipates a deficit of $14 billion, but now it says that it will have to borrow $18.8 billion to keep this country afloat.
I am not surprised the government was wrong about inflation. It is like shooting a gun into the sky. This government is an absolute glutton pretending to be on a diet.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Scott Fennell: It has absolutely no respect for the taxpayers of this country. It is the money of the taxpayers which the

April 3, 1981
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82 government is spending, not the government's. It has not earned it.
In view of this hoard of money which is sitting in the Bank of Canada, it is my opinion that the government should reconsider its request to this Parliament and that our party should reconsider our amendment. We should not even allow it to have $8 billion; we should cut the amount down to $3.2 billion. We should make the government consider how it will spend the money before it squanders it on our behalf.
Every time the government borrows excess funds-which it is doing right now-it destroys the opportunity for industry to raise funds at reasonable rates. It destroys the housing industry. People cannot afford to pay the interest on mortgages. It eliminates the possibility for Canadians to become home owners, which is their one great dream.
Government borrowing creates inflation which is erasing the value of the savings of senior citizens. This is referred to in the pensions conference which is taking place. The government will index that next. The only reason for indexing is that this government knows how to throw its money away.
In our opinion, this government is totally inept and incompetent. This is very clearly exemplified in this bill. Its ineptness is also clearly shown in the energy program which has been presented and which it will now hopefully have to backtrack on.
The government cannot throw the blame for having to borrow this money on to us because we were only in government for nine months. It is necessitated by a series of incompetent budgets presented by the Liberal government since 1968. In those budgets and in its requests for funds, it has never requested funds to help industry. It only borrows funds to spend. What are we doing for industrial development in this country? What has the government done in 13 years? Nothing. Does the government realize that at current rates of interest, without any additional borrowing, if it stopped today and said that it would not borrow any more money, our debt would amount to $200 billion by 1986? That would be the result if we voted in this House not to permit any further borrowing; our debt would still be $200 billion. That is assuming there were no additional deficits and that the government did not require any money. That is assuming the interest rate, which is now in place because of this inflationary spiral, continues.
Furthermore, does the government realize that by 1986-is less than five years away-the interest to carry this debt will amount to $1,000 for each man, woman and child in this country? Let us assume that an average Canadian family consists of 3.5 people, a mother and father and 1.5 children. Assuming that, the amount of $3,500 has to be brought home by the wage earner just for the government to pay the bill. That is assuming we have a balanced budget and that we are not carrying on with this throw-away program with which the government has been doing so well. I plead with the government to stop coming back to the trough. We are destroying ourselves and our country. We must stop doing that and we
must stop now. We have run out of goodwill overseas. Where do we go next to borrow money if we are turned down?
The government keeps borrowing additional sums to buy up private corporations. Do hon. members realize that every time a private corporation is purchased a taxpayer is eliminated? Once a company becomes a Crown corporation, it does not earn any money. That is why we are borrowing more money- to buy corporations that can become non-profit organizations. Such a procedure erodes our tax base. It erodes the chance for this country to have a balanced budget.
I maintain it is time for the government to stop borrowing money and start to encourage the private sector instead. Productivity should be increased, and this will result in increased revenue, eliminating the need to borrow money. If a corporation were to carry on in this way, it would go broke. A good example is Chrysler. The government had to bail out Chrysler. That was just another example of throwing money away. In the case of Massey-Ferguson, which kept borrowing too much money, again the government had to bail the company out. But let me ask hon. members this: Who is going to bail out the government?


Mr. Malone:: The citizens.


Thomas Scott Fennell: If the government would be reasonable with its energy program and let the price of oil go to 75 per cent of world prices, levy a logical tax on oil instead of the Mickey Mouse taxes the government keeps pushing around, we would have revenues accruing to the government. This would eliminate the necessity to borrow more money. The government has this grandiose economic idea that it does not matter how much money we borrow because we can carry on. The government has no desire to restrict expenditures. It does nothing to earn money. The government has never tried to earn money, nor has it ever tried to save money. The government just likes to spend money.


Mr. Taylor:: Other people's money.


Thomas Scott Fennell: A good example, again concerning energy, is that the government has encouraged Canadians to continue to buy gas guzzlers. As a result, Canadian manufacturers have not made small vehicles. No one wanted them. Then all of a sudden, who got caught with their pants down? The government did. I will acknowledge that. However, if the government had faced reality in 1973, the auto industry today would be healthy. Chrysler would not be in the position of having to be bailed out. If the government had allowed the logical sequence to occur, then all the gas guzzlers would have hit the scrapyards and we would be driving cars we hope we will see by 1986. The only reason small cars will be manufactured in this country is that our friends to the south of us had enough sense to realize it is the only way to eliminate excessive use of gasoline.


Mr. Smith:: What kind of a car do you drive?
April 3, 1981


Thomas Scott Fennell: I drive a very economical car. It is called an Omni. There is a plant in my constituency that produces Omnis. Because the Americans will accept world prices for gasoline by 1983-1984, this will have an impact on the cars we buy. It will help production of our cars. But what have we done for ourselves? We have done absolutely nothing.
The government keeps boasting about the employment it has created in Canada. The government has not created any additional employment. It employs many people, and every time the government employs additional people, Mr. Speaker, it simply increases our deficit. This is not productive. It does not produce cars, nor does it produce wheat. It does not produce anything except a bunch of bureaucratic servants in Ottawa.
I suggest that this government should be innovative. It should start an exchange program for civil servants. It should send those people out to the private sector, so long as the private sector can stand them. The government should send these people out to the private sector for two years. They may then learn by experience and by being exposed to the private sector how hard it is to make a buck. These people may then reconsider their free-wheeling, give-away programs. I come from the private sector and I can say I have been successful, but I had to work hard. I would love to employ a civil servant and let him know what it really means to make money and how hard it is to make it. He will then understand that he should not be quite so free in giving money away. What the government is doing is immoral. The government is taking money right out of the Canadian people's pockets. It is not taking it from welfare recipients or from people who do not want to work; it is taking it out of the guts of Canadians, those people who pay the bills.
Many times in this House I have compared the Canadian small business program with the American small business program. What have we done to face the industrial problem in this country? Why do we not plagiarize something that is beneficial? The small business program in the United States has worked well. Small industries are growing throughout small towns in the United States. Why does the government not look at what the United States has done? If the government brought forward a borrowing bill in that regard, I would support it wholeheartedly. I would be behind the government and would do everything to encourage it. I would find people who would be interested in entering the manufacturing sector of Canada. We should stop exporting our raw materials. I would be one hundred per cent behind the government if it did that, and I think hon. members can appreciate that. This is a way to get the country moving. I tell the government to stop purchasing the private sector now. Let the private sector carry on by itself. The private sector can look after itself.
Free enterprise is the right to win and the right to lose. I do not believe we should subsidize free enterprise. Although I believe we should help free enterprise, I do not necessarily agree with what this country has done in the past. Free enterprisers should either swing and be successful or they should fail. But the government must not carry on subsidizing
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82
or purchasing private industry. Whenever the government purchases private enterprise, all it is doing is putting money in other people's pockets. In a most recent case, many Belgians will become very rich from our great endeavour in broadening the base of Petro-Canada.
The government should take a good look at what has happened. The government should be directing the way in foreign affairs and equalization. It should be looking after those people who are incapable of looking after themselves. But I say to the government, do not keep treading on everybody and eroding the base on which this country is built.
I am proud when Air Canada makes a profit, but Canadian Pacific has to make a profit or it will go out of business. If a Crown corporation cannot make a profit, I maintain it should be disbanded. I am talking about Crown corporations directly in competition with the private sector, not Crown corporations established from an essential or a security point of view. I say allow the private sector to operate in the real world. The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) stated, I believe in the last election campaign: "The gradual reduction of inflation and interest rates is the only viable solution to the problem." I support that statement wholeheartedly. I would ask him to read his statement again and put it into practice. This is where the problem must be attacked. The government's spending is out of control and he has not put a lid on it at this time. Do the government really know the consequences of the borrowing authority they are asking for? Do they really care, or is their only purpose to get through the next election?


Miss Nicholson:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will the hon. member permit a question?


Thomas Scott Fennell: When I am finished, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I just remind the hon. member it is his choice whether to accept or not accept the question. If he completes his time, I cannot allow a question after that.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, I planned to speak for 20 minutes. If I finish before that I will accept a question. I am trying to follow a theme. I spent time putting this together. If I do not have time, I will speak to the hon. member later.
How long will it be before the government come back again? Are they going to come back and ask for $18 billion? Are the government going to say they need more money because the foreign banks want their interest and they do not have the money to pay it? The only benefactors of this bill will be the foreign banks. This money will be exported out of the country in the same way that we export money to purchase oil, a resource we have in this country which could be developed today.
How many small Canadian businesses and factories will be able to get loans at reasonable interest rates when the government is sopping up the entire capital markets of this country? How many more factories will have to postpone retooling? All

April 3, 1981
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82
we hear is criticism about the productivity of our work force. The criticism should be directed toward this government, because factories cannot raise the money required to retool and thereby make the workers more productive. Tools are required as well as human beings.
How many more tax dollars will the Unemployment Insurance Commission have to pay out because of this government's greed? Instead of holding their nose, they should look past the end of it. When will Canadians get the long-term, economic planning they deserve?
I have used more than my nineteen and three quarters minutes. I appreciate it very much.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate, not because I am happy we are dealing with the bill but because I am happy to express some concerns I have about the way the government spends taxpayers' dollars.
To begin, I think it is fair to say that even including the constitutional debate, more people have raised with me the expenditure of tax dollars by the government and the heavy borrowing the government has now undertaken as a matter of course than any other single topic we have had before us in the last year and two months.
I know from canvassing my constituency, travelling around this province and across the country that a great deal of concern is being expressed, and rightly so, by the people of Canada about the future of this country, its economy and the way in which it is being managed or not managed, and the problems of an ever-increasing tax burden on average wage earners. The majority of people have put the case very well. You cannot expect the average wage earner to assume an ever-larger share of the indebtedness caused by government expenditure if his wages consistently fall behind the increasing cost of living.
That has been the case over the course of the last few years. People are earning less in comparison to the impact of inflation and the increasing cost of living. The government is contributing to the decline in disposable income of the average family in Canada as a result of the policy pursued through this bill and the policies it pursues in terms of its over-all economic strategy.
It is important that we give serious thought to the over-all effect of continuing this kind of carte blanche borrowing authority, given without any consideration being placed before the House of Commons as to the purpose and without any careful analysis having been made of the impact on the money markets and the economic growth of this country. I want to say categorically that economic growth cannot be maintained or enhanced by an ever-increasing debt load.
The government cannot and must not encourage unnecessary borrowing in the money markets. As government borrows ever-increasing larger sums of money from what is considered by most analysts a finite market, the end result is that the cost of money is driven up. It influences the availability of funds for small and not so small enterprises. It detrimentally affects the
capacity of wage earners to borrow for necessary purchases because the cost of borrowing goes beyond the ability of the average family to repay. No matter what your philosophy or ideology, there are some things that are true and irrefutable and therefore have to be given a great deal of consideration by the House of Commons.
In looking at this bill and the amendment before us we have to recognize, as I said last night, that this bill should not be dealt with in haste. It is far too important to be dealt with in isolation from all other economic considerations and in haste.
I personally believe that the government ought not to be given the amount of money it is asking for. That does not mean I do not understand the necessity to be able to borrow. However, I do not think the government needs, nor should it ask for, a full year's borrowing allowance from the House of Commons. The government should be prepared to come back to the House of Commons, at the bare minimum, every six months to justify both the expenditure levels and the amount of borrowing that must take place. The government must be prepared to come back and allow a more careful analysis of the economic conditions which exist at the time the borrowing is required in order that we can understand the way in which that money is to be used and the way in which we will budget over the course of time for its repayment.
I hate to argue this again as I argued it in another House at another time, but the government should not ask for 12 months' borrowing authority. Neither should it request that it be allowed to carry over unused borrowing powers. We should insist, as Members of Parliament charged with the responsibility of challenging the expenditures of government, that before any approval is given at any time the government should justify its request, not only in terms of use but also in terms of the way in which it will ultimately repay it.
I can see no fundamental justification for moving from $14 billion to $8 billion, so for that reason I am prepared to support the amendment. We should allow the government less latitude rather than more in the amount of indebtedness it incurs on behalf of the people of the country.
I also think it is a flagrant disregard of the obligations of parliamentarians to expect that we will at the early part of a fiscal year give the government the unfettered right to go out and borrow for whatever purpose it sees fit. I cannot support that as a principle which withstands the test of the process for which Parliament was intended to serve.
I have looked at the problems of borrowing. I have believed for years that we have unnecessarily encouraged indebtedness. Let us consider credit cards. My God, who does not have them? We have credit cards without any checks and balances which have permitted people to extend their borrowing far in excess of their ability to pay.


An hon. Member:: Even in Scotland.
April 3, 1981


Ian Deans: Even in Scotland? That was a very intelligent interjection. I thought the hon. member was saying something important.
The interesting thing about this is that because it is possible for an individual in the country to carry far more than one credit card with limits on each, and to borrow without any cross-reference, we have allowed and encouraged individual citizens to incur debts they frankly cannot afford. The end result of that we can see in every bankruptcy court across the country. We can see people being put into the position of declaring bankruptcy when up until a few years ago they would never have considered the possibility of being forced to do that.
For a long time I have felt that a person in this country requires but one credit card, if one is required at all. The spending limit, calculated on the basis of their indebtedness and obligations, should appear on the face of the credit card. With one phone call it would be possible to check whether a person had exceeded or was almost at the limit of his credit in order that he does not fall into the trap of borrowing beyond his means.
You cannot impose that on the public, even if it is decided that that is in their best interests, unless you are prepared to exercise the same kind of control, caution and care when the government borrows and commits the public of Canada to an ever-increasing tax burden to meet whatever the government decides are the expenditure priorities which fit its particular political mood at the time.
The end result of this kind of bill, which comes before the House of Commons and every legislative assembly almost every year-certainly I cannot think of a situation in which it does not occur-with the pressure this exerts on the money market and money markets of the world, is that others must pay ever higher interest rates. Those higher interest rates are reflected in higher prices and in higher domestic interest rates. Those higher prices and higher domestic interest rates reduce the amount of expendable capital. That reduction in the amount of expendable capital means a reduction in the manufacturing sector because of the reduction in the amount of purchasing which takes place. The end result of that, of course, is that fewer people are required to work. Manufacturers for a while carry a larger inventory, but the cost of carrying that inventory pushes prices up even further. The end result of all that is that there is less available capital in the country. What we see then is the government, because it cannot raise the money it believes it requires through the tax structure, going back to the market place to borrow even more, and the process starts all over again.
Therefore, what I am suggesting to the government, through you, Mr. Speaker, is that we desperately need an opportunity to take a look at the over-all fiscal and monetary policies of the government, and not only of this government. I might say that this is probably true of almost every jurisdiction in this country. I think it is necessary when dumping on the government, as it is the opposition's bent to do, to recognize that the government is allowed to get into these sloppy habits by a
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82
House of Commons which does not demand that it respond properly and adequately to the needs, desires, wishes and requirements, if you will, of the electorate, the people who must ultimately pay the bills.
We will not support the bill. We will support the amendment and I suggest the amendment should carry. I hope the government will pay heed to my plea that we not be required to give a full year's approval, but rather that we restrict it to six months at a time. I would respectfully ask the government to consider whether or not it will abandon its request to carry over the billions of dollars into the next fiscal year in the borrowing authority for which it is asking, and which its majority will undoubtedly get for it. I would ask the government to be more cautious and more prudent, to spend money as though it was its own rather than as though it was somebody else's, like the proverbial drunken sailor who never knows when to stop. That is what appears to be happening now and we cannot afford it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, talking about borrowing legislation is an all too frequent duty we perform in this House. It would now seem that almost every six months we are called upon as Members of Parliament to talk about the government borrowing more money.
While I will in the time at my disposal try to criticize this particular borrowing legislation, I want to make it clear it is not my opinion that the government should take the view that it necessarily would have to cut down its social and other programs which are of service to Canadians. It is fair to say, I think, that all the programs the government has today are not necessarily of service to Canadians and there is some trimming that can take place.
More importantly, this government has taken the view that it is able to pay for what is required only by taxation and by borrowing, without taking a look at the more important aspect, the generation of wealth in Canada. The very nature of the way the government borrows increases the tax burden on all Canadians.
In this legislation the government is requesting some $14 billion in borrowing authority, but its main estimates show legitimate requirements of only $11 billion. In other words, the government is setting aside an additional $3 billion for movie money, spillage or loose change, and that is not accounted for. That is something which this opposition, combined with members of the New Democratic Party, ought to be opposing. No one should be granting any government authority to go to the market to borrow money when it has not accounted for the need for it.
This government is asking that we as the Parliament of Canada authorize it to borrow money for which it has not indicated any requirement. Why should we be asked to do that? Why should we be asked to give this government money when the people of Canada do not know whether it will be

April 3, 1981
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82
used to promote the agricultural industry, industrial sales or Lord knows what? This money might be used to promote what might be, in the eyes of some, wasteful programs. The prime purpose behind the establishment of Parliament was control of the King's purse. The purpose of Parliament today is to control government expenditures, and I submit that this government has not really accounted for its expenditures in a justifiable way.
A review of the recent history of this government shows that we should be concerned about more than just today's bill, which may appear legitimate in isolation but is not. I believe in Hamlet a situation like this is described as mirrors facing mirrors-borrowing upon borrowing upon borrowing. In the last four years this government has borrowed some $40.1 billion. The projected deficits for the next four years, not counting this one, amount to an additional $51.8 billion. In other words, in the eight-year period beginning four years ago and projected four years into the future we will have borrowed some $100 billion. Canada has a population of 24 million people. A debt of $100 billion will be an albatross around the neck of Canadian society.
Today the government is asking for the authority to borrow $14 billion. It has indicated a need for only $11 billion. The government is asking for more than it requires, and it has not shown why it needs that extra money. For that reason alone the government ought not to be granted permission to borrow in the international market, because by its very nature that borrowing is a detriment to the Canadian citizen.
The truth of the matter is that of every $4 the Canadian taxpayer pays in tax, one of those dollars goes to pay interest on accumulated foreign debt. By adding another $3 billion to the required $11 billion in the main estimates as a spillage allowance just for unforeseen, unknown contingencies, the government is asking Canadian taxpayers to accept a greater tax burden. That militates against our balance of payments because it is an outflow of money. That outflow will increase taxes in our country but, more significantly, it reduces the rate of growth of wealth in the private sector of our nation. We could have all we have in this country plus more, but we must generate wealth by giving incentives to those people who use their imaginations to create.
This country is being run by a group of men and women who simply do not understand the scope and potential of the land. They do not have any understanding of money. They have the piggy-bank philosophy of people much younger than most of the people here.
During the past year the government chose to bail out Chrysler Corporation and Massey-Ferguson because they were unsuccessful, but the strongest and most successful industry in Canada at the time was the oil industry, which the government chose to nationalize. Through disincentives, the potential for some of the greatest employment and wealth opportunities not only for Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia but also Ontario, Quebec and the rest of Canada has been driven away. Two tar sands plants have been closed down because of the
inability of this government to recognize that oil is not found, as it were, in a lake underneath the ground.
Hon. members opposite do not understand the concept of a tertiary formation. They believe, falsely, that the only reason for requested oil price increases is the existence of OPEC. That is false and wrong. There are new capital costs involved in the production of oil in this country. We now have to wash rock with solvents in order to bring oil from under the ground to the surface. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) has been unable to come to an agreement on price, and that inability has stopped two tar sands projects.
I want to put on the record just what projects have been stopped. Many in this country think this government has hurt only Alberta, which it has. I come from that province and I know. However, I want hon. members opposite to know that they have also hurt very seriously the province of Ontario. The people of that province need jobs. In its 25-year lifetime one tar sands plant would put $108 billion into the Ontario economy through direct expenditure. This expenditure is on iron, steel, financing, trades and services. This expenditure is on the fabrication of machinery. The list goes on and on and adds up to direct expenditures of $108 billion in the province of Ontario.
This country is one of the few which has the luxury of being able to talk about energy self-sufficiency. We have that potential. To realize it we need eight tar sands plants. Something in excess of $800 billion could have been poured into Ontario in the next 25 years, but this government has embarked on a program to stop such progress and has let the citizens of central Canada blame the province of Alberta. According to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the people of Alberta will be rich beyond our wildest imagination.
Even if there were not direct expenditures in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec as a result of the development of the potential we have, indirect spending would put more money into the pockets of people in the Atlantic region, the north, the west and other regions, and they would do with that money what anyone would do. They would spend it. People would buy automobiles made in central Canada. They would buy clothing made in Quebec or Ontario. They would buy refrigerators, toasters and other appliances made in central Canada. Eighty per cent of newly generated wealth in any region circulates through the industrial basin within six months. There is no truth to the suggestion that if the regions get richer, the centre becomes poorer. That is false thinking. This government does not need to go to the international trough to borrow money because this land has the potential to create wealth to a degree which would be unimaginable to any other nation in the world. Fish and tin are the only resources Japan has, yet it has one of the best economies in the world.
We in this country want for nothing. We have agricultural lands, mineral wealth, forests, fresh waters and oceans. With all this we can create wealth. We do not need to go to the international market.
I see, sir, that it is one o'clock. You are probably hungry, so I will continue at 2 p.m.
April 3, 1981


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being one o'clock, and the occupant of the chair being hungry, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. At one o'clock when the House rose the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) had the floor.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, the first thing I want to do on one of the loveliest days that Ottawa has experienced in some time is to thank you, sir, for coming back. Spring is here in Ottawa.
Before one o'clock we were speaking on a most serious matter, the borrowing bill, in which the government is asking Parliament for authority to enter the international markets and borrow $14 billion to maintain its programs. As outlined, and I will not dwell on it, they indicate they need some $11 billion, yet there is a request for $14 billion. In short, they are asking Parliament to underwrite $3 billion for which they have not accounted. And that, sir, as I indicated before lunch, is wrong in principle.
Equally wrong is a country like Canada having to borrow in the first place, when we have the potential for tremendous generation of wealth. If we bear in mind that our gross national debt is now $120 billion, our biggest budgetary expense is the servicing of this debt. The greatest outflow of capital from Canada is not the multinational corporations, as some would have this Parliament believe; it is not somebody coming in from outside and taking our money away. The greatest outflow of capital from Canada is the money paid to service our foreign debt. And that debt hamstrings Canadians in their attempt to achieve the standard of living they deserve.
I believe, sir, it is somewhat difficult for the public to comprehend the magnitude of these numbers. We talk about borrowing $14 billion, and in this amendment we ask that that amount be reduced to some $8 billion, thereby giving the government a portion of what they ask for but also making them more accountable to us for their borrowing requirements. To put this in perspective, I remind those Canadians who have never seen $1 billion that a $1 bill is exactly six inches long, and if you place one billion of them end to end you will have a line stretching from Vancouver to Halifax two and half times. The amount this government seeks under closure is 35 ribbons of $1 bills stretching from Vancouver to Halifax, and this after only two days of debate and analysis. That, I submit, is the second thing that is wrong.
As I was saying before, what we in this nation ought to do is look to the wealth we can create. If we look at a country such as Japan with 110 million people, its only resources are fish and tin yet it has one of the strongest economies in the world.
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82
The Japanese are outstripping us in the automotive and electronic markets. Now they are outstripping us in the steel industry; they are producing as much steel as North America and almost as much as the European Common Market. On this little island of Japan, people have been given the incentive to work and have been encouraged to put their industries in place. It is a land with little resource; here we are with virtually everything.
The Japanese import their uranium, coal and oil for energy; they import their wood for whatever they might build. They do this at world prices, yet they are competitive in the automotive industry. We in Canada try to guard against natural increases in the prices of world commodities. Our automotive industry bought that line. Since 1971 the government has tried to pad the cushion. Now we are paying $240 million in guaranteed loans to the Chrysler Corporation because it is not adjusting to world conditions.
Our country needs to get back to a sound basis of economics which will allow us to go forward and make changes that adjust to the new conditions of our time, instead of having government interference. Instead of promoting the entrepreneurial minds of the nation, the government becomes the stumbling block which trips up the private sector.
Our country should not have to borrow. We should be making more than we are at the present time from tax revenues. We should have a much wealthier private sector because there is no nation in the world with resources as rich as ours.
I see Mr. Speaker giving me a victory signal. I appreciate that, but I want to indicate that the philosophy of this nation is doing an untold injustice to Canadians. As a citizen of this country and as a resident of Alberta, I want to share with all that it does not make sense to pour out of our nation nearly $4 billion every year for the purchase of offshore petroleum. This gives Canadians a terrible deal.
We are buying oil from Mexico. Some people think we are purchasing it at world price, but I submit that we are not. We are purchasing it at a price which is much higher than world price. Oil is not just oil. For example, Albertan oil is some of the highest quality oil in the world. Mexican oil is a Maya oil; it is heavy oil; it is sludge oil. In truth it is junk oil. It takes 1.5 barrels to 1.6 barrels of Mexican oil to make the equivalent amount of gasoline which would come from an Alberta barrel. We are not paying $38, $40 or $42 per barrel for Mexican oil because we are only getting a portion of the amount in gasoline. It could be argued that we are paying as high as $54 per barrel because of that conversion factor.
When we get the Mexican oil here, it cannot be refined as cheaply. The federal government tries to make the citizens of Canada believe that somehow it is looking after the centre, when the fact of the matter is that it is holding Canadians back and discriminating against them in many ways.
Before the luncheon break I mentioned the two tar sands plants which have been slowed down in Alberta. They would

April 3, 1981
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82
have generated wealth not only in Alberta but in Ontario as well. I should like to put on the record what one of those plants would have meant to the province of Ontario in terms of generating wealth. Out of the $108 billion in direct spending in the province of Ontario, $800 million would have been spent in iron and steel; $370 million would have been spent for metal fabrication and machinery; $325 million would have been spent for transportation equipment. I see Mr. Speaker is indicating that my time is up, but I would like to finish by saying that another $740 million would be spent in Ontario for manufacturing and processing and another $370 million for financing.
In conclusion, the country needs money, but borrowing is not the only way to get money. There are other methods; we can generate wealth within the country by encouraging our citizens. This is one of the greatest nations in the world. It has the potential, and we must excite our citizens to it. This is one of the lucky countries which has such potential.


Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Trade)):: Mr. Speaker, I had not planned on taking part in this debate, but what has happened in the House in recent weeks and the repeated delays responsible for the fact that we are only now studying a bill which should normally have been passed several days ago, have perhaps made me more aware of the issue concerning the borrowing authority of the government and the related question of successive budgetary deficits of the Canadian government.
No one likes deficits, Mr. Speaker. I am convinced that the Minister of Finance, or rather the Minister of State responsible for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) dislikes deficits as much as the financial manager of a big company or even the couple who, on going over its budget at the end of the month, realizes that it is in the red for a few dollars and will have to borrow money from the bank or another source.
However, Mr. Speaker, the fact is that this estimated deficit of $11 billion, which does not take into account any contingencies, has to be financed. This is necessary if we do not want or are not able to eliminate it completely. And when I speak of eliminating it completely, I mean immediately since the cash requirements of the government aim at meeting commitments that the House accepted in the past and has asked the government to see to it by administering certain programs. Unless we cut back drastically on these programs, the government needs sufficient funds to pay for them. The dilemna which we must therefore face, and this is the reason for today's debate, is that either we have the necessary amount in the treasury or else we do not have it. For the moment, we do not have it!
The second dilemma would be as follows; Either we administer the programs approved by the House itself in the past, or else we cut back on these programs. That is the second dilemma.
What are the facts finally? The facts are as follows: Considering the estimated revenue for the current fiscal year, we have additional cash requirements of $11 billion. Second, because of a certain number of contingencies in the Canadian economy, it might be possible and even desirable that these cash requirements be increased, and the government has provided for this purpose an additional borrowing authority of $3 billion. The government hopes that it will need less, but it could eventually need more. Let us suppose, for instance, that the world oil prices increase and that the compensation offered by the Canadian government increases proportionately. The reserve would melt away like snow in the sun.
These are the facts. The only thing that the government wants to do with this bill is not to approve or reapprove the programs already approved by this House, it is not to obtain a blank cheque to do as it pleases without taking into account any need to reassess some of the existing programs. Not at all! The only thing that the government is doing is to ask the House to provide the necessary funds to administer these programs.
If we, the members of this House, believe that some of these programs should be re-evaluated, that is fine. We only have to make suggestions. The opposition has during every session a number of allotted days during which it can suggest cutbacks to certain programs or any other action that it would like the government to take, and these issues are discussed and eventually voted on. This is the proper way to proceed.
Although some people say it is not enough, in its budget tabled last November the government itself set up a contingency plan in an effort to curb rising government expenditures. That is another possible and regular avenue since the government presents its budget and the House deals with it through the votes taken after the budget debate. But that is not what we are doing today, Mr. Speaker. The only thing we are doing today through this bill is simply to authorize the government to administer its programs and to have the funds to do so.
In the present conditions I find it somewhat difficult to understand why the opposition should be so dead set against this provision. I can see why a certain number of members would rise on both sides of the House to deplore the deficit and increasing government expenditures; that is normal and it is our duty; it is normal as well in the end that distress signals be flashed to spur the government into doing more to put the lid on its expenses, and I accept that. But when they resort to a filibuster to prevent the adoption of a measure which in the end will do nothing more than release funds or authorize borrowing so that the government will be able to administer the programs which we ourselves have adopted, I fail to see there anything so improper that they would force the government to invoke closure. I know that members opposite screamed themselves hoarse, as they are wont to do, when they heard we would bring in closure or time allocation for this measure. It is normal that the opposition should criticize when

a time allocation is slapped on a legislative measure. Indeed, I for one must admit that as a member I am always a bit reluctant every time I have to vote on such a motion. That is normal, I am a parliamentarian. On the other hand I sit on the government benches and I must always weigh the interests involved.
But in this case, Mr. Speaker, we are not dealing at all with a legislative measure which forces new programs upon the people, nor is it a legislative measure which will give the government a mandate to spend more than expected. It is nothing more than a piece of legislation which will enable the government-and I am saying this for the nth time-to administer programs that we have been approved in the House. Under the circumstances, once the distress signals have been sent out, once the deficit has been deplored and the government has been urged to get a handle on the deficit, we have no choice but to take the necessary steps to fulfil those wishes ourselves in the House. Earlier I suggested two ways to go about it, but in the meantime the government must have a free hand to administer those programs. It cannot administer without money.
Our financial requirements for 1981-82 amount to $11 billion. Members across the aisle have complained because the bill under study provides an additional $3 billion as a reserve. A number of speakers have explained why the government is seeking the approval of the House to borrow an additional $3 billion. Personally, I think that it is very wise on the part of the government to make sure in advance that it will be able to cope with unforeseen contingencies which might crop up, and experience has shown that year in and year out there are urgent situations in which we must act.
Besides, I remind my hon. colleagues that the bill in question also provides that, should the amounts required by the government to finance its programs by any chance not reach the $3 billion involved here, the carryover to the next year would be reduced or limited to the $3 billion requested as a reserve. So, there is no danger, as far as the House is concerned, that the government be given a blank cheque to spend as much as it wants, whether it be four, five or six billion dollars in the following year that would not have been approved here. The maximum amount is set at $3 million regardless of what amounts the government might need.
Under the circumstances, I find even more difficult to understand that some hon. members should have suggested that the government be given an amount of only four or five billion dollars, some even spoke of eight billion dollars, to face estimated expenditures of some $11 billion. I fail to understand the rationale behind that proposal. That the hon. members should suggest the use of parliamentary or administrative procedures to eliminate our deficit, I could understand, but the debate in progress in the House at this point has nothing to do with that. The bill before us only provides the government with the amounts requested.
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82
May I be allowed to digress for a moment, Mr. Speaker: when there is a deficit as large as it is now-and under our Constitution the Canadian government is responsible, in the final analysis, for fiscal and monetary policies-and when we see that provincial entities, our provincial partners and their administrations, including municipal administrations, represent over 60 per cent of all government expenditures in Canada, I wonder whether it might not be timely to re-examine seriously the traditional mechanisms for formulating both fiscal and monetary policies.
I know that, traditionally, the Minister of Finance plans his policies together with his advisers on the basis of economic requirements at a given time, and that nothing is supposed to transpire from those discussions, deliberations, cogitations, until eight o'clock on the night when he brings down his budget. I also remember that a minister of finance, the present Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development (Mr. Chretien) innovated when time came for him to bring down his budget; I believe it was in 1977, and he consulted his provincial counterparts.
Unfortunately, the results were not exactly what had been hoped for: some wrangling followed those consultations, but that is another story. The fact remains that, to my mind, it would be advisable to give serious thought to the process by which the fiscal and monetary policies are implemented with a view to having greater input from the provinces as partners, who represent, if only as far as budgetary matters are concerned, an element of prime importance in government spending in Canada, and whose impact on the economy and interprovincial trade is such that they cannot be ignored when government policies are formulated.
How should we go about it? I think that at the institutional level, we may not have at present the necessary machinery to set up that kind of consultations. Several proposals have been made by various groups to the effect that the Canadian Parliament make of an institution of either House, probably the Upper House or an altered Upper House, a forum where provincial governments could be heard on fiscal and monetary matters.
Such a huge deficit makes you ponder, and I suggest to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of State for Finance that they make overtures to their provincial counterparts, urging them to take a more active part at the consultation and concentration levels, and even perhaps at the decision-making level eventually, in drawing up the fiscal and monetary policies. My comments are perhaps somewhat irrelevant, but since you have allowed other members to stray from the subject, I think you will allow me a last digression.
The last point I should like to emphasize about this measure relates to the so-called draining of funds-that is the allegation made by some hon. members of the opposition-from the capital market in Canada. On March 20 last, the Minister of State for Finance gave some figures which clearly showed-

April 3, 1981
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82 and I think one had to be blind to ignore them-that the capital market is healthy, thank you, Mr. Speaker, that in spite of such borrowings by the Government of Canada and of provincial and municipal governments, and even by all three levels of government, private financing in Canada has increased considerably in the last few years, on the bond market and on the stock market. I am not concerned about that so-called draining of funds. For the next 20 years, until the year 2000, investments of $500 million have been mentioned in the energy industry alone to develop our energy potential.
I am simply trying to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that the additional $3 billion requested by the Government of Canada are not going to change the general picture very much. And as for the distress signals sent by the Progressive Conservative members regarding this so-called draining of funds, I am still waiting to hear them from the main economic agents which should normally be the first to complain about this borrowing authority given to the Government of Canada.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, if there are problems of a philosophical, methodological or organizational nature with governmental programs, let us discuss them. Let there be proposals to abolish a number of them, to reduce, amend or review some others, But such is not the purpose of this bill. The purpose of this bill is to provide the government with the tools it needs to administer the country. So let us allow it to run the country, Mr. Speaker.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some comments on this borrowing authority bill. First, we should take a look at why we are in this mess. Why do we have such a debt? Why are we borrowing so much money? Actually, it is the direct responsibility of successive Liberal governments. This goes back to 1968 when it rammed through the House under closure a measure to remove proper control and examination of government expenditures. Since then we have lost all control. Its only solution to any problem is either to print and spend more money, or to borrow more money. This has nothing to do with the Conservative Party; we opposed that measure in 1968.
I have listened to these Liberal members say that we should simply rubber stamp this measure, but I cannot accept that because I have not received any mail or communication from any of my constituents or anyone in the Greater Winnipeg area or Manitoba area which shows support for anything that this government is doing. Therefore, we are fully justified in criticizing the government, and it is legitimate criticism. The actions of the government over the years have put us into this mess. It is not something which it inherited or which simply happened.
I suggest that more of government members should read the Auditor General's report and the Lambert Commission report, and then they would understand what I am talking about. The
previous Liberal speaker said that some of the provinces are in debt too, that they are borrowing, and perhaps we should meet with them to discuss mutual problems. We had that in mind, and the Conservative government had an item on the agenda of the First ministers' conference on December 15, 1979-that is, two days after it was defeated-to discuss duplication between the provincial and federal governments. That would have been a real and genuine start to eliminate duplication between the two levels of government. I am sure that would have saved untold millions. However, I do not see any suggestions from this government about getting together with the provinces or anyone else to discuss reducing expenditures or finding ways of eliminating duplication and waste.
Another reason we are borrowing, that so much money is going out of the country and we are in such a mess with our energy policy, is that another program which was introduced by the Diefenbaker government in the early 1960s, a road to resources program to develop all our resources in the north, was discontinued. At that time the Liberal opposition laughed at it, and when the Liberal government took office again in 1963 it dropped the road to resources program to develop the north. We could very well have been self-sufficient today if that program had been continued, and the Liberal Party would have received most of the credit. However, the program was dropped. That is why we are in such a mess. Billions of dollars are going out of Canada, to OPEC countries to buy imported oil, and this is another reason we are in debt and borrowing more money.
We are quite justified in our criticism if we read the statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and other hon. members of the government since 1968 to the effect that they would bring expenditures under control, that if they did not bring them under control we would have inflation. Those have been meaningless, empty words. They have done nothing to bring anything under control at all. UIC payments are increasing, which will be another burden on taxpayers. Perhaps many taxpayers do not fully understand what is meant when we talk of expenditures and estimates. Perhaps they believe such expenditure do not affect them, but they certainly do. We are talking about the money of these taxpayers, and they are the ones who must pay all the interest charges and pay for all the reckless spending.
Another example of spending is the metric conversion program which is now going through and will hit the retail food industry so hard. Scales will have to be purchased from outside of this country at a cost of $50 million, and that will be another burden on the Canadian taxpayer and will drive food costs way up. The government is simply ramming that program through, also by order in council, as another example of its contempt for the Canadian people.
I would like to run through the 1981-82 main estimates. This is an overview of overspending. I would like to point out that Conservative Members of Parliament were banned from the briefing on these estimates, and we did not appreciate that. When one examines the government's spending plans for the
April 3, 1981

next year, it is not hard to see why it wanted to minimize the ability of the opposition to respond quickly in the House.
The total spending forecast for next year is $67.6 billion. That is an increase of 12.8 per cent. So where is the control? Where is the restraint which is always talked about during election times? This is breaking the Liberal commitment to hold spending increases to less than the GNP growth, which is forecast to be 11.3 per cent in the coming year. The forecast of $67.6 billion is achieved only through some juggling of accounts. For example, $2.4 billion of petroleum compensation fund expenditures no longer appears as an expense, as it is now being netted out against the petroleum products levy.
The Liberals will spend $3.8 billion more next year than the Conservative government had planned to spend. That is a legitimate complaint from our side. We do not believe that that is necessary at all. It is a question of philosophy. The socialists love to spend and they love uncontrolled growth in government. I will go into that in a little more detail in a moment.
Government spending next year is equal to the sum of money needed to purchase a $75,000 home for every household in the province of British Columbia. In spite of reports by the Auditor General that the public service is operating at only 60 per cent efficiency, and in spite of commitments made last April by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) that he would take steps to reduce the size of the public service, there will be a net increase of 3,085 person-years next year. We hear repeated statements that we must control growth of the civil service. They are just meaningless, empty and hollow words.
Things could be worse than that, Mr. Speaker. However, the net figure is based on the assumption that the post office will have a net reduction of 461 person-years as a result of expected efficiency gains in postal operations. The public debt charges constitute the fastest growing envelope, rising by $2.1 billion as a consequence of higher debt and higher interest rates.
My colleague, the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone), illustrated what a billion dollars means. Many Canadians think that the expenditure of billions of dollars does not concern them. I want to assure the people of Canada that what is contained in those billions of dollars is their hard-earned tax dollars. It is not someone else's money. No one else is giving us money. Canadians are paying for these billions of dollars being borrowed, billions of dollars of uncontrolled spending and debt charges.
The estimates show that while planned spending for this year has not changed since last fall's budget, there has been a change in the composition of the expenditure envelopes. Significantly, instead of spending $7,155 million on economic development as projected, the government will only spend $6,873 million. At least half of the cut will go to pay for the increase in the cost of services to the government.
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82
The estimated cost of services to government was $4 billion in 1980-1981. The fall budget projected the cost at $4.5 billion. This figure has again been revised upward to $4.7 billion; in other words, a 17 per cent increase. Only a Liberal government would consider a significant increase in the cost of its overheads when faced with near bankruptcy. That is why so many hon. members are debating this bill and exposing these people.
In spite of a 50 per cent increase in UIC premiums this year, the government's contribution to the unemployment insurance account is up by $219 million.
The federal government treats national unity the way most people treat the weather; they like to talk about it. The cost of talking about it will rise by $11 million next year, all for increased information by way of advertising. The government might as well cancel the advertising because it is having absolutely no effect on the Canadian public, either in regard to the constitutional package or anything else. It is just a waste of money.
Another area we discuss time and time again, an area that we took some efforts to bring under control when we formed the government, is that of cost overruns. If this government were bringing cost overruns under control, perhaps we would not have so many speakers being so critical. But cost overruns are continuing and the figures are astronomical. There were 497 projects with cost overruns of over $1 billion. This information was released by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston). The average overrun was about $10 million. One of the worst departments for cost overruns is the Department of the Environment. Of 223 projects, 153 experienced cost overruns, at a total cost of $283 million. Another example of a cost overrun is the Lachine canal in the amount of $45.9 million. What kind of management do we have from these people if we have overruns to this extent?
One of the largest overruns in dollar terms was in the Department of National Defence, with $98.7 million for the Aurora patrol aircraft. This was almost a 900 per cent cost overrun compared to the original budget. What is going on in national defence to cause a 900 per cent cost overrun? I asked the minister the same question in the House. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne) could give no explanation for this. He did not even seem to be concerned when asked. When we formed the government we set up a committee to investigate cost overruns, but since the Liberals now form the government they feel this work is best done in the public accounts committee.
Another measure we took when we were the government to try to control overruns was to introduce a measure called "double jeopardy." This measure of double jeopardy penalized departments $2 for every $1 overrun. I imagine that measure has been dropped by this government.
Another area where there does not seem to be any control is the number of Crown corporations we have in Canada today. We have approximately 436 Crown corporations. Why on earth does Canada need 436 Crown corporations? In 1962

April 3, 1981
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82
there were 35 Crown corporations. That figure is up to 400 plus today.
Prior to the Conservatives taking over as the government, we tried to find out in committee how many Crown corporations there were. The government could not even tell us how many Crown corporations there were, but we ferreted the information out in the committee. It took us a few weeks and I see some of the members who were involved in that process are here today. The officials told us that the figure was around 100 Crown corporations. Then we were told there were 125 Crown corporations. The number of Crown corporations then increased to 200 and now there are 436 Crown corporations. We do not even know if that is the correct figure. And the Liberals criticize us for speaking out against the government borrowing more money when conditions like this exist under Liberal governments!
By contrast, when we formed the government one of our priorities was to rationalize the functions and purposes of these corporations as well as to bring them under a scheme of financial accountability. Using the recommendations of the Lambert commission as a basis, the Conservative government introduced Bill C-27 to increase the accountability of and control over Crown corporations. The bill also made provisions to privatize a number of Crown corporations.
I received a document in my office this week on accountable management. It is a progress report to Parliament from the President of the Treasury Board. I see Crown corporations are included in this document. Let us hope that this is a genuine report and that the government is making a genuine effort to control the growth of Crown corporations and make them more accountable.
One example brought to my attention recently concerned the CBC. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is talking about establishing CBC-2. The CBC has been before the CRTC with an application, but it did not get very far. Questions have been raised in the House as to whether the government supports CBC-2. The government has not said too much as to whether or not it is committed to the formation of CBC-2. I have information that the CBC is spending money developing logos and new tapes for CBC-2. The government should be questioning the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to find out why that money is being spent on CBC-2 when the CBC does not even have the permission of the CRTC, the cabinet or of anybody else to develop that channel. I hope the government will be making a statement about this matter very soon or I shall continue my own investigation.
One wonders about the finance minister-


Mr. Regan:: He is the best we have ever had.


A. Daniel McKenzie: The Minister of Labour (Mr. Regan) says he is the best minister we have ever had. I shall quote from the Toronto Star for March 23. An article appeared in that edition on our finance minister. Bob Hepburn of the Toronto Star in his article wrote that there were very many funny, strange things going on in the finance department and there seems to be utter confusion among the senior officials and
everyone else. Mr. Hepburn certainly has the Liberal party pegged.
I will read some of the statements made by Mr. Hepburn, particularly as they refer to the finance minister who, in my opinion, is a brilliant political manipulator. That is how I would describe him. He has been in the cabinet longer than the Prime Minister. He is probably one of the senior members of the cabinet. He is more responsible than anyone for removing control over expenditures and getting us into these massive borrowing positions. He has made no contribution in cabinet to keep expenditures, Crown corporations or anything else under control. Mr. Hepburn writes:
In addition, leaders in Canada's business and financial circles are becoming increasingly unhappy about their communication-or rather lack of it-
Finance department officials are unsure whether their ideas and policy options are being actively considered by the minister. "He keeps everything close to his vest, then acts himself," one official said.
I have observed this finance minister for many years. I know his priorities. It is the Liberal Party first and the country second. His main concern is to do all the manipulating he can to keep the Liberal Party in power. That is his top priority. The article goes on to point out that the finance minister has injected more politics into the department than any of his predecessors. That comes as no surprise.
I am getting the signal, Mr. Speaker, to wrap up my remarks, but first I will give one or two other quotations from this article. It states the finance minister appears more interested in his role as Deputy Prime Minister than as finance minister and that he has failed to hire an established tax lawyer to head the critical tax policy after a 13-month search. Maybe nobody wants to work with this finance minister. He has not been able to implement his plan to initiate sweeping tax reforms. He had better find a tax lawyer in the very near future.
These are some of the disturbing facts about the minister. That is why we are not going to rubber stamp this borrowing authority bill. We will speak as often as we can in order to expose the government. I am dedicated to that on behalf of my constituents and the Canadian people for as long as I am in this chamber.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I have always participated in some stage of a borrowing authority debate, and this is the second opportunity I have had with regard to this bill. I would like to go over some of the problems this borrowing bill creates and the reasons for those problems. The borrowing bill does not present a totally bad picture; some parts of it are quite favourable.
When we talk about debt and how much we have to borrow because of the national debt, we must do so in terms of assets and income. I wish to cite an example which I have cited before. If I owed $10,000 and my income was $100,000 a year, there would be a relationship between my income and that debt. If I owed $10,000 and my income was $20,000 a year 1 would be talking about a different ratio. The amount of debt
April 3, 1981

would be the same, but my ability to pay would be very different. The same is true with assets. If my assets were ten or 20 times the amount of debt I owe, I would be in good shape. However, if my assets were very small compared to the amount I owe, I would be in bad shape, even though the amount owed would be the same.
The same is true at the federal level. We cannot speak of a $10 billion debt 20 years ago and a $70 billion or $80 billion debt today and say it is a terrible situation, that we are much worse off now. That is not quite true. In 1951 the net national debt as a portion of the gross national product was approximately 51 per cent. In other words, the federal debt that year was 50 per cent of the gross national product. After the Korean war, that figure came down. By 1962 it was something like 32 or 33 per cent. Last year, without getting into a lot of detail, it was in the order of 30 per cent.
One can say that we are better off today in terms of the relationship of debt to revenue than in 1951. When talking about these figures, one must talk in terms of revenues and GNP. It is foolish to talk about them in any other fashion.
If we look at government expenditures, we see that 68 per cent of the total is by way of transfers to provinces and municipalities through various and sundry subsidies. Of the remaining 32 per cent, 27.7 per cent is for the operation of the government and 4 per cent is used for subsidies to Crown corporations. Added together, the total operation of the government is something in the area of 32 per cent of all expenditures.
The opposition keeps talking about cutting expenditures and reducing the deficit. What bothers me most is that they want all of that reduction from the 32 per cent. They say it is absolutely essential to cut back on government expenditures, the number of civil servants, salaries of civil servants and government waste. That will not solve the problem. There may be some fat, there probably is, and we may be able to cut that back by 10 or 15 per cent; but to really do something about a $16 billion deficit, you have to do something very significant in the area of transfer payments.
If we are going to cut back, it must from the 68 per cent. It is fine to argue that we must cut back and reduce the deficit, but where are we to make the cutbacks? Is it to be in transfer payments to provinces, most of which is spent on medical and hospital care or those on welfare? Should we cut back on unemployment insurance payments?
I had some discussions yesterday regarding a significant cut by provincial and federal governments in educational grants to young adults who do not have a decent education. Are we going to cut back in that area? That may make sense to some people, but if we cut back in that area, I can assure you that for the next 40 years those people who are not going to have this educational opportunity will be the ones on the welfare, UIC rolls, and so on. If we cut back in that area, will we really be doing something?
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82
I can remember talk about cutting back in the province of Ontario, particularly in medical expenses, and cutbacks in areas like halfway houses for people with mental health problems. We may save $30 a day in this way, but then we have to pay $200 a day to keep the same person in an institution later on in life.
When we talk about cutting, we also have to talk about which cuts make sense and which do not. I would make a wager that every one of us in this House has half a dozen things we would never want to see cut back. I do not want to see cutbacks in those educational grants for young adults who have, for some reason or other, not acquired an adequate education to function properly. Other members have other special interest areas such as medicare. Some suggest we need more police, more prisons and we have to tighten up our laws. Where do we cut? If we cut what you want maintained, it may have something to do with the law, and if we cut what I want maintained, it may have something to do with the future of young people.
It is very easy for the opposition to say we have to cut back, but it is not easy when you have to sit down and decide what are the cuts you want. Let the opposition tell us the things they want cut, those things that are significant.
Do not tell me we are going to solve the deficit problem by making cuts in the public service. I can tell you this represents only 32 per cent of total government expenditure. It is a good portion, but if there are to be cuts, they will have to be made in that other 68 per cent or we will have to increase our revenues to make up the difference.
I know we all come to the cutting stage as members of this House, and we come to that stage every day. Someone thinks something should be cut and some of us say: My God, that cannot happen because it is important that this money be supplied. All I ever hear from the other side is that we have to cut back, but I have yet to hear what they want us to cut back. It seems to me we all face the same problem. We have good programs. For one reason or another I think a specific program is good. For example, I think housing programs for native people are good programs, and I can think of all kinds of other things we have to do which are important. Either we do these intelligent things or we ignore all kinds of segments of our society which are weaker or for some reason cannot manage.
Either we cut back, or we start talking about how we raise revenues. When the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) talks about tax expenditures, I think this is an approach which has to be looked at. Whether or not that is the approach we will take, or the approach you would take, is immaterial, but in some way we have to begin considering revenues.
There is another notion I would like to deal with in the next few minutes which has to do with this whole business of big government, government revenues and expenditures. Let me give you some idea of what has happened since World War II in terms of government revenue. These figures again relate to

April 3, 1981
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82 gross national product. There is no point in saying we had a certain revenue in 1951 and today it is five times that much. That does not mean anything. What is important is how much is our gross national product and how that figure relates to revenues. That is what is important.
I should like to look at provincial and federal revenues, and, if we want, we could add municipal revenues. For the moment let us just consider federal and provincial revenue.
In 1943, and this was in wartime, 22.3 per cent of the gross national product of the country went in revenue to the federal government. In the same year, 3.3 per cent of the gross national product of the country went to all the provinces. By 1955, the percentage of the gross national product in these terms had dropped to 17.6 per cent, while the provincial share had gone up to 4.8 per cent. I am referring to the percentage of the gross national product.
These figures are taken for every five years, so I am not picking out odd years. In 1960, the federal portion of the gross national product in terms of revenue was 17.0 per cent and the provinces' share was 6.1 per cent. In 1965, the federal share had dropped to 16.4 per cent and the provincial share had gone up to 8.9 per cent. In 1970, the federal share was 16.1 per cent and the provincial share was 12.3 per cent. In 1975, the federal share was 19.2 per cent and the provincial share was 13.5 per cent.
The last year for which I have figures is 1979, so there is only a four-year gap there. The federal share had slipped back to 16 per cent of gross national product and the provincial share was 15 per cent. The provincial percentage had increased by about 500 per cent, from between 3 per cent and 4 per cent to about 15 per cent of gross national product, while the federal share had gone from 22.3 per cent to 16 per cent.
Everyone always talks about the federal government as being the cause of inflation and of everything else, but is it this government that is to blame? If it is to be blamed, then we on this side have to accept that blame because for all but about six or seven years of that period we were in power.
Let us get away from war years and not even consider those. Let us move to 1955 when we were out of both wars, nicely away from them. In that year, the percentage was 17.6 per cent federal versus 4.8 per cent provincial, or about four times as much. Let us go back to 1979, 24 years later, when we find that the federal share was down to 16 per cent from 17.6 per cent, whereas the provinces' share had one up to 15.0 per cent.
When we are talking about the borrowings of the government, government debt, and so on, we have to look at the areas of government spending. We are now talking about 1980-82. In this period of time the federal government will transfer in terms of tax transfers and direct transfers something like $18.8 billion to provincial revenues. That is something in the order of 23 per cent or 24 per cent of all government spending. Let me have a look at those transfers because I think they are tremendously important.
I must say something about the nonsense that has been said in this House, particularly by the Tory party, about the
Constitution. The real constitutional story relates to how we are to face this tremendous transfer to the provinces; how we are to deal with it in the next few years.
I will talk about that a little more a little later on, but I would like to talk first about the kinds of things on which we actually do transfer funds to the provinces. I said the amount was $18.88 billion, but basically it is $18.9 billion out of $67 billion. That money goes to things like hospital insurance, which amounts to $2.9 billion. These are rounded-off figures. Medicare gets $1 billion; post-secondary education, close to $2 billion; extended health care, another $700 million; and so forth. The Canada Assistance Plan gets $2 billion to assist the provinces to pay welfare. Federal money is transferred to a whole series of these kinds of things. The amount transferred for bilingualism comes to something less than $200 million. It is not the major factor many Canadians think it is. The amounts spent on all these things total a very substantial transfer from the federal government to the provinces and other levels of government. I think this is a fundamental matter we must consider.
In its latest issue, the Economic Council of Canada dealt in detail with the amount of revenue the provinces have and the amount of revenue transferred by the federal government to the provinces. The council produced an interesting chart on page 60 of "A Climate of Uncertainty," the seventeenth annual review in 1980. The chart deals with surpluses and deficits going back to 1967. The chart shows that all governments in Canada were in surplus positions from about 1967 to about 1974. Then, in the period from 1974 to about 1980-


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


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Continue, Paul.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I did not expect to hear applause from the other side when I stood to speak. It seldom occurs in this House.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: You just haven't been listening, Harvie.


Harvie Andre: I want to open my remarks with just a few comments on the remarks of the previous speaker, the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae), who uses figures in an attempt to establish the position that somehow the federal government in this country is not large enough yet and that it must become much, much larger because the provinces have, relatively speaking, closed the gap in terms of the difference-at least as measured on an expenditure scale- in power between the federal government and the provinces. What the hon. member has neglected to do is to examine the data he has put forward. Instead, he has taken the figures which have been produced by the propagandists in the federal-
April 3, 1981

provincial office in an attempt to justify this constitutional coup d'etat.
If the hon. member examined the figures put out, he would realize that the description of what constitutes the federal government's proportion of the gross national product omits a considerable amount of federal government activity. For example, those Figures are based on the spending estimates as defined in our estimates, which are not the federal government's spending in total by any stretch of the imagination. The blue book estimates describe only those expenditures which go through the consolidated revenue fund and, as I intend to show in a few minutes, that is not the total government spending by any stretch of the imagination. The numbers the hon. member talked about do not account for expenditures by the some 436 Crown corporations which are wholly owned by the federal government. They do not account for the separate government operations which do not go through the consolidated revenue fund, such as UIC, the Canada Pension Plan or the oil import compensation plan, all of which amount to another $7 billion or $8 billion which should be added to the figures about which the hon. member spoke.
If the hon. member looked at the real figures, and not those figures cooked up by Dr. Goebbels' workers over the unity information office, he would find that, in fact, there is not a case to be made that somehow this federal government has had its power reduced to such an insignificant level in this country that it should beat off those terrible, voracious provinces which are trying to usurp the power which rightfully belongs to the federal government. The facts simply do not substantiate that argument, if we look at the real facts and not just those produced by those propagandists the federal government employs as part of its campaign on the Constitution.
Bill C-59, and the amendment thereto which we are discussing at the report stage, is one of those bills which can be defined very simply. It contains just a few clauses. It is one of those simple bills with just a few clauses which, as usual, are the most profound in terms of their impact. What the government is asking for is authority to borrow $14 billion. That is a colossal amount of money. A billion is beyond my capability to imagine. My colleague, the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone), mentioned that a billion minutes ago Jesus Christ was walking on the earth. We are talking about $14 billion which the government wants to borrow. The government needs this money, we are told, because it has run out of authority. We are already into debt to the tune of $140 billion. Hon. members opposite need more money with which to operate the government because spending is simply out of control. The borrowing of this $14 billion will just cover, with a little extra, the interest on the debt which has been accumulated by this government over the last few years. This $14 billion will not be used for all those nice programs about which the previous speaker spoke. This $14 billion will not be used to assist old age pensioners, to assist native Canadians or to assist other people in this country with their problems. The $14 billion we will be authorizing the government to borrow will be used to pay the interest on previous borrowing. We will be borrowing
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82 $14 billion to pay the interest on the accumulated debt of previous years. Next year we will have to borrow that much more to pay the ongoing interest plus the interest on this $14 billion, which will be another couple billion at least. And on and on we go on this upside down pyramid. It is an atrocious situation.
As citizens, Mr. Speaker, you or I cannot operate our own personal finances that way. No one would lend us the money if we attempted to operate our finances that way. If we tried to borrow more money simply to cover the carrying costs of what we had borrowed before, no one would lend it to us. No company can do that. No family can do that. No provincial government can do that, as a matter of fact. The only institution which can do that is the federal government because it has something no one else has. It has a printing press which can print money. The government owns the money presses. It has the central bank. The federal government is the only one which can get away with this, and even the federal government can get away with it only for a while because even central governments in large, rich countries like Canada at some point in time are faced with the same kinds of realities faced by individuals, institutions, corporations or anyone else in the world.
The previous speaker talked about the marvellous ways in which government can spend money, and there is no denying that. He says it is easier to spend than to cut or save. Well, that is hardly an argument. Everybody recognizes that, of course, it is easier to spend than to cut, and there are all kinds of worth-while things the government should be doing. There is not a member in this House who could not dream up 10, 20, 30 or 100 new spending programs which would have a very beneficial impact. So there is no question that there is a demand, very worth-while in many instances, on government for new programs. There is no question that a civilized government and Parliament, consisting of people genuinely concerned about their country and fellow citizens, must look at the possibility of coming to the assistance of those in our society who need it. We have to be concerned about health care, about education and about our senior citizens. We have to look after them; there is no argument on that.
So, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member arguing that point was arguing with a strawman. However, on the other side, there must be recognition by government that these programs have to be financed from taxes. There is no such thing as a free lunch; somebody has to pay, and I humbly submit that the people of Canada are more than ready to pay the taxes to look after our senior citizens. I have no doubt that Canadians are more than willing to pay for adequate health services and adequate education, and to pay those taxes necessary to fund programs which they approve of. Where we get into trouble, Mr. Speaker-and this government has habitually been in this phase since 1968-is where the government wants to undertake programs of benefit to Canadians but does not want to take the responsibility for saying: you will have to pay for it. They do not want to admit that taxes have to be raised, so they

April 3, 1981
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82
pretend that is a separate function and they do it in a number of ways.
One of the ways of doing that is running up deficits, because while they have to be paid off eventually, they are paid off by the next generation five, ten, 20 years from now. And in ten years, when some members are standing up here complaining about the accumulated debt, we could stand up and say: a lot of this is the fault of Mr. Pearson; and it is his fault, but who cares? He is gone, there is no political fault.
So members of this government recognize they can introduce programs today, get the political benefit and then let future generations pay for them because by then they will be gone to their just rewards as directors, or as presidents, or chairmen of Crown corporations, and they do not have to worry about it. So there is the irresponsibility of their approach.
The other way they do it, Mr. Speaker, and this offends me perhaps more than anything else, is by disguising the actual level of spending. They are not honest about what they are spending. They do this in a lot of ways. To begin with, the government, this one in particular in the last few years, has never told the Canadian public honestly what it is spending in its estimates. For example, when the main estimates were brought down this year, there was a press lock up. No experts were allowed, no members of the opposition, only working members of the press gallery were allowed in. They were given prepared press releases by the government which carried this message. They were kept locked up until the House opened for business, and then they ran off and announced to the Canadian public that government spending was 12.8 per cent.


An hon. Member:: While you ran a filibuster.


Harvie Andre: Well, Mr. Speaker, the next day, when the experts had a chance to look at the figures, when people not quite as gullible perhaps as members of the media-and I should not fault them because they are under pressure of time and have to produce their stories-they found that spending had gone up 16 per cent, not 12.8 per cent. But the story had gone out; the public had been told by the government it was 12.8 per cent. The real figure of 16 per cent went out in a few columns. Don McGillivray of Southam's brought it to the attention of those who read the business pages of which are not many. There were a few Canadians who saw the truth and pointed it out, but the vast majority of Canadians still believe the original figure put out by the government. They were able to get that figure before the public because of blatant manipulation of the media, by having that lock up and not allowing in there members of the opposition and experts to examine and cross-examine the Treasury Board officials who were there.
Another way they disguise the spending, Mr. Speaker, is through the supplementary estimates. Again, across this country the figure went out that spending this year is 12.8 per cent above last year. That is a false figure. The correct figure is 16 per cent. But in addition, that is a comparison of the main estimates with the total spending of last year as shown in the main and supplementary estimates A, B and C. We know
there will be at least three more sets of supplementary estimates this year and we know that the year to year comparison, even using the cooked books, is going to be in excess of the 12.8 per cent for sure, and well in excess of 16 per cent. In fact, spending year over year, based on past experience, will likely be of the order of an 18 per cent increase. All the while, the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will say: we are keeping our campaign promises of keeping government spending within the trend line of the growth in the economy. That is the kind of chicanery and downright dishonesty that goes on in terms of disguising spending.
Another way they disguise spending, Mr. Speaker, is through Crown corporations. If the government borrows money directly to undertake a program, that shows up in spending. So what they do instead is to create a Crown corporation, guarantee its loans, which is the same as if the government had borrowed the money. It never shows up in government spending and they can claim: gee, look, we are keeping spending under control. In the process, you end up with another Crown corporation, a lot more government spending and a minister who can say with a straight face, "we are under restraint; we are keeping spending under control", which is a blatant falsehood.
Another way in which they disguise the true spending is the creation of revolving funds which operate outside of the consolidated revenue fund and therefore do not show up in the blue book estimates as government spending. For example, the petroleum compensation fund whereby they subsidize some imports, is a fund separate from the blue book procedure and that money does not show up in government spending. There is also the UIC revolving fund, the airport revolving fund, and I do not know how many others. This is money being collected and spent by the government, but it never shows up in government spending so that they can continue to claim: we are holding expenditures under control, we are operating under constraint. A blatant falsehood.
Even more offensive than that, Mr. Speaker, is the use in the estimates of negative expenditures, if you can imagine that. A couple of years ago, when they had a desire, for political reasons, to claim that they were holding government spending under control, they had CMHC sell some mortgages. In other words, they sold some capital. They did not list the receipts of those sales as an income item; they listed them as a negative expenditure to keep the expenditures down. It was the kind of book-cooking for which individuals in the private sector would end up in court.
In this year's main estimates of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, there is a negative expenditure, under the petroleum compensation fund, of 52,665,400,000. It was a negative expenditure, because they raised more money than they spent in that revolving fund. Rather than taking the honest approach and listing it on the revenue side of the
April 3, 1981

ledger, they have taken the dishonest approach and described it as a negative expenditure.
There is another manner in which government spending is hidden. Who knows what dollars are involved? It is very difficult to identify. I am referring to the government's increasing propensity to push expenditures onto the private sector. If they want a certain task undertaken, if they want a certain program or some particular action which may have some social benefit implemented, rather than paying for it directly through the government consolidated revenue fund, which would show up in their expenditure plan, they pass a law requiring the private sector to undertake that expenditure. It never shows up as a government expenditure item, but in fact it is spending for a government cause. Therefore, it is in exactly the same category as any other type of spending.
One estimate of the consulting group in Ottawa showed that the spending under this item alone could be in the order of $15 billion. If we are to bring spending and deficits under control, first and foremost, honesty is necessary. First and foremost, the government must stop disguising what it is doing. It must stop trying to fool the people. It must draw a direct relationship between spending and raising funds. It must be honest and open about the process. Then perhaps we would have a better selection of programs which should be funded. Certainly we would have better control over the government spending process, and we would not be called upon year after year to authorize untold billions of dollars of new debt.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to follow the colourful hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre). Certainly I would like to pick up where he left off and raise some of the problematic sides of Bill C-59 which is before us. It is a request to borrow $14 billion. This immediately poses some very, very interesting questions.
First, when we look at the estimates, we find that $11 billion is all that is actually required. So this raises the following questions: how will the $3 billion be spent; is it a slush fund; is it simply there in case it is required somewhere down the road?
When we look at the account of the government, we find that it has $4.8 billion in the bank. This really raises the question: is it necessary at this point for the government to receive authority to borrow $14 billion? The amendment of the Tory party which recognizes the more reasonable figure of $8 billion is something we feel encouraged to support. Perhaps it is somewhat simplistic in approaching this very serious and problematic situation but, nevertheless, it is a step in the right direction.
In the short time remaining, I want to focus on four problems in terms of this request to borrow $14 billion. My concern is primarily with small businessmen, the small entrepreneurs in Canada, and what this request means to those individuals who are out there in the corner stores, the service stations, the small pharmacies, the small plants and manufacturing centres. What does this mean to these people?
First, we must recognize that the government will have to go to the domestic capital markets in order to borrow $14 billion.
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82
This will have an immediate effect of increasing interest rates. It is the type of thing which jacks up interest rates and encourages higher rates than ever. Of course, higher interest rates for small businessmen mean increased carrying charges. Certainly this reduces the ability of small businessmen to compete effectively with larger corporations and companies of regional, national or even multinational spheres of influence. For example, it reduces the amount of inventory small businessmen can maintain. Therefore, it reduces the level of service they are able to provide. It adds prices to his products which makes competition very, very difficult. Needless to say, it reduces the ability of small entrepreneurs to expand their operations, to develop new product lines, or to develop new entrepreneurial activities. In a sense, it makes it very difficult for small businessmen or women to operate in a competitive fashion with larger companies, particularly those with larger spheres of influence.
When the government goes out to borrow $14 billion from the domestic capital markets, we must recognize that this in turn has a negative impact upon the medium and small business community. If the Canadian government is borrowing $14 billion from the domestic capital markets, it is $14 billion which is not being used by investors in the private sector to expand its operations. It hinders productivity, development and expansion of our economic, industrial and manufacturing sectors.
Another problem is that the government cannot borrow $14 billion from the domestic capital markets because it will jack up interest rates beyond an acceptable level. Thus, the government is forced to sell bonds and treasury bills to the Bank of Canada which increases the money supply. As the hon. member for Calgary Centre indicated, the government has the ability to print money. The printing presses come out, and the money is printed; it leads into an inflationary spiral. If there is one fear of the small businessman today, it is the fear of inflation, the inability to plan accurately for the future, and the further erosion of his small profit margin.
If the government goes beyond domestic capital markets to borrow money abroad, the possibility of very serious problems develops. For example, if there is a reduction in the value of the Canadian dollar, it is forced to repay those loans at inflated levels. In my own experience as an alderman in a western municipality, I felt that we could make a better deal if we borrowed in Swiss francs, only to see a reduction in the value of the Canadian dollar and those borrowings being paid back in deflated dollars. This is the type of situation with which the government will be faced, if it continues to borrow money abroad or from foreign markets.
The government is running headlong and borrowing $14 billion unnecessarily, but nevertheless it is being borrowed. It indicates a real insensitivity to the small business community. In fact, this insensitivity was demonstrated in the last few weeks when we were looking at the marginal manufacturing tax in the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.

April 3, 1981
Borrowing Authority Act, 1981-82
This is an opportunity for the federal government to obtain revenues, but the confusion which exists in the business community over the marginal manufacturing tax is quite unbelievable. The fine tuning is not being done before the fact, it is being done after. There are a great many people who did not recognize that they were marginal manufacturers. They now find themselves in a situation where they must revise their plans for the future, they must revise their inventory development plans. Yet they still do not know the fine points within that legislation. They phone the Department of Revenue and the Department of Finance for clarification, and even then grey areas exist. These areas are being fine-tuned, now, when in fact this legislation will be effective as of January 1, 1981.
We would be much better off if we gave the business community a clear indication about this new method of obtaining revenue for the federal government and told the community that the measure will be in effect as of January 1, 1982. This would give them an opportunity to adjust to this tax which will be coming their way. This is the kind of sensitivity that many of us would like to see from the federal government, particularly as it relates to the small business community.
One can say, "Oh well, not all is lost. The government did provide some assistance to the small business community; they brought in the Small Business Development Bond." Unfortunately, when you look at the small print and the restrictions associated with that bill, you see that 95 per cent of all small businesses in Canada are prevented from taking advantage of the Small Business Development Bond. When you look very closely at the mechanics of that particular bond, you will find that the real beneficiaries are not the small entrepreneurs of Canada or the small businesses across the country but the chartered banks. The lending institutions are the ones which really benefit from the Small Business Development Bond, not the small entrepreneur.
When considering the $14 billion that we are being asked to authorize today, we recognize that none of this money will be used for new programs, new projects or new opportunities for Canadians. It will be used simply to service the existing debt. One must ask the question: What is this money being used for?
Contrary to the opinion of many of us in this House, and those of us who read the front pages of the newspapers, particularly here in central Canada, who get the impression that the main problem today is the Constitution, that that is the subject on everyone's mind, it is not the case. When you get out into the community and talk to the men and women in your constituency, you find that patriation, amending formulas, and so on, are not the topic of priority. In fact, the priority is how mortgage payments will be met, how living costs and food costs will be met. Inflation is seen to be in the 11 per cent plus range and wage increases in the last round of contracts have been 11 per cent, 8 per cent-which is less than the cost of living. The people know the effect that these figures will have on their lives and the lives of their children. They are concerned about this. They are also concerned about government expenditures. They look at this kind of bill, a bill to borrow $14 billion, and they ask what the money is being spent on. They ask what the new plans of this government are, and how it will get the economy back on track.
If there is one thing that all the best economists in this country agree upon, it is industrialization. They look at the countries in the western world and see that they are all industrializing, even the underdeveloped and developing countries.There is one country in the world which is de-industrializing, and that country is Canada. We are de-industrializing at a time when all the good economists of the world see other countries industrializing. What on earth is our plan? What is our economic blueprint for the next decade? The simple answer is that we have none. We do not have an industrial strategy. We do not have a manufacturing or transportation strategy. What we need is a revision of our spending to include a measure such as the one the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) brought forward a number of months ago in the House. We must clearly distinguish between those items termed government spending and those termed government investment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being 3.45 p.m., pursuant to the order made Thursday, April 2, 1981, it is my duty to interrupt proceedings and put forth every question necessary to dispose of the motion in the name of the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). The question is as follows:
That Bill C-59, an act to provide supplementary borrowing authority, be amended in Clause 2
(a)	by striking out line 18 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"eight billion dollars, as may be required"
(b)	by striking out lines 25 to 27 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"expire on March 31, 1982."
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to order made Thursday, April 2, 1981, a recorded division stands deferred until Monday next at 3 p.m.
Is there unanimous consent to proceed to private members' hour at this point?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
April 3, 1981


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If it is so agreed, the next 60 minutes will be-


Harvie Andre: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was under the impression, and perhaps the government House leader can correct me if I am wrong, that at this time there would be a vote on the report stage of the motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The amendment before the House has not been voted on. It is clearly not possible to vote on the report stage without having first voted on the amendment.


Harvie Andre: I agree.


Mr. Pinard:: Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely right. We will have to wait until three o'clock on Monday to vote on the amendment. The way I understand the House order, and I agree with the hon. member, it is that next Monday at 3 p.m., once the division has been taken on the amendment, the question will be put on the report stage and we will then proceed with third reading on Monday.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous agreement to proceed now to private members' hour for the next 60 minutes?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Private members' hour will conclude at 4.48 p.m.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions preceding No. 44 stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
[Stage Direction]
FREE VOTE ON REINSTATEMENT Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of allowing a free vote in the House of Commons on the reinstatement of capital punishment for first degree murder.
He said: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It was a pleasant surprise for me, not only to speak twice in this House in one day but also to finally see my motion come before the House for debate.
I am called a guillotine man. I think you will find, as I go through my debate, that I am really not. The motion I put
Capital Punishment
forward is an extremely important concern, more so to my constituents than to myself. We are continually accused of being sheep, of being herded and of only voting the party line. What I am proposing in this motion is that capital punishment should be put on the floor of the House as a free vote, totally free, no party affiliation, no party controls. Usually we are frightened of the criticism of our leader and the repercussions therefrom. I believe that this should be a free vote and not a contrived or controlled vote. It is a situation which is of great concern to many of our citizens, both those who are opposed to capital punishment and those who are in favour of it.
Since I have been a member of this House, there have actually been two cold blooded murders in one part of my riding. The first one occurred shortly after I was elected in May, 1979.1 received a phone call concerning it. A very young policeman was murdered. His young wife was left with two very young children; one was yet a baby in her arms. This hit home with me, as I had met this man during the election. He had run up to me in the street and said, "Please, Mr. Fennell, what is your stand on capital punishment?" I listened to him, and he explained the fears of the members of the police department. I said, "That is important to me. I will definitely go to my constituency to find out how all my constituents feel." I did this, and the results were that 87 per cent were in favour of capital punishment. This young man was killed at short range while performing his duties as a policeman protecting the innocent citizens of this country. It was hard to go to his funeral, as I realized that only a few weeks before I had talked with this man on the street.
The second murder happened only last fall. It was rather tragic because a young lady, 21 years of age, was not only molested but was also murdered. Her body was thrown behind a sign board alongside a main street in one of the towns in my riding. Nobody knew what had happened to her until the next morning when children who were going to school found this body and reported it to the police. These were young children of public school age who were shocked by this.
This act was committed by an accused man about whom I have already written to the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan). This man was out on bail. In checking with the Durham Regional Police Department, I found it had never been notified that he had been allowed out on bail. In checking with his parole office, I found it had never been notified that he was out on interim bail. It was while this man was out on bail that he committed this crime upon one of my constituents.
What will stop these crimes? What is the deterrent? I have heard all the "goodie" side, which suggests it is not a deterrent. Yet between the years 1961 and 1978, the rates of crime have doubled. We have tried this route, and found it not to have been effective. That is why I brought this motion forward.
I do not believe in capital punishment. I do not believe in the way it is carried out. However, we must deter these terrible criminals who are a threat to our society. One keeps hearing that it is not a deterrent, that it is, it is not. I am convinced by statistics.
[Stage Direction]
April 3, 1981
Capital Punishment
The hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. Gilchrist) spoke to me this afternoon. He said, "I am glad you are up. I am sorry I will not be here because in my riding alone the crime has increased 23 per cent this year." It is increasing everywhere. Crime is on an upswing and the tragedy is that we have lost our morality.
Minor offenders realize that there is really no penalty for breaking a window and stealing out of a store, sticking a toy gun in a shopkeeper's stomach. We are not dealing with the most serious crimes of the land: cold-blooded murder and molesting. Those must be dealt with. We must do something. We are doing nothing. We are sitting on our buttocks and acting like a bunch of sheep. We will not stand on our own feet and do something.
It is important to bring a bill before this House quickly before it is too late. If you look at Section 12 of the resolution on the Constitution, it clearly states there that capital punishment would be removed forever from our law books. Believe me, we will never change that Constitution. Equal rights amendment people in the United States have tried for years but have not been able to change it. So we had better do something quickly because it is our last shot and our last chance.
I am sure that all of you received-some of you may not have read it-a letter from the attorney general for the province of Ontario. He has given a prime example of what we are doing to the people of this country. It concerned a case in the United States where certain information was not admissible. I am not a lawyer so I cannot give the technical explanation. This was a case where a young girl went to a basketball tournament with her family. She subsequently went to the washroom and did not return. The only clue as to what had happened was that a young man saw a man carry something in a garbage bag out of the door. The man was subsequently identified and caught. After the police picked him up, his rights were read to him, and he was told that he was believed to be at fault. He told them, "If you are that convinced, I'll take you to the body." So he took them to the body of this child whom he had molested and killed. Hon. members have all read about this and know that it had happened in the United States. The courts would not accept that as admissible evidence because he did not have a lawyer with him at the time, even though he had voluntarily admitted to the crime.
Those are the kinds of people we are allowing to walk the streets of this land. I hope we do not entrench that section in our ill-conceived Constitution. At the beginning I mentioned that I did a survey in my riding. Actually I had a response from 87 per cent of the population. I had a large return. I believe 2,200 people answered my query. Some of them expressed their view against capital punishment. Many of them expressed their view for it. They are concerned with putting some teeth back in the law. That was really the message which came through: "Please, will you get morality back in this country? We have lost it. We let those terrible people away with anything they want to do. They walk the
streets." That was their feeling and those are the people on whose behalf I am speaking. They are scared, they are frightened. Do not let our cities turn into cities like Detroit, Cleveland or the northeastern cities where thousands of murders occur each year. We are lucky in this country. We are fortunate that our people are much more passive. However, we could change. Crowded conditions in cities create a dangerous situation.
I would like to ask the hon. members of this House how they would have felt if we, as Canadians, had had to endure and witness what happened to the Americans in October of 1963 in Dallas or on Monday of this week in Washington. Do we want one of those murderers to go to prison for a short term or do we want to attempt to deter him from doing it again? Would we want him out walking the streets again? Possibly the next time it could be one of the leaders of our country. I do not think we want that. We must stop it, and we must stop it now. How would hon. members feel if it was the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)? I do not believe that this would appeal to anyone in this House. This epitomizes the danger of allowing these people to run free. I am sure all hon. members would stand on their feet and speak out if anything like that were to happen. In our hearts we would look at what we are doing. We would look beyond our prejudices and we would listen to our constituents. I believe if that kind of a situation happened here, and pray to God it never does, we would be reconsidering our stand. We all have consciences. Hon. members know that, I know that, and if something like that did happen here, it would really touch my heart and my conscience.
We cannot let these people go free. We cannot keep them in jail. It is an injustice to a person to incarcerate him for 25 or 50 years. What are we going to do? Many of these murderers are in jail. The man in Utah who recently went to the gas chamber is a perfect example. Before going to the gas chamber, he said, "Please, I do not want a reprieve. My life is over".
In my motion I am referring only to premeditated, coldblooded murder and high treason. We must do something about these crimes.
I have heard the argument that we should put the matter to a referendum. In my opinion this is a chicken-hearted way for this House of Commons to deal with it. It is passing the buck to the people who have elected us. I, for one, am not in favour of a referendum. I say we are the people who represent our constituents and we must stand up with our feet firmly on the ground and make our own statements. We should not be chicken-hearted and go back to the people asking them to do it for us. It is the same thing as using a referendum for the Constitution. I am against that. It is our responsibility. People want to enjoy their lives, people want to work. They do not have time to do all the reading and studying that we do. It is our responsibility to make decisions here in a democratic way.
Earlier on I mentioned the guillotine man. Let me say, in response to that age old accusation of being a hangman, that I would propose, in conjunction with this bill, that the reintro-
April 3, 1981
[Stage Direction]
duction of capital punishment be subject to the use of a more humane method. I believe there are humane ways. I believe there are easy ways. I was a farmer. I had sick cattle that I could not cure. I had crazy bulls I could not cure. They were dangerous. There was a very simple procedure, but I hated to use it because I have a hard time hurting anything, even an ant, but I used it. There is a humane method, and everyone knows there is.
People who commit crimes are sick, incurable souls who go out and perpetrate the same act again and are a danger to our society.
I plead with the members of this House today to consider my motion if we have an opportunity to vote on it. It is very clearly stated as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of allowing a free vote in the House of Commons on the reinstatement of capital punishment for first degree murder.
Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell). I am somewhat surprised at the attack he made on his colleague, the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz) who has a motion on the Order Paper which specifically provides:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of holding a national referendum on the issue of capital punishment and, following such referendum, should amend the appropriate sections of the Criminal Code to conform with the majority views of the people of Canada.
I would say to the hon. member for Ontario that he had better check with his colleague about this matter. When motion No. 4 comes up, I expect the hon. member will give the somewhat strident argument he gave today against the idea of a referendum. Frankly, I happen to agree with him. I do not think that is the way to resolve a problem of this nature. There has been a lot of talk about surveys. I often wonder about the days of Wilberforce. He wanted to abolish slavery. If he had taken a survey in his riding, or for that matter anywhere in England, at the time the odds probably would have been that slavery was okay, and it probably would have been approved by 90 per cent of the population. It was only through showing leadership that people of his stature were able to bring to the attention of the public they were serving that abolition of slavery was a step forward. Any referendum or survey taken at that time would certainly have been against what Wilberforce was endeavouring to do.
I agree with the hon. member, as this House has agreed on several occasions, that votes on such subjects should be free votes. In the time that I have been here since 1968, give or take the hiatus from 1979 to 1980, we have heard some splendid arguments. Some of the better debates in the House of Commons have come about as a result of free votes in the House. The last free vote I participated in was at the initiative of the then solicitor general. We had not only a good debate and heard forceful arguments on both sides, because there are cases to be made for both sides, but in the final analysis, this Parliament, this House of Commons to its credit saw fit to vote against and abolish capital punishment, we hoped and thought at that time, for all time.
Capital Punishment
It is of some interest to me that it was a Progressive Conservative who probably did more to convince me on this subject that abolition was right for the twentieth century. I had the pleasure on more than one occasion to listen to a very eminent Canadian, the Hon. Arthur Maloney, who spoke with feeling about this subject, about the need for this country to finally move into the twentieth century. Never again would the state be put in the position of taking the life of one of its citizens, whether we do it humanely by hanging, by electrocution, by the use of a guillotine, or by whatever other method.
The hon. member made the point that some of these people are sick and incurable. Surely they are not the ones we should be putting to death. Those, of all people, are the ones we should be helping. Let us find out why they are sick and why they are incurable. By doing that, perhaps we can prevent other murders from taking place in the future. The hon. member, if he is fair, will recognize that no jury or court in this land will convict an individual who is sick and incurable and tell him he has to face the death penalty. This is not the way the system works.
I support a free vote totally. But it seems to me that those of us who believe in abolition, who believe the last vote taken was the correct one, find that the onus, if there is to be a change, should be on those who want a change.
I have been waiting for a motion to be put, but not in the general terms we have here: let us bring back the death penalty. We find though that those who are for capital punishment cannot get their act together. Some of them would have capital punishment for the murders of police officers, prison guards and political leaders. Others have different choices. We hear that anyone who carries a gun in the commission of a crime should be subject to capital punishment. Many of us argued as strenuously as we could, sometimes knowingly putting our own political careers on the line, because we take what seems to be an unpopular position in our riding, taken because we feel and we know in our hearts that it is right. Leadership does not come about by taking a survey and finding out what all of the people want, and then running around ahead of them, saying "follow me". Leadership, and [DOT] that is what we should be giving, calls for more than a survey and an indication about the way a member will vote because the people or the crowd are telling him to vote.
If we are going to have another debate on this subject, it is not up to those of us who believe in abolition to bring it forward. It is up to those who believe in capital punishment to see if they can get their act together, bring in a motion and try to have it carry in the House of Commons. That is not our responsibility. We fought our fight and are prepared to fight it again if need be. I do not intend to take the initiative to move away from what the House has already decided in a free vote.
On this particular subject, a tremendous amount of research has been done by those on both sides of the issue. It is interesting to note that in the last debate in the House in which I took part, approximately half the members of the

April 3, 1981
Capital Punishment
House participated. After a while the arguments on both sides took on a certain similarity. It was time to put the matter to a vote, which we did. I will concede that the vote was very close, but the majority of the members of the House of Commons, to their credit, voted. I said at the time that I hoped capital punishment would be abolished for all time. I think the vote was 130 to 124.
I know this subject interests many members of the House. For that reason I will not pursue it any further other than to say I cannot agree with the hon. member that this is something we should be doing, moving us back toward the nineteenth century rather toward the twenty-first century. It is a retrograde step. It is saying to what is now an enlightened society: let us move back a little into the shadows. This is what Canada wants in the twentieth and twenty-first century. We want to say to our children that we were involved and participated in that debate.
The hon. member says now we should hang the sick and the incurable. If we do that, we will start with all kinds of nonsense in this country. We made the decision in the last vote. I hope that vote will have the effect of abolishing capital punishment for all time.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in hearing the last speaker degrade the matter of a referendum. It is going to be very interesting to see how he votes on referenda-


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know the hon. member does not want to mislead the House. I was indicating that the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell) was the one denigrating it. I said I hoped he would speak in as strident a voice about the motion put forward by his colleague from Erie who wants a referendum. I do not think a referendum is the right way to handle it.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I accept the statement of the hon. member. I hope I will be given an extra minute. I am sure he would not want to deprive me of that.
There are two sides to this question. As Sir Roger de Coverley said in the primary readers, much can be said on both sides. I support capital punishment. In my view, a large percentage of the people of Canada support it. In fact, well over 70 per cent do.
There are two philosophies. One was put forward by the last speaker who said we should provide leadership. That is said in many countries when government wants to tell the people what is good for them. I do not believe in that type of philosophy. I believe in providing leadership, but I also believe in reflecting the thinking of the people.
I was elected by a large majority of my constituents to support capital punishment. In a democracy, there is a responsibility on members to reflect the thinking of those who sent them here. One does not suddenly become knowledgeable because one happens to be elected. The origin of democracy was that since all the people could not go to Parliament, a few were sent to represent the thinking of the majority.
We are getting too far away from that today. We are telling the people what is good for them once we have been elected. When a person is elected, he does not have any more wisdom than he had before. The primary purpose of being elected is to reflect the thinking of the people. That is democracy, and that is what I am going to talk about now.
If I did not believe in capital punishment, I would have made it a point to tell that to my constituents at my nominating convention and throughout the election campaign. However, I do believe in capital punishment. I made a point of telling the people that if I was elected, I did not want them to ask me to oppose capital punishment because that is something I cannot do. I was elected on the basis of my conviction.
I want to deal with some of the reasons why I believe in capital punishment. This is a House of debate. The idea of debate is to endeavour to carry the judgment of other people, not to tell them what is good for them. I respect the view of the last speaker. I do not agree with it, but I respect it.
When he was referring to the sick, the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell) was not asking that those who are insane be subjected to capital punishment. That is not what he intended. No court will convict someone who is sick.
When I talk about capital punishment, I want to define it right from the beginning. I am talking about the death penalty for the murderer of another human being who has deliberately planned and killed a person and has been found guilty in the courts beyond the shadow of a doubt. That is the type of person who should suffer the death penalty. Let me tell you why.
When I was a child, I was punished if I did something wrong. If I did something worse, I was punished more severely. We accept punishment in our homes. It is a necessary part of upbringing.
One time a minister of the gospel came to me to tell me that he did not believe in bringing death to another individual. I asked him if he would punish his child if he stole something. He said yes, absolutely. When I asked him whether he would punish his child more severely if he stole to a greater degree, he said yes. When I asked if the degree of punishment would continue based on the wrong that was done, he said yes. I asked why he would stop when a person commits the ultimate crime and the ultimate sin of taking the life of another human being. He stopped and reflected, but he did not give me an answer.
I believe that capital punishment is the ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime. When a person in his right mind deliberately plans and kills another human being and is found guilty in the courts beyond the shadow of a doubt, he too should be executed. I will not deal with the method of execution. That may vary. However, he should be executed.
Let me go into this a little further and discuss whether it is a deterrent. I believe it is a deterrent because we all love life. We do not want to die. Very seldom do you come across someone who wants to die. We all want to live because we love life. Why should we assume that someone who takes the life of
April 3, 1981

another does not want to live? Love of life is a fact of life, and that is why some do not want the death penalty. I believe capital punishment is a definite deterrent to murder. The fear of death is instinctive.
Many people today will say they are ready to die. A very fine Christian woman spoke to me a short time ago saying she was prepared and ready to die. I asked her whether she wanted to die, and she replied, "No, no, I do not want to die but I am ready whenever the good Lord calls me." She loved life even though she was old and suffering from disease. We all regard life as a precious possession. People love to live.
Whether or not capital punishment is a deterrent is really irrelevant. It is utterly impossible to determine how many people were not killed because of the fear of the death penalty. We know how many people have been murdered, but we do not know how many were not killed for this reason. The argument, either way, therefore, is inconclusive. My idea is that the fact that people fear death and love life makes capital punishment a realistic deterrent.
Let me deal with this point a little further. In our society today, many people are becoming concerned with the extent of unlawfulness, and unruliness. Some have come to the conclusion that the only possible deterrent to the brutality committed in this country and throughout the world is the reinstatement of capital punishment in those countries where it does not now exist.
A few weeks ago, the world was shocked by the senseless and brutal murder of John Lennon. I was not a particular fan of John Lennon's but I was horrified that he had been shot. He actually did not sing the kinds of songs or play the kind of music I like best, but I was sorry that this artist had been brutally killed. I immediately asked why this had been so, and came to the conclusion it was senseless. What do we say to a person who deliberately commits that kind of murder? I think the answer to that question is that the death penalty will be applied in respect of those who plan that type of thing.
The hon. member for Ontario mentioned the senseless shooting in Washington the other day. If the man is insane, that is one consideration, but, on the evidence so far, the indication is that he was completely sane, knew what he was doing, planned the event and carried it out deliberately. He had the gun and he was ready for the event.
I have a number of nephews who are police officers. When I go back to Alberta or visit British Columbia I am never sure whether they are still alive. Every day police officers take chances with their lives in order to preserve order for you and me. Hundreds of young men and young women in the RCMP and in our city and village police forces take their lives in their hands when they put on their uniforms. They become the targets of those who deliberately want to break the law.
I know of one police officer who spent several weeks tracking down a murderer. He was finally successful; the man was charged and brought to court. The judge said to him, "You" know, this was bad; this was not good. Do not do that again.
Capital Punishment
The court let him off on probation. Recently a policeman in Calgary was killed by someone who was let go free.
On one occasion I asked a convicted murderer whether the fact that he had taken a human life bothered him. His reply was: "No, and I would do it again." The man was guilty of a crime of passion, but he said he would do it again. I wondered, as I looked at that man, whether I would want him living next door to my house after he was released from his short term behind bars. Would I want him living in an area where there are innocent boys and girls? My answer is, of course, that I would not, and I do not think any members in this place would want him living near them.
These convicted people do not stay in prison for very long, and that creates a problem. Today we have between 100 and 200 murderers in our prisons. I sympathize with the difficulties facing our Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan). The penitentiary in Drumheller in my constituency is supposed to be a medium security prison, but for some time now officials have been putting individuals who belong in a very strongly guarded environment along with those who should be in a medium security prison. Exactly what happens when you put bad apples with good apples? I have never heard of bad apples turning good but I have often seen good apples turn bad.
A young man in the penitentiary I just mentioned said to me on one occasion when I visited him, "I hate it here. I am learning more about how to commit crime than I ever thought there was to know." It is for this reason I recommended to the Solicitor General that we should not put those who should be in tight security in medium security prisons.
What are we to do with these 100 or 200 murderers? They have killed once. They spend 12 years, 15 years or 20 years in prison if they go the full term. Some of them are fairly young and have quite a bit of life left. They know the death penalty has been abolished in Canada so there is no deterrent to them not to kill.
Let me return to the consideration of capital punishment as a deterrent. The individual who deliberately takes the life of another human being, is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and meets the death penalty, will never murder anybody else. Fathers and mothers do not have to worry about that man harming their sons and daughters. People in Toronto, Calgary or any of our large city centres are concerned for the safety of their children. Senior citizens in most of our urban centres are afraid to go out in the streets at night.
The death penalty is symbolic. It is a warning to those who break the law that they will be punished; if they commit the ultimate crime they will face the ultimate punishment. Do not tell me that anyone in his right mind cannot understand that. Capital punishment is a deterrent. It would not be much of a deterrent in the case of a killing as a result of an argument in a bedroom or a bar room. These killings occur without any planning or deliberation, so perhaps there is not much of a deterrent there. Those things just come up. No one is saying there would be a deterrent in such cases. Such crimes of passion are beyond reason. However, in my view, capital punishment is a deterrent to those who would deliberately plan

April 3, 1981
Capital Punishment
the death of other persons. Canadian statistics indicate that if a robber, burglar or rapist knew with reasonable certainty that killing his victim would result in his own execution, he would think twice about it. 1 know that is not a very good example, but newspaper stories I have read with respect to the yellow dogs who killed the shoeshine boy in Toronto have told about what they said in court about discussing the matter before they killed that little boy. One of them gave evidence in court and said that they discussed the fact that there was no death penalty, and that was one of the reasons they killed that little boy. Today the taxpayers of this country are keeping them in prison. I suppose the taxpayers are keeping them pretty well because the bleeding hearts of this country make sure they have their televisions, radios, entertainment and their good times.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Colour television.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Colour television, yes, which many people cannot afford.
I believe in rehabilitating people, but let us make sure we have a chance to rehabilitate someone who has committed the ultimate crime before we attempt rehabilitation. In this country today many Canadians are digusted because we are concerned more about those who kill than we are about their victims. We sometimes forget about the little boy, the little girl, the police officer, the guard or the man or woman. I do not care who it is; if he or she is deliberately killed by someone who thinks it out, plans it and schedules it, in my view that person is ready for the death penalty, and he should face it.
To come back to the motion, what we want is a free vote because this is not a matter for parties to decide. It is a matter on which members should reflect the thinking of the people who sent them here. It is a moral matter. I do not know of any party which has taken a definite stand one way or the other. There are probably people in all the parties of this country who take one side or the other, but a free vote would reflect the thinking of the people, and we would be carrying out real democracy.


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell) ought to be congratulated for having brought forward this motion. Today is a good day because it is really the first day on which Parliament has started working normally again. It is very refreshing to be back to normal business after seven or eight days of having to listen to some 60 phony, empty and meaningless questions of privilege-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the hon. member, this is not the item before the House at this time.


Mr. Caccia:: -most of which were rejected by Madam Speaker. I am happy to see something of substance and concern to Canadians at large being brought forward. It is in this sense that I offer my congratulations to the hon. member for Ontario. It is very reassuring that we are back again to
normal business. Let us hope that we will not be distracted in the days and weeks to come by the intentions expressed only a few days ago by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) when he said in this very House-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the hon. member, the item before us is a private member's bill dealing with capital punishment.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on this bill; the hon. member can speak on that at another time.


Charles L. Caccia: I am coming to the point. I am trying to establish the importance and the constructive nature of the motion put forward by the hon. member for Ontario, in contrast to what his colleagues have done for the past seven days. It seems to me to be a very legitimate point that we are not today wasting parliamentary time as advocated on March 27 by the hon. member for-


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I very, very seldom intervene in a debate such as this, but the hon. member has been called to order two or three times by Your Honour, and he ought at least to have the courtesy to recognize Your Honour's challenge and stick to the point.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, having made that point, I would like to say to the hon. member for Ontario that we in this House have done exactly what he has advocated. We did have a free vote. The hon. member is shaking his head, probably because he was not present. I remember that the galleries were packed that day. The atmosphere was tense. Everyone knew that it was a very historic moment. Mr. Speaker, you were also in this House. We knew it was quite an important moment. We voted. It was a free vote, so much so that there were hon. members opposite who voted for abolition and hon. members on the government side who voted against abolition. It was a truly free vote. In a sense, every party broke up because every member voted according to his or her conscience. It was quite an historic day. As the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) mentioned a few moments ago, it was a very close vote. The motion passed by only some six or seven votes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if I may ask the hon. member if he would keep the record straight. He said that every party broke up. Our party members voted each as he chose, but it just so happened that we were unanimous in our opposition to capital punishment.


Charles L. Caccia: I thank the hon. member for having produced that additional element of historic precision. I am very grateful for that. I suppose he is very proud of that, and quite rightly so.
The speakers on the side of the hon. member for Ontario seem to live under the impression and notion that capital punishment would once and for all eliminate, or at least reduce, murder. That is an erroneous notion. It is disproved by the fact that in countries where there is a capital punishment there is a high murder rate. In countries where there is no
April 3, 1981

capital punishment there tends to be a lower murder rate. In other words, the two are not related, as proved by the fact that even last Monday when we witnessed on television with horror what happened in Washington, we know that in most of the states south of the border there is capital punishment, yet that did not prevent that man from shooting and attempting to kill. It did not prevent another man in 1968 from shooting and killing Robert Kennedy. It did not prevent another one from shooting and killing President Kennedy. It did not prevent another person, in 1975, from attempting to murder President Ford. Yet in most of the states south of the border there is capital punishment. So I ask, what does it do? Is it a deterrent? Hon. members opposite have not discharged the onus of proving to us that it is. They have just said-as the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) says he believes-that it is a deterrent. The hon. member for Bow River has not produced any evidence or any proof.
South of the border is the classic example. There is capital punishment in most of the states, and yet there is a high rate of attempted murder and murder. Is there a deterrent? If we knew there was, we would look at the matter in an attempt to solve the problem for society and to eliminate the constant occurrence of tragic events, as described so well by the hon. member for Ontario and the hon. member for Bow River. We do not want that to happen and we have to find the answers. But those who believe capital punishment is a deterrent have the responsibility to prove it with facts, not with sensation, feelings or belief, as desirable and moving that approach may be. It needs more proof because the history of mankind is filled with instances, some cases in the United States, where it turned out that an innocent person had been executed.
We hear the hon. member for Ontario telling us about humane methods, the way he applies it to his bull and his cow. Perhaps he fails to realize that there is a distinction between an animal and a human being, or perhaps, in his opinion, there is no distinction, in which case that is where we part ways. Those of us who participated in the free vote he advocates, believe in and prefer by far a humanistic approach until it can be demonstrated that there is a deterrent, which has not been proven, otherwise this House, when we had the vote last time, would have arrived by means of reasoning at the inevitable conclusion that there should be capital punishment. But those who wanted capital punishment failed to prove this is a deterrent and that is why they lost.
On the eve of the twenty-first century, in trying to solve this problem that has been with us since the very beginning, we have to come to the conclusion that prevention is the route to follow. Preventive measures such as gun control have their limitations because we all know that they are not that effective. Prevention should be attempted by way of social measures at the neighbourhood level, in the schools and in family life, so that harmonious and healthy family situations from birth enable youngsters to grow up in a healthy environment. These and other measures on the preventive side should be undertak-
Capital Punishment
en, rather than trying to cure a situation after the problem has occurred and a life has been lost.
What the member for Bow River is asking in essence is that the state cold-bloodedly execute one of its citizen, as the member for Sarnia put it so well. The hon. member says: you kill, I kill, and we all kill in the name of the collectivity because that is the best way we can come to grips with this dramatic, tragic and difficult situation that not only affects Canada but affects every society in the world.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that in those nations where capital punishment has been eliminated, the crime rate has not been affected. Abolition of capital punishment is an important recognition that capital punishment is not a deterrent, and I challenge the hon. members who have spoken before me to prove with facts that it is. I would be most interested in hearing this evidence, which has to be a result of thorough study and analysis of whether or not there is a relationship between capital punishment and murder rates. The onus of proving that is on the hon. member for Bow River and the hon. member for Ontario, if they really believe that human beings should be treated like the bull and the cow because that is the way he does it on his farm when he has sick animals in the field.


An hon. Member:: That is not what he said.


Charles L. Caccia: That is the essence of the message, Mr. Speaker. The point really is whether capital punishment also brings in its wake a serious element of injustice, if one looks at what has happened in other jurisdictions over the years. At the time of debate in this House when we had a free vote, as advocated by the hon. member for Ontario-


An hon. Member:: Why the smile?


Charles L. Caccia: -there were no whips on, everybody was free to vote according to his or her conscience. Many Conservative members voted for abolition and, if they were free to vote, the same thing applied to Liberals who voted for the retention of capital punishment, because there were some on this side who voted that way. So a free vote has taken place.
However, the question that comes to mind is the element of injustice, which has been raised by other speakers. What we are going through here today, Mr. Speaker, is really an echo of a debate that took place in this chamber many years ago. In a way we are convering the same ground because, unfortunately, and this perhaps is a sad conclusion, in the years that have gone by since 1976 we have discovered nothing new about this phenomenon. At that time, the majority of members voted freely in this chamber, and I repeat the word "freely" because it does not seem to get through to the hon. member for Ontario. But the only difference between him and me was that he was not in this House whereas I was.
The measure as such brings in its wake an element of injustice because there have been a number of cases in history, as I mentioned earlier, as in the case of people who have been

April 3, 1981
Capital Punishment
executed in Sing-Sing, when years later, it turned out that the wrong person had been executed. Of course, the inevitable question that no one can answer is: how do you bring back to life someone who has been wrongly executed? How do you apply a law that will inevitably fall more heavily on those who are uneducated, on those who are probably mentally sick, on those-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I should like to raise another matter at this time. On February 19, the Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker) in his capacity as Assistant Deputy Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, brought to the attention of the House that there is a number of private members' bills for which a title existed but the text had not been printed. Madam Speaker subsequently indicated to hon. members that those
bills which had not been printed prior to today, April 3, would lose their position on the Order Paper.
With the exception of Bill C-527, which I believe stands in the name of the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie), where a technical problem has delayed the printing but which will be available at the beginning of the week, is there agreement that these bills lose their place on the Order Paper?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Agreed. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. It being 4.49 p.m., this House now stands adjourned until Monday next at two o'clock p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 2(1). '
At 4.49 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, April 6, 1981