1983-04-19

PRIVILEGE


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, I rise to raise a question of privilege involving a most serious budget leak which occurred yesterday. This being the first opportunity to raise that question, I take the opportunity. After hearing my submissions, no doubt you will want to seek the advice of other Hon. Members on the matter I raise. I would be prepared to move the appropriation motion should you find that there is a prima facie case of privilege.
Budget secrecy is a basic principle of our traditions of parliamentary Government. It means that the Minister responsible for bringing down a budget is also held responsible to see to it that the provisions of that budget are not prematurely released. The reasons for this are many. Foreknowledge of budgetary measures has led to the acquisition of private gain and to sharp market fluctuations. My information is current that those fluctuations are taking place and that the Canadian dollar is indeed now falling on the markets.
It is not a principle that it is necessary to defend; it has been accepted in the parliamentary system ever since budgets existed. A breach of budget secrecy has always and invariably led to the resignation of the Minister. It must also be regarded as a breach of the oath which the Minister takes as a member of the Privy Council.
A well known case in the United Kingdom was that involving the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Hugh Dalton, who, in a casual conversation with reporters, hinted at a rise in the tax on tobacco. I will be coming back to that precedent. His resignation as a result of his imprudence took place immediately.
Showing the seriousness with which the British House regards such matters, even though Mr. Dalton resigned the matter was referred to a special committee for a full investigation. Referring to the Dalton case among others, Professor S. R. Finer in public administration says that it was a case which raised "such doubts about his personal prudence and integrity as to cause him to resign".
That is exactly the present case. This is not the first time the Minister has found himself in difficulties. He signed approval of the Gillespie contract and forgot that he had signed or seen it. It must be recalled that Mr. Gillespie was in a position to
profit as a result of a measure included in the first budget presented by this Minister.
While the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was satisfied that there was nothing in the guidelines to concern him in that episode, this is not a mere matter of guidelines. This is a matter reaching into the very heart of parliamentary integrity.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: What of the Minister's integrity? It would seem even redundant now to discuss it. It is a thing of rags and tatters. Prudence is a word that cannot be uttered in the same breath as the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde).
There is extant a video tape showing the previous Minister of Finance at a photo opportunity and deliberately holding the page of his budget address close because, as he explains, "The cameramen are equipped with farseeing lenses". I am referring now to the previous Minister who, when caught in the same circumstances, held his budget close. He would not open the pages because he was aware of the telephoto lenses. That was his attitude at that time.
This Minister is entirely different. He clowned, he joked, and he talked in his interview of zoom lenses. I have a copy of that tape. He joked and said: "I hope you fellows do not have zoom lenses". He joked about the secrecy of that document and closed it up at one stage during that photo opportunity session so that it could not be seen. But he later opened it up to the exposure of the telephoto lenses. The question might be asked: Did he know that they were shooting the pages of the budget as he turned them? He certainly was aware of the availability of zoom lenses because he himself mentioned that fact. All the time that this was going on and he was basking in the sunshine of self-indulgent publicity, his budget was being transferred to video tape. The great video leak was in full swing.
This is one of the great TV bloopers of all time and should certainly get an award for inanity. The Prime Minister was handing out ACTRA awards the other night. He should have reserved one for the Minister of Finance.
As a result of this Minister's culpable indiscretion and lack of prudence, he has created a fatal flaw in the confidence of the House and the country. What was opened as a crack in the Gillespie affair is now a virtual chasm. It is a chasm that the Minister cannot cross. As a result of his clowning and desire for personal publicity, he made available across this country, to the money markets and financial circles, an advance knowledge of the budget which could be used for personal gain.
Anyone with a knowledge of finance, being aware of the amount of the deficit revealed by the Minister and the amount
24610

April 19, 1983
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen
of incentives to be raised for job creation, would be able to draw certain conclusions which might be of great interest in financial circles and make available that gain.
It is not incumbent upon us at this time to show that great profits have been made, or even that it was possible for such to have taken place. Nor was this a case in the episode of Mr. Dalton or Mr. Thomas. Their resignation took place before the investigations by a special committee were made. It was merely necessary to show that a budget leak had taken place in those precedents. The resignations followed immediately and automatically.
[DOT] (U10)
In this country in 1963 Mr. Walter Gordon's resignation went to the Prime Minister when he admitted bringing in outside economic advisers. No leak was shown. All that was shown in that case was that Mr. Gordon had consulted four economists in the preparation of his budget. When that was disclosed, he immediately tendered his resignation to the then Prime Minister, Mr. Pearson, who chose not to accept it. But nonetheless, the proper thing was done and the resignation was tendered. That does not alter the fact, Madam Speaker, that the resignation was tendered.
What we are talking about here is not in the book of rules. We are talking about the absolute necessity that the integrity and the probity of the Minister of Finance with regard to the budget be maintained. The Minister of Finance in his heart of hearts knows this. The Prime Minister knows it. It is more than a matter of tradition and precedent, although they weigh very heavily on this issue; it is a matter of practical necessity.
The public must be satisfied at all times that no person is in a position to profit from budgetary transactions through advance disclosure. The Minister of Finance showed his awareness of this by insisting that the media remain locked up until after he had finished speaking. Such was this solicitude about premature leaking that he went to lengths never dreamed of by other Ministers of Finance. He would have been well advised to show the same care in his own actions. The fact remains that the Minister's capacity-and that is what is at stake here-to continue to function as Minister of Finance has been irreparably damaged by his own lack of prudence and his own fault. The credibility of his budget has been placed in question along with his own credibility. This leaves the Minister the only option of resignation and the production and presentation of a new budget by a new Minister to be appointed to replace him.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: You would want, Madam Speaker, to have exposed for your consideration some evidence. That is all that is necessary for you to find that there exists a prime facie case of privilege so that you might put the question to the House as to whether or not a reference should be made to a special committee to consider the circumstances, as was done in the Hugh Dalton case. I stress "some" evidence; it is not incumbent upon any Member of the House to satisfy the Chair that
that evidence beyond any reasonable shadow of a doubt convinces you that there was a leak. All the Chair requires is some evidence to warrant the matter being put to the House.
What is that evidence? As I say, Madam Speaker, I have a copy of the videotape. That videotape has been shown across the country on television networks since yesterday afternoon. It continues to play this morning. The extent of the leaks go far beyond "some" evidence.
First, the budget is called a budget of recovery.
Second, it will be highlighted by a $4.6 billion job creation program which will push the 1982-83 deficit to $31.2 billion. Nothing can be more specific than those figures.
Third, the Minister tonight will announce a number of incentives to private enterprise, through which he admits the most jobs can be created and be of a more permanent nature than Government can do. Here we have the third piece of evidence.
Fourth, the Minister will state in his budget that his $4.6 billion job creation program is designed to get the country out of the mood of depression and restore its confidence in the future.
Fifth, the Minister of Finance will say the Government can help give that confidence back to Canadians, but the real action will have to come from the private sector.
Sixth, the Minister will call upon Canadians to mobilize their resources and make the economy more productive and competitive.
Seventh, there will be a two-fold purpose in the budget. The Minister wants to start the recovery process and do so in such a way that it lasts for a long time.
Eighth, the Minister of Finance says his employment measures will have an immediate effect and will have longterm benefits.
Ninth, the budget will state that if the Government did not spend the $4.6 billion on job programs, investments in both the private and public sectors would be delayed and thus stall early economic recovery.
Tenth, the Finance Minister will say that if he did not inject such a large sum into the economy, the $31.2 billion projected deficit would have been much higher.
Those are translations from the French text that were lifted verbatim from the pages telephotoed by the CHCH Hamilton TV cameraman in the Minister's office yesterday afternoon.


Mr. Clark:: At the Minister's invitation.


Erik Nielsen: At the Minister's invitation, I might add. Those ten specific verbatim references to the budget go far beyond meeting the standard test of presenting to the Chair some evidence. Those ten leaks provide the Chair with enough evidence, if it were your job, which it is not, to convict the Minister, resting only on those ten points. But the Chair need not go that far. The Chair need find only that there is some
April 19, 1983

evidence that there has been a breach of the privileges of the House and then put the question to the House.
The presentation of an annual budget is the fundamental link between the Crown and the Parliament of Canada. It is the time-honoured and hard-won right of Parliament to scrutinize the financial requirements and plans of the Government. It is only Parliament that can authorize major Government appropriations, and it is only Parliament that can authorize taxation measures.
In anticipation of a possible submission to the Chair on this question from the other side that, because these leaks did not concern tax measures, what has been leaked will be found entirely appropriate, I say to you, Madam Speaker, that taking refuge in that kind of defense of hyperbole should not affect one iota the decision of the Chair with respect to finding a prima facie case of privilege. Any leak which is likely to cause fluctuations on the market, which is likely to result in gains and profits being made in the marketplace, is the very reason for the principle of secrecy surrounding the preparation and presentation of any budget. For information about the detailed plans contained in the budget which is to be delivered to Parliament to be released prior to the delivery of the budget in Parliament is, in essence, a contempt of Parliament itself. That was the matter which was at issue in the Hugh Dalton case and that brought about his immediate resignation.
There can be no doubt whatsoever that the excerpts yesterday from the text of the budget which I have read for the benefit of the Chair and the videotape which is now in existence show that the Minister of Finance permitted details of his budget speech to become known to the media. In so doing, the Minister not only breached his own oath of office but committed a very serious breach of the privileges of the House.
The notion of budget secrecy is not new. I have a precedent to cite here. It is not unknown to Members of the House. On December 12, 1979 your predecessor, Mr. Speaker Jerome, made reference, as reported at page 2287 of Hansard, to budget secrecy. He said on that occasion that to constitute a question of privilege the Minister must be accused of specifically failing in his responsibility to safeguard budget secrecy.
I make that specific charge now. A videotape exists of the Minister of Finance at the traditional pre-budget photo opportunity, taken by a cameraman, as I said, for CHCH Television in Hamilton, Ontario, clearly showing a script of portions of the French language edition of what the Finance Minister himself purported to be the budget to be presented in the House later today. The Minister of Finance has therefore breached the privileges of the House and should resign immediately. I have cited some of the precedents for such resignation.
It might be advanced by a spokesman for the Government, who I presume will be rising to participate in the discussion of this question and to advise the Chair, that what we saw and what was being discussed was a draft budget, a dummy budget. After viewing the videotape, which I have done several
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen
times, that assertion cannot be made. Indeed, when one views that tape, the Minister is clearly shown as having a concern initially about the secrecy to be maintained over that document, whether it was upside down or right side up, as he clowned in saying during that session.
Indeed, at one stage the Minister closed the cover so that it could not be photographed. Later on he opened it up and leafed through the pages, thus permitting a cameraman to zoom in with his telephoto lens and lift out $4.6 billion in job creation and a $31.2 billion deficit. That information went the length and breadth of this country that same afternoon. There is no grosser breach of the rules surrounding the secrecy of budgets than that which has been committed by the Minister.
I should cite to you, Madam Speaker, before citing the Dalton case, Walter Gordon's memoirs to substantiate what I have said with respect to the action he took. Walter Gordon at page 149 of those memoirs writes:
I remember telling Pearson that I would resign if he would like me to do so. I was taking quite a beating and, understandably, he asked me how I was feeling and if I had enough confidence to carry on. I assured him that I had, and later when he was asked if I had offered to resign he replied in the negative. I mentioned this to him subsequently and said that, in view of his statement, I also would say, if asked, that I had not offered to resign as I had not done so in a formal way or in writing. He agreed with this. My difficulties were not lessened when Richard O'Hagan, the Prime Minister's Press Secretary, decided to poll the members of the Press Gallery on whether Pearson should call for my resignation. Naturally word of this was relayed to me very quickly.
He goes on to say what happened when the House met again on Wednesday afternoon, June 19.
With respect to the Dalton precedent, that can be found in the Hansard for Westminster of November 17, 1947, at page 1467. What had occurred was that Hugh Dalton, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the day that he was to deliver his budget walked into the lobby of the House. As he was walking in, a journalist asked him whether there was likely to be a further tax imposed on cigarettes. His response was that people should buy their cigarettes early. I am paraphrasing.
He delivered his budget later that same afternoon, and there indeed was the imposition of a further tax on cigarettes. It hit the evening newspapers in London, and Hugh Dalton resigned immediately. Notwithstanding that resignation, the British House considered a motion that was moved by the Opposition at the time, a debate in which Mr. Churchill engaged, and asked for a reference to a special committee of the House to consider all of the circumstances surrounding the premature disclosures in that budget.
Madam Speaker, I cannot emphasize too strongly the foundation upon which the business of this place rests. This is the first time that I have raised a question as serious as this. It is the first time, to my knowledge, that there has ever been a budget leak of such gross magnitude that has had the opportunity of pervading the financial markets of this country a full 24 hours-plus before the budget is even delivered in the House.

April 19, 1983
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen
We cannot, Madam Speaker, carry on business as usual. The Minister's lack of prudence and his own conduct in this self-seeking drive for publicity has caused this leak of such huge proportions that the House must deal with it and must deal with it in a traditional way, in the same way that the leak was dealt with in the case of Hugh Dalton.
Therefore, if you find that there is a prima facie case of privilege affecting Members of this House, I would propose to move:
That a special committee be appointed to inquire into all the circumstances relating to or associated with the disclosure of budget information by the Minister of Finance on Monday, April 18, 1983, that the committee consist of 11 Members of the House, and that the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records.
That would be the motion that I suggest you should put to the House, Madam Speaker, upon reaching the conclusion that there has been a prima facie breach of the privileges of the House.
I want to emphasize once again that if there ever was, if you have ever considered in your three-year-plus term now as Speaker of this Chamber, a breach of the privileges of the Members of this House, this is it. I urge, Madam Speaker, that you can come to no other conclusion than the very compelling one that that breach exists prima facie, that it must be dealt with by the House, and that the House certainly cannot proceed as though nothing has happened.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I would just like to know, for the enlightenment of the Chair, whether the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Nielsen) could answer a question for me. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition quite rightly said that it is not up to the Chair to determine whether there was a leak or to chastise the Minister in case there would be ample proof that there was a leak, but that the only question before us, of course, is to decide whether in appearance, prima facie, there is a breach of the privileges of the House.
The Hon. Member referred to several resignations of Ministers in the United Kingdom and of one Minister in the Government of Canada. Could the Hon. Member tell me whether these Ministers resigned as a consequence of the matter of a budget leak being referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections? I do not believe it is so.
Now, he referred to the Dalton case where a motion was considered by the British House. Could he make it clear to the House whether that motion was a motion to submit the case to the Committee on Privileges and Elections or if it was a motion of another nature?


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I can read from the transcript of Hansard from Westminster, but at the outset let me follow the sequence of the Hugh Dalton case. I have described how he was walking into the lobby when a question was put to him by a journalist and he answered it in such a fashion as to enable the London evening papers to print what later was discovered to have been in the budget that he delivered. He resigned before the striking of a special committee to consider
the circumstances simply because he realized upon the publication of his answer in response that the imposition of that cigarette tax was a premature leak of budget information. That did not stop the House, notwithstanding his resignation- which is the proper thing for the Minister of Finance to do now-indeed, in that case with the consent of the Government, from striking that committee to examine all the circumstances that brought about that premature leak.
With respect to Canadian precedents, the closest I have discovered-there may be others-is the case of Walter Gordon, who felt that his resignation was in order because he had offended the rules in having discussions, not of the completed budget but in the preparation of his budget, with outside economists. That is a "no-no" under our practices. That compelled him to consider his resignation. I read to you the extract from his memoirs with respect to his consultation with the Prime Minister.
The actual motion that was moved in the British House of Commons, as reported at page 1467 of the British Hansard, is as follows:
That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into all the circumstances relating to or associated with the disclosure of Budget information by Mr. Dalton, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, on Wednesday 12th November:-
The motion goes on to name the members of the committee. You will find, Madam Speaker, that the wording of the motion I would move, should a prima facie question be found, is almost exactly the same as in the British precedent.
I am in total accord that you do not sit there in judgment over the rectitude or otherwise of the Minister's conduct; you sit there only to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to constitute a prima facie case, which the House then considers and decides whether or not it should go to committee.
I might say that committee would have the power to call for persons, papers and things, including videotapes-the original that was made as well as my own copy-which, once viewed, would convince beyond any doubt of the magnitude of the leak.


Madam Speaker:: Order. I do not think the two motions are exactly the same but they need not be, although some similarities would have to occur. The motion the Hon. Member is referring to was on striking a select committee to investigate all the circumstances surrounding that particular case. I believe the Hon. Member's motion deals with privilege and requests that the matter be sent to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. I just take note of that because I should like to examine-whether or not a Minister resigns on his own volition-whether the House would want to examine the matter of breach of privilege, regardless of the fact that even if a Minister had resigned, perhaps the House would find it still has the responsibility to determine whether privilege had been breached. The two things do not necessarily follow but they might.
April 19, 1983


Erik Nielsen: I have a point of clarification, Madam Speaker. I doubt if it would have been proper for me to provide you with a copy of an intended motion prior to raising the question. I want to point out that I would not propose the matter be referred to a standing committee of the House. The British have no standing committees and that is the reason a select committee was struck for this purpose.
If a prima facie case is found, I suggest that a special committee be appointed to inquire into all the circumstances, and then the wording would follow that I read into the record before. I do not suggest that it go to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections but that a special committee be struck for that purpose.


Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, I want to say to you at the very outset that I rise most sincerely with a feeling of sorrow that a matter such as this has to come before the House of Commons on a day such as this. I must say to you also that my indignation-and I think it is a righteous indignation-is such that I know very well, as we proceed this morning in a discussion and debate about this matter, that, as you always do, you will step in and attempt to restrain those of us who feel-and I must say this as strongly as I can-a very real sense of outrage in respect of the procedures and what has happened.
Quite frankly, I found your first question to my colleague the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Nielsen) rather curious in respect to the whole question of the resignation of the Minister involved. I say that I found it rather curious because in your mind, I submit to you, and in the independence and impartial position you hold as the first Commoner in this country, the whole question of the resignation and the timing of the resignation of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde)-no matter how much we demand it here and how heated the debate may become today and this evening-is really irrelevant as far as the question you have to answer is concerned.
I submit to you with the utmost respect that the question you have to answer, regardless of the Minister and his resignation, is whether there has been a prima facie case of a leak of budget secrets, in which case it is a prima facie case in accordance with precedents in this country, in Great Britain and other Commonwealth countries, which go to prove that there is a breach of the privileges of the House.
The resignation of the Minister-even though I intend to demand it here and now, and later today perhaps by another means before the House-and the delay of the budget presentation tonight, which I submit personally and not on behalf of my colleagues, is now required as a result of what happened yesterday afternoon in the Minister's office, is quite irrelevant to the matter that you have to focus on.
I suggest to you that the Dalton case alone in Great Britain is such that the Speaker there found there was a prima facie case just by virtue of the leak of budget information. That was enough. In actual fact, by the time that occurred the Minister had already resigned. I would hope that the Minister here has
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen
already resigned. That may or may not be the case, but it is quite irrelevant to the point you have to focus on.
Why is this a breach of the privileges of this House? I ask you, Madam Speaker, why do we have extraordinary provisions in regard to our procedures for the presentation of a budget-quite extraordinary procedures? We have a set time which is set apart completely from the normal hours of the House for a budget presentation. Why is that? It is so that the budget presentation may not be known to anyone or acted upon by anyone during the normal course of business hours as far as the North American and European markets are concerned.
We feel, the House of Commons collectively, that we have upset our normal and traditional hours of dealing with ministerial statements so that that can be done at a time quite apart from our normal hours of business. It can be done only in a manner in which the first public pronouncement that is made in respect of those budget provisions is made here in the House, at a time at which normal, ordinary commercial transactions cannot be affected.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member is now pursuing an argument which it is hard for me to conceive as being related to the question of privilege. I made the point that he made before, and that is that there might be a relationship between the resignation of the Minister of Finance and the question of privilege. There might be but there is not necessarily a relationship. I think the Hon. Member has just now made that same point.
I would appreciate it if the Hon. Member would remain on the element that constitutes privilege so that the Chair would be in a better position to rule on this particular matter. The Chair feels that it must rule before the end of this sitting. If it is at all possible I will try to do that. In light of other events that should occur today, I think it is important that the matter be resolved one way or the other.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased that the Chair is taking the attitude that this is a matter that cannot be delayed and that there has to be the fullest discussion before Your Honour today, and that in the normal course of events Your Honour will rule on this matter before eight o'clock tonight or perhaps even a little after if the House continues with the discussion. I hope the House will have the fullest opportunity of discussing the matter before there is an intimation from the Chair on the matter on which the Chair is ruling.
The point is that regardless of the Minister's resignation, surely a discussion is going to be allowed on the circumstances of the actual budget leak. That is the point on which the question of privilege is based. 1 suggest to the Chair that that certainly is the nub and root of the matter-whether or not the leak is important enough that it should be discussed and considered by a committee of the House.
I only have to emphasize that in the economic debate that is swirling around this place and other governments in the western world in the last six months, the big question has been whether Government policy will be a restrictive one in order to

April 19, 1983
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen
cut back swollen deficits or whether it will be an expansive one which will add to those deficits. In any treasury or ministerial decision that obviously was one of the first things that had to be decided. Yesterday afternoon-and the evidence is absolutely irrefutable-the Minister, through his own action-not some hireling, not any process, not through anyone else but the Minister himself through his own very foolish, if not stupid, action-released the nub of that budget philosophy and concept of governmental policy at a time when it could be acted upon by others. I suggest that before 24 hours is out there will be irrefutable evidence before you that others have acted on that evidence in a way in which they can only enrich their own wallets and bank accounts.
This was a breach of the privileges of the House because it has been a set concept from time immemorial that the budget provisions, the main budget provision especially, should be kept secret until announced in the House. There is no question that that privilege was broken yesterday afternoon. The Minister may have done so in a way that was unintentional, although there are those who even doubt that, but it happened in any event. That is enough, surely, to indicate that there is a prima facie case of breach of the privileges of the House.
It did not matter in the Dalton case whether the Minister resigned or not. That was irrelevant. The question was whether or not a leak of a very minor budget secret under those circumstances was enough to present to the Chair of the British House of Commons evidence that a breach of privilege had taken place.
It is my submission, Madam Speaker, that that precedent is on all fours with the matter before you, with one grave, gross change. That is the fact that what was released for the knowledge of everyone who watched the television newscasts last night or this morning, or listened to the radio or read the national newspapers of this country, was the basic concept of what the policy of this Government is with respect to its budget and financial policy over the next year. Surely this is a more serious and gross case than the Dalton case in Britain.
Another matter which I think the Chair should very seriously consider is the whole question of the oath of secrecy of the Minister. It does not entail how secrets are released or why they are released. It only involves a breach of an oath of secrecy when secrets themselves are released. Is there any question in anyone's mind today that a budget secret was released yesterday or even that there was an intention to at least give an indication that a budget secret was released? To my mind, that would be even a more serious question to be resolved as far as the integrity and public morality of an elected official of this House is concerned.
It is not the credibility of the Minister that is at stake in this matter. I suggest that he has no credibility now, but that is irrelevant. What is essentially at stake here is the credibility of the House of Commons, the credibility of an oath of secrecy and the credibility of a Government which will permit the release of information such as this so that those who are already wealthy and powerful in this country and in the
international money markets of the western world can make a fat profit at the expense of the ordinary person. That is really the basis of the credibility that is before us.
I think it is almost inescapable that your decision, which I am glad to hear you will make today, will be that there was a breach of the fundamental privileges of the House. Only a prima facie case has to be demonstrated before you, Madam Speaker. No matter what arguments may come from the other side, there will be no disguising the fact that through carelessness, intent, or any other motive which we may or may not ascribe to this Minister, a serious breach of a fundamental concept of fiscal policy in the budget was released yesterday afternoon. That in itself is enough to demonstrate, to my mind, a fundamental breach of the privileges of this House as well.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I rise with some regret to add my support to the motion made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Nielsen) and to suggest that there can be no doubt that information which was intended to be secret was revealed to the press yesterday.
I do not believe there is any question in anyone's mind that the press reports of last evening and today clearly indicate that certain members of the press, if not all, had access to some, if not all, of the contents of the budget to be presented here this evening at eight o'clock. That is quite clearly a violation of the principles that everyone believes are the principles of secrecy pertaining to the presentation of a budget.
I would suggest that this is even more serious than the Dalton affair. It is more serious since, in the case of Hugh Dalton, he inadvertently allowed a hint of what might be in the budget to pass between himself and a friend who was a member of the media immediately prior to the presentation of his budget. With the benefit of hindsight and having read the Hugh Dalton memoirs, it is quite clear that it would have been difficult to have taken advantage of the situation even with that information.
[DOT] (U50)
However, what every single Minister of Finance and every Chancellor of the Exchequer has realized is that budget secrecy is an absolute must. There can be no deviation from the principle that a budget must remain secret until it is presented to the House of Commons.
I want to refer Hon. Members to what Walter Gordon, a former Minister of Finance, said in a book about his life. Perhaps it may not legitimately be described as his memoirs. However, at page 155 of his book, which is entitled "A Political Memoir", he said:
There is also the question of "budget secrecy" and the absolute responsibility of the Minister of Finance for any leaks that might occur, intentionally or by misadventure, through the action of any member of his department (or any other department, including the printing bureau). For example, Wynne Plumptre told me long afterwards that he took his draft of the 1963 budget speech home with him the night before he presented it to me. He had planned to read it through again before delivering it the next morning. But it was his birthday and his wife had arranged for them to go out to visit friends. So Wynne locked the draft speech in his briefcase which he hid in a cupboard. On his return later in the
April 19, 1983

evening, he found his house had been broken into. The burglars had found his briefcase and broken the lock. The draft budget speech was strewn about the floor but still intact.
More sophisticated thieves might have realized that some enterprising reporter could have been a good market for this prize.
This is the important part:
If that had happened and inspired stories had been published about what might be expected to be included in the budget to be presented in the following week, as the responsible minister I would have had to resign from the government immediately.
That is what Walter Gordon said and that is the view held by every person in politics in Canada today.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Integrity.


Ian Deans: That is the view which has been handed down from one Minister of Finance to the next, through every Government which has been in existence in this country. I believe that it is also the view that the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) would claim to be his view, that budget secrecy is an absolute must.
What happened in the case of Hugh Dalton, to which reference was given by the Leader of the Opposition and, obliquely, by the Hon. Member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence), although quite different from the situation now, is an interesting example of how a responsible Minister and his responsible Parliament deal with such an indiscretion.
What happened, in fact, was that at the Cabinet meeting it was brought to the Minister's attention that a story intended to be a projection of what might be contained in the budget had been printed in a local newspaper. Hugh Dalton immediately recognized that that story had come from his own lips, that he had given out that information, albeit not intentionally. He knew immediately, and on page 276 of his memoirs of the years 1945 to 1960, he said that he had informed his colleagues that he had spoken to Carvel, who was the reporter, and went on to say:
We all agreed that I must make full and frank admission of my responsibility and express my deep regrets and apologies to the House.
He then said to his colleagues:
This means that I must resign my office.
I make that point because, in the Hugh Dalton case, it was such a slip. He had taken precautions to ensure that the budget would not be known to anyone.
In the case of Mr. Plumptre, acting on behalf of Walter Gordon, the Minister of the time, he, too, had taken every precaution. However, in each instance they came to the conclusion that budget secrecy was an absolute must.
Now, I suggest-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I would like the Hon. Member to realize that he must indicate the relationship of that to the Chair. We all agree that the principle of budget secrecy is accepted by all Parliaments and by all Governments. We all accept the fact that Ministers take an oath and that they must be loyal to their oath. However, what is necessary is
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen
for Hon. Members to prove to the Chair and to indicate to the Chair-


Erik Nielsen: Not prove.


Madam Speaker:: Not prove, that is right. They must indicate to the Chair in what way the breach of that oath or of that secrecy interferes with the privileges of the House. That is the very important and, I might say, narrower point.
The arguments which are being presented to the Chair now would have to relate to the debate which would ensue on the Chair finding a prima facie of privilege. The substance of the matter should not be debated now. The only thing that is important now is to demonstrate to the Chair the relationship of what has taken place or allegedly taken place to the matter of privilege.
I just want to caution Hon. Members that I would like to rule on this matter before the Question Period. I think it is obvious to Hon. Members why I would like to rule. Otherwise, the Question Period would pose some difficulties for Hon. Members who might want to ask questions related to the actuality. After all, that is what the Question Period is all about.
I am in the hands of the House. If many Hon. Members want to intervene, I will listen to them. However, I would plead with them not to repeat the arguments which some Hon. Members have already put forward. There has already been much repetition, and that is not very useful. The only thing that that will achieve is to pose some very grave difficulties in Question Period. I am warning the House now that I will have to apply the rules-


Allan Frederick Lawrence: This is more important. Privilege certainly takes priority.


Madam Speaker:: -that if a ruling is in suspense, no questions may be asked relating to that particular matter.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Surely privilege takes priority.


Madam Speaker:: Therefore, I will now listen to the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain with this warning.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I appreciate being informed of that. I want to suggest that the reason I laid it out in the way I did is because I wanted to point out that in the case now before us, recognizing that budget secrecy is an accepted requirement of the Minister of Finance, recognizing that this is historically true, and that other Ministers of Finance and Chancellors of the Exchequer have recognized that they must report to the House of Commons in advance of anyone else, the privilege centres around the privileges of Hon. Members to be informed according to the practices which have been followed since the beginning of time in the parliamentary system, the requirement to provide Members of Parliament with that which is accepted by everyone as the practice both here and in Westminster.

April 19, 1983
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen
As I said, this situation is worse than the Dalton case because this Minister of Finance established a situation which allowed such a breach to arise. He was not prudent in the way in which he protected the secrecy of the budget. He acted in a most imprudent way in inviting members of the press to come into his office, suggesting to them that the budget document which was to be presented tonight was there on his desk, asking them if they had their zoom lenses with them, making it possible for them to take photographs and making it possible for them, with that advance knowledge, to personally gain from the information which he had indiscreetly made available to them.
I think that goes to the heart of the matter. Not only were the journalists who were there and had access to the information able, if they had wanted to-and no one knows what they did-to go out and take advantage of that information for their own gain, but they could have gone out and taken advantage of that information for the gain of others. That is the breach of confidence that has occurred. That is the privilege that I claim on behalf of my constituents. There is a requirement on the Minister of Finance, as has been set out over years of practice, to do everything in his power to make sure that no opportunity can arise which will enable any individual to take advantage of prior knowledge of what will be contained in the budget.
I believe the question of this Minister's mishandling of this particular and extremely important matter must be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. I believe the Committee on Privileges and Elections, looking at the evidence, will find that the Minister acted inappropriately. The Minister did not do what he was required to do both under oath and by precedent.
I suggest that if one has any doubts about the effects of the leak, one need only look at the Canadian dollar, which is falling on the international markets today, and at the Toronto Stock Exchange index, which is also falling, to see the devastating effects of the mismanagement and carelessness of the Minister of Finance.
[ Translation]


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, since you have indicated that you are anxious to make a ruling or make a decision as soon as possible, I shall now, if I may, express the Government's point of view regarding this matter. From the outset, I would like to make it quite clear to the Chair that the question seems entirely hypothetical and premature, and that in any case it has absolutely no basis either in fact or in law.
The Hon. Member for Yukon said earlier, and I quote, [English]
"I want to deal in this case in a traditional way, as in the Dalton case".
It will be very easy in a few moments to demonstrate that, in fact, the Hon. Member is not dealing with this case in a
traditional way as was done in the Dalton case. On the contrary. But let me say this before I come to that comparison on which the Hon. Member for the Yukon has based his case.

Madam Speaker, basically, the question is this: At the procedural level, the Chair must decide whether-as everyone has said-there is a prima facie case of privilege, and from what is said on the floor of the House, the Chair must be reasonably satisfied that prima facie, at first glance, there are facts from which the chair can conclude that the freedom of speech of the Members of this House may have been affected. In fact, privilege, as clearly defined in Beauchesne, 5th Edition, is basically the freedom of speech of the Members of the House of Commons. That and nothing else. I see the Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) is smiling. I challenge him to disprove this. The practice is well known and the principle is clear-a question of privilege must relate directly to the freedom of speech of the Members of the House. Madam Speaker, one of the basic factors for a prima facie case of privilege is lacking. Anyone can see that. It is not a matter of twisting facts and events. It is too easy to get paranoid whenever the Official Opposition sees a chance of obstructing the proceedings of the House. However, if we look at parliamentary procedure and parliamentary practice and precedents, it is immediately obvious in the case put to the Chair that a basic element is lacking. There is no budget, and there must be a budget if the Chair is to decide, to conclude, to find out whether or not there was an actual leak. Without the budget, how can the Chair determine whether the photograph published in the press is one of a document used in preparing the budget or the budget itself-and that we will not know until eight o'clock this evening-how can the Chair determine that information was leaked from a budget that does not exist either in fact or in law?
Madam Speaker, the Standing Orders are quite clear. Standing Order 64(2) provides, and I quote:
An Order of the Day for the consideration of a Ways and Means motion or motions shall be designated at the request of a Minister rising in his or her place in the House.
That is what the Standing Order says, and that is as far as the proceedings for bringing down a possible budget have progressed. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) has asked that an order of the day be designated for this evening at eight o'clock, pursuant to an Order of the House allowing us to sit at eight o'clock, and he will rise in his place to announce what, at eight o'clock and thereafter and not before, will be the budget, that is, the fiscal, financial and economic measures which together constitute what, in our parliamentary practice is commonly called the budget. There is nothing graven in stone, nothing is official, nothing is enshrined, there are no new budgetary measures until the Minister of Finance rises in his place and pronounces the budget speech. Everything prior to that, whether it is in writing or consists of consultations with major groups representing the world of finance, small and medium size businesses, farmers, labour, whether it consists of
April 19, 1983

consultations with parliamentarians in general, whether the information is verbal, in writing or photographed or otherwise-it is not official, has no legal status and is not a factor that should be considered, because the question put to the Chair is the following: Was there or was there not a budget leak? However, there is no budget, so there is no leak. It is as simple as that, Madam Speaker.


Mr. Cousineau:: As simple as that!


Yvon Pinard: That being said, perhaps I may go back to some of the points that were raised by the Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). When he compares the present case with previous cases-even assuming that the question is not hypothetical, is not premature and even assuming that there is a budget-if we look at the arguments used by my colleagues opposite, there is no comparison at all with the three items of jurisprudence or the three pseudo-precedents to which they referred.
First of all, it is a fact that in Canada, a Federal Minister of Finance has never resigned because of a budget leak. Earlier, some quotes were made, out of context, from the memoirs of the Hon. Walter Gordon, but there was nothing to show-and actual events and official documents will prove this-there was nothing to show and it is not true that Mr. Gordon resigned because of a budget leak. That is not true! The quotes made earlier by the Member for Yukon were taken out of context and given an erroneous and subjective interpretation, which ignored the actual facts. Anyone who knows political history is aware, and the facts are there to prove it, that Mr. Gordon resigned between two budgets, because measures contained in his first budget were changed as a result of the budget debate. The measures were nationalistic in character, and since he had been forced to change the very substance of his budget, he tendered his resignation to the Prime Minister at the time, but there is no information indicating, and that is a fact, that the Minister of Finance at the time resigned because of an alleged budget leak.
So those are the facts, and this precedent does not apply at all to the present case.
With the exception of the case I just mentioned, which is not applicable, a Minister of Finance has never been obliged to resign from the Canadian Government because of a budget leak. The only two precedents mentioned by the Opposition took place in the United Kingdom. The first occurred in 1936 or thereabouts, and the second in 1947, and that was the Dalton case on which the Member for Yukon decided to base his arguments. However, Madam Speaker, the difference between the British precedents which took place in England and the present situation is that in the former cases there was a budget. The basic element was there. A budget existed before the two Ministers resigned. That is not the case here. In the two cases that occurred in 1936 and 1947, the Ministers
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen
resigned after a budget was brought down because information had been leaked. Here, nothing has been leaked since there is no budget. Second, in the first two cases, the leak was about fiscal measures, which is not the case here, because the information in the photographs mentioned by the Member for Yukon concerned only figures relating to the deficit, which was discussed on the floor of the House during the last few days, and the people of Canada know it will be high. It does not come as a surprise to anyone. But the big difference between the two British cases and the present situation is that fiscal measures were leaked from an existing budget before the Ministers resigned in 1936 and 1947. That is not the case here. No fiscal measure is being alleged to have been disclosed or to be coming from a given document.
Neither is there a case of privileged information at this point, Madam Speaker. Furthermore, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), unlike Mr. Dalton and the other Minister in 1936, did not tell someone: I am proposing such and such a measure in my budget. I feel it is unconscionable that Hon. Members, considering the circumstances which are generally known, should say that the Minister of Finance of Canada deliberately set out to allow a reporter to photograph one or two pages of a document that may have been his Budget. I think that the camera's indiscretion does not at this time warrant, before there even is a budget, demanding the resignation of the Minister of Finance and preventing the Government this evening from creating the jobs Canada needs. Today, all the Opposition is doing is indulging in some more systematic obstruction, because the Bill on the Order Paper, which provides for funding for the Calgary Olympics, has always been opposed by these people, and now they have a golden opportunity to kill time and set up a smoke screen to distract our attention. The public, however, is not easily fooled, Madam Speaker. The public is certainly not about to be fooled. It is all very well to object formally, but when it is a matter of proving its point, the Opposition shows its true colours, and the points it is trying to make simply do not apply in the present context, where we do not even have a budget, since it must first be brought down this evening at eight o'clock. Everyone knows that it will create jobs, and if the Opposition is so irresponsible as to demand the resignation of the Minister of Finance because the camera's indiscretion, without the Minister's knowing, revealed a measure that is not a fiscal measure, before a budget was finalized, I call that absolutely irresponsible, a show of petty politics and a further waste of the time of the House.
Madam Speaker, in addition to my principal line of reasoning which is that there is no budget, that a basic element is lacking, that up to now, nothing has happened to restrain the freedom of speech of the Members of this House, and there is therefore no prima facie evidence for a question of privilege in addition to this, I have just shown that even assuming there were a budget, this particular case differs from the only two

April 19, 1983
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen
precedents that could have some relevance to the situation and which are, however, entirely different, because in those two cases, the resignations took place after the budget was brought down, so that there was one basic element in the picture. A budget speech had been pronounced, and it was possible to compare what the Minister said with what his budget contained, and that we cannot do here. Second, the Ministers resigned after they brought down their budgets. They revealed fiscal measures verbally to someone, and the effect was to enable certain people to profit by this privileged information, which has yet to be proved here.
Therefore, Madam Speaker-

Madam Speaker, we are not at all dealing with this in the traditional way when we compare this case with the Dalton case since, as I have just indicated, in the Dalton case there was an essential element that we do not find here at this time in the discussion. They had a budget. We do not have a budget yet, and the Opposition knows that very well. All they are doing is trying once again to prevent the Government from dealing with the important substance, to create jobs, just because of their paranoia when they realize they have an opportunity to create systematic obstruction in this place.


Mr. Mazankowski:: It is the stupidity of the Minister.


Yvon Pinard: That is why they are still trying to do it today, and I can assure you that they will not succeed because the people of this country will not let them prevent this Government from creating jobs in Canada.

Finally, Madam Speaker, it is clear that there is not a single factor that would justify the Chair's determining that there is a prima facie question of privilege. Once again, the only two precedents, which go back to the 30's and the 40's and which took place in another country, are not at all comparable to the present situation, and besides, the present case is about a leak from something that does not officially exist and cannot be checked because we do not have this budget before us. It is one of the recognized principles of parliamentary procedure and of the rules and practice of Parliament, that we are absolutely free, the Minister of Finance is absolutely free, whatever the consultations he may have held before his budget speech, whatever their form or the circumstances that might indicate that he intends to act in such and such a way, there is nothing in our parliamentary procedure to prevent the Minister of Finance from making a speech that differs from the consultations that may have taken place or indiscretions that were committed inadvertenly.
The Minister of Finance is free to seek advice, and pursuant to our parliamentary practice and rules, the budget is not a budget until such time as the Minister makes his budget speech in the House, and that is the crux of the whole debate, Madam Speaker. It is a fact, it is there, plain for all to see-in latin we say: patet.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I have only been Member of this House for ten years but I cannot recall an occasion on which there has been a matter of this gravity, touching not only the roots of the ability of individual Members of Parliament to accept the word and support the behaviour of Ministers of the Crown, but also dealing with fundamental traditions of the House of Commons and our parliamentary democracy as they relate to budget secrecy.
Let me deal first of all with remarks that I was quite surprised to hear come from the mouth of the Government House Leader. First of all, he was suggesting, Madam Speaker, that in order for you to find a prima facie case of privilege, in order for you to accede to the request made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Nielsen), you would have to judge the proof of the contents publicized last night as a direct result of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) inviting television cameras into his room. That was the argument of the Government House Leader. He said it was your job to judge that the reports published last night are true.
With all respect, Madam Speaker, that is not your job at all. You are not here as a judge of the contents of what was published last night. You are a judge only as to whether there is a prima facie case of a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons. I regret that the Government House Leader did not seem to seize on or understand that difference in function. You are not here to judge the contents of the budget; you are here to decide if there is a prima facie case that would allow a committee to be established to look into this matter.
Secondly, and very quickly, the Minister suggested that no one in Canadian history has resigned as a result of a budget leak. Well, he misquoted Walter Gordon. Walter Gordon, in his own memoirs, made it clear that Walter Gordon believed that he was obliged to resign as a result of the budget leak. He did not consummate that resignation, but it was his view of his duty as a Liberal of that era that he, having breached budget secrecy, was obliged to resign. That is clear on the record in Mr. Gordon's own words.
In regard to the standards of this Government, we saw its standards when it comes to resignation not long ago in relation to its own conflict of interest guidelines. In that case the conflict of interest guidelines were in effect until they were breached; but once the rules are broken, the rules no longer apply to the Government of Canada when it is within the exclusive decision of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). This is not within the exclusive decision of the Prime Minister. This is within the power of decision of the Speaker of the House of Commons, who has to judge whether or not there has been a prima facie breach of longstanding traditions, not simply respecting budgetary secrecy, but also respecting the oath which was taken by a Minister of the Crown. I will come to the question of the oath in a moment.
April 19, 1983

Let me deal with two other matters raised by the Government House Leader before he left the House, presumably to join the Minister of Finance who is also not here while the propriety of his actions is being discussed in the House of Commons of Canada. First, he said that in the Dalton case the resignation occurred after the budget had been presented; the resignation occurred as soon as it became known that a breach had occurred. We knew last night that a breach had occurred. That was raised by the Hon. Leader of the Opposition immediately and the House of Commons met after that knowledge became known in the country. That is on all fours with the Dalton case. In the Dalton case, when it was clear that a breach had occurred, the request was made for a committee to be struck and a committee was so struck. The timing of the budget was irrelevant in the Dalton matter.
What happened in the Dalton case we are suggesting should happen here, because it is within the traditions of parliamentary democracy that once it becomes clear there has been a breach of budget secrecy, there is a prima facie case that requires consideration by a committee of the House. That was the Dalton precedent; it is on all fours with the precedent here.
Finally, he made the rather curious argument that what was reported last night, what was leaked last night after the Minister of Finance invited reporters into his boudoir, was not the budget. He is now pretending that it was something else, that it was not the budget, that we will not know if it was the budget. There are two things to be said about that. First, if the Minister of Finance of Canada was luring reporters into his room, holding up a document which purported to be a budget, letting it be photographed knowing there were zoom lenses there and allowing the public of Canada to believe that there would be something in the budget tonight which will not be in the budget tonight, that is even a more flagrant breach of public trust than it would be for him simply to have been careless and stupid.
We thought that the Minister was guilty only of stupidity. If we believe the Government House Leader that it may well be that what was revealed last night is not what will be presented tonight, then he is not just guilty of stupidity. He is guilty of a fraud upon the people of Canada, a fraud from which the wealthy could profit and a fraud from which the less wealthy in the country could suffer. If we are to believe the Government House Leader in his argument that what was leaked last night did not relate to the contents of the budget, then he is himself calling the Minister of Finance a fraud.
The other way to deal with that argument is from the mouth of the Minister of Finance himself. Those of us who have watched these proceedings know that when the Minister of Finance held up the document last night before the television cameras, which he invited into his office, he waved it around and said these words: "This is the budget".
What the Government House Leader is saying is that the document which the Minister of Finance called the budget last night is no longer the budget. That stretches credibility far too far. We have to accept the word of the Minister of Finance when he invited journalists in and opened the budget to be
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen
photographed by zoom lenses. We have to accept that he knew what he was talking about when he said: "This document is the budget; this that I am holding up for you to photograph is the budget". We have to assume, further, that he did that deliberately and that he knew it was the budget.
We understand from a press report that his press secretary warned the Minister to "watch those papers". He was so careless that his own staff told him to watch those papers. I watched on television when he said to the cameras: "Are there any zoom lenses here?", in effect inviting cameras with zoom lenses to focus in on the budget papers which he then held open.
Let me come to the question of the oath, because it is one of the bases of a question of privilege. You have sworn an oath, Madam Speaker, as a Privy Councillor, as have I. We are both familiar with its contents. I will not tire or bore the House by reading the entire convoluted oath, but let me read the relevant portions. I am referring to the oath sworn to by every Minister of the Crown. The relevant portions in English are:
-you will keep close and secret all such matters as shall be treated, debated and resolved on in Privy Council, without publishing or disclosing the same or any part thereof, by Word, Writing, or any otherwise to any Person out of the same Council, but to such only as be of the Council.
That is the relevant portion of the oath which you signed as a Privy Councillor and to which you swore as a Privy Councillor. The swearing of that oath gives a Privy Councillor a special standing in the House of Commons. It is the basis of the authority that a Privy Councillor who is also a Minister of the Crown enjoys in the House of Commons. It is the whole basis of that authority.
If that oath is breached, the ability of each of us as Private Members in the House of Commons to accept the word or to accept the authority of the Minister who breached his oath is undermined and lost. Consequently, the privilege of each Member of the House of Commons is lost when a Minister breaches his oath, as this Minister breached his oath last night on public television.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Reading from Beauchesne, the definition of "privilege" is:
The distinctive mark of a privilege is its ancillary character. The privileges of Parliament are rights which are "absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers". They are enjoyed by individual Members, because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its Members; and by each House for the protection of its Members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity.
What is important here is that these rights and privileges are enjoyed by individual Members "because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its Members". Members of the House of Commons cannot perform their services and functions unless they can accept the basis of authority which allows a Minister of the Crown to have a special role in the House. In other words, we cannot do our job unless Ministers honour their oath. When a Minister breaks his oath, as the Minister of Finance broke his oath last night, the ability of individual Members of Parlia-

April 19, 1983
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen
ment to do their jobs is limited. We have suffered a loss of our privilege. This is the prima facie case which we put before you today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, you will know that while the question of secrecy is important to any matter, it is of particular importance in relation to the budget. You yourself said earlier today that you need no further elaboration on that point. I forget your exact words. 1 do not want to misquote you, but I think the intent of your remarks was that everyone accepts that there is a requirement of secrecy in relation to the budget.
I have the words of your predecessor in writing, Mr. Speaker Jerome, on July 24, 1975 in relation to a case having to do with the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid), the then Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council, who was involved in a dispute with The Gazette of Montreal. The Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) was in the course of making an argument, as reported at page 7888 of Hansard of that date. Mr. Speaker Jerome interrupted, and I will quote the relevant portion:
Order. I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Member but I do not think he need argue the sanctity of budget secrecy. That seems to me a matter that is generally agreed to by all Members of the House; there is no disagreement there.
That was the view, those were the words and that was the expression used by Mr. Speaker Jerome of the well understood tradition of budget secrecy. Madam Speaker, you used similar language, as I recall, to make it clear that budget secrecy enjoys a special place in the House.
What is important here is that the Minister of Finance invited journalists to come in to a situation where the contents of the budget would be known to them. Indeed, he invited them thrice. I do not know if there were cocks crowing or not, but he invited them thrice. He first invited them into his office. Second, he held open the budget documents. He held them open to a point where his own staff urged him to be careful with the papers. That was the second invitation, holding open the documents to be seen.
Third, just in case any of them might have forgotten they had a zoom lens that could focus on the language, he reminded them they had a zoom lens. He reminded them that they had within their power in the room to which he had invited them a mechanism which would allow them to focus, photograph, magnify and later to broadcast to the country, and indeed to the world, the contents of the budget. He did it by invitation three times: "Come to my room." "Here is the budget." "Focus your zoom lens." That was the invitation offered three times by the Minister of Finance.
I think the Minister was a buffoon to do that, an absolute buffoon. Buffoonery is no defence. It is a breach of the practices of this House. A breach by buffoonery is as serious, bad and wrong as a breach by malicious intent. What has to be judged here is whether there is prima facie evidence in the
arguments that have been put forward, in the documents that exist and in the information that all of us have seen conveyed across the land, of a breach of the practices in respect to budget secrecy.
Coming again to our rights as Private Members of Parliament, we have a right to know that the traditions respecting budget secrecy will be honoured. Indeed, those traditions are imposed on us. One of the arrangements that has grown up over the years is that only five of our number are allowed into a budget lock-up. We are allowed into a budget lock-up under very serious limitations. Five of our number are given extraordinary privileges, larger than the normal privilege of ordinary Members to know the budget in advance on the condition that we do not broadcast what we know. That privilege is given to us because we are Members of the House of Commons. It is part of the privilege of Members of the House of Commons in this Party to delegate to five of our own the opportunity to go in and see those documents in advance.
What happened is that the Minister of Finance invited the journalists last night to come in and not only see, but photograph and circulate, material that would not be available to any Member of the House of Commons until today in the normal course of things. That clearly is to put Members of Parliament, who are supposed to be in a superior position with regard to Government information and announcements, in an inferior position. That is very clearly a breach and a limitation of the privileges of individual ordinary Members of the House of Commons. That was carried out and was done deliberately by the Minister of Finance yesterday.
I will summarize very quickly because I know you want to deal particularly with the question of privilege here, with whether the privilege of individual Members has been breached. I am glad the Government House Leader is back because he was under the mistaken impression that the Speaker would have to judge the contents of the matter leaked. The Speaker is not called upon to be a judge but is called upon to decide whether there is prima facie evidence of a breach of the privileges of individual Members of this House.
There is prima facie evidence, in my submission, on at least two counts. One has to do with the breach of the oath of office of the Minister of Finance, who broke his word, broke that oath which is the basis on which he enjoys special standing in this House. When he breaks his word, which is the author of the source of his special authority in this House, then those of us who are required still to treat him with special authority have our privileges limited.
Second, in relation to the specific case of the budget leak itself, the traditions are well established that there is not to be a release, deliberate or inadvertent, of the contents of budget material, nor the appearance of the release of the contents of budget material, prior to the presentation in the House. There is no doubt that anyone with eyes to see the television of the land knows that the Minister of Finance broke that practice and custom. In so breaking it, he made available to the larger public information that was to have been presented first here
April 19, 1983

and, by so doing, breached the privileges of individual Members of the House of Commons of Canada.


Madam Speaker:: I hope Members will allow me a brief intervention because I do want this debate to advance. I think we all agree, as the Right Hon. Member just indicated, about secrecy and the oaths which are quite sacred matters; there is no discussion on that. What the Chair needs to have demonstrated is that the secrecy of the budget and these oaths are related to the privileges of the House. It is very important that Members focus on that particular point. It is not enough to say that some Ministers of Finance or Chancellors of the Exchequer have resigned because a secret in the budget had been divulged. That is not sufficient. It needs to be demonstrated that they resigned in relation to a matter having to do with the privileges of the House.
These Ministers of Finance having resigned, I remind Hon. Members, they remained Members of the House of Commons without the House having imposed on them any kind of sanction. Members should be reminded that the privileges of the House are applied not to Ministers but to Members exclusively, not to Members in their capacity as Ministers but to Members of the House of Commons. In this respect they are all equal. It is very important that Members should focus on this in their interventions.


Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, this is a sad day for Canada and a sad day for Parliament. It is sad for the country because if ever there was a time when economic leadership was required to deal with the real problems of our land, it is today. It is sad for Parliament because we have a Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) who has violated his oath as a Member of the Privy Council. In so doing, he has also violated our privileges as Members of the House and so undermined completely, I regret to say, in the context of what is going on in the country today, his capacity to provide the economic leadership that is so much required.
I want to deal with the essence of the question that Your Honour just raised. You have correctly said that what is at the root of the motion is the question of the privileges of the Members of the House. What has to be done at this stage is for the House, those of us who are expressing concern about this matter, to establish a prima facie case that our privileges have been violated.
It has been demonstrated beyond question that the Minister has violated his oath as a Minister of the Crown. That is clearly the case. The question of that matter's relationship to our privileges as Members of the House is what I want to underline in a very brief but accurate fashion.
Surely one of the basic privileges of a Member of the House, whether on this or the other side, as long as they are not Ministers of the Crown-I am talking about every Member in his or her capacity as a Member of Parliament-which we have over other Canadians is the privilege of hearing first from the Minister of Finance what is in his budget. That is an ancient privilege of the House, existing in Great Britain and in
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen
Canada. It is a privilege that I submit the Minister of Finance violated last night.
In a back-handed way I tell the Government House Leader, through you, Madam Speaker-I am addressing my argument to you in this context-that the Minister gave one of the most specious arguments I have ever heard in this House-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: -when he tried to suggest that the case that has been made by Opposition Members about the budget leak can not really be judged at this point because we do not have a budget. That is just complete and utter hogwash.
As has already been indicated, the Minister of Finance last night on television said: "Here is the budget; here it is". He has not denied that since. He did not come to the House, nor did the Government House Leader whose words I listened to with care. The Government House Leader did not say that what the Minister of Finance revealed was not the budget. Even if we have not had a formal budget presented before us, all the evidence indicates that what the Minister of Finance said last night clearly illustrated to the whole of this nation what the budget will be. Whatever specious argument the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) offers to the contrary, no one, except perhaps some of his own backbenchers, will agree with his argument.
The Minister of Finance went on television last night and said: "Here is the budget." He revealed to the television cameras, and therefore to the nation, before revealing to Members of the House the contents of the budget. The case, I think, is as simple as that. That is the privilege that has been violated. We have the right and the privilege as Members of the House to hear that budget first. The Minister of Finance, whatever the motive for his indiscretion may have been, made a grievous error for which he should be paying at this point.
I conclude by observing that I believe beyond question that the evidence of a prima facie case of the violation of our privileges is there. I will not repeat that evidence. I do want to say that before this day is out and before much time passes, the Minister of Finance should do the honourable thing and submit his resignation, because the evidence and the tradition is overwhelmingly against what he has done.
I conclude by saying what I began with. It is a sad day for this country when we do not get the economic leadership that we require. It is a sad day for Parliament when a Minister has bungled so obviously and has not, up to this moment, submitted his resignation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, persistence has its own merit, and I appreciate being recognized.
I have listened with interest to the very compelling arguments put forward by my colleagues from the Opposition

April 19, 1983
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen
Party. I simply address myself to the very narrow point that you have raised, Madam Speaker, in terms of the question of privilege raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Nielsen), and as to whether or not, within our precedents and tradition, you can on the basis of the prima facie evidence which is clearly and irrefutably before you present the motion which has been suggested by the Leader of the Opposition.
I do not think there is any question that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) should resign. On February 18, 1983 the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) himself, when dealing with the so-called "Coalgate" or Gillespie matter, left no question in the minds of Canadians and Members of the House of Commons when he said as reported at page 22978 of Hansard:
Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member makes a parallel with former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Dalton, who inadvertently let out a budget secret. That secret hit the newspaper headlines before the Minister had read his budget. This, according to the tradition, is something that you should not do, and therefore the Minister chose to resign.
The Prime Minister himself acknowledges that. So I expect that there will be a resignation. But the question before us is not whether or not the Minister should resign, but indeed whether or not the privileges of this House have in fact been impinged upon, to the degree that the ability of Members of Parliament to deal with the business before the House has been compromised. I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, on very compelling evidence, that that is precisely what we face here today.
We do have precedents in our own House. I would like to refer to the case of privilege that arose in 1975 concerning the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) which was alluded to by the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark). You will recall the circumstances were that the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River, as a Parliamentary Secretary, was alleged to have, prior to the presentation of the budget, revealed certain contents of that budget as it related to customs and excise-


Mr. McGrath:: Pleasure craft.


Mr. Crombie:: Outboard motors.


James Aloysius McGrath: To an operator in his constituency.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Pleasure craft and outboard motor duties. I appreciate the assistance I am getting from my hon. friends here who have given details in a way that I could not of that particular case. I simply say, Madam Speaker, that in that particular instance your predecessor, Mr. Speaker Jerome, indicated there was no question that that in itself constituted a prima facie breach of privilege, though it was a mere allegation of a breach of budget confidentiality and secrecy.
I start with that premise because I would like to translate that now to the present circumstances. We now have the Minister of Finance who, it is alleged on very compelling evidence, has partially revealed the contents of the budget.
These are not incidental matters and I do not for a moment accept the proposition of the Government House Leader that because it did not deal with matters relating precisely to
taxation, somehow that has any effect on us at all. I agree with the Government House Leader when he says these circumstances are not the same as in the Dalton case. This is far more serious.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: There is the potential for a far greater profit to be made by those people who are involved in the bond market of this country. People in the bond market operate on the basis of buying and investing and, indeed, on selling on a margin basis. They do not put up the full amount of money. It is quite possible, on the basis of a 5 per cent investment for people who can see whether the budget is going to be a bullish or bearish budget, to take a signal from that information and make enormous amounts of money. That is one of the reasons it is important to this House that information of that type not be released prior to the budget.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Minister of Finance has disclosed willy-nilly the contents of the budget. The Government House Leader asks how we can decide this now since we have not yet heard the budget. The very simple reason, Madam Speaker, is this. It is a tradition of this House that if the content of the budget was not disclosed on television last night and today, the Minister of Finance could, by standing in his place in this House, tell us that that was not part of the budget. That would end the whole debate because we would be obliged by the traditions of this House to accept his word.
Second, he has not denied it outside the House, which brings me to the question of whether or not we are being compromised in terms of our ability to carry on the business of this House.
The budget is a document that must be presented on the floor of the House of Commons, not by virtue of some crazy tradition or because it is a convenient way to deal with things, but because that is the only way in which there can be order in the economic law-making process of this country. If, for example-and this is very important-we are to accept the proposition that the Minister either inadvertently or consciously is able outside the House of Commons to present the budget, that acknowledgement alone would render the House of Commons impotent. It would mean there would be no need for us to come here at all. If the Minister could make his budget presentation outside the House, there would be no need for him to present it to Members of the House of Commons. There would be no opportunity for Members to debate the matter. If you say he can do this in circumstances which are inadvertent, then it is logical to conclude that it is quite possible for the Minister deliberately to make a statement outside the House.
I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that whether or not the privileges of this House have been affected is a very crucial question. If we are not able to deal with budgetary matters in this House, then I say that that is fundamentally wrong.

*

[DOT]i.



April 19, 1983

Madam Speaker, I refer to a definition of privilege of which you are aware. To refresh the memories of Members of the House of Commons, the publications to which I refer is entitled "Encyclopaedia of Parliament" by Norman Wilding and Philip Laundy. At page 582, the authors say this:
Disrespect to the House collectively is described by Lord Campion as "the original and fundamental form of breach of privilege"-
That is precisely the point I make with respect to what has transpired here. On the basis of whether there is a prima facie question of privilege, there is precedent in the House that the mere allegation against a Member of Parliament that there has been a breach of budget secrecy has been held by your predecessor to be a prima facie question of privilege. In that instance the question was referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
The second question upon which Your Honour can base your conclusion is that in this particular instance the ability of the House to deal with the budget will be severely prejudiced and, indeed, compromised by the premature revelation of the contents of the budget. That affects my privilege, Madam Speaker, and that is why I support the motion of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Nielsen).
I am now in the position of having to deal with a matter that has been broached outside the House which has enormous economic consequences for the people of Canada. As a Member of Parliament I am not able to deal with the matter on the floor of the House of Commons except by a motion such as brought forth by the Leader of the Opposition to have the matter referred to a committee.
Whether the Minister resigns or not is incidental. Clearly, he should resign. He must resign. The question we must address is the effect of the action of the Minister on our ability to deal with budgetary matters.
Thank you for the indulgence and for recognizing me, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: I was very tempted to fill in for the Hon. Member, as his colleagues did, when he referred to that particular precedent concerning the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid). I think that he knows that the Speaker then did not find a prima facie case of privilege, as in the case argued now. The matter did go to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections but it was at the request of the Hon. Member. He might have jumped the gun or something of that nature, but there was no ruling by the Speaker to the effect that that was a prima facie case.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I just-


Madam Speaker:: No. The Hon. Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre). I would just tell the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre that, as I said, I should like to rule at two o'clock if at all possible. If the Hon. Member wants to be very brief in his remarks I will be able to rule before the Question Period, but if he chooses to go into a very lengthy elaboration
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen
of his points, then the House will know exactly what my conduct will be in Question Period.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We consider this matter to be so serious and of such gravity that we are prepared to discuss it for as long as is necessary to satisfy ourselves that the Chair is in possession of all the arguments. Some of these have not yet been made, particularly those having to do with markets and the effect of the breach by the Minister of Finance, the predisclosure of budget information, on those markets. We are prepared to continue the discussion at two o'clock even though we realize the consequences of adopting that course.
I do not suggest for a moment that it is even the intention of the Chair, but I would urge the Chair not to cut off discussion at this stage. If we do not finish in six minutes I urge the Chair to allow discussion to continue at the time when Question Period would normally take place.
Because of the gravity of the issue there must be sufficient evidence put before the Chair. There is still much to come by way of the effect of the predisclosure on the markets of the country. I urge the Chair not to make any attempt rapidly to conclude this discussion.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, very respectfully, I think the Leader of the Opposition is not in a position to urge anybody to do anything, especially the Speaker of the House. We know that you have total discretion to decide after a certain time if you have heard enough or not to make your ruling.
I submit that we on this side will respect your freedom or discretion. As far as we are concerned we find that a lot of time has been wasted so far, and certainly you are in a position to interrupt debate.


Madam Speaker:: In reply to the remarks of the Hon. Leader of the Opposition, I just want to say that I would not allow matters dealing with the effects of these alleged revelations on the stock market to be advanced as arguments to determine the question of privilege. These are the types of arguments which, I must say, have been invoked in the course of some of the presentations but I have let them go by. The matter of determining what effects this would have on the stock market or any other sector of the economy would be the kind of argument that could be advanced once a prima facie case of privilege has been found.
I have reminded Hon. Members constantly that one of the reasons that would bring me to cut off debate would be if Members enter into debate of the question of privilege as if the Chair had found a prima facie case of privilege. The debate does not take place before, it takes place after that. To this point Members have not elaborated, as I have urged them, on the relationship between this particular matter and the question of privilege. Therefore I will not allow argument on the matter of the stock market. That is not relevant to this particular phase of the debate. It could be relevant afterwards but not now.

April 19, 1983
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Madam Speaker, I will keep my remarks relevant to the question of whether there was a prima facie case of privilege of all Members of the House.
Mention was made of the case of the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) who, as a Parliamentary Secretary, was alleged to have had budget information, which would have been a breach of privilege, and to have passed on that information to the benefit of one of his constituents.
On July 25, 1975, as reported at page 7941, speaking of the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River, Mr. Speaker Jerome said:
Therefore, I have no hesitation, under the circumstances, to say that in my opinion the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River does, in fact, have a prima facie case of privilege and the House ought now to decide on the disposition of that prima facie case of privilege in the terms of the motion he has put forward, which is as follows:-
So Speaker Jerome acknowledged that the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River, being accused of having budget information prior to the budget being released, had a prima facie case of privilege. To that extent the arguments put forward by the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) are relevant because the Speaker indeed acknowledged it was a prima facie case of privilege.
I should like to quote from Beauchesne's Citation 20(2) on page 12 as follows:
Parliament, in 1868, laid claim to all of the privileges of the United Kingdom House of Commons without specifying their exact extent.
Subsection (1) points out that privilege in the United Kingdom is based on common law practices. Subsection (4) reads as follows:
As Parliament has never delimited the extent of privilege, considerable confusion surrounds the area. Recourse must therefore be taken, not only to the practice of the Canadian House, but also to the vast tradition of the United Kingdom House of Commons.
That means that all of the decisions in regard to the Dalton affair are binding on this House in terms of precedents, as are the quotations given by the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West. He very compellingly and convincingly pointed out the impact of suggesting to Members of the House that it matters not to our privileges if a budget is leaked or if budget information is provided to the public prior to our knowing-


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member but it now being one o'clock, I must adjourn until two o'clock.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South-Weston):: Madam Speaker-


Mr. Lewis:: On a point of order, Madam Speaker-


Ursula Appolloni: -the brutal, barbaric bombing of the American Embassy in Beirut has provoked reactions of-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. At this particular time the Speaker is not prepared to entertain points of order. The Standing Orders are quite clear. At two o'clock we must go to the statements by Members, and to Question Period at 2.15. Any time after that the Chair will be delighted to entertain points of order.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: A point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: I have just said that I will not entertain a point of order at this time-


Erik Nielsen: It is a point of order on that point.


Madam Speaker:: -because the Standing Orders are quite clear-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: A point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: -that I should go to statements by Members.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: A point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: Well, there is no point of order. After Question Period I will be delighted to entertain points of order by Hon. Members. The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mrs. Appolloni).


Erik Nielsen: There is a point of order on the question as to whether we should be proceeding with Question Period, a question of privilege now being before the House.


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Erik Nielsen: Privilege takes precedence.


Madam Speaker:: Well, it was a point of order and it was on a point of order that I determined there would not be points of order, because the Standing Orders are quite clear. At two o'clock the Chair must proceed to statements by Members, and at 2.15 to Question Period. Points of order may be entertained after that. As for a question of privilege, we are already on a question of privilege-


Erik Nielsen: And that should go.
April 19, 1983


Madam Speaker:: -which will resume after we have followed the provisions of the Standing Orders as to the statements by Members and Question Period.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, Standing Orders do not take precedence because you have recognized a question of privilege.


René Cousineau: Sit down!


Erik Nielsen: Surely you are going to hear the question of privilege, because it takes precedence over all other business of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I submit that the Chair should hear submissions on a question of privilege taking precedence over all other orders.


Some Hon. Members:: Be quiet.


Madam Speaker:: Order. Order, please. The Chair is following the Standing Orders and I shall read them out to Hon. Members. Standing Order 20(1), which the Hon. Member probably wants to invoke, says:
Whenever any matter of privilege arises, it shall be taken into consideration immediately.
That is what we did this morning at eleven o'clock. There was a question of privilege and the Chair took that question of privilege immediately because it did not stand in the way of Standing Order 18(3) which says:
At 2:00 o'clock p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, and at 11:00 o'clock a.m. on Fridays, Members, other than Ministers of the Crown, may make statements pursuant to Standing Order 21. Not later than 2:15 o'clock p.m., or 11:15 o'clock a.m., as the case may be, oral questions shall be taken up.
Therefore the Chair is obliged to proceed to Statements by Members at this time, and to Question Period at 2.15.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: A point of order.


Madam Speaker:: I cannot allow a point-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, surely when you recognize it at eleven o'clock, you must continue the argument through Question Period.


Madam Speaker:: I cannot allow a point of order. The Hon. Member might raise a point of order at three o'clock.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, there is precedent for hearing a question of privilege before embarking on Question Period.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


René Cousineau: Three o'clock.


Erik Nielsen: Hear our submission.


Madam Speaker:: I am interpreting the Standing Orders as they should be interpreted. The question of privilege does take precedence, but at two o'clock, the Standing Orders are quite clear; we must proceed to statements by Members and then to Question Period.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, you have to give us a chance to argue it. It has not been argued in the past because it has never come up.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: What right do they have to turn the mikes off?


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. This, of course, does not preclude the fact that after Question Period we will resume consideration of the question of privilege-


Some Hon. Members:: Now!


Madam Speaker:: -as we have done this morning. We have always had Question Period at two o'clock.


Erik Nielsen: No, no.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Erik Nielsen: There is a precedent.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Surely you should hear argument, Madam Speaker.


Mr. Blais:: Wait until three o'clock, Allan.


Madam Speaker:: Hon. Members surely recall that during the constitutional debate, when we had questions of privilege raised for a whole week's time, Question Period took place regardless of the fact that we were considering questions of privilege. It might be difficult to resolve logically because of Standing Order 20(1) which I quoted, which says that questions of privilege must be taken up immediately.


Some Hon. Members:: Right.


Madam Speaker:: Right, but what we do in this House is not always logical because some Standing Orders-


An Hon. Member:: They are not logical.


Madam Speaker:: Exactly, they are not always logical, and Members have to recognize that. We have rules to satisfy our particular needs, and Members have always preferred to have their Question Period take place regardless of that fact that we might be on questions of privilege. I am basing my decision, which is final, on the precedent which occurred during the constitutional debate when we were on questions of privilege for an entire week.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

April 19, 1983


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York South-Wes-ton.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, there is precedent to hear a question of privilege.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Ursula Appolloni: Thank you for defending my-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Why do Members act like the end of the world has happened? We will resume the question of privilege that we were discussing before, as we have in all other cases. What we are doing now is no different from what we have done before.


Erik Nielsen: It is! There is precedent, if you will hear submissions, on a question of privilege which was heard before Question Period.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York South-Wes-ton.


Erik Nielsen: That precedent existed in the case of Mr. Speaker Jerome, when he considered a question raised by the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid).


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ursula Appolloni: Madam Speaker, thank you as 1 said, for defending my privilege which I shall now exercise.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


René Cousineau: Nielsen democracy.


Madam Speaker:: I am sure Members want this to take place in as much order as possible.


Charles Joseph Clark: According to the rules.


Madam Speaker:: Hon. Members must agree that the practice we have followed up until now is the one I am practising today.


Erik Nielsen: That is not so. Hear our arguments.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The House started at two o'clock before; today it started at eleven o'clock.


Madam Speaker:: Well, let us put it this way: Members will have ample time to raise that after Question Period.


Erik Nielsen: We want it heard now.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: The Speaker now determines that there is no reason whatsoever to vary from what has been done up until now. If Hon. Members want to submit arguments, so that we may change that practice, the Speaker is in the hands of the
House. But for the present time I must hear the Hon. Member for York South-Weston.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, surely you are going to hear submissions on a question of privilege which has been heard before Question Period? What you are doing is cutting us off from making any submissions whatsoever.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for York South-Weston.


Erik Nielsen: Surely, Madam Speaker, you cannot come to a ruling without hearing us out.


Ursula Appolloni: The brutal, barbaric bombing of the American embassy in Beirut has provoked reactions of horror and revulsion on the part of the international community in general, and particularly in those countries which have committed peacekeeping troops to Lebanon in an effort to restore peace and stability to that unhappy country. Acts of violence such as the one witnessed yesterday cannot but undermine all initiatives aimed at finding a just and equitable solution of the complex problems of the Middle East. Furthermore, they place in great jeopardy the vital need of the Lebanese people to live in peace and harmony in their own independent and unoccupied state.
I believe that it is imperative for the international community to voice, in the firmest possible terms, its total repugnance for any and all acts of wanton human destruction by whomsoever perpetrated, and that it pursue, with increasing vigour, dedication, urgency and commitment, all diplomatic pressures with a view to achieving equitable and lasting peace in the Middle East.


PRECEDENCE OF QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, I would like to use this brief period, and I have never used one of these before, to protest, as strongly as I can, what I believe to be some unwarranted interference in the normal procedures of the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Never before have we faced such a situation under these new rules where the House started sitting at eleven o'clock in the morning. We reached a question of privilege, as we should, because the rules indicate that the matter of privilege should be started immediately and carried on. Certainly priority must be given to any question of privilege when it arises in this House, priority over everything, even over, I would suggest, some unwarranted activity from the Chair in respect to a matter such as this.
April 19, 1983


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I mean that as strongly as I can. In the past, when the House began sitting each day at two o'clock, the situation was completely different. Obviously, the rules then called for the Question Period and the routine procedures before the Question Period. However, today the House started at eleven o'clock in the morning and a question of privilege came before the House. I most strongly suggest that it should have been carried on, and it should be carried on right now. I think it is an unwarranted intrusion by the occupant of the Chair, who is the servant of the House, or should be the servant of the House-


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: -not to hear argument when a matter such as this comes along.


Madam Speaker:: Order. The time allotted to the Hon. Member has expired.
The Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FAREWELL ADDRESS BY MEMBER FOR MISSION-PORT MOODY
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: I trust, Madam Speaker, that you will not subtract the time of the applause from my 90 seconds. I am under no illusions that what I have to say here today will blast the Lalonde budget controversy off the front pages of every major newspaper in the country. But what I have to say today is a matter of tremendous importance, at least to me.
I would like to say that I will soon be leaving this place, I guess forever, because I intend, as many Hon. Members know, to stand as a candidate for the legislature in British Columbia. Therefore, it means that pretty soon I will have to quit. I think that perhaps my action might be well emulated by others.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Lalonde.


Mark Willson Rose: One Mark deserves another, perhaps.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mark Willson Rose: I know that all Hon. Members, even in their most rancorous moods, never forget that, despite our noises here, we are pretty fond of one another. I will miss all the people with whom I have become friends, both colleagues and staff, over the last 15 years, especially my Leader and my own colleagues.


An Hon. Member:: And the IPU.


Mark Willson Rose: And the IPU. Members of my Caucus have a unique place in my heart and I will certainly miss them. What
Oral Questions
I will not miss are the tedious plane rides, and mushing through a snowstorm on April 19.
Some men struggle all their lives to get here, and never make it. I have been honoured to be returned here four times, and I think it is in order that I thank my constituents for their loyalty and faith, if not patience. I trust I have deserved it.
In any case, the federal Government did Mr. Stuart Leg-gatt, a former Hon. Member, the honour of appointing him to the bench. Therefore the reason I am leaving is the Government's fault. We in the West blame everything on the Liberal Government, even the snow. But mostly we blame it for its lack of economic leadership, and we are serious about that because we desperately need leadership.
Seriously, however, I leave because I am genuinely concerned about some disturbing trends in the Province of British Columbia, and if I have any future political career I would like to make that contribution, and I am determined to make that contribution, to the political life of British Columbia, in British Columbia.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, in view of the story with which we are well acquainted, for example, The Citizen indicating that a budget leak occurred yesterday evening, in which a deficit of $31.2 billion is anticipated for the forthcoming year, and in view of the fact that this is an example of gross negligence on the part of a Minister, a breach of a Minister's oath of secrecy, something totally unacceptable in our parliamentary system, would the Prime Minister indicate whether he has received the resignation of the Minister of Finance and, if so, whether he has accepted it?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I do not see any need to deal with this question. There is no question of resignation, in my mind. The Hon. Member speaks of a budget leak. How can he know that until he has seen the budget and seen whether there has been any leak from that budget, Madam Speaker?


REQUEST FOR DENIAL OF LEAK
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, in view of the Prime Minister's reply to my first question, I

April 19, 1983
Oral Questions
simply ask would the Prime Minister assure the House that what appeared in The Citizen today, including the picture of what purports to be a page in the budget document and speech itself, is, in fact, not accurate, that there has in fact been no leak, and that at eight o'clock tonight, when the Minister of Finance does table his budget for the record, we will find that what has already been leaked is in truth not an accurate reflection of the forthcoming budget?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I assume that if the Hon. Member discovers that at eight o'clock, then this will lay the whole matter to rest. In that case, I invite him to wait until eight o'clock and we will draw the same conclusions as he appears to be drawing.


REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION OF BOND TRADING
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is again directed to the Prime Minister. Would he indicate to the House what steps he has taken to determine if in fact a leak has occurred? Are there other pages of the budget document which have possibly been leaked? Finally, has he taken steps to ensure that securities commissions in every Province in Canada will be immediately asked to investigate what trading has taken place, particularly in the very volatile bond field, to determine if insider profits have indeed been made?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it would seem to me that any of these questions, if justified, would be better asked after the budget, if, in fact, it appears that there has been outside knowledge of what was in the budget. However, for the time being, once again, we do not know what will be in the budget for certain.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: But you don't deny it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Anybody who is speculating on figures that he thinks might be in the budget might be mistaken as to the basis on which he is speculating. Therefore I do not see any way in which you could ask the securities commission to investigate something which is still hypothetical.


EFFECT OF POSSIBLE DISCLOSURE ON FINANCIAL MARKETS
Mr. John Thomson (Calgary South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In his opinion did the Minister of Finance's disclosure of privileged information relating to the budget have any influence on the financial or money markets in this country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, in my opinion they have not because I do not think anyone is going to risk any heavy sums of money on some news which might or might not be true. In fact the Hon. Member can look at the market figures himself. I am told that there has
been no move in the bond figures which would be the relevant ones, I suppose, which apply now. Any move in the stock market was comparable in New York and Toronto. I doubt whether yesterday's going on would have influenced the American dollar that much, or the American stock market.


VALUE OF DOLLAR-INTERVENTION BY BANK OF CANADA
John William Thomson: Madam Speaker, let me quote to the Prime Minister from the Canadian Dow Jones as of 10 a.m. this morning:
The Canadian dollar continued its downward slide of yesterday.
Dealers said reports of a leak of Finance Minister Marc Lalonde's budget presentation tonight, which allegedly will show an estimated deficit of $31.2 billion for the current fiscal year, have added to the Canadian fund's weakness. Dealers said the Canadian fund has slipped as low as 80.66 U.S. this morning before the Bank of Canada intervened.
Does the Prime Minister believe that the Bank of Canada's position has been jeopardized by virtue of the leak, as reported?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I suppose there are any number of factors which influence the state of the bond and stock markets. One of them could be that the American dollar has strengthened in Europe and therefore other currencies, including the Canadian currency, would weaken against it. But the Hon. Member would be clever indeed, and perhaps many times a millionaire-


Some Hon. Members:: He is.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: He earned it, too.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, let us ask the Hon. Member then, if he has made much money, and if he thinks he could on the basis of the journals he read last night?


John William Thomson: Indeed I could if I had been aware of it in time before the financial markets closed here in eastern Canada. However, financial markets were still open on the West Coast when the leak was made known. I was not in possession of that information but I certainly could have made money had I known-a substantial amount of money.


Madam Speaker:: Order.


REQUEST FOR MINISTER'S RESIGNATION
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, this is a very sad day for Canada. Canadians were waiting to hear tonight's budget in the hope that it would bear news that would encourage an economic recovery in the country. Because of the apparent bungling of the Minister of Finance, a number of specific references to the budget have now been released.
Members of Parliament were given to understand that selected journalists were in receipt of privileged information yesterday afternoon that could have been used for their's and others' personal gain. Would this fact not encourage the Prime Minister to ask for the resignation of the Minister of Finance?
April 19, 1983


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I did not realize that the question was addressed to me until the end. Will the Hon. Member repeat it?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, as a result of an apparent leak yesterday afternoon, selected journalists and friends were in receipt of privileged information that they could have or may have used for personal gain for themselves and for others. Would this not justify the Prime Minister asking for the resignation of the Minister of Finance?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I do not know what the Hon. Member is referring to when he says "selected journalists and friends". Is the Hon. Member inferring that the Minister of Finance gave information to friends and to journalists in a way that they might profit?


MINISTER'S DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, yesterday afternoon, after inviting a number of journalists into his office, the Minister of Finance held up a document and was televised saying, "This is the budget." Is the Prime Minister saying that that was not the budget?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I would be revealing budget secrecy if 1 told what was going to be in the budget tonight.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Dick:: That is what Lalonde did last night.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It seems to be a very crude trap to ask me if something is in the budget or not. Then I will be accused by the Hon. Member of saying that something is in the budget or it is not. Why does he not wait until tonight to see what is in the budget?


POSSIBILITY OF DOCUMENT BEING CHANGED
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, will the Prime Minister assure Members of the House, as a result of what appears to be some fiasco in the last number of hours, that the document that was televised in the office of the Minister of Finance yesterday will not be changed and has not been changed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, what is the Hon. Member saying? For many months they have been suggesting things that should be in the budget. Now they are suggesting things that should not be in the budget.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Just say you will not change it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I wish they would wait until the budget and make up their minds whether it is good or not.
Oral Questions MINISTER'S STATEMENT


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister will know that the Minister of Finance held up the document yesterday which was subsequently photographed, and said, "This is the budget." When the Minister of Finance said that, was he telling the truth or was he lying?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I do not think that the Right Hon. Member can ask an either/or in that question. At that point maybe the Minister intended that be the budget. Until the budget is-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Darling:: The old shell game.


An Hon. Member:: Thanks for word processors.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not quite understand the hilarity over there.


An Hon. Member:: You are the one who is laughing.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Surely a budget becomes a budget when it is delivered as a budget speech. Otherwise, with any number of previous drafts, one could ask if they were the budget or not. In that sense the Minister of Finance would be locked into some earlier decision at any point in time that suits the convenience and argumentation of the former Leader of the Opposition.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Prime Minister has not been prepared to say that the Minister was telling the truth when he said, "This is the budget." He has suggested that the budget might have been changed.


MINISTER'S INTENTION
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, let me put another question to the Prime Minister. When the Minister of Finance held up the document which was photographed and said, "This is the budget," did he intend that the document that he held up would be the budget?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: I am reminded that this is the gang that laughed when they threw out guidelines governing the conduct of Ministers which should have caused the resignation of three of them. I am not surprised that they are laughing now at parliamentary practice.
Let me put the question very clearly. The Minister of Finance was shown on television holding a document and saying, "This is the budget." At the time he held that document of which he said "This is the budget," did he intend that document to be the budget?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

April 19, 1983
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Right Hon. Member talks about parliamentary practice. Any knowledge that I have of parliamentary practice is that when a budget is delivered in the House of Commons it becomes the budget. Until then it is not a budget. I cannot see by what contortions of mind the former Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition wants to know about a budget leak and some malpractice until he knows what the budget is. Maybe tomorrow he can tear himself away from the campaign trail again, and ask his questions. If there has been a leak, then we will answer that question.


INQUIRY RESPECTING GOVERNMENT'S PURPOSE
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, my experience with parliamentary practice has been that Ministers of Finance try to tell the truth. We have apparently had a dramatic departure from that with regard to the absent Minister of Finance today. Presumably the Prime Minister would have known what his Minister was doing. Presumably the Minister of Finance was expressing Government policy. If, when the Minister of Finance held up that document, it was not the truth, what was the purpose of the Government of Canada-to mislead Canadians deliberately as to the contents of the budget, because that was the consequence? Was that the plan of the Government to mislead Canadians deliberately as to the contents of the budget, or did the Minister of Finance breach rules of budget secrecy which, in any self respecting Government, would cause him to submit his resignation?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, how can the former Leader of the Opposition suspect that the Minister deliberately, to use his words, "tried to mislead the Canadian public"? There was a photo opportunity in his room-


Paul Wyatt Dick: An ego trip.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -which is something that I understand is long standing practice.


Miss MacDonald:: To give it to the press.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It was the practice when the Minister of Finance sat on the other side. It was practised under earlier Ministers of Finance. It is something that is meant to permit the press to prepare themselves for budget night and to have advance pictures and so on.


Paul Wyatt Dick: An ego trip.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the Hon. Member opposite who is saying "ego trip" is suggesting that there should be less communication with the press, I would support that point of view.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: The Minister was seen buying shoes in Saturday's papers. He does not need three or four photo opportunities.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Obviously not everybody can be expected to have as small an ego as I have.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But Ministers of Finance have followed that practice. They have judged there would be a certain code of honour that would be respected when there is a photo opportunity. Hon. Members can reach their conclusions as to what happened. But to say, as the Leader of the Opposition hypothesizes, that the Minister of Finance was trying to mislead the public, is really only the result of a twisted mind. Obviously the Minister of Finance did not have the press in his room in order to tell the Canadian public some information from which they could then go out and profit.


Mr. Taylor:: Your nose is getting bigger all the time.


USE OF CAMERA ZOOM LENSES
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, if it was not the purpose of the Minister of Finance to have communicated the contents of the document, which he described as the budget, why did he call journalists into his room? Why did he open the budget? Why did he ask them if they had their zoom lenses ready, if he did not want the contents of that document to be broadcast across the country and to be taken as an indication of what was going to be in the budget?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member asks why he did that. I suppose he trusts all members of the press more than I would. I do not know if the Hon. Member would do it, but I would not have done that.


RESPONSIBILITY OF MINISTER
Mr. Gordon Gilchrist (Scarborough East):: Madam Speaker, perhaps we can leave the comedy hour now and show some concern for the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Gordon Gilchrist: I would like to address my question to the Prime Minister. If in spite of the smoke and mirrors of whether the document is or is not a budget, does the Prime Minister understand that stock markets deal a great deal with perception, and does the Prime Minister understand that for every one cent the Canadian dollar declines, our debt to foreign nations goes up about $120 million? Whether the document was or was not the budget, does the Prime Minister consider the action of the Minister of Finance to be a responsible act and one that is worthy of the person supposedly leading the country through these difficult economic times?
April 19, 1983


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The answer is yes, Madam Speaker. The Hon. Minister was doing what other Ministers of Finance have done, and that is to have a photo opportunity.


Mr. Epp:: Never.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I hear them say never over there, Madam Speaker. They are obviously grossly misinformed.


Donald W. Munro: Only Liberals are.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I inquired precisely on that point. They can inquire of members of the press themselves. It has been done before. It was done by this Minister of Finance. Therefore there is no reason why one should suppose that the hypotheses made by the Hon. Member are correct.


POSSIBLE EFFECT ON MORTGAGE RATES
James Gordon Gilchrist: Madam Speaker, perhaps then we will get down to a more personal level, to people who are trying to get mortgages these days, and the same perception as seen by managers of mortgage funds in the various trust companies which issue them. Would the Prime Minister suppose that a manager of mortgages would consider issuing a mortgage today, perhaps for $10,000, to someone who is looking for one at the lowest possible interest rate, or do you suppose, because if the upward pressure on the dollar seen by this huge deficit of $31.2 billion, that the manager might hold off for a day or two and perhaps issue the mortgage at a 1 per cent higher rate, which would cost the average $10,000 mortgage buyer another $700? Is that responsible financial control by the Minister of Finance to give those kinds of signals?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I can only repeat my earlier answers, that if money managers out there are taking signals from something that might or might not happen, then they are taking a chance, and the people they advise are also taking a chance. It may be that some people will want to embark on certain financial decisions and operations as a result of what they have read in the paper this morning. If they do, they have it on their own head if the figures they read tonight are different from those they read last night. It is a decision they have to make. But it is not one on which I will give them any guidance.


BRITISH PRECEDENT IN DALTON CASE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. On February 18, 1983, as reported at page 22978 of Hansard, the Prime Minister made the following statement:
Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member makes a parallel with former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Dalton, who inadvertently let out a budget secret. That secret hit the newspaper headlines before the Minister had read his budget. This,
Presence in Gallery
according to the tradition, is something that you should not do, and therefore the Minister chose to resign.
If the material published and shown in the media turns out to be part of the budget, will the Prime Minister ask for the resignation of the Minister of Finance?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it sounds kind of hypothetical when you ask a question beginning with the word "if'. But if the Hon. Member refers to the Dalton precedent of 1947, what happened there was that there was something which was in the newspapers before it appeared in the budget. But the whole point is it then appeared in the budget.
If what was in the newspapers last night does not appear in the budget, of course the Hon. Member's case falls. If Mr. Dalton, when standing on his feet in the House of Commons, had said that the tax was not on cigarettes but on chocolates, for instance, then a lot of people might have had chocolate on their faces-


Allan Frederick Lawrence: He would not have said it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -if they had used information which was changed between the time when the document went to print and when he made his speech. Obviously it is the speech that he made in the House of Commons which was the budget speech, not something on which the press, or on which the Opposition had speculated before.


PARLIAMENTARY TRADITION
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister may suggest that the question is hypothetical today, but if that material does appear in the budget tonight-


Charles Joseph Clark: Or any of it.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: -will my case, which the Prime Minister claims fails today because it is hypothetical then stand, and will the Prime Minister stand by tradition and his word?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I ask the Hon. Member and his Party if it does not, will they drop this whole matter?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Certainly not. Nothing should have been done yesterday.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HIS HIGHNESS PRINCE KARIM AGA KHAN
Madam Speaker:: I would like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of His Highness Prince Karim Aga Khan, the spiritual leader of the Ismailis.

April 19, 1983
Oral Questions FINANCE


MINISTER'S STATEMENTS ON BUDGET
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister and is related to the questions which were asked previously. Yesterday in the House of Commons the Minister of Finance said, in response to a question by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap, "... my budget is now decided". Yesterday, outside the House of Commons, the Minister of Finance said, holding up a document, "This is my budget." Yesterday the press who were present on the second occasion photographed portions of that document and relayed to the public the content of the document. Is it not reasonable to conclude that, if in fact those things which were contained in that document are not part of the budget, the Minister of Finance either misled the House or misled the public?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, let us try to understand the logic of the Members of the two Opposition Parties. They are expressing shock and dismay that there has been a budget leak, but they are saying that, if by any chance the Minister should change his budget so that there will not be a leak, they will also be shocked and dismayed. Fet them make up their minds.


Ian Deans: That is not what I am saying. I am saying that when a Minister of Finance has a budget already made up and then, by negligence, allows that budget to go to the public ahead of the normal practice of first bringing it to the House of Commons, the Minister of Finance is showing a degree of incompetence, the likes of which should result in him having to leave that portfolio.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSSIBLE REWRITING OF BUDGET
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, if the Minister of Finance is now in the process of rewriting his budget because of his inadvertence or stupidity, is it not reasonable to assume that the budget we will see will not be the budget which was intended to meet the problems of the country, and therefore will not be adequate to meet the difficulties which many people in the country have been facing? He can rewrite it in half an hour.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I can only repeat my previous point. If Opposition Members think that there was a serious leak, a leak which is contrary to practice and contrary to the proper conduct of a Minister of Finance-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Now you have got it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -why would they object to the Minister of Finance changing his budget in some way?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What the Opposition is arguing is that a budget becomes a budget, and unchangeable, at any point in time. That is not our view. A budget becomes a budget, and every precedent that has been quoted has had to do with a budget, when that has been delivered in the House of Commons. There has been no budget delivered in the House of Commons. There has been a peek at a document which might or might not-


Charles Joseph Clark: Which Marc Falonde called a budget.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -have been brought into the House of Commons, but we will only know tonight if that so-called peek was at the document and at the pages which were going to be part of the budget. Why does the Opposition not wait to see in fact if that peek was justified by what has been written, or whether it was a peek at something that did not make its way into the final budget. We will see.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Get him to write you a letter like he did in the Gillespie affair.


EXISTENCE OF VIDEOTAPE
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It is the practice, as he knows, for Finance Ministers to show the Prime Minister their budgets. Was he shown the budget prior to the photo opportunity yesterday? Is the budget that he was likely shown prior to that opportunity the same one which will be presented tonight? I do not want him to say anything about what is going to be in it.
In addition to that, he has accused the media, the television networks and the radio networks, of speculation. How does he explain away-


An Hon. Member:: Agreed.


Erik Nielsen: His supporters in the back benches say, "agreed", that it is all speculation. How does the Prime Minister explain away the existence of a videotape, a copy of which I have and a copy of which I am sure he has seen by now, that provides living proof in living colour of the actual text of the French version of two pages of that budget which, translated, have resulted in ten separate leaks that I put on the record this morning in the discussion in the House? How does he explain away the existence of that tape?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, there are several questions there. Dealing with the last one first, how do I explain it? I explain it by the fact that the Minister of Finance, following previous practice, invited the media, the cameras, for a photo opportunity into his room. It has been done before. He did it again. He did it in the same way. Wisely or unwisely he trusted the cameramen to take pictures of the situation, but not to try to find out what was in the budget, much as when there is a lockup before the budget, a lockup which has been made for many, many years with the written press, a lockup of several hours, during which they are



April 19, 1983

privileged to the content of the budget before it is delivered in the House. There is an amount of trust there that some member of the press will not use the fact that he has had this privileged access, to cause a leak of that document. The whole thing is built on trust.


An Hon. Member:: You don't let them out.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have heard some members of the press say that they should storm out of the lockup and spill the beans. I think the Opposition and the media generally have to make up their minds. If they do not want any advance knowledge of the budget, even under a privileged situation, I suppose we can achieve that too. But I do not think it would be in the interests of the country or of Parliament because even Members of the Opposition Parties, as the Hon. Member knows, are invited to that lockup so that, when they stand to comment on the budget that night, they will have had some advance knowledge of the budget. It is founded on trust by the Minister of practices which generally have been respected. If in some cases they are not respected, I think the judgment should be on whether the question of respect should be continued or whether the practice should be changed. Once again, I do not think that, on the basis of the incident which happened yesterday, Parliament will be inclined to recommend changes.


Erik Nielsen: I am glad to hear from that answer that the Prime Minister is backing away from his general accusation that the media, all of them, were acting on mere speculation. The fact of the matter is that if he has viewed that tape, which I am sure he has, he will have seen that a telephoto zoom lense zeroed in on two pages of the budget, one dealing with the deficit and one dealing with conclusions. From a blow-up and freeze of those frames was extracted the fact that there was to be a deficit of $31.2 billion and a job-creation program costing $4.6 billion, together with eight other, translated into English, leaks which I put on the record this morning.


BUDGET SPEECH-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, if the Prime Minister does not concede the fact that that was clearly the budget speech so labelled on the videotape, and so admitted by the Minister, does he not at least concede that those leaks were in that document, however they might want to change it between now and eight o'clock tonight? I think it would be a rather despicable action on the part of the Government should that attempt be made.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I think I answered earlier the twisted logic about what is despicable and not. The Hon. Member asked me earlier if I had seen a copy of the budget speech. Yes, I saw a copy. I think it was the third draft. I saw it just before the weekend. As far as I know, it embodied all decisions taken until then by Cabinet. It was final then. If it had leaked in that
Oral Questions
form, I suppose Hon. Members opposite would be complaining about a budget leak, but it so happened that since I read it and talked to the Minister of Finance, he got back to me and he made more changes. He said I have-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Contrary to the Opposition, this is a living Party. We are thinking all the time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: We all know that on that side it is the Party of the living dead, and we have known that for some time. The Prime Minister seems to be gasping his last. He is treating this as one huge joke. We treat it with a good degree more gravity than he and his braying donkeys behind him.


TIMING OF POSSIBLE CHANGES
Erik Nielsen: May I ask
the Prime Minister whether the additional changes which we are obviously going to see at eight o'clock tonight were made between the recording of that videotape and now in the House of Commons, and certainly by eight o'clock? We all know that there was a Cabinet meeting this afternoon. No doubt they will try to brazen this out by bringing in changes, altering a decimal point or altering a few pertinent phrases in that budget. Does the Prime Minister really believe that he can get away with that and that that will cure this gross breach of the normal secrecy that surrounds budgets? Does he not agree that he should ask for the resignation of the Minister of Finance who, if he were self-respecting at all, would have submitted that resignation after he discovered his error yesterday?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is now assuming and presuming that those pages that he proports to have seen will be changed by tonight. I have not said that. They may be changed and they may not be, but it would be interesting to know if we were damned in both cases. If there is a leak and we change them, there is no more leak. Therefore, perhaps we should change them. On the other hand, if we change them, it is a despicable practice because, having permitted the press a peek, we should be bound forever to that text as though it were the laws of the Medes and the Persians.


POSITION OF FINANCE MINISTER
[Stage Direction]
Hou. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa): Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister concerning a basic matter of trust that ought to be involved in terms of the Government's relationship to the people, and particularly in terms of the relationship of the Minister of Finance to the people of Canada.
[Stage Direction]
April 19, 1983
Oral Questions
Out of the report last night there was a factual assertion, namely, the claim that the deficit for the coming fiscal year would be $31.2 billion. The news of that has caused speculation, as has already been referred to, in terms of the Canadian dollar. Does the Prime Minister not realize, that, on the one hand, if the budget appears with that figure in it tonight, the Minister of Finance must resign or, as he seems to be implying, does he not understand in terms of the integrity of the Government, that that figure already having come out and been used, if the Minister of Finance gets to his feet tonight and changes or omits that figure, he has violated a very basic question of trust and, as Minister of Finance, will no longer bear the kind of personal integrity that he needs if a Government is to maintain its respect?
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I do not agree with the first leg of that two-legged stool, but on the second leg, the Hon. Member talks about violating a basic question of trust. Is he saying that the Minister of Finance, once having thought of an economic policy and putting it on paper in a first draft, must hereafter never change it like the laws-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: First draft?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: First, second, third or tenth-that he is not allowed to change it lest he offend the Opposition and those speculators?
Just a few months ago the Leader of the New Democratic Party was suggesting that we should reduce the deficit. A few days later he was suggesting that we should increase it. That may be wishy-washy economic policy, but it is certainly not a matter of a breach of any trust. It is a matter of him having changed his mind.
In the case of the Minister of Finance, it is well known that he has been working on this budget for the past several months. He has met with groups all across the country. He has had discussions with Members of his own Party, members of the labour unions, industrial leaders and so on. He has been improving his budget all the time. He may have decided to continue improving it between Friday and Monday, and between Monday and Tuesday. We shall see, Madam Speaker.


NORMAL PROCESS OF BUDGET PREPARATION
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, is the Prime Minister telling the House that the Minister of Finance, who is absent, is busy in his office making some last minute changes to the budget? Is he telling the House that is the normal way of functioning? The lockup that has normally been provided for journalists has been postponed and delayed, maybe for the rest of the day. Will he really admit that what he is trying to do as Prime Minister, instead of living up to his constitutional obligations in such a serious situation, is to get away once again with trying to escape an issue by a mere technicality, redefining what a budget is and insisting on some absurd legalism that, by definition, we only have a budget when it is presented tonight and that what was presented
yesterday to the press and the country, and claimed to be the budget by the Minister of Finance, should be defined out of existence? What he is doing is defining out of existence the very integrity of the Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is talking of some absurd legalism, as he puts it. Let us look at this legalism to which he refers. He quoted to me before the case of the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Dalton. I put it to him that if between the time when Mr. Dalton had told the reporter that there was going to be a tax on cigarettes and the time when he stood in the House of Commons in Westminster and delivered his budget-if he had changed that and put a tax on chocolates instead-


John Edward Broadbent: He did not change it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Hon. Member tells me he did not change it. I want to know about this legalism. Is he telling me that Dalton, having realized that perhaps he had made an indiscretion, would not be entitled to go into the House of Commons and deliver a budget which did not have that tax on cigarettes? Is that what he is telling me? If so, he is really-


An Hon. Member:: He had honour.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Hon. Members opposite talk about honour. I wish they would think a little bit with their intelligence rather than with their mouths.


FINAL BUDGET FORM
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I assume the Prime Minister has now seen and approved, in final form, the budget which will be presented to the people of Canada tonight. If he has not seen and approved it in final form, I hope he will tell the House that. If he has, can he tell the House whether it was from that approved final document that information was obtained by a TV cameraman?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I do not think the Hon. Member should be asking me to tell him what is going to be in the budget tonight and what is not going to be in the budget tonight. I told the House that I have seen some drafts of the budget. I was discussing it again today with the Minister of Finance. I may be meeting him again later in the afternoon to discuss it more.
It would be too bad if the Opposition thought they had a leak and they do not have one, but they cannot have it both ways. They cannot claim to have seen a leak before they have seen the budget. They must see the budget first and then decide (a) if there was a leak, (b) if there was a peek, (c) if it is relevant to the tradition of this Parliament, and they have many questions that they can perhaps ask themselves after they have seen the budget.
April 19, 1983

What they should not be doing is preventing the budget process from proceeding as it should, the budget from being read tonight, and I would hope that at least some of the debate would be on the substance of the budget and not on the process of the budget, because what the people of Canada want is economic results.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSSIBILITY OF CHANGE IN DOCUMENT
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, what the people of Canada want is a little less sophistry and a little more honesty from the Prime Minister. Obviously the Prime Minister did not answer my question.


Charles Joseph Clark: You personify corruption.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Is is apparent that he refuses to answer my question. I will ask him again. Has he already seen and approved in final form the budget that the people of Canada and this House will be receiving tonight, or is it one of these chameleon-like budgets that will be changed up until the last possible moment? What about the copies of the budget that have been sent across the country? What about the press lockup? Does the Prime Minister still hold that this budget that has been so carefully guarded with this unprecedented secrecy is the same budget that the Minister of Finance held up to the TV cameramen, or has it been changed? Surely he can be honest enough to tell us.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, if I were to answer that question it would not be a matter of honesty, it would be a matter of indiscretion, and the Hon. Member wants me to commit that indiscretion. He wants me to tell this House that something that has been purportedly from the budget will in fact be in the budget and be leaked. I will not tell him. But when he accuses me of sophistry, I wish he would explain what sophistry I just committed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Madam Speaker:: As Hon. Members are aware, pursuant to a special order of the House, tomorrow the House will be considering Government Orders, while Private Members' Business will be considered on Friday. Consequently, the Order Paper and Notices will be published on Friday and not on Wednesday.
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen PETITION


MR. FULTON-NORTH SLOPE DEVELOPMENT
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) on Monday, April 18, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


PRIVILEGE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the question of privilege of Mr. Nielsen.
Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, at one o'clock I was addressing the point of privilege raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Nielsen) respecting the matter of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) having leaked portions of the budget that is to be revealed later this evening.
It has been established very clearly that there has been important information leaked to the public, information that dramatically affects public financial markets, from a document identified by the Minister of Finance as the budget. It has also been clearly established that that leak is in violation of the Minister of Finance's oath of secrecy and his responsibilities. You have indicated to us, Madam Speaker, that it is necessary to show how those two actions, first the material being leaked, second the violation of the Minister's responsibilities, affect the privilege of the House and that is what I would like to do.
Section 16 of Beauchesne defines very clearly the privileges of Parliament. This was quoted earlier by the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) and I quote again:
The privileges of Parliament are rights which are "absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers".
The privileges of Parliament are absolutely necessary for the execution of its powers. As well, reading from Section 21 of Beauschesne:
The most fundamental privilege-
Which is absolutely necessary for the execution of the powers.
-of the House as a whole is to establish rules of procedure for itself and to enforce them.
To reinforce that, Madam Speaker, Section 20(3) of Beauchesne states that at the beginning of each session the Chair claims from the Governor General on behalf of the House, and I quote:
-all their undoubted rights and privileges, especially that they may have freedom of speech in their debates, access to Your Excellency's person at all seasonable times, and that their proceedings may receive from Your Excellency the most favourable construction.

April 19, 1983
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen
This House has the absolute right to establish procedures, rules and requirements. One of the absolute rights of the House, established over hundreds of years, is the right to hear the Government's budgetary proposal before anybody else, or simultaneously with anybody else.
Madam Speaker shakes her head. Madam Speaker has made up her mind in advance of any argument.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, it is argued that we have no right to demand from the Crown knowledge of the Crown's taxation plan prior to anybody else except those under an oath of secrecy. If that is true, think what follows. The laws of Canada result from legislation passed by this House, by the Senate, given Royal Assent and then proclaimed.
Throughout the history of our legal system, courts have ruled that retroactive legislation is, generally speaking, not enforceable simply because you cannot require people to obey a law that they do not know about and will not be passed until some time in the future.
The exception to that rule is laws emerging from a budget, because at the time of the budget, aside from the speech which is a political event, the substance of the budget is tabling notices of Ways and Means which say to this House and the rest of the country: "These are the Government's plans for alterations in existing tax law or new tax law", and so on. The law then becomes effective. It has been our practice that once the notices are tabled in this House, the taxman can start collecting, people can be required to fill out forms based on that notice of Ways and Means, and it is anticipated that there will be legislation passed to bring it back retroactively.


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member, but I would like him to keep to the point. We have discussed this question of privilege now for over two hours and it is absolutely essential, if Members want to contribute to the enlightenment of the Chair, that they stick to indicating to the Chair how the privilege was breached.
The Hon. Member is now discussing the process of the presentation of the budget. I think all Members of this House are aware of that process and it is not necessary to describe the process so as to be able to adjudicate this question of privilege.
I would urge Hon. Members, because I will not be able to hear them indefinitely, to bring forward arguments that are of a nature that will help me to rule on this question. I would ask the Hon. Member to stick to the specific point of privilege.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I was endeavouring to do precisely that. Because of that fundamental method by which we impose taxes in this country, and if there is any purpose for an elected Parliament, it surely has to be to oversee the Crown's taxing plans and in fact to authorize them. The Crown cannot tax without authority.
If the Chair is suggesting that the Crown need not inform the House of its plans, that in fact the Minister of Finance, if he chooses, could give his budget and notice of change in income tax to his Chamber of Commerce, or to his friendly television reporter, or his tax adviser or somebody else, before giving it to the House, and that that is not an offence against the privileges of Parliament, then I humbly suggest there is no reason whatsoever for us to be here. If in fact the Chair is suggesting that the Minister does not have to give us the first public indication of his intention, and without violating the privileges of the House can give it to whomever he pleases, then frankly we might as well adjourn this House forever. If we have any purpose it surely has to be that. That is why the action concerning King John was taken at Runnymede, where Parliament came from-to prevent the Crown from going off and doing what it wanted. For the Chair to suggest that those centuries of tradition are immaterial and that the Minister of Finance can do whatever he blooming well wants is an absolute absurdity.
Nothing could be more fundamental to the privileges of every Member elected by Canadian citizens than that we be told of the budget by the Minister of Finance in this House and not learn about it from television reports or speeches that he makes to the Chamber of Commerce or by some other method. Nothing is more fundamental than that, Madam Speaker. Any self-respecting Minister of Finance would resign.
That is not your job. Your job is to protect the rights of this House. If you are not going to protect that fundamental right, you are not protecting any of our rights and there is no reason for us to be here.
I repeat, the most fundamental privilege of this House according to Beauchesne is to establish the procedures and rules, to establish processes, and not just the written ones. Citation 20 quite clearly sets out the common law practices. The centuries of tradition of the way budgets are presented is equally binding, equally part of our traditions.
One of the privileges that we as elected representatives of the people of Canada demand is that we be the first to be given public evidence of the declaration of the Crown's taxing plans. That is at the root of this institution and any failure to recognize that as a breach of our privilege is, in essense, a slap in the face to every Canadian who elected us and sent us here.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I wish to address a few brief remarks to this question of privilege and perhaps to wrap up the argument for this side.
I would say at the start that it was our hope that the argument could continue on the basis of the precedent set in the case of the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid). Immediately after the motions under Standing Order 43 were dealt with, on the orders of the day on July 24, 1975 at pages 7886-9, he made his argument on a question of privilege. It was on the basis of that precedent that we were attempting to argue at the start of Question Period that the
April 19, 1983

question of privilege should have flowed through. In those days the House commenced proceedings at two o'clock. Under the new Standing Orders, these days the House begins at eleven o'clock. You quite properly recognized the question of privilege at eleven o'clock and gave it the importance it deserved under Standing Order 20(1), which reads as follows:
Whenever any matter of privilege arises, it shall be taken into consideration immediately.
We were a little upset that the precedent set in 1975 was not followed. We felt that the argument should have been allowed to carry through with continuity.
Be that as it may, I support the argument of my colleague the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) that the privileges of all Members of the House have been breached in that we read about and saw on television matters which were obviously in the budget which will be presented tonight. It is a breach of our privileges as Members that this material was disseminated through the media before it was presented to the House. The effect on the market, the effect on what action private citizens will take, has yet to be seen. The question of whether or not the Prime Minister will stand on tradition has yet to be known.
I would argue from a different point of view that every Member of Parliament has confidentiality, has privilege as set forth in Citation 16 of Beauchesne, which reads as follows:
Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals.
I would submit to you that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) has a privilege and a right; that privilege and that right is to have matters which he considers to be confidential kept confidential.
The question is whether the Minister of Finance let slip information which is in the budget deliberately or accidentally. If it was deliberate, it is a breach of the Minister's oath of office; if it was accidental, the disclosure of that in the media is a breach of the Minister's confidentiality, his privilege.
We would argue that in either case, whether you take the argument of the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre or my argument, the privileges of a Member or Members of the House have been breached. It is a matter of sufficient importance that we, as her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, and that Members of the New Democratic Party, concentrated the entire Question Period on it. You will know that does not always happen. I suggest to you that the fact that Members from all across the country representing the Opposition saw this as being of sufficient importance to devote the entire Question Period to it, lends weight to the argument that there has been a breach of the privileges of Members of the House.
If you find there has been a breach of privilege, we would move:
That a Special Committee be appointed to inquire into all the circumstances relating to or associated with the disclosure of budget information by the Minister of Finance on Monday, April 18, 1983, that the Committee consist of
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen
eleven Members of the House, and that the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records.


Madam Speaker:: I think I have heard a sufficient number of interventions on this particular matter. Hon. Members will understand that I obviously want to take some time to examine all the arguments that have been put forward.
I want to tell the House that I will rule on this question a little before the adjournment of the House. May I add that I will rule whether the Minister of Finance is present or not. Obviously it will be necessary to rule on the question today.
I am sorry, my English has played tricks on me. I did not mean adjournment. We are going to be back in the House at eight o'clock. I meant that I would rule just before we rise at six o'clock.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the importance of this matter, would it be possible that I, as House Leader of the Official Opposition, and the House Leader of the New Democratic Party, have notice of your ruling so that we will be sure to be in the House?


Madam Speaker:: Yes, I can do that. I will give notice to Leaders of the different Parties.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, there are circumstances which you may or may not be aware of which may very well tend to compromise the Chair in the decision it is about to make. I do not know whether you are aware that the arrangements for a lockup were made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) to occur at 4:30 o'clock today. As a result of a question of privilege we raised this morning, the word now from the Minister of Finance to the media and ourselves is that the lockup will not occur until such time as the Speaker rules on the question of privilege.
Now, there are two points. I am speaking of compromising the Chair, Madam Speaker. There are two points, before you shake your head in the negative, finally ruling out the possibility that the two points I have to make might be valid. There are two points that have to be made here. We have had a clear indication from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) today in a Question Period which might be taken as having let them off the hook, as it were, by explanations that were allowed by the Chair over my objections of the moment-


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Get on with it.


Erik Nielsen: If "Disco Duck" would stop interjecting and listen to what I am saying-


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Why don't you stop and get on with the business of the House?


Erik Nielsen: We are very much on the business of the House. One of the points, Madam Speaker, is that obviously, as indicated by the Prime Minister, changes are being made to

April 19, 1983
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen
the documented budget speech that was telephotoed yesterday afternoon.


Yvon Pinard: How do you know that?


Erik Nielsen: Because the Prime Minister said so.


Yvon Pinard: No way.


Erik Nielsen: He said so when he was answering questions today. He admitted that the-


Yvon Pinard: He said he did not know.


Erik Nielsen: -documents photographed yesterday were going to be altered. That is clear.


Yvon Pinard: That is your conclusion.


Erik Nielsen: The Chair, by delaying its decision, will be I suggest aiding and abetting the Government, which will have the luxury of the time between now and whatever time it takes to print those changes to set about giving effect to those changes that will be printed. That is precisely what is happening. The longer the Chair takes to make its ruling, the more opportunity the Government will have to make those changes.
The second point, Madam Speaker, is that the Chair should make its ruling on the basis of submissions made. The evidence before the Chair is all that is needed to make a decision. The Chair should not wait for any budget presentation. The Chair has indicated that the ruling is going to come down some time before six o'clock and that gives me some comfort with respect to that second point. But the first point is one which could very well compromise the decision of the Chair and place some doubt upon its impartiality-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: -if the view is taken that the longer it takes to make that decision gives the Government the opportunity to make those changes so clearly indicated by the Prime Minister today.
1 urge the Chair to make the decision early. Indeed, as is often done in the practices of this place, the Chair might give some indication as to its predisposition at this point before preparing the final written ruling which will be coming down, as the Chair has indicated, before six o'clock. If we could have some idea now as to the Chair's reception of the submissions made with respect to there being a breach of the privileges of the House and a breach of the Minister's oath, that would make us rest a good deal easier on this side.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the Acting Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Nielsen) is acting like a schoolteacher, and I find his attempt to tell the Chair how to direct the proceedings of the House entirely unacceptable. His habit of giving the Chair advice on how to act is truly obnoxious to any self-respecting parliamentarian. We have taken note of your intention to examine the arguments submitted and announce your decision in due time and you indicated that this would
preferably, and at the latest, be a little before six o'clock this evening. We are of course agreeable to this very sensible decision, out of respect for this institution and for the Chair.
The Acting Leader of the Official Opposition also brought up the lock-up of media people and Members of the House. I submit, with due respect, that this is not the concern of the Chair, and that the Chair should ignore these considerations because these arrangements are made directly by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) with the Parties concerned. There is no connection at all with parliamentary procedure or the Standing Orders of the House, and, with due respect, I again submit that the Hon. Member's urging the Chair to make a quick decision-to which we have no objection, I must admit-because of the delay this would otherwise involve in connection with the lock-up, that the Hon. Member's argument is not a concern of the House, and that it should not be given any consideration at all.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, it would set my mind at rest, and certainly those of all of us over here; and my remarks can be discounted entirely if the Government House leader would give us his assurance now that the lockup will proceed as planned at 4:30.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Well?


Erik Nielsen: Is he prepared to give that assurance, Madam Speaker, that the lockup will be proceeding at 4:30?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is being very stubborn. I just said that the lock-up is no concern of the House, and now he expects me to answer one of his questions on the subject. The matter is totally irrelevant here. The lock-up is a matter to be decided by the Minister of Finance with Hon. Members, Party representatives and the media. That should be clear, it seems to me. I do not intend to argue about the lock-up. It is irrelevant, and I would appreciate no further questions being asked about the subject because I think it is a waste of time.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, the fact is that the lockup is not going ahead because that budget speech and its changes have not yet been completed and will not be completed; and the longer they have to delay until six o'clock, the better it is going to be for the Government to hide its tracks.


Mr. Rossi:: That is your opinion.


Madam Speaker:: Well, if ever I was in doubt as to the isolation in which a Speaker is held, I have the proof today. I had no knowledge whatsoever of the lockup taking place at 4:30 o'clock, six o'clock or any other hour. I was, rather, under the impression that the lockup was taking place at the time at which the budget was being delivered. So that my decision to
April 19, 1983

rule later this afternoon before six o'clock, of course, has nothing to do with that.
Hon. Members have discussed at length the question of privilege. I hope they do understand, without implying that the Chair is compromised in any way, that if arguments are made over a period of over two hours, nearly three hours, obviously the Chair has to reflect upon those arguments and it does take some time.
However, I can tell Hon. Members that, having sat through all of those arguments, I have heard them, but I hope Hon. Members realize that before ruling the Chair does try to look at the blues to see whether all of the impressions the Chair has gathered from the arguments which the Chair has heard are in fact corroborated by what I can see in writing. Therefore I hope Hon. Members will give me the time to look at those arguments.
I repeat, I will try to rule as quickly as possible, as was my desire, before six o'clock, and I will give notice to the Party House Leaders of the time at which I intend to make my ruling.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 3,502 and 3,543.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	What is the total cost to the taxpayer of Canadian Media Corporation's services as an agency of record?
2.	On what date did the Corporation start to perform services for the Government?
3.	Since the Corporation first started performing services, which agencies or departments had other advertising agencies reserve time and space for them and, in each case (a) which agency performed the function (b) what amount was paid either directly or indirectly for the services?


David P. Smith: I am informed by the Advertising Management Group and the Department of Supply and Services as follows:
1.	From October 1, 1980 to and including November 30, 1981, the total cost as an agency of record is $1,780,471.
2.	October 1, 1980.
3.	The only government agency which had other advertising agencies reserve time and space was the Canadian Government Office of Tourism. This was necessary because the Canadian Government Office of Tourism requires the services of foreign country agencies, (a) This activity is co-ordinated by the Richmond Advertising Agency of Toronto, (b) In 1982-83, the
Business of the House
expenditure budgeted for foreign advertising was $2,027,000, with Richmond Advertising receiving $150,000 for co-ordination services.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	Are there guidelines that determine whether Canadian Media Corporation reserves media space or time for the Government and, if so, what are they?
2.	Which organizations are exempt from having to use CMC's services?
3.	What is the Government's estimate of any savings to date resulting from the employment of CMC?
4.	Does the Government have confidence in CMC's ability to perform its duties competently and in a non-partisan fashion?
5.	Does CMC serve as agency of record for the Chief Electoral Officer?


David P. Smith: I am informed by the Department of Supply and Services and the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer as follows:
1.	Yes. In accordance with Treasury Board Policy on the Management of Government Advertising (Chapter 485, Treasury Board Administrative Policy Manual), the agency of record reserves media space and time for the Government. DSS is currently maintaining CMC, Canadian Media Corporation under contract as the agency of record.
2.	CMC's services are used by departments and agencies listed in Schedules A and B of the Financial Administration Act and branches designated as departments for purposes of the Financial Administration Act. All other Government organizations are exempt.
3.	After fees have been deducted from gross savings, the net savings to the Government amount to $1,221,000 from October 1, 1980 to December 31, 1981.
4.	Yes.
5.	No, CMC has never served as agency of record for the Chief Electoral Officer.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I believe that Your Honour will have received a motion under Standing Order 30 from me this morning. Under the circumstances, I would request that that matter be disregarded at this time.

April 19, 1983
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act Madam Speaker: Is the Hon. Member asking me to withdraw that notice for an urgent debate under Standing Order 30?


Erik Nielsen: Yes, the circumstances of the debate this morning and this afternoon have made that unnecessary now.


Madam Speaker:: Very well.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded with consideration of report stage of Bill C-95, An Act to provide for government operated pool systems on combinations of athletic contests and events and to amend the Criminal Code and the Income Tax Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Before proceeding with the report stage of Bill C-95, it is my duty to inform the House that we have examined the motions relating to the report stage of Bill C-95, an Act to provide for government operated pool systems on combinations of athletic contests and events and to amend the Criminal Code and the Income Tax Act.
I shall now inform the House how the motions are to be considered. Motion No. 1 in the name of the Minister of State (International Trade) (Mr. Regan) and motion No. 3 in the name of the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid) concerning the groups of recipients listed in Clause 18, Subclause 3, of the Bill, are to be grouped for the purposes of debate and be voted on separately. Motions No. 2, 4 and 5 will be considered and voted on separately.


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International Trade)) moved:: Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-95, to provide for government operated pool systems on combinations of athletic contests and events and to amend the Criminal Code and the Income Tax Act, be amended in Clause 4 by striking out lines 29 to 32 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"(4) The directors appointed pursuant to subsection (1) shall include at
least one person from each of the following three fields, namely,
(a)	arts and culture;
(b)	fitness and amateur sport; and
(c)	medical and health research."


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines) moved:: Motion No. 3.
That Bill C-95, to provide for government operated pool systems on combinations of athletic contests and events and to amend the Criminal Code and the Income Tax Act, be amended in Clause 18 by striking out lines 11 to 20 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"of the XV Winter Olympic games to be held at Calgary, Alberta,"


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motions?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, in relation to Motion No. 1, it is the position of the Government that this amendment should be supported. However, we are unable to support the second amendment to which reference has been given. At this stage, I might just give the reasons for the particular amendment which outlines, in detail, classifications from which directors will be represented.
The Government is moving this motion to amend Clause 4(4) because it was felt that a problem arises out of the vague expression, "beneficiary groups", which is not defined anywhere in Bill C-95 but which is in the present or what will be the former subsection. The term "beneficiary groups" is used in relation to the whole Section 18(3), making it impossible to say who would be entitled under the new subsection 4 to representation on the Board of Directors.
This amendment was initiated by the Opposition to ensure that the directors will have representation from the groups which will eventually benefit from the operation of the sports pool. The Government is simply ensuring that the intention of the Opposition in that regard is secured by this amendment. The proposed Government motion sets out clearly that representation on the Board of Directors will include at least one person from the fields of arts and culture, fitness and amateur sport and medical and health research.
Hon. Members will be aware of the aims of Bill C-95, to establish a mechanism to manage and operate a sports pool, to supply supplementary and non-tax revenues for the deserving areas of arts and culture, fitness and amateur sport and health and medical research. In addition, the sports pool will provide non-tax revenues for the fifteenth Winter Olympics Games to be held in Calgary in 1988. It is the responsibility of the federal Government to support worthy projects of that type, and as these games will benefit Canada and Canadians in many ways this source of funds becomes extremely important to the staging of the games in this country. In any event, I will restrict myself for now to the remarks I have made on the first amendment.


Joseph Lloyd Reid: Mr. Speaker, the joining of Motion No. 1 with Motion No. 3 makes it somewhat difficult from our point of view. As the Minister points out, Motion No. 1 arises out of an amendment which we proposed in committee and adopted in a certain language, now reduced to the language of the amended Bill C-95 and the Bill which is now before Hon. Members.
April 19, 1983

Motion No. 1 is a refinement of that committee amendment which provided for representation on the Board of Directors by the beneficiary groups. However, Motion No. 1 before us, and to which 1 have no objection, simply makes it very clear that representation on the Board of Directors would only be by the more or less permanent beneficiaries of Bill C-95, and not by the Calgary Games or any special project or event which might be the recipient of funds.
However, if I might now address myself to Motion No. 3, we have consistently been opposed to the sports pool, and for very good reasons, the first being that we want to be consistent with our position throughout 1979. Accordingly, I would like to say once again on behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition that we have been and are in opposition to the Bill, so as to be consistent with the position of 1979.
Second, we recognize that gambling can become as compulsive as any other addiction. Accordingly, we are in opposition because lotteries have become Canada's major social disease. We are also in opposition because it is a form of taxation on the poor. Surveys have clearly shown that those least able to pay are those most likely to buy.
Finally, we submit that this is simply a poor Bill.
In relation to Motion No. 3, if this Bill should pass we take the position that if there is to be a sports pool it must relate to the Calgary Olympics, just as Parliament was prepared to accept a gambling game operated by the federal Government in support of the Montreal Olympics. We have taken the position that while we are opposed to a sports pool and the implementation of such a game operated by the federal Government, a Crown corporation or agency of the federal Government might logically be required to support the Calgary Olympics. This follows precedents of Parliament with respect to the Montreal Olympics.
However, we are very much concerned with the history of Loto Canada leading up to the 1979 agreement. Loto Canada was scandal ridden and was brought before this House on many occasions by reason of one abuse or another of those games.
We have been told that the Bill provides for three substantially permanent beneficiaries; arts and culture, fitness and amateur sports, research in health and medicare. The Bill goes on to provide for funding of the Calgary games and any other major event. The indication is that the funds available will not fully support any one of these.
Nevertheless, if the game must proceed, then let Calgary be the beneficiary so that Calgary, and indeed all of Canada, can take pride in a successful games that are properly and financial secure.
We indicate, therefore, through Motion No. 3 that Calgary be the sole and only beneficiary of the proceeds of any sports pool game operated by the federal Government.


Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to make a few comments on Bill C-
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
95. In all of its promotion of this sports pool Bill, the Government has relied on its $200 million commitment to the 1988 Calgary Winter Olympics. The upshot of that, of course, is to suggest that anyone with the gall to oppose the Government's plans to get back into the gambling business must have some kind of perverted desire to see the Calgary Olympics fall flat on its face. Let me deal with that briefly before I get into the heart of the Bill.
For the record, I and my Party support the Calgary Olympics. Like all Canadians, we are proud that Canada will play host to the games. We wish the organizers every success. We think it is imperative, however, that the Government meet its $200 million commitment to financing those winter Olympics. It can be done without resorting to the kind of schemes embodied in this Bill.
For the benefit of Members opposite and some of my Tory friends, I want to tell the House what the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said in 1976 when the Government tabled a document in the House which established Loto Canada. He said:
It is because we believe that physical fitness, amateur sports and recreation are important aspects of Canadian life that we think they should be financed out of general taxation and, therefore, paid for on the basis of the ability to pay-
He continued:
-if the Government gets into trouble with something else-health costs, veterans pensions, or what have you-which it cannot afford, it will say 'we can go in for gambling again,' and the whole business of taxation and redistribution of wealth would be completely shot.
That is what we have in this Bill. Hiding behind the skirts of the Olympic Games, the Government is asking us to approve a new slush fund for itself generated from the profits of Government-run gambling.
The federal Governments' last two forays into legalized Government sanctioned gambling were to be on a temporary basis. The Olympic lottery was established in 1973 as part of a fund-raising package for the 1976 Summer Olympics in Montreal. The last draw was to be in December of 1976. But then, through order in council, the Government extended its tenure in the gambling business until 1979. When the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) tabled the document on Loto Canada in 1976, he argued again the need for Government-run gambling to ease the burden of the deficits incurred by the 76 Olympics and the 78 Commonwealth Games in Edmonton. Loto Canada was expected to be in business from January, 1977 until 1979.
With this Bill, however, there is not even the slightest hint that there might be a termination date. Bill C-95 reveals the Government's intention to get into the gambling business on a permanent basis. As my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre predicted, the Government is going in for gambling on a permanent basis and the whole business of taxation and the redistribution of wealth is being undermined.
That is not the only prediction he has made which history has proven accurate. In 1976, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre said that the day would come when health costs,
24642

April 19, 1983
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
veterans' pensions or other programs considered by the Government vital enough to be funded from the consolidated revenues of Canada would have to depend on the profits from gambling for funding.
What will this betting scheme support? Revenues from the sports pool are targeted not only for the Calgary Olympics but also to support arts and culture, fitness and amateur sports, worthy capital projects of national interest and medical and health research. Where will it end? It is a sad day when the future of Canadian health care depends on raffles and gambling schemes for funding.
Let us look at the facts. In the last ten years the federal Government has reduced substantially the proportion of funding it provides for medical research. In 1971 the federal Government provided 72 per cent of Government support for medical research. By 1979-80 that proportion had dropped to 59 per cent. With that trend in mind I think good questions to pose to the Government are: how much more will federal funding for medical research deteriorate? Will Canadians see the proportion of medical research support derived from federal tax revenues decline further when and if money is allocated from sports pool profits to medical and health research?
What we really have here is not funding for the Olympics. That is not the salient point of this Bill at all. What we have in Bill C-95 is an attempt by the Government to get back into the business of gambling on a permanent basis. It is an attempt to get back into the business of gambling, not only to finance the Olympic games but medical and health research, arts and culture and fitness and amateur sports as well. The scope of Bill C-95 is not limited to the Government's current desire to start a sports pool. A fact which should be remembered is that through clause (2)(b) of this Bill, the Government may embark on whatever gambling enterprise it deems lawful and desirable through order in council.
When the then Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sports, the present Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan) who is introducing the Bill in the House today, was flogging this Bill to the media he argued that both the federal and provincial Governments need a non-tax source of revenue for certain undertakings. Lotteries and his proposed sports pools are his idea of a voluntary form of taxation. He has certainly put a pretty face on what amounts to abandoning fair taxation in favour of Government-run gambling. We should expect no less from a Government that has given us a Liberal advertising body called the Canada Unity Information Office.
What is the nature of the Minister's voluntary taxation-his non-tax source of revenue? For one thing, it is a form of taxation that takes proportionately more from the poor than it does from the rich. When one thinks about it, it is not really surprising that it is the poor and not the rich who fall for other Government betting schemes. Lotteries, this sports pool and other Government-run gambling are turning millions of Canadians into gamblers. The rags to riches, easy money outlook bred by lottery advertising is naturally appealing to poorer Canadians.
A 1977 profile commissioned by Loto Canada found that 54 per cent of the buyers of lottery tickets earned less than $20,000 a year. A similar study conducted by Gallup found that 73 per cent of people who earned less than $6,000 a year took part in Wintario. This is the clientele government betting schemes appeal to.
The Government Members will say, "What about bingo? Does the NDP want to get rid of bingo because it is a game of chance and appeals to the poor too?" No, we do not want to purge the country of bingo. We have nothing against bingo because bingo is totally unlike the lottery system. Bingos bring people together to participate in a social event, but buying a lottery ticket is an act consummated alone.
The main motivation behind buying a lottery ticket is to find a magic solution to all of one's economic problems. That is the pitch the Governments of this country have been selling in their aggressive marketing of lotteries in the past. The manager of one provincial lottery admitted as much. He said:
We base all our marketing strategy on greed. It is our big selling point. People do not buy tickets because they want to help a cause. They buy a ticket because they want to win.
There we have it. Thousands of Canadians are living in poverty or so close to poverty it amounts to basically the same thing, and the Government is giving them a crack at bettering their lot. Of course, no one is told what the incredible odds are of winning the big prize. In the Western Express, for example, the odds are one in 500,000. You have a more of a chance of being struck by lightning than you do of winning the grand prize in a Canadian lottery; and that will be no different with this sports pool.
The Government is trying to hoodwink people by claiming that this sports pool is really a game of skill. Simply predict correctly the final score of 12 to 16 hockey or baseball games and you can take home the big prize. Who do they think they are kidding? Instead of having the winning number selected by a computer, the winning ticket will be determined by chance, by the outcome of a dozen or more sporting contests. I do not know how that can be considered a game of skill. The chances of guessing correctly the outcome of a dozen or more hockey games could be as high as one in one trillion. With that many games involved in each pool, even the most knowledgeable sports fans would have stumbled across an incredible piece of luck if they picked the correct final score in every game.
Are you signalling that I have only a moment left, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Yes.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: I will sum up by saying I think it has become obvious that we are opposed to this form of voluntary taxation. We are opposed to this piece of legislation and we will vote against it in the House when it comes to a vote.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, right now we are dealing with two amendments. I have a bit of a problem in following the Chair's ruling with respect to the grouping of Motions Nos. 1 and 3. First, Motion No. 1, and I
April 19, 1983

want to speak to it first because, with respect, Sir, it is quite a bit different from Motion No. 3, which deals with who shall be directors.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I appreciate the Hon. Member's remarks. The Chair, as Hon. Members understand, is sometimes given a grouping of Motions with the assumption there is similarity between them. However, upon second examination of the grouping which the Chair made earlier, I have asked that the matter be re-examined to ascertain whether there is similarity. The remarks of previous speakers that there is no similarity might be quite valid. In any event, that matter is being reviewed at this time, and if need be we will reverse that arrangement. The Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn).


Donald Alex Blenkarn: With your permission, Sir, I will devote my remarks entirely to Motion No. 1.
I think this Motion tends to mislead the House. Motion No. 1 refers to the appointment at some time of directors, one of whom must presumably come from arts and culture, one from fitness and amateur sport and one from the medical and health research field. The Motion does nothing about the quantum of directors.
This new sports pool corporation is really "gamble on the cook's sports pool or we will organize the game in a way that will result in someone winning." Aside from the problem that could well arise with interference in the results of professional and amateur sporting events with this whole sports pools concept, what we have is a motion produced by the Minister which is really a motion to paint a better picture on a Bill. It is pretty to paint a good picture on this Bill. The Minister says of my 15 directors we might as well give one directorship to somebody representing arts and culture, we might as well give one to somebody representing fitness and amateur sport, and one to somebody representing medical and health research; the rest can go to my favourite Liberal hacks.
One result of sports pools and betting is the accumulation of some free slush money for Governments. This is unaccountable money. If the Government wants to do a good deal for a favourite cultural group it is able to dip into a free pot and pay out. It may want to do something or provide a new building, stadium, or even a domed stadium. It is good politics to have a building built in somebody's riding. Therefore, the Government can dip into the pool and do something in the way of a grant for one person as opposed to another. After all, they are all represented on the board, are they not?
Out of a board of 15 directors there will be one for arts and culture, one for fitness and amateur sport and one for medical and health research, plus 12 hacks from the Liberal Party to make sure the Government in power has control over this wonderful free pot. The Government will be able to dip into it, honey dip it and do what it wants with the money.
Where does the money come from? It is supposed to come free. It is taken from those least able to pay and given to those the Government wants to look after.
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
The money does not come from the highly mobile or big wage earners, it comes from pensioners, pensioners in many cases who are at or below the poverty line. They are the ones who buy the $5 tickets, the $10 tickets, the $1 tickets, or whatever, because they hope somehow that lightning will strike them and they will be relieved of their misery.
That this Parliament with this phoney director-system set out in Clauses 3 and 4 of this Bill, made more phoney by the amendment produced by the Minister, should approve the kinds of things that happen in a gambling operation designed to fool the poor, fool the least competent in our society, bring in the suckers and rip them off, is unconscionable. We would be better to allow the setting up of Las Vegas casinos. At least they have a tendency to attract jetsetters. At least that is what they do. At least Las Vegas casinos bring in the highflyers who can afford to lose a buck or two. What do these sports pools bring in? Do they bring in the highflyers? Not on your life. Do they bring in the people who are worried about amateur sport? Not on your life. They bring in the little people who desperately want to improve their position and somehow want to get out of the box of poverty and hardship. The sports pools rip them off.
What are the rip-off figures? The last time we had Loto Canada 28 cents out of every dollar want to discounts, wholesalers or advertising. I suppose it went back into the economy. Only 27 cents was profit. That is all there was in it for amateur sports, culture, medical research, athletes or perhaps an Olympic game or two; and 45 cents was used for prizes to the lucky. Those are not good odds.
Why do we not tell people to gamble on the stockmarket? Maybe they would make something, maybe we would build the country. But what do we do? We organize the system, approve it as a moral position of our country, rubberstamp it and make it look good because, after all, we will put on the board of directors one person from arts and culture, one from fitness and amateur sport, and one who will represent medical health and research. Of course the rest of the group will represent the Government in power and the Government's right to dip into the pot and look after whoever it wants to look after.
The Bill, the amendment and the concept that we can somehow slide over the sleaziness of the Bill by appointing people, only three out of 15, to represent the supposed beneficiaries of this supposed benefit to society, are wrong, and the House should tell the Minister that they are wrong.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. Earlier the Chair advised Hon. Members that it would have the arrangement of motions for debate and subsequent voting re-examined in light of the statement read earlier today by the Chair, taking into account the well-founded comments made by Hon. Members previously in the course of debate. The Chair finds that all motions should be debated separately and voted on separately in due course. Therefore the House is now debating

April 19, 1983
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
Motion No. 1 which the Chair has already read. In due course I propose to again read Motion No. 3 in its proper numerical order.
However, having informed Hon. Members earlier at the beginning of debate that Motions Nos. 1 and 3 should be debated together but subsequently voted on separately, it would be incumbent upon the Chair at this time to see if Hon. Members who have already spoken wish to speak again. Presumably it would have to be on Motion No. 1. The Chair is extremely conscious of the fact that it should not deprive any Member of his or her privilege to speak on any motion before the House.
If there are no Members having already spoken who wish to speak again specifically on Motion No. 1, I will recognize the Hon. Member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski).


Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that we should even be discussing this Bill in the House at a time when there are so many people unemployed with so many serious things happening in the country. This Bill must be part of the $4.6 billion job-creation program which we will probably see this evening. It is sort of a pork-barrel creation for Liberals at $35,000 annually. Lotto Canada was supposed to have been exterminated, but it is still hanging in there somewhere with $16.5 million in the kitty collecting interest. The fitness and amateur sports people and the cultural people just do not know what the Minister will do with it.
I would like to give a bit of history in this regard. It surprises me that we have Bill C-95 to establish another lottery or sports pool without the Government having contacted its provincial colleagues in lotteries to say it intends to go ahead with something like this. The Government has not contacted any of the Ministers who had anything to do with lotteries since the agreement of 1980. I checked this out today to make sure that I was right. The only agreement they have is the one between the Government of Canada and the different Provinces regarding the $24 million connected with the CPI, which now amounts to $34 million annually being received from the Provinces.
The Minister said that they would be able to make more money out of this new pool. What will happen to the $34 million? Will they cancel out this particular agreement? The Provinces will say no, that if the federal Government wants to get into the lottery business and the sports pool business, that is fine, but it has lost itself $34 million annually. The federal Government is duplicating services as far as lotteries are concerned. What has happened to the $94 million or $98 million which is now in the kitty as of this quarter? Approximately $47 million goes to fitness and amateur sport. Why have the sporting fraternities not complained a little to the Minister? They always say that they do not have enough money. What has happened to them over there at 33 River Road? Why have they not complained to the Minister, saying that they have not received any of the $47 million? They are supposed to receive a piece of the action. Where is all this money?


Gerald Augustine Regan: What a lot of baloney.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I know the Minister of State (Multicultural-ism) (Mr. Fleming) went ahead and spent a little money on a few things for a cultural event. I think he might have received some funds from that particular kitty, but the poor fitness and amateur sport people, what did they receive? In my short tenure of office, they were on my doorstep every day saying that they did not have enough funds. Now, after three years of obtaining money from the provincial Government without any effort or any work whatsoever and with all this money in the kitty, I do not hear them complaining. Privately they do. Privately they say that the feds are real rats and will not give them any money.
I have heard this Bill many times called the Calgary Olympics Bill. What a bunch of baloney. Who is the Minister trying to kid? How can he even say things like that-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but the House is now debating Motion No. 1. The Chair has been following the remarks of the Hon. Member attentively. Perhaps he could tell us in what way his remarks are directed to the contents of motion No. 1.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, but I thought the House should have a little history of what is happening in order to be well aware of what the Minister is trying to do by establishing this lottery Bill or this gambling Bill. I know he will set up a board of directors. He will get its members from arts and culture, fitness and amateur sport, and medical and health research.
First we had an agreement with the Provinces which was related to just fitness and amateur sport and culture. Look what they have done with the fitness and amateur sport portfolio. They have given it to some poor little man in the other place who can hardly walk. That is where the fitness and amateur sport people have a Minister to look after them, in the other place.
Let me get to the back to the creation of directors. These will be order in council Liberal appointees at around $35,000 to $40,000 a year. Many of them are waiting for the jobs because when we got rid of Loto Canada there were about 6,000 Liberal hacks who were relieved of their kiosks which paid $35,000 annually. When we used to ask whether they were making any money, they would say no, but they received $35,000 annually to sit in a little booth and rip off the people of Canada.
I cannot believe this Minister, a really fine gentleman, going into something like this. He is familiar with amateur sport. I am told that he used to be a broadcaster. He has all kinds of other talents.
I cannot believe this job creation program that the Government is trying to establish today with this sports pool. Is there not something much better to get into without hurting the Provinces? This will not only be duplicating a service, the
April 19, 1983

federal Government will be shafted by their provincial counterparts because it will be deprived of $34,000 million. It will not receive that money.
Since January 1, 1980 the kitty has built up to $94. Half of that is $47 million. The Calgary Olympics will be in 1988.1 do not think we have to worry about that because this Government will no longer be in power. Those individuals opposite will be sitting on your left, Mr. Speaker. They will not have to worry about lotteries, the Olympic games, or anything else.
The university games were supposed to receive money from the agreement now in existence. They have not received any. The Calgary Olympics was supposed to get money from this agreement. It has not received a cent. This was put in as part of the agreement. I think there must be a few Liberals in Calgary. I cannot understand it, they are not complaining enough. They should get after this Minister. I am surprised that some people in Edmonton do not give the Minister a block from the blind side when he comes to Edmonton because he sure has not done a job for them. No wonder the Liberals are dead in the Province of Alberta. It is unbelievable what this Goverment had done to them.
The Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid) and my friend from Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant) have all expressed their feelings. They know exactly what is happening. It is funny that we on this side know what kind of ding-a-lings the people of Canada will get, yet over there all they do is smile. Let me tell them, whether it be two months from now, six months from now or whenever the next election comes along, we will show you who the ding-a-lings are, and who is going to get ding-a-linged.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I can be as amusing as the speaker who just completed his remarks. I will try and stick a little more closely to the motion before us. I might offer a few comments on what was said by the Hon. Member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski). If it had not been for the action of that Member when he was Minister, we would not have the proposed Bill before us at this time. We would have Loto Canada receipts to do that which this Bill proposes to do.
The Hon. Member talked about ripping off the public by those who were selling the Loto Canada tickets. 1 believe the people involved in that operation will take some resentment from that remark, particularly since he was so anxious to pass it off to his kindred folk in the Provinces. Is he now suggesting that they are continuing to rip off Canadians?
He then accused the Government of turning over responsibility for this Bill to a poor little guy in the other place who can hardly walk. I find that they resemble each other physically. That little guy in the other place may not be a great walker, but he has considerable ability to run.
It is appropriate that Motion No. 1 to amend Bill C-95 be adopted by this House because it ensures that the arts and culture, fitness and amateur sport and medical and health
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
research will be represented on the board of directors. That is entirely worthwhile and probably should have been in the original Bill.
It was strange to hear the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) condemn that proposal as being an opportunity for the Government to get its friends on the board of directors. Exactly the opposite is true. What makes his condemnation even more strange is that it was his Party which proposed this motion in Committee. The Government accepted it because it thought it was a good idea. When it accepted that proposal, it did not expect the Opposition to change its position. I therefore urge the Members of the opposition to at least be consistent when debating Bill C-95.
I was surprised to hear the remarks of the Hon. Member for Edmonton North regarding the Calgary Olympics. I am surprised he does not want the proceeds from the lotteries that will be established under Bill C-95 to go to the Fifteenth Olympic Games in Calgary.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is not true.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: The Hon. Member says that is not true. I suggest he make his position clear because he has not done that to date. He cannot have it both ways.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to straighten out the Hon. Member. I know he really does not mean to say what he is saying at this time because that is not what I said. I said that there are moneys available now amounting to $47 million which the federal and provincial Governments have that could go to fitness and amateur sport with the other $47 million for culture. Between now and 1988 there will be sufficient funds if the federal Government keeps on getting $34 million under that particular agreement. Forget about this Bill at this time. I was referring to the agreement that we now have. At $34 million annually between now and 1988 there will be sufficient funds to look after the piece of the action which the federal Government is supposed to provide for, I believe in the area of $200 million. That includes coins, stamps and all the other little things. If it puts aside the moneys it is now getting from the lotteries, there would be sufficient money not only for the university games in Edmonton this year, but for the Olympics in 1988.


Gerald Augustine Regan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski) estimates the money coming from the Province because of Canada moving out of Loto Canada at $34 million a year and if put aside, it would provide the money necessary for this cause. In fact, it has not been $98 million that has been received, but to date the total amount received has been $78 million.


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


Gerald Augustine Regan: That money has been spent and it has been fully accounted in the House. If the Hon. Member looks at page

April 19, 1983
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
22588 of Hansard he will see that outline of where the money went.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order. May we have some order, please. The Chair recognized the Hon. Member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski) on what I understand to be a valid point of order under Standing Order 41 which reads:
No Member, unless otherwise provided by Standing or Special Order, may speak twice to a question except in explanation of a material part of his or her speech which may have been misquoted or misunderstood, and the Member is not to introduce any new matter, but then no debate shall be allowed upon such explanation.
Therefore, it is not in order at this point to allow the Hon. Minister to continue his remarks as they are more in the nature of a statement than a misquote or a misunderstanding.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to Motion No. 1 and not to the point or order of the Hon. Member for Edmonton North, except to say that if I have misrepresented his point of view I will certainly have no hesitation in apologizing to him. I do not find any relief from the so-called explanation he gave in his so-called point of order.
Let us look then at the revenues expected by the Calgary Olympic Committee from the Government of Canada for the XV Olympiad. The Committee is anticipating income of $200 million from the Government of Canada. It was in 1980 that Loto Canada was turned over to the provinces for their plunder, and I use that word because the Hon. Member for Edmonton North said it was a rip-off. Since that time, the Government of Canada has received $78 million, and the Hon. Member for Edmonton North says that between now and 1985 there will be no trouble getting $200 million from that source to give to the XV Olympiad Committee. One would have to stretch mathematical probability a bit to get that amount.
More important, if that were the course the Government took, then there would be absolutely nothing left for any other activity, whether it be in culture and art, fitness and amateur sport, or in assistance to medical and health research. His proposal would see all revenue of the federal Government coming from the former Loto Canada going to the XV Olympiad. I contend that that would not come anywhere close to the $200 million the Olympiad Committee anticipates. Therefore, I think this is another attempt by the Official Opposition to have it both ways.
1 support Motion No. 1 and hope it will be incorporated in the Bill so that the appointment of a board of directors will indeed require representatives from arts and culture, fitness and amateur sport and medical and health research. In that way we will be certain the interests of those groups are represented first-hand at the meetings of the board of directors.


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, as I rise to speak on Bill C-95 I return to that with which I am familiar. There are social organizations in everyone's constituency; service clubs, bingos, church groups that want to organize and sell tickets in some form to raise money to entertain children, or to participate in whatever sport may be
their choice. I wonder how much the general public can support in the way of donations? Here we are begging again. As I said, we are giving our local communities opposition.
How far should we go in our support? How far should we go in asking people to support this and support that? This sports pool will probably be just another method of taking money away from families that should be spending it on some of the more essential things in life rather than on a dream of some far-off place in the future, a dream of pie from the sky dropping down to them.
I have said before that I think our society is over-organized. We have so much competition. How far can we go with this competition? Who are we going to hurt? As was stated here earlier, the people who probably can least afford to buy these tickets are the ones who buy the most. Their money should be spent on food, clothing, on other more tangible goods rather than on the hope of winning the lottery.
I was very convinced of this not too long ago when I saw the number of people lined up to buy Wintario lottery tickets. There were long lines of people; but there is only one winner. There is only one person who gets the pie in the sky. One individual from Montreal won a lot of money.
Lotteries like that collect a great deal of money, and in this way take money away from families that should have it for every day needs.
When visiting my riding, I witnessed a chap 1 happen to know buying tickets. He was gambling with these tickets that he was going to win. He had tickets from different organizations. I realize that there are some restrictions put on these lotteries by the provincial Governments, but this chap, as I said, was going for the pie in the sky. He was spending money that he would never get a return on in any way, shape or form. He spent $25 that he will never see again on that long-shot chance.
I am concerned by the moral side of the issue as well. I think that we are probably disturbing a lot of people in our church groups with so many lotteries. We are going to spend money here and we are going to spend money there. That money is spent without any assurance of return. This certainly gives me, as I am sure it gives many Members in the House today, reason for concern.
Think of our farmers who have on several occassions marched on Parliament Hill and other places; they are all in this fierce world of competition for the dollar. What do we do with our dollars? In so many instances, we waste our dollars.
Tonight we will have a budget. I cannot help but think of it. What is the Government going to do for many of these people? Are we taking the wrong approach by collecting some of this money? We are not giving our people any guidance, and I think this is something we should consider. We have the racetrack and a great many other places where we spend money. I do not call this money frivolous, I call it hard-earned money for many of these people. As I said, these people need a little guidance on how to spend this money. I think this would
April 19, 1983

be a much better society if the Government provided that guidance. Sure, we all like to get something for nothing; that is human nature. The Government is supposed to give guidance, but what has this Government done? It would be hard to count what the Government has done. There is nothing to count as far as I am concerned.
I have been involved with sports all my life. I know what it means to build an arena, I know what it means to build a community centre. We have to assess the success of these projects after they are built. Did we build too many of them, did we build some of them too big, can the community afford to operate this complex? These are all questions that come up.
With those few remarks at this stage of Bill C-95, I ask of the Hon. Members to think about the measure. Think about the less fortunate people in life, those who look to us for guidance. Do we make things too easy for them? Do we give them too much encouragement to throw their money away because the state will look after them? This is what concerns me. Some people become too dependent on the state. They are asking the state for everything. This takes away the initiative to get out and fend for themselves and their families. These are some of the things we are probably encouraging with these pie-in-the-sky deals. With these few remarks I will yield the floor to someone else, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I was about to call the Hon. Member to order. Perhaps as a general admonition I should call the attention of Members to the fact that we are debating Motion No. 1 which concerns the appointment of directors from various endeavours such as art, fitness, medical health and research. I trust that Hon. Members will make an effort to stick with the subject matter of the motion.


Joseph Lloyd Reid: I rise on a point of order for clarification of a ruling the Chair made earlier, and to emphasize that each Member may speak for his allotted time of ten minutes on each of the four motions following Motion No. 1 which is before us at this time. I gather that the ruling of the Chair was that Motion No. 1 would be separated from Motion No. 3. This would permit a Member to speak again on Motion No. 3 when it reached its turn. When we conclude any discussion on Motion No. 1 which has to do with appointments to the board of directors, we might then move to Motion No. 2 and continue the debate with respect to that motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: So there is a clear understanding of the process, the five motions will be debated in their numerical order. They have now been totally dissociated where they were previously associated. Each individual motion will be debated separately and, if need be, voted on or disposed of separately.
Is the House ready for the question on Motion No. 1 ?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 1 (Mr. Regan) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: We will now proceed to consideration of Motion No. 2 (Mr. Reid (St. Catharines)).


Joseph Lloyd Reid: Motion No. 2.
That Bill C-95, An Act to provide for government operated pool systems on combinations of athletic contests and events and to amend the Criminal Code and the Income Tax Act, be amended in Clause 14 by striking out lines 11 to 22 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"14.(1) The objects of the Corporation are to organize, operate and manage, alone or jointly with the governments of any one or more provinces with which the Corporation has entered into an agreement or agreements for such purpose, pool systems in accordance with regulations made pursuant to section 16."
He said: Mr. Speaker, Clause 14(1) of the Bill provides for the operation of a sports pool and goes on, in paragraph (b), what we call the Mack truck clause, to allow the Crown corporation to be established under the act to operate any other lawful game which the Governor in Council might direct or decide upon. That is a Mack truck clause.
In my opening remarks I said that this was a poor Bill, and I specifically referred to this provision as an example of an open-ended item for any kind of game which the Crown corporation might wish to become involved in. We know that the Bill contains an amendment to the Criminal Code, so that whatever amendments are required can be made to the Criminal Code to allow any Crown corporation to operate the game referred to.
This Party is on record as being in favour of the 1988 Calgary Winter Olympic Games being properly funded, so that Calgary and Canada will be the hosts of the 1988 games. This could be a milestone in Olympic history.
The offer made by the Provinces was to share and if the Minister was prepared to negotiate further, to assume the commitment made by the Government of Canada to Calgary in the amount of $200 million so that it would not have to become involved in a lottery at all. The Minister continues to say that he must have passage of this Bill so that he might bargain or argue from strength to meet the demands of the Provinces. Who is the Minister trying to kid? If the Government is interested in sport or in the success of the Calgary games, let the Minister separate the funding of the Calgary games from the sports pool.
There has been enough indication that the sports pool is doomed to failure before it gets off the ground. The Government knows full well that even with passage of this Bill today it will still be a matter of many months or years before Calgary will see revenue from the sports pool to assist it in its promotion of the games.
We as a Party know that support is needed for arts and culture, medical and health research and is badly needed for fitness and amateur sport. How can any of the beneficiaries

April 19, 1983
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
named in the Bill plan, develop or organize without any commitment on funding? It is a poor Bill indeed when not one of those beneficiaries can count on any percentage of funds if as and when a division of funds takes place. It is our position that the responsibilities of Government cannot be met by games of chance, lotteries or sports pools.
In Committee we were primarily concerned with two things. The first was whether it would be reasonable to expect the sports pool to generate the sufficient funds to finance the Calgary games or to meet the $200 million commitment of the federal Government. The second was the assurances that any of the beneficiaries might have that they would receive any funding at all.
On the first matter, the Minister responsible reduced his exaggerated original estimate of $100 million net per annum by a Committee announcement that it might only be some? $80 million net.
The Hon. Reuben Baetz, the Ontario Minister of Tourism and Recreation and Chairman of the Provincial Lottery Corporation appeared before the Committee. He was the only person who appeared before the Committee who had any experience in a lottery or in funding. He pointed out that at best the federal Crown corporation to be established under the Bill would receive no more than $30 million to $40 million per year gross. That is a far cry from the $80 million the Minister said they would receive under a sports pool game.
I want Members of this House to consider an additional fact, Mr. Speaker. The Minister responsible could not offer a single scrap of evidence to support his claim, while the Province of Ontario had data, information and documents to support its presentation before committee.
Let us look at these facts as well. On November 30, 1982, the Province of Quebec launched its Hockey Select sports pool concept game, based on Canada's most popular game, hockey. The gross from the second weekly draw, the most lucrative during the whole of the season, was $136,000. It has been steadily going downhill from that time to the end of the hockey season. By January, 1983, the weekly gross was down to $70,000; in February it fell to $40,000. Indeed, Quebec is considering the discontinuation of Hockey Select or the sports pool game. I would ask the Minister, if he cannot sell pool tickets in the Province of Quebec on the Montreal Canadiens and the Quebec Nordiques, where does he expect to sell his sports pool tickets?


Steve Eugene Paproski: In Nova Scotia.


Joseph Lloyd Reid: Government Members like to talk about the success of pools in Europe. They talk about the great success of Lotto or whatever game they refer to. But the results they quote are far more fiction than fact. Let us look at some of these lotteries. In Belgium the sports pool receives 1 per cent of the lottery games; in the Netherlands, 10 per cent; in Poland, 7 per cent; Switzerland, 5 per cent, and so it goes.
If those percentages were transposed to the Canadian lottery market, it is easy enough to see that the provincial estimate of sports pool revenues is much more readily justified, and that the federal Department's projections are simply a figment of someone's imagination still not supported by facts or figures. Any honest, realistic assessment of sports pool revenues will lead to the conclusion that such a game will not produce the funds necessary to meet the expectations of the beneficiaries described and referred to in Bill C-95. What that means, simply and clearly, and what the Provinces point out, is that the federal Government will get into the lottery business and run the risk of losing that new-found $30 million per year. The Government will put us back into pre-1979 years of competition with the Provinces when Loto Canada was the biggest media spender in the country.
The Provinces view the inclusion of Clause 14(1 )(b) as a deliberate indication of an intent by the federal Government to get back into the lottery business, and deliberate contempt for an agreement which the Provinces entered into in good faith. They have paid $94.5 million to this federal Government since 1980 and have assumed an additional sum of $29.8 million, which was a commitment by the federal Government to the building of certain arenas across this country. Over $120 million have come from the provinces to federal coffers under that agreement.
It was stated in committee by some Government Members that it is not the intention of the federal Government to get back into lotteries. It is incumbent upon the Minister to say clearly whether or not it is the intention of the federal Government to become involved in lotteries.
If it is alleged that Clause 14(l)(b) is needed as a back-up measure to guarantee the success of the sports pool, and if it is intended that such a back-up is not going to be a lottery, then I challenge the Minister to spell it out and tell us just what is the nature of the game the federal Government proposes to use as a back-up to a failure or a doomed sports pool. Why should Government Members over there be so anxious to vote for a provision which puts them in a position where they will be voting for a gaming operation about which they know nothing? There is no indication of any kind about the nature or type of game the Government proposes to use. Are we as a Parliament, or is the Government of Canada to be involved in an operation of a Las Vegas-type of video electronic gambling parlour-casino? What, Mr. Minister, do you propose to use as any other lawful game as referred to in this Act? Withdraw Clause 14(1 )(b); better still, withdraw the Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIVILEGE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the Question of Privilege of Mr. Nielsen.
April 19, 1983
Madam Speaker:: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised previously by the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Nielsen).
I listened, of course, to a wide range of arguments in relation to this question of privilege and have since read the arguments presented by a number of Hon. Members. The responsibility of the Minister to safeguard the secrecy of the budget until it is presented in the House was underlined in those presentations. Many references were made by Hon. Members to a Minister's oath of secrecy and the implications of a budget leak in constituting a violation of that oath. The main thrust of the arguments, as I understood them, concerned the propriety of ministerial conduct, the economic effects of the premature release of budget information, and the right of the House to be informed of the contents of the budget before it becomes a matter of public record.
All these matters of course are of a very crucial political importance, and there are very good reasons for preserving budget secrecy. Those reasons have been enumerated by Hon. Members. But budget secrecy is a political convention. So also is the practice whereby the Minister presents his budget in the House before declaring it in any other public forum.
In the present case the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) is charged with responsibility for a budget leak. There is a procedure, namely a substantive motion, which is provided under our practice, for the purpose of making direct accusations against holders of certain offices, including Ministers. We have ample precedents for this principle and I would refer Hon. Members to the decision of Speaker Michener on June 19, 1959, in relation to the Pallett case. In the course of his ruling he said:
In my view, simple justice requires that no Hon. Member should have to submit to investigation of his conduct by the House or a committee until he has been charged with an offence.
This kind of allegation is not a matter for the decision of the Chair. It is not a matter which should be pursued by way of a question of privilege either. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Nielsen) himself acknowledged that it was not for the Chair to decide whether or not there has been a budget leak or to pass judgment on the Minister.
In neither of the British cases referred to was the matter raised by way of a question of privilege. The J. H. Thomas case, which arose in 1936, involved impropriety. The matter was investigated by a tribunal of inquiry, an extra-parliamentary body, and the Minister subsequently resigned. The Dalton case involved an indiscretion. It was raised by way of a private notice question on November 13, 1947, and the Minister resigned shortly afterwards. The matter was then investigated by a select Committee of the House. I would point out that the House is free to pursue this course in the present case should it choose to do so. The point I would emphasize is that it is not a matter for the Chair and the Chair should not be involved in any decision which the House may take in this respect.
Reference was also made to a case which arose on July 24, 1975, when a Member raised a question of privilege as the result of an article which claimed that he had leaked budget
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act information and passed it on to businessmen. In this case, the Speaker found that a prima facie case had been established and the matter was referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. This case is not, however, relevant to the present one as the Hon. Member in question was complaining of a libel which reflected upon his integrity and thus hampered him in the fulfilment of his duty as a Member. The case was based on a newspaper report and the Hon. Member was not the subject of a charge by his fellow Members. The complaint was his own.
Finally, I would refer to my ruling of November 18, 1981 which is consistent with the precedents I have quoted. In the course of the ruling I stated:
Certainly the matter of budget secrecy is not dealt with through questions of privilege and there are very important precedents which I will recall to Hon. Members. There were cases in Great Britain, the ones concerning Mr. Thomas and Mr. Dalton where there was an allegation of breach of secrecy ... Nor were they dealt with under privilege. A committee was set up in one case, and a tribunal was set up in the other. Neither case was brought before the committee which normally deals with matters respecting the privileges of members. In one case there was a special committee which dealt with a particular matter; in another case there was a tribunal. This was necessary because of the special powers which are needed to investigate such cases.
Those two important precedents which I took from records of the United Kingdom convince me-and, I hope, the House-and give me the authority to say that a breach of budget secrecy cannot be dealt with as a matter of privilege. It might constitute a very important grievance for members. Such action might have a very negative impact on business or on the stock market. It might cause some people to receive revenues which they would not otherwise have been able to obtain. All of these are possible consequences of breaches of budget secrecy, but they have no impact on the privileges of a member. They might do harm- irrevocable in some cases-to persons or institutions, but this has nothing to do with privilege. It has to do with the conduct with a minister in the exercise of his administrative responsibility ... it is in that respect that a formal charge must be made. That charge must allege that a minister has been derelict in his administrative responsibility, has breached his oath or whatever hon. members might want to allege.
I must therefore find that I am unable to deal with this matter as a question of privilege.


ATHLETIC CONTESTS AND EVENTS POOLS ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of report stage of Bill C-95, to Provide for Government operated pool systems on combinations of athletic contests and events and to amend the Criminal Code and the Income Tax Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak on the sports lottery Bill. I do so with a sense of confusion as to why we are here on this particular occasion debating this particular piece of legislation. I also do so as a Member of Parliament for the City of Calgary, which will be the site of the XV Olympiad. I also clearly recall the sense of elation which most Calgarians and certainly the Olympic

April 19, 1983
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
Development Committee felt when, after petitioning the world community for the right and privilege of hosting the XV Olympiad, that Olympiad was granted to the city of Calgary.
It was granted in part because different levels of Government, federal, provincial and municipal, provided the world community with guarantees relative to their portion of the funding. The guarantee provided by the federal Government was on the order of $200 million.
I stand here, recognizing the fact that the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Perrault) introduced a Bill to establish a sports betting pool approximately a year and a half ago. This is only the second day the House of Commons has been able to debate that Bill. Because of earlier proceedings, it is a short debate today. However, in the meantime, Ministers of the Crown have been running around the country saying that the Conservative Party is filibustering and blocking this particular piece of legislation.
We have also been told by Ministers of the Crown that there is no other way for the federal Government to provide the money to the XV Olympiad other than through the passage of this Bill. I suggest to the House that both statements, no matter which Minister made them or where they were made, have no basis in fact.
I said on a radio program that I felt it was an example of one of the least honest statements I had ever heard a Minister make. To imply that the Conservative Party is responsible for filibustering the Bill when it has been around for a year and a half, and today being only the second day on which the Government has brought it forward for debate, is simply to stretch the truth to the point at which it is unrecognizeable.
Also, to suggest to the Canadian people that the federal Government's funding commitment in relation to those Olympics is dependent on passage of the Bill is also pure nonsense.
Hon. Members who were listening to the debate earlier this day heard our spokesperson indicate, in a statistical sense, the difficulty which such a sports pool Bill is facing. If one lays aside the moral arguments and all the others relative to it, it is less than clear that the passage of the Bill will produce anything but expenses for the federal Government. It is less than clear that one thin dime of revenue will ever be produced to go to those Olympics. On that basis alone, the world community and the Olympic development authority in Calgary should feel alarmed.
The Province of Quebec, as has been mentioned earlier in the House, put in place a betting pool. That is the Province in which interest and attendance at hockey games and so on is presumed to be the greatest in the country. This is a sports betting pool based on hockey and the revenue from it is going down, down, down.
One must consider the wisdom of this piece of legislation. The first thought one should have in relation to a Bill of this kind relates to the size of the market. Is the market for lotteries in Canada a growing market? Is our population exploding? Do we have more and more people who want more and more lottery tickets, or do we have a saturated market? It is a well
known fact that as the economy goes down, the poorer segments of a society buy more lottery tickets. The thought of instant riches has more appeal the more difficult our lives become. In these tragic times in Canada, with 1,600,000 unemployed Canadians and more people on welfare than there have ever been before, if one looks at the statistics one finds that on a per capita basis Canadians are buying more lottery tickets than they have ever bought before. In what one might call a perfect market condition for lotteries, a sports betting pool is losing its share of the betting market.
Where is the wisdom in Hon. Members of this Chamber approving a piece of legislation to establish something which will cost several millions of dollars to set up during what will surely be a downturn on the market side, when in fact it has already been proven in one major Province that the idea will not work and will not produce revenue?
What I am suggesting to the House is that Hon. Members opposite, acting on direction of the Minister, are likely to force passage of this legislation which will then take money out of the pockets of the Government, will increase the deficit, and will not likely produce any revenue. Where is the wisdom in that? That is the first thing wrong with it. The moral arguments have also been raised. Do we, as responsible Members of Parliament acting on behalf of the Canadian people really want to put out there in the marketplace another tax on the poor? Where is the wisdom in Members of this House of Commons, acting collectively, putting another tax on the poor? Surely Government Members know that it is a tax on the poor, that it is the poor segment of the society which contributes to that tax. Why do Hon. Members opposite want to impose an additional tax on the poor?
This morning, in the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), said "I despise lotteries". Every Member of every Party sitting around that table this morning felt the same. If that is any kind of representation of the feelings of Members of the House about the wisdom of this Bill, then surely it must be possible to predict that it will be defeated when it comes time to vote.
[DOT] (noo)
If the Bill is not defeated, what conclusion can we draw? Will we look at Liberal Members opposite and see that they have a different understanding of the purpose of this Bill and really applaud an extra tax on the poor, or will they put Party discipline ahead of what is good for the country? I will look very carefully at what the Minister of National Health and Welfare does when this Bill comes before the House for a vote, because she said of the record this morning with great clarity and feeling, "I despise lotteries". As a free thinking Member of Parliament, if she despises lotteries and does not believe in extra taxation on the poor, it seems to me logical that she would have no choice but to stand in the Chamber and vote against the creation of that lottery and that tax. To do otherwise is to admit to Canadians that Party discipline comes ahead of conscience and commonsense.



April 19, 1983

I hope this Bill will quietly disappear and that Cabinet will reconsider its action. There is already $34 million a year in rent coming to the federal Government because it got out of the lottery business under our Government. We produced revenue without expense to the federal Government. That is sufficient money to fund the Olympics, if that is the fund the Government wants to take it from.
More importantly, if this Bill were to proceed there certainly would not be any money available for at least a year. We are in an economic downturn with some small signs of recovery. Our economic prescription on this side of the House would be to accelerate public works projects and to stimulate the economy through the production of goods and services which last. May I suggest that the money that is to be spent on the Olympics in Calgary is for those kinds of facilities. It should be spent now. The projects should not have to wait. The Government should kill the Bill, sign a cheque and give the money to Calgary now so it can get on with the work and create some jobs, instead of hopes and dreams.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, in relation to this motion by the Opposition, we must oppose the deletion of the portion of the clause they wish to delete because it provides the power to the Government, if necessary, to undertake other activities of this type. Let me give one example in that regard.
It has been stated by a number of Members who have spoken today that in return for the federal Government getting out of the field of Loto Canada, which was yielding $80 million a year, we are now receiving something in excess of $28 million a year from the Provinces. That money is divided evenly between culture and sport and all of it is being expended as it is received by the programs.
Since the Hon. Member for Edmonton North (Mr. Papros-ki) had misinformed himself on this subject and thought it was sitting in some mythical pot and not being used, I would suggest that any Hon. Members who wish to know what the actual situation is in this matter might refer to page 22588 of Hansard of February 7, where the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith), in answer to a written question, outlined exactly what had happened to all of those funds.
Be that as it may, those moneys are used as the money from Loto Canada would have been used for programs that exist in fitness and amateur sports and in culture and would not have been available and are not available for the purposes of a new program. They are committed, needed and are part of the ongoing expenditures of those departments. Indeed, if there is to be support for the Calgary Olympics, there must be a new source of support.
I wish to say that the reason we cannot agree to the deletion of this clause is that if, as has been suggested by the Hon. Member opposite, the Provinces stop sending that money as part of their agreement when we establish a sports pool, then there is no question that we would want the right immediately to go back into lotteries. Therefore we need that power.
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
I want it quite clearly understood that sports pools are different from lotteries. The establishment of sports pools does not break any agreement that may exist, and we question whether any agreement exists. If the Provinces do not send the money it would suit me fine, because Loto Canada or its equivalent would be re-established.
I would like to comment on the remarks of the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) on this motion. I hope that what has been said by the Hon. Member for Calgary West and how he said it has been noted by the people of Calgary. If we have ever seen anyone put up every kind of faulty argument against a project that is aimed at assisting his particular area, we have seen an example of it from the Member for Calgary West this afternoon. First, he says that the federal Government guaranteed $200 million for the Olympics. The record clearly shows that we said we would provide money out of non-tax revenue. If the Hon. Member is suggesting, as one or two backbenchers over there suggested previously, that in the unlikely proposition that they came into power they would pay it out of general revenue, then let them say that publicly. I do not think that they will find public support for the use of tax dollars to that extent. The use of a sports pool is quite a different matter.
The Member for Calgary West complained that we said the Conservative Party was filibustering. We have said quite clearly that there was debate in the House on second reading of this Bill after it was introduced for first reading. It then went to committee where there were a number of long sessions involving much debate and many questions over a substantial period of time. When the Bill came back to the House, the Conservative Party would not agree to a time limitation, as is customary with most Bills of this type, in order to get it through and allow them to either vote for or against it, but at least permit democracy to operate and let a decision be made. If the Bill passes, this would also allow Calgary to begin to receive some benefit, as well as other organizations which would benefit from this cause.
The Hon. Member says they want to go ahead with this but it has failed in Quebec. It is strange that they and Reuben Baetz from Ontario who has the benefit of countless of millions of dollars for programs in Ontario because they have the lotteries that were given up by the previous Government, come before the committee and say that this will not be a success and should not be entered into. I have to question his reasoning when he says he actually feels that there may be an element of competition. The research we have undertaken has shown that sports pools appeal to a very different clientele than lotteries. Indeed, all the research in other countries indicate that as well. We chose this method, rather than returning to lotteries, to try to minimize the conflict with the Provinces.
I would have thought that a Member whose area was as interested or involved as that of the Hon. Member for Calgary West would have taken the trouble to do his homework before coming here to speak. He said that the Province of Quebec tried the sports pool and it failed. So would any lottery that a Province undertook if it tried it on the same basis that the

April 19, 1983
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
Province of Quebec tried its sports pool. It did not put up any particular prize. It did not advertise that there was a prize of $100,000; $500,000 or $1 million. It merely said that a portion of the amount from the number of tickets sold would be available for first prize. If not many tickets were sold, perhaps the prize would be $10. Try a lottery on that basis and see how much money you make out of it. They did not want to succeed with their sports pool. The Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) should have known that. He should have taken the trouble to have found that out before coming in here and saying what he did. He mentioned the size of the market. We talked about the different clientele.
O)
I am not terribly in favour of lotteries myself. I do like sports pools a little better than lotteries, I think, because they involve the skill of a person who follows the sport-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald Augustine Regan: The Hon. Member laughs. I bet I can decide the scores of the Stanley Cup better than he-


Mr. Fennell:: I would not want to boast about that.


Gerald Augustine Regan: -because I have a little skill.


Thomas Scott Fennell: That is not skill.


Gerald Augustine Regan: The Hon. Member would not want to boast. He can take that sort of sophisticated attitude that sport is nonsense.


An Hon. Member:: That is a crap game.


Gerald Augustine Regan: The Hon. Member says it is a crap game. He might be good at marbles, but I doubt it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald Augustine Regan: Several Members on the other side, and I am speaking particularly of the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) and the Hon. Member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott), talked with that superior attitude that we as legislators should decide whether or not people are allowed to spend their money in a certain way, and that we should regulate, it. Probably we should say that no working man is allowed to buy more than 12 pints of beer a month. Probably we should say that a person is not allowed to go to bingo more than twice a month. That is the attitude they show in their words when they say quite clearly, it is very bad for working people, and this is a tax on the poor. All of the statistics show it is not a tax on the poor. People who buy sports pool tickets where they exist and, indeed, those who buy lottery tickets come equally from all income segments. Just to say automatically it is a tax on the poor without having done homework again is something about which I complain.


Joseph Lloyd Reid: Surveys prove it.


Gerald Augustine Regan: The surveys prove exactly what I just said. The statistics are quite clear on the subject. All income groups
spend approximately one-third of 1 per cent of their annual income on this subject.
I want to say there are two or three things which the likeable rogue from Edmonton North mentioned.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan) but the ten-minute period allotted to him has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There does not appear to be unanimous consent. Therefore I recognize the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges).


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to take part in this debate on Bill C-95, to provide for Government operated pool systems on combinations of athletic contests and to amend certain sections of the Criminal Code and the Income Tax Act. The extent of the Bill is to establish the Canadian Sports Pool Corporation.
Once this corporation is in full swing, its net earnings will be paid to the Receiver General of Canada, another name for the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The Consolidated Revenue Fund will pay out funds in support of one or more of the activities such as art and culture, fitness and amateur sport, medical research, the 1988 Calgary Olympics and other worthy capital projects of national interest in those fields.
Bill C-95 will also amend Section 188 of the Criminal Code to allow the Government of Canada to operate and manage a pool system of betting, either alone or together with one or more of the Provinces. This Bill, Mr. Speaker, will also amend Section 40(2)(/) of the Income Tax Act so that neither gains nor losses from betting will affect taxation.
The Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal) has stated that $200 million has been pledged to the 1988 Calgary Olympics, and he stated as well I believe that all this money would be coming from this proposed sports pool and from no other Government source.
However, the Secretary of State has failed to acknowledge that under the 1979 federal-provincial lotteries agreement there are funds available as well for the federal Government to assist not only the 1988 Calgary Olympics but international amateur sports events that take place in Canada. The Calgary Olympics is also assured funds from the sales of stamps and coins. So I say again that the Secretary of State should acknowledge such additional funds for Calgary in any further statements on this matter.
During the committee hearings, Mr. Speaker, there was considerable testimony given by interested groups on the pros and cons of this Bill. The race tracks of Canada were alarmed about the detrimental effect this Bill would have on track racing all across Canada. Evidence was presented to demonstrate the negative effect lotteries have had on horse racing


Some Hon. Members:: No.

April 19, 1983

bets, not only in Canada but in the United States as well. I was happy to see that positive consideration was given to their request to exclude horse racing as a sports pool category for the placing of bets.
I believe representations were also made by the InterChurch Committee on Lotteries; the Council of Executive Directors of the National Sport and Recreation Centre; the Province of Ontario; the Canadian Conference of the Arts and others. All in all some eight amendments were passed in committee in an effort to accommodate representations and to improve and make Bill C-95 a better Bill.
It has been estimated by the Secretary of State that the net annual return from this pool would be about $80 million. This figure has been contested by others who estimate that the gross annual return would not exceed $30 million and the net return to the federal Government would be in the neighbourhood of $15 million. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, it is pretty difficult to estimate any figure with any degree of accuracy. Hopefully for those who stand to benefit from this pool it will be around the $80 million mark.
Although the committee in its deliberations was not prepared to move an amendment committing the funds to a fixed distribution formula, it has been suggested that the funds be allocated on the basis of 40 per cent for major amateur sport or cultural projects and 20 per cent each for fitness and amateur sports, arts and culture and medical and health research. However, because of the commitment of up to $200 million for the Calgary Olympics, it is evident that far more than 40 per cent of the net proceeds would have to be paid to Calgary over the short term. Therefore it is quite evident that the percentages may not be strictly adhered to.
I do not doubt, Mr. Speaker, that there could be a lot of unforeseen difficulties that may arise once the Canadian Sports Pool Corporation is in operation. I hope any difficulties that may arise will be dealt with in an efficient and businesslike manner so that the worthy organizations the sports pool will be supporting will receive the necessary assistance and financial backing that they so well deserve.
However, having said all this, there is no question, as the Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid) has already stated, that this legislation poses some serious questions. Bill C-95 not only seeks to establish a new Crown Corporation to conduct and manage a sports pool, but to establish as well any other lawful gaming activities as the Government may direct. It could operate a bingo, a video slot machine game or whatever. Therefore it should have the courage to come to Parliament for that authorization because this particular clause in the Bill is nothing but a blank cheque. It is mind boggling to realize that Bill C-95 will allow the Government to try its hand at any game going. The Government says it may not do this but who can say what may take place in the future?
This legislation as well does not stipulate the designation of the Auditor General as the Corporation's auditor, especially in view of the ill-fated problem experienced with Loto Canada a few years ago. Loto Canada was one of a number of Crown Corporations singled out by the Auditor General as operating
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
far too independently of Parliament. To add insult to injury, the Government's insistence that it choose the auditor for the Sport Pool Corporation can only leave us with the thought that the Government has no intention of letting Parliament scrutinize the Corporation's books or dealings. To me this is certainly a positive indication that the Government must have something to hide, must have something it does not want scrutinized, such as a possible way to cover up any sign of favouritism, political or otherwise, as to who gets the grants. If the Government denies this, then it should have no objection to having the Auditor General do the auditing. Since the Government does object to the Auditor General, then one can only draw the obvious conclusion. This only confirms, Mr. Speaker, what many Canadians are already aware of, that this Government has lost the trust and confidence of all the people of Canada.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to Bill C-95.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) is seeking the floor on a point of order.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I realize it is difficult for the Chair to see this part of the Chamber from this particular angle, but I have been standing up ever since the debate on this amendment began and I have not yet been recognized.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair does its best to recognize everyone concerned. At the moment the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) has the floor.


Neil Young: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to speak in opposition to Bill C-95 for many of the reasons which have been mentioned by previous speakers in this debate. My opposition has absolutely nothing to do with a perceived or conceived lack of support for Canada's position on the winter Olympics. My opposition stems from my belief that the Government's further intrusion into the gambling industry, whether or not it likes to recognize it as such, is in fact just that and gives its stamp of approval to gambling.
Based upon figures I have seen in the past, contrary to what the Minister said in his remarks a few moments ago, there is clear indication that the individuals who are more likely to take part in lotteries or sports pools are those at the low end of the income scale. In fact, the Minister's argument that this is not a form of gambling as much as it may be a form of voluntary taxation is of great concern to me.
In my view the Government's entrance into this field over the last several years is nothing more than an additional tax on the poor. The available statistics which have been gathered by the Government and by Government agencies certainly give a clear indication of that. A 1977 profile commissioned by Lotto Canada found that 54 per cent of the buyers of lottery tickets earned less than $20,000 per year. A similar study conducted

April 19, 1983
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
by Gallup found that 73 per cent of people earning less than $6,000 per year took part in Wintario. This is the clientele to whom the Government's betting schemes are really appealing.
The matter of grave concern to myself and to other Members, particularly those in my own Party, is found in the Clause before us at this time. It talks about a voluntary taxation through a sports pool to fund an addition to the games, to support arts and culture, worthy capital projects of national interest and medical and health research. I always considered support for arts and culture and support for medical and health research to be a responsibility in the best interest of Canadians as a whole and certainly Canada as a society. I considered this to be a responsibility of all Canadians not just those people at the low end of the income scale who may be tempted because of the economic conditions in which they find themselves as a result of Government policy to try to find a way out of those difficulties by buying dreams through the kinds of programs about which the Government is talking. That is what the Government is doing. It is selling dreams. The chances or the odds of an individual who participates in that kind of activity, these lotteries or sports pools, actually coming out a winner are decidedly low.
When we consider what the Government has done recently in terms of its support for medical and health research, postsecondary education and other policy areas which come under the Established Programs Financing Act, we should be extremely concerned. We see the Government beginning to talk about supporting necessary Government services through voluntary taxation by legalized Government-supported gambling. That is a matter of extreme concern to me. It is not a question, as the Minister mentioned earlier, of Governments, politicians or elected officials telling people on what they can or cannot gamble. That is not the question. The question is whether the Government is actively promoting the raising of taxation for very necessary services through gambling under the programs it is introducing. That is the point which must be addressed in this debate. Throughout his remarks I did not hear the Minister address that issue.
The Minister dragged into the debate a whole number of red herrings, but I did not once hear him give an argument which would justify me or Members of my caucus giving any semblance of support or speaking in favour of this kind of activity or this kind of Government initiative.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) had the same speech writer as the previous speaker from his Party. I want to make a few brief remarks on Motion No. 3. The Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid) said it was brought in because of the Clause of the Bill it was amending, as they referred to it, the Mack truck clause. If it is a Mack truck Clause; certainly it is a "get the Tories off the hook" amendment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I believe the House is currently debating Motion No. 2. Is the Hon. Member directing his remarks to that motion?


Donald W. Munro: I will take over then.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Just a moment. Does the Hon. Member want to direct his remarks to motion No. 2?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry, I just used the wrong number. Rather than Motion No. 2 I said, "motion No. 3".
We have witnessed a fair amount of Tory sleight of hand in the speeches we have heard on this particular Clause. I support this Bill with somewhat mixed emotions. The garbage we have heard from the other side of the House helped me decide to support it. Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party want all these activities supported from general Government revenue. It seems that they do not take cognizance of the fact that Canada economically, socially and developmentally is still very much a developing country, and that there is not the necessary revenue for the Government of Canada to support everything.
We had the opportunity to support cultural, recreational and research activities through non-governmental revenue until the Hon. Member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski) gave it away. We no longer have it. They have made much of the fact that the Calgary games-


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to straighten out the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne). It is wrong for a Member to say things like that. I have a lot of admiration for that Member, however he should realize that this Minister never sat down and talked with his provincial counterparts in order to see if any of these moneys-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. With all due respect to the Hon. Member for Edmonton North, the rules permit only ten minutes per speaker. The Chair has recognized the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi. I am sure there will be another opportunity to intervene.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, that was a very fine ruling. The Hon. Member was not rising on a point of order, but to debate a different issue altogether.
The Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) will have to answer to the people of Calgary for the position he took when he rushed in, made a few remarks and rushed out. He will have to answer for his opposition to this Bill.
I support the Bill because of the commitment made by the Government of Canada to the XV Olympiad. Whether it is in Calgary, Vancouver or wherever, I as a Canadian am proud that we will have the Olympiad in Canada. I believe that we should have top-notch facilities. I do not agree with the NDP that some of the poorest communities in this country should be taxed for general revenues to pay for sports facilities they will probably never see. This is a fair and equitable way of providing non-tax revenue to the Government to fulfil its commitment to the City of Calgary in the provision of these facilities.
April 19, 1983

I am also here to support this Bill because of the gob-bledegook we have heard from the Tories and NDP about how this is a tax on the poor, how we are forcing the poor to support activities in which the wealthy will participate. I have never taken the view that because you are poor you are ipso facto stupid. I resent the argument that if you are poor, you are too stupied to know whether you should buy lottery tickets or participate in a sports pool. I want it on record that I do not believe that poverty is synonomous with stupidity.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I will not take too much time as I know others want to speak and we may be able to get this Bill through. As Conservatives, we like to co-operate. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) is in the Chamber. Are you now in charge of lotteries? Am I to understand that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is in charge of lotteries? I hear you really want lotteries in Health and Welfare. Do you really think that lotteries are the greatest thing in the world for research?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Will the Hon. Member please direct his remarks to the Chair.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I want to expand a little on what was said by my hon. friend from Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne). It will cost the Government $55 million up front money to get into this so-called sports pool. Nothing like that has been mentioned here.
The Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan), who is in charge of lotteries, had the greatest opportunity in the world in the last three years to sit down with his provincial counterparts in charge of lotteries. He could have told him that we would be bidding for the Winter Olympics, and whether Calgary, Vancouver or somewhere else got it, we will need one or two lotteries that go directly to funding the Olympics. Do you know what the provincial people would have said if the Minister had had the courtesy to call them together or visit them? They would have said that they wanted to support the Olympics. They would have been delighted to give him three or four draws annually from their lotteries in order to help the various sporting events and the games in Calgary.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: On a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi will know that there is a ten-minute period allowed. His point of order should be a point of order.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: My point of order is that I believe the Hon. Member is inadvertently misleading the House. I am sure he would not do it deliberately. He is suggesting that if the Minister had negotiated, he could have reversed the give-away that this Minister made when he was Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sport.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I am really surprised at the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi. He should stick to transport. He
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
is a great Chairman of the Transport Committee, but he should forget about lotteries. He is so far behind that he thinks he is first.
I will repeat only one more time that I do not know who made the studies for this Minister. I am sure they are sitting in the gallery and gloating. They spent a whole year and close to a million dollars studying the different games to see whether they could do something about getting into Loto Select, the loto pool, gambling or whatever it is.
The Minister hopes this will not go through because it will cost $55 million. Will he go to Cabinet and ask for $55 million or will he take the money that the poor people from Fitness and Amateur Sport were supposed to get? The Minister now has $47 million in the kitty and $16.5 million of that lottery fund is supposed to go for scholarships for our athletes. It is in there, but it will not go to the athletes.
The Minister should have had the courtesy to talk to his provincial counterparts. Before we began this debate today I had the opportunity to talk with three or four of the Ministers concerned. They told me they would have been delighted to hear from him, but they have not heard from him in three years. This guy is going out on his own and doing these things by himself. He will have to go to his Cabinet colleagues and tell them it will cost $55 million up front money to start this game of chance, this betting game, this double tax. He will ask them to help him out because the cannot start this poker game until he has $55 million on the table. We will have to watch this Minister because he is a cagey one. He left Fitness and Amateur Sport and now he is in International Trade. God only knows where he will be after the next election.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, I find it rather interesting that the Hon. Member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski) is talking about the Minister, the former Secretary of State, presenting this Bill to the House. Where is the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal)? What relationship has the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan) to the lotteries? He has better things to do so that this country can sell its products. I think the truth of the matter is, he happens to be from Halifax and the current Secretary of State happens to be from Quebec, and probably does not agree with this Bill because he knows it is unpopular in his Province. That is a good point that we should keep in mind.
I have finally found out what are the skills of the Minister of State for International Trade. His skills are picking out who is going to win the hockey game. Thank God, he has some skills!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With respect to the Hon. Member, there is a rule of relevance in debate in relation to the subject matter before us. The Chair suggests to the Hon. Member that possibly the subject matter of the motion might be spoken to.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think you will acknowledge that I am usually relevant. I was just getting

April 19, 1983
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
warmed up so that I could explain why I disagree with this Bill. I was trying to put the players in place.
Our motion is basically very discreet. It is to do one job, finish it and get on with the show.
I have had substantial background in amateur sport. I happened to be the president of one of the senior sport federations at the time they were all dragged to Ottawa. The former Minister of National Health and Welfare who then was responsible for this was the man that blackmailed us into coming to the city.
I do not like this lottery because I look back at the past and I see Nancy Greene a great Canadian hero. We did not have lotteries then. We had private citizens who helped finance her to become the world champion.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Scott Fennell: What happened when we moved sports and brought the lottery into Ottawa? We built up a tremendous administration.
The point I make is that I do not believe in lotteries. Lotteries are immoral. The Minister tries to justify them on the basis of skill. That is like saying that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) justifies his ability on the basis of throwing dice. It is ridiculous to have this Government debate a crap game. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but that is exactly what it is.
This Bill is only talking about raising enough money to build a palace in which to hold a sports event. If you want to do something worthwhile for sport in this country, we must talk to the grassroots of the sports people in this country we must help them so we can be proud of them when they go overseas. Those are the people I am talking about. That help could be provided by removing the $100 present tax deduction on our tax form and allowing 150 per cent write-off against income for any donations to charitable organizations. We do not go to the lower income people to get our tax money. We go to the middle and upper income people to provide the basis of what is wanted by the people.
Our decisions about the lottery are all being made for us here in Ottawa. I think that is the wrong way to do it. Let the people decide. We should not decide here in Ottawa how the money to support these projects should be raised. Let the people decide what sports they want to support.
If you are going to build a coliseum or whatever you need in Calgary, then work out a deal with Calgarians. Obtain a third from the federal Government, a third from the Province, and a third through private donations. The people will come up with the money if you give them a reasonable tax break. We are trying to impose the wishes of bureaucrats in Ottawa upon Canadians across the country. That is not fair.
I have seen people in my own riding who have won lotteries. There have been tragedies. My wife is a professional in the social field and she has seen damage done to families who have won money from the lotteries. It is an indirect taxation and it affects those people who can least afford it.
The Hon. Minister tells me that there is a skill involved. Well, it is a million-to-one shot kind of a skill. If that is a skill, I would prefer to put my efforts into something with more favorable odds. I notice they took horse racing out of this Bill. That is interesting. If you are going to throw in hockey teams, why not throw in horses?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Eugene Whelan says no.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Was it Eugene Whelan? Whether it be hockey players or horses running around a track, it is all flesh and blood.
The major point made by the Hon. Member for Edmonton North was that the Minister had never gone to the Provinces to try and work out a reasonable proposition. He has never tried to work it out. Consider Wintario and the Provincial lottery. Look at the cost involved in administering those funds compared to Loto Canada which took in something like $750 million and netted $211 million out of that. The cost of administration was immense. When the Conservatives were in power, we disassembled that monstrosity. Bringing them back is a way of patronage to Liberal supporters.
I feel that in a country where every incentive to the private sector and to the citizens to get a job is removed by the Government economic policy the ultimate in socialism is to give one chance in a million to win a million bucks. One of the ambassadors to Canada brought up this point. He said, "You know, if they put the incentive to those people to invest in common stock and equity in this country, the country would be working again". Instead we are putting it into a crap game. An example of the Government's involvement in sports this year is the Canadian ski team which, at the last race of the year, was told to cough up $2,000. That is shameful. That is the kind of administration we have in Ottawa. The Minister makes fun of this but he does not know these people as I do. They were juniors when I was in that organization.
I maintain that this Bill should be defeated. I do not think this motion is strong enough. I would plead with the Members on the other side not to vote for this. It is immoral. If you have any sense of moral being, do not vote for this Bill. The churches do not want you to support it. Why should we give sports a greater advantage than we give churches which are having a hard time covering their parish costs? This is wrong.


An Hon. Member:: Why do they hold lotteries all the time?


Thomas Scott Fennell: They do not hold this type of lottery. They have bingo games at which they work hard to bring the people together, to create a community resource and a community adventure. This is strictly gambling, Mr. Speaker. This is the same thing as going to the State of New York to the lottery shops or the horse-betting shops and betting on a horse race. This is totally wrong. The funds are going to the wrong place. It is not helping the amateur sports enthusiast. It is hurting the amateur sports enthusiast because it is only looking after the cream of the crop. We must start building a base in this country just as we should be building a base in our armed forces at the grassroots. We have nothing but generals and
April 19, 1983

colonels. I am sorry I am using that as an analogy, but we must start building a base of sports that is for all people across this country and not just the select few.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker,
I rise to speak on this pig-in-a-poke sort of operation that we have before us today and I call it a pig-in-a-poke for good reason. 1 do not know how many Members on the other side have read the Bill, aside from the Minister who presented it and spoke on it. I found his comments rather amusing. The Minister responsible for the Bill is not in the House so I do not think it is of any great interest to the Government.
On page 6 of the Bill, Clause 14 sets out the objects of the corporation as being to "organize, operate and manage pool systems" in accordance with regulations made pursuant to Section 16. That is enough to make the Bill into a real pig in a very real poke because we do not know what those regulations are.
Clause 16 provides that the Governor in Council may make regulations which regulate "the organization, operation and management of pool systems" and describes the terms and the portion of moneys to be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. These are the regulations that the Governor in Council may make with respect to the operation of the corporation.
Clause 17 provides that the Minister shall cause a copy of the regulations made under the previous section to be laid before Parliament. We do not know what those regulations are, yet under the provisions of the Bill we are being asked to agree to the existence of a corporation which will organize pool systems which are to be regulated according to regulations we have not seen. If that is not a pig in a poke I do not think I have ever seen one. It is preposterous that the Government should ask us to agree to the creation of an institution to be run in accordance with regulations we have not seen.
The amendment before us proposes that the second portion of Clause 14 should be eliminated. I am at a loss to understand how any self-respecting Government could come forward with the objects of the corporation as set out in paragraph (b), to conduct and manage in accordance with the regulations such lawful gaming activities etcetera.
On page 14 of the Bill the Government has proposed a change in the law to make this lawful. The Criminal Code is to be amended to make the activities under this Bill lawful. If there is anything that stretches the credibility of a Government more than that I do not know of it. I hope any action of any Government would be lawful, but this Government wants to make special provision in the Bill to amend the Criminal Code so that the corporation it is to create will act in a lawful fashion. I think the House should be ashamed of itself, Mr. Speaker. Surely lawfulness should exist; laws should not have
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
to be amended to fit corporations, yet that is what we are being asked to do.
The other element of the Bill which has me worried is that it creates another Crown corporation in complete disregard of the comments of the 1982 Report of the Auditor General on page 45, paragraph 2.6 which reads as follows:
Increasingly, the corporate form is being chosen by Government to achieve public policy objectives ... With assets of approximately $67 billion, liabilities of over $57 billion, annual expenditures of over $30 billion, and more employees than government departments, Crown-owned corporations require an improved framework for accountability to both Parliament and Government.
I have already spoken about accountability. We are being asked to see the creation of something which will subscribe to regulations we have not seen. I do not know what got into the Government, that it should propose this on the floor of this House. It is as outrageous as what happened yesterday.
In addition to that, we are asked to amend the Criminal Code in certain respects so that it will fit in with the activities of this particular corporation. In other words, it is suggested that what we are doing is creating a corporation which will be involved in unlawful operations, until we agree to make them lawful. I become speechless when I think of that sort of conduct by a Government.
Clause 14 would permit the corporation to engage in unlawful activities to be made lawful in Clause 33.


Steve Eugene Paproski: What is the Government going to legalize next?


Donald W. Munro: It has legalized many things since 1968. I find it beyond belief that any Government should present a Bill of this sort enabling a corporation to perform functions which are obviously not legal, but have to be made legal with this particular law.
In his 1982 Report the Auditor General said that the agent status for Crown corporations occupied a twilight area in Canadian jurisprudence. In other words, this Crown corporation will be able to plead, before the courts that it is immune from the law in many respects as have other Crown corporations. I have for example the quotation from representations made before the Supreme Court of Canada in January this year.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, it being six o'clock p.m., pursuant to Order made Wednesday, March 30, 1983, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
May I remind Hon. Members that at that time the House will consider a Ways and Means Motion of the Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde).
At 6 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
April 19, 1983
The Budget-Mr. Lalonde THE BUDGET

Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance) moved:: That the House approves in general the budgetary policy of the Government.
He said: Madam Speaker, my dominant concern in preparing this budget has been to help the more than one and a half million Canadians who want to work but cannot find jobs.
Economic recovery is under way in Canada. The recession that has crippled us for over a year has bottomed out. Industrial production is up. Housing starts are up. Inflation is down and so are interest rates. Even more importantly, business and consumer confidence is on the upswing. When I started my pre-budget consultations, last November, few expected recovery to begin in 1983 without massive fiscal stimulus. By late March, a significant shift in opinion had occurred. The prevailing view was that the economy was already on the mend.
Yet the pace, scope, stability and duration of the recovery remain highly uncertain. Employment has started to grow again, but unemployment remains very high and will decline only gradually. Unemployment is particularly high among young people. We must do all we can to relieve the anguish and hardship that unemployment is inflicting on Canadian workers and their families. More importantly, we must shorten as much as possible the time it will take for the private sector to expand and provide jobs for the unemployed.
Much will depend on developments abroad that are largely beyond our control, such as the strength of the recovery in the United States, Europe, Japan and the Third World. Much will also depend on the collective behaviour of Canadians and on the response of the private sector to the measures I am proposing in this budget. Sustained recovery will depend on our ability to take full advantage of growth opportunities as they arise this year and next, and through the rest of the eighties. It will depend on the self-discipline, solidarity and sense of national purpose we will be able to muster to that end-all Canadians, labour as well as business, federal and provincial governments alike.


BUDGET STRATEGY
[Stage Direction]
This recovery budget, therefore, has two central and inseparable goals. The first is to make sure that recent stirrings of growth pervade the whole economy as quickly as possible. The second is to make the recovery a durable one by beginning immediately to create the conditions required for sustained growth and development during the rest of the eighties. Underlying these goals is the government's determination to ensure that Canadians are provided with the jobs they need- good jobs, permanent jobs, satisfying and well paid jobs.
The pursuit of these twin goals calls for actions that take hold immediately but that are also geared to the medium term. The first goal demands additional stimulus this year. But the second goal would be unattainable without decisive action now to reduce the deficit in future years. Expenditure restraint will therefore continue, and measures will be introduced to raise
more revenue as the recovery buoys up income and employment.
Strong, lasting recovery and the significant reduction of unemployment we need will come primarily through the private sector: the economy's main engine of growth. I shall accordingly introduce measures to strengthen the financial position of Canadian businesses, farmers and fishermen, improve their capacity to undertake productive investment, and assist them in obtaining more equity capital. Measures in support of resource industries, agriculture and human resources development will be announced. Other initiatives will seek to enhance our technological base, research and development effort, export performance, productivity and competitiveness.
A significant increase in private investment can certainly not be expected before next year. In view of the personal hardship and social costs resulting from high unemployment, I have concluded that the recovery must be given an additional boost in its early stages. Federal capital projects planned for later in this decade will therefore be speeded up. More funds will be allocated now to direct support for employment. Some tax relief will be given to low-income workers. More support will be provided to lower income groups through the child benefit system. Housing programs will be expanded.
Canadians have supported the 6 and 5 program introduced in last June's budget. The government remains committed to this program. We have come a long way together in reducing inflation. It is essential that this progress continue as we recover. This will require the continued cooperation of all Canadians. But it also demands responsibility in the exercise of monetary and fiscal policies. Our monetary policy seeks to achieve the lowest interest rates consistent with continuing resistance to inflation and with international circumstances. The actions I will announce tonight will ensure that the government's financial requirements will not compromise the continuing implementation of responsible monetary policy.
These considerations have shaped the broad policy framework of this recovery budget. It builds on the spirit of the 6 and 5 program and establishes an effective framework for national recovery. I have been guided in its preparation by the basic principles of economic management set out in my Economic Statement of October 27, 1982. This is a fiscally responsible budget. I have maintained and improved the social security system we have built over past decades and that has helped millions of Canadians weather the recession. I am relying primarily on the dynamism and creativity of the private sector to bring about durable recovery. My budget is outward-looking and avoids protectionist measures, in recognition of the fact that recovery in one country at the expense of others is neither feasible nor desirable.
April 19, 1983
[Stage Direction]


The budget also reflects extensive consultations with the private sector as well as provincial governments. I thank the many groups and the thousands of individual Canadians, including the Members of this House, who have advised me over the past five months, at the many meetings I have held in all parts of the country or through written submissions. Their suggestions and recommendations have been considered seriously and many are being implemented. I likewise express my appreciation to provincial ministers of finance and treasurers, with whom I met in December and March to review our respective economic and fiscal policies and consider how best we could cooperate to bring about recovery.

[Stage Direction]
The Government is introducing tonight a $4.8 billion Special Recovery Program to spur recovery and restore as quickly as possible the economy's capacity to generate the new jobs Canadians need.
Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: As most Canadians are now aware, I received a group of photographers in my office yesterday as part of a pre-budget "photo opportunity" session. A copy of the proposed budget speech was on my desk. I held it up and rapidly turned the pages. A cameraman was standing behind me and, unknown to me, photographed several pages of the proposed speech. The cameraman was thereby able to obtain some information about the contents of the proposed budget. This was clearly contrary to the spirit of this "photo opportunity" session, but the fact remains that the event occurred.
Traditionally, a budget leak involves premature disclosure of a tax matter. Fortunately this is not the case. However, in some quarters any matter or fact connected with the budget might be considered to be of this character. To remove any doubt, I have decided to change the portion of the budget which would otherwise have been prematurely in the public domain.
I have decided to increase the Special Recovery Program to $4.8 billion. This additional $200 million will be added to the Special Recovery Capital Projects, details of which I will give in a moment. The monies will be set aside as a special fund to be spent on projects akin to those already contemplated in the Special Recovery Capital Projects.
As a result of this action, the deficit and financial requirements of the Government for 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86 will be increased $100 million, $50 million and $50 million, respectively. Other appropriate adjustments should be made in reading the printed material distributed tonight. This will no doubt cause some confusion, since the printed material distributed across the country and in the House is no longer accurate. For this, I apologize.
There is some irony in all of this. During the past week, I have debated with myself and with my advisors about the precise nature the budget measures should take. My concern
The Budget-Mr. Lalonde
has been that in my desire to be fiscally responsible, I would not provide enough stimulus for the economy to secure the recovery and generate employment. Obviously, this is a matter of delicate judgement and there is no absolutely correct answer. Be that as it may, the events of the past 24 hours have led me to follow what my instincts have been urging me to do all along. If I err in this budget, I want to do it on the side of more jobs.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: This national investment program will strengthen the structure of the Canadian economy and raise its growth potential. Its operating principle is to undertake now, in the early stages of recovery, investment that would have been required in any event during the eighties. The program will provide equal support for private and public investment, but all initiatives are designed ultimately to improve the financial position, growth prospects and job creation capacity of the private sector. Over half of planned expenditures and tax incentives will be incurred this year and next, to give the economy the early boost it needs.
The Government's overriding priority is to ensure that Canada has the capital equipment, productive facilities, skills and knowledge we need to meet the competitive challenges that will arise from world-wide recovery. The Special Recovery Program will also provide new and immediate job and business opportunities for Canadians throughout the country-not only those living in the communities where new facilities will be built, but workers and suppliers in all sectors and all regions.
My Cabinet colleagues will provide further information in the days ahead on the projects to be launched immediately in areas under their responsibility. But I want to outline briefly tonight the key features of the program's two main components, Special Recovery Capital Projects and Special Recovery Incentives for Private Investment.


SPECIAL RECOVERY CAPITAL PROJECTS
[Stage Direction]
The Government of Canada is committing $2.4 billion for Special Recovery Capital Projects selected and designed to build, expand or improve public facilities that directly support private sector expansion and the steady improvement of our economic performance essential for recovery.
More than a hundred projects have been selected. They are in the advanced planning stage. All have a lead time to start-up of less than six months. Work on most of them will start this spring or early summer. Canadians will be working on Special Recovery Capital Projects sites in all parts of the country. Earth will be moved, steel will be rigged and concrete will be poured in the coming months to implement those projects. Canadian firms will start getting orders for the wide range of goods and services required to complete them- construction materials and engineering services, planes and
[Stage Direction]
April 19, 1983
The Budget-Mr. Lalonde
ships, advanced electronic and laboratory equipment, to mention just a few.
There will be no red tape and no delays. All projects are being put on a "fast track" to ensure that they start on time, progress as planned, and are completed as quickly as possible. All applicable government planning, approval, tendering and other procedures are being streamlined to facilitate fast-tracking. All departments and agencies are being instructed to give priority attention to the swift implementation of the projects for which they are responsible, within the cost estimates that have been established. The government will also seek the active cooperation of the private sector and of provincial authorities to make sure that projects stay on track and within cost. The co-operation of management and labour organizations in the construction industry will be critical to ensure effective implementation of these projects.
My colleague, the Minister of State for Economic Development (Mr. Johnston), will assume overall responsibility for Special Recovery Capital Projects. He will be assisted by a special committee of Cabinet. A Special Recovery Capital Projects Board has been established to co-ordinate the management and execution of projects on time and on budget.
Almost 30 per cent of outlays on construction, materials and procurement for Special Recovery Capital Projects will take place in the current fiscal year. Seventy per cent of the funds committed for these projects will have been spent by March 31, 1984, and the rest over the two succeeding years. As a result, the projects will give the economy a boost when it is most needed. They will be phasing out as private investment accelerates and begins to make heavier demands on the capacity of the construction and other industries.
[ Translation]
Madam Speaker, Special Recovery Capital Projects form an integral part of a broad action plan designed to generate more growth and more jobs. They will not only provide employment in the near term, but also increase permanently the capacity of the economy to create employment. Most selected projects had already been included in the capital plans of federal departments and agencies for the latter part of the decade, because of the contribution they would make to national development. The amounts spent on accelerated projects over the next four years will result in lower government spending in later years.
The projects will focus on six key areas: transportation, research and training facilities, resource development, vessel procurement, land and tourism development and high-technology procurement. The projects are future-oriented, aiming to build and upgrade research and high technology centres, transportation infrastructure and other facilities and services that will enhance the long-term growth potential of Canadian industry. They will provide much-needed support for several currently weak sectors of the economy, such as construction, shipbuilding, fisheries and forestry.
The impact of Special Recovery Capital Projects will be felt throughout Canada and increase economic activity in most
major urban centres and many smaller communities. Some provinces have already introduced their own capital projects programs. These provincial initiatives will also help strengthen the recovery. I hope other provinces will take similar action in their forthcoming budgets. The overall result will be a more modern and efficient stock of public capital, to assist Canadian firms in their drive for improved productivity and competitiveness and to create more jobs for Canadians.

[Stage Direction]
The second component of the Special Recovery Program is directly aimed at accelerating productive investment and job creation in the private sector. I am proposing tonight important changes in the federal investment tax credit. These changes will not increase the level of existing incentives, but will make them more readily usable by firms undertaking new investments after today. Firms will also be eligible for support from a Special Recovery Investment Fund and a Special Recovery Export Financing Fund. The cost of these measures will be $2.4 billion over the next four Fiscal years.
Businesses in Canada can now earn a credit against federal income taxes on eligible investment. The credit is at least 7 per cent of investment costs. In designated areas of the country, the credit can be as much as 50 per cent of the cost of investment. Until now, there have been limits on the extent to which this credit could be used to reduce income taxes, and unused credits could be carried forward for no more than five years.
For eligible investment undertaken after today, I am proposing to remove the limits on the ability to claim the investment tax credit. I am also proposing that credits earned in a year may be used to reduce taxes in any of three previous years or seven subsequent years. In addition, the investment tax credit will be extended to heavy equipment used in the construction industry.
These changes in the federal investment tax credit will be permanent. They will increase the ability of firms to use the existing credit, and thus enhance its effectiveness. They will provide about $1.3 billion of support for private investment over the next four fiscal years.
However, all too many Canadian businesses are not presently in a position to pay taxes because of their weak profit position or the losses that the recession has inflicted on them. This applies particularly to small businesses in all parts of the country. For firms that are not now in a taxable position, the investment tax credit is not a strong incentive to invest. Yet they, too, must be encouraged to do so as early as possible if the recovery is to take hold and to last. They must also be assisted in securing the equity capital required to finance investment. I am, therefore, proposing two further but temporary changes to the federal investment tax credit.
First, I propose that a portion of investment tax credits earned between today and April 30, 1986 be designated as a Special Recovery Refundable Investment Tax Credit and
April 19, 1983
[Stage Direction]
refunded directly to business. For small business corporations and unincorporated businesses, that portion will be 40 per cent of credits that cannot be used to offset taxes in the year they are earned. For other businesses the refundable portion will be 20 per cent.
Second, I propose that a Special Recovery Share-Purchase Tax Credit be established. Firms that invest and issue new equity will be able to flow-out their investment tax credits to the purchasers of new equity issued by them. Purchasers of new common shares issued by such firms after June 30 of this year and before December 31, 1986 will be able to use these credits to the extent of 25 per cent of the value of the shares. The credits that can be passed on to new investors will be limited to investment tax credit earned after today. Provisions will be made to ensure that institutional investors, such as pension plans, that purchase qualifying new equity can claim the share-purchase tax credit as a cash rebate from the federal government. The measure will allow companies to attract new equity faster and at lower cost, to finance investment now and over the medium term.
I estimate that these two measures will provide over the next four years an additional $640 million in federal tax benefits to support investment and new equity issues. They will be particularly beneficial to small- and medium-size businesses, and to all firms that need to improve their balance sheets and financial position by issuing new equity in order to resume investing. They will help speed up investment and increase production and employment in Canada.

[Stage Direction]
I am also announcing tonight the creation of a Special Recovery Investment Fund to strengthen private investment in the early stages of the recovery. The fund will have a budget of $300 million made available to it.
The fund will be managed by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lumley). It will enable the minister to deploy financial resources across the full range of his departments' programs with the speed and flexibility needed to bring onstream major private investment projects with special national, regional or sectoral importance. Further information on the operation of the fund will soon be provided by the responsible minister.

[Stage Direction]
A Special Recovery Export Financing Fund of $180 million will also be established. This fund will enable the Export Development Corporation to seek out export opportunities more aggressively than it would otherwise be able to do because of funding constraints. The fund will be drawn upon when the corporation requires funding beyond its regular programs to support the efforts of Canadian exporters to win large contracts. The corporation will have the financial capacity to enter into financing arrangements in 1983 totalling about
The Budget-Mr. Lalonde
$2.8 billion, a 15 per cent increase over the financing arrangements it concluded in 1982.
The effectiveness of the Special Recovery Fund and the Special Recovery Program will depend critically on the response and cooperation of the private sector. The government is committing $4.8 billion and is taking decisive action to revitalize Canadian industry and increase the capacity of the economy to generate new jobs. But decisive action is also required in the private sector.
I urge Canadian firms to take the fullest advantage, as soon as they can, of the investment recovery incentives I have just announced. I ask them to focus not only on outlays that increase plant capacity, which in many cases may be justified only at later stages of the recovery, but also on outlays that raise plant productivity and cut production costs. Such investment need not and should not cause workers to be laid off. I invite Canadian workers and the unions that represent them to consider what they themselves can do to facilitate an early resumption of industrial investment.
[Stage Direction]
I said earlier, Madam Speaker, that I am prepared to accept now, while the economy is in the initial stages of recovery, an increase in the government's financial requirements to fund the Special Recovery Program. Private credit demands will remain relatively weak this year and next. It cannot be argued that support for private investment under this program will "crowd out" such investment. But we must look ahead. I am concerned about the impact of continuing high federal deficits on confidence and investment over the medium term. I have therefore concluded that this program should not cause a permanent increase in the national debt.
Accordingly, I am proposing that all incremental costs of the Special Recovery Program, both direct outlays and revenue forgone, be funded over time by a Special Recovery Tax. Specifically, I propose a one percentage point increase in the general rate of manufacturer's sales tax, from 9 per cent to 10 per cent, and similar one percentage point increases in the sales tax rates levied on construction materials, alcoholic beverages and tobacco. The imposition of this tax will be delayed so as not to impede the recovery in its early stages. The Special Recovery Tax will not become effective until October 1, 1984. It will remain in effect until December 31, 1988.

[Stage Direction]
Canadian businesses have been battered by the recession. In the 15-year period preceding 1981, the average share of business profits in our gross national product was 11.2 per cent. It fell to 10 per cent in 1981 and plunged to 6.2 per cent in 1982, a post-war low. Profits must return to more normal levels if the recovery is to endure. Businesses must reduce their debt loads before they can borrow to finance new investment.
[Stage Direction]
April 19, 1983
The Budget-Mr. Lalonde
Otherwise, they will not be able to invest and the recovery will fizzle out.
In our overriding concern for the hardship and anguish that unemployment has inflicted on Canadian workers and their families, we may sometimes lose sight of the fact that most Canadians are employed by the private sector. The combination of high inflation, high interest rates, falling demand and dwindling profits that marked the recession, severely strained the private sector. Short-term borrowings and credit lines were stretched to the limit. Balance sheets were thrown out of kilter and debt burdens rose dramatically.
As a result, jobs disappeared. No employer likes to lay off skilled and experienced workers or turn away promising and well-trained job seekers. They have done so, and massively over the past year and a half, because the most severe recession since the Great Depression left them no other choice. Some people lost their jobs because the firms they worked for went bankrupt. Others were laid off when their employers, faced with mounting costs and falling demand for their products, no longer had any other option.
The worst is now over, but it will take time for firms to reduce their debt load and resume investing at the level required to create the new jobs Canadians need. I am determined to speed up this process. The Special Recovery Program I have just outlined will encourage and enable Canadian firms to undertake new investment more quickly. But I have concluded that more needs to be done to strengthen the capacity of the private sector to create jobs. To that end, I am proposing the following changes in the tax system.

[Stage Direction]
I will be tabling a paper containing draft legislation to implement a new Indexed Securities Investment Plan (ISIP) as of October 1, 1983. This innovation is an important element of the Government's recovery program. The plan will encourage Canadians to invest a greater proportion of their savings in listed common shares of Canadian companies. Together with the Special Recovery Share-Purchase Tax Credit, it will help Canadian corporations raise additional equity capital and reduce their reliance on debt financing. The Indexed Securities Investment Plan is also a significant step in our systematic search for ways to remove the distorting effects of inflation from our tax system. Extensive consultations with the financial community have taken place in past months on all aspects of the plan.

[Stage Direction]
Business losses can now be carried back one year and forward five years to reduce income subject to tax. I am proposing that these provisions be broadened to allow business losses to be carried back for three years and forward for seven
years. The full three-year carryback will take effect immediately for small corporations, farmers, fishermen and unincorporated businesses. For farmers and fishermen, the carryforward provisions will be extended to ten years rather than seven. For other businesses, the increased carryback will be phased in over two years. Taxpayers will also be allowed an increased three-year carryback of capital losses against capital gains. This will also be phased in. These measures will make it possible for firms to take better advantage of existing tax provisions. The resulting reduction in federal taxes will improve the cash flow position of the private sector by $270 million this year. Additional benefits of about $95 million will also flow to Canadian firms if all Provinces harmonize their tax systems with these measures, as they have generally done in the past.

[Stage Direction]
I have had to contend in recent months, like my provincial counterparts and Finance Ministers the world over, with a volatile international oil market that continues to inject considerable uncertainty into economic and fiscal forecasts. Lower oil prices will assist the recovery in Canada and bolster the economies of our trading partners. Businesses and consumers will get some relief, and our progress in bringing down inflation will be reinforced. However, revenue losses to the federal treasury will be substantial, and activity in the oil and gas sector will be lower than anticipated. 1 am proposing tonight the following measures to address these issues.
First, I am deferring reintroduction of the Incremental Oil Revenue Tax on conventional oil for one year, from June 1, 1983 to June 1, 1984. This measure will reduce federal revenue by about $225 million and add to the industry's cash flow. The main beneficiaries will be Canadian companies that are typically the most aggressive in searching for new supplies of oil and gas.
Second, I am proposing modifications to the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax for enhanced oil recovery projects, to encourage the commercial application of techniques designed to increase the amount of oil recovered from reservoirs. These modifications will have the effect of eliminating liabilities under this tax until such time as these projects pay back their capital costs. Both of these measures will encourage activity and employment in western Canada.
Third, recent developments in international oil prices have eliminated the need for a two-price regime for aviation fuel and marine bunker fuel. Together with my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien), I will be taking the necessary steps to terminate this regime, effective May 1, 1983.
The Canadian Ownership Special Charge has already made a sizeable contribution to increasing public ownership in the oil and gas industry. The Government remains strongly committed to the objective of oil self-sufficiency through raising Canadian ownership of oil and gas resources by increasing exploration and development of new reserves. It is the Govern-
April 19, 1983
[Stage Direction]
merit's intention to maintain the Canadian Ownership Special Charge at its current level and use the revenues in support of this objective.

[Stage Direction]
The mining industry in Canada has been hit hard by the world recession. The tax measures I have already announced will provide substantial relief to this important Canadian industry. I am proposing tonight a further measure to increase incentives to investors who finance mining ventures. The 3 3 Vi per cent depletion allowances for mining exploration will be made deductible against the non-resource income of these investors. This change should attract needed capital to the sector and should particularly benefit junior mining companies.

[Stage Direction]
1 have been particularly concerned in preparing this budget with the financial difficulties that Canada's small businesses must overcome to contribute to national economic recovery. Small firms are one of the most dynamic and innovative elements of the private sector. That so many have managed to pull through the recession is a tribute to the dedication and entrepreneurial spirit of Canadians.
Small businesses have been significantly assisted by federal programs during this period. They will benefit from all budget measures announced tonight. But I want them to recover as soon as possible. This is why I have set the Special Recovery Refundable Investment Tax Credit available to small businesses at 40 per cent, double that for other firms. This is why I have made immediately applicable to them the new three-year carryback provisions for losses.
To further assist Canadian small businesses over the recovery period, the Government will make substantial changes in the operating mandate of the Federal Business Development Bank. These changes will enable the Bank to play a more dynamic and supportive role in advising small businesses on their total financial needs and assisting them in meeting these needs. My colleague, the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Rompkey), will provide further information on the expanded role of the FBDB in the next few days.
Small-business organizations as well as others have urged me to simplify the tax system and thereby reduce the paper burden and compliance costs it imposes on taxpayers. I have kept their representations in mind throughout my budget preparations and avoided complex changes wherever possible. I have concentrated on making existing tax incentives more effective, rather than introducing new ones. The proposed draft legislation for the Indexed Securities Investment Plan is quite technical, but I have been assured that financial institutions will be able to administer it effectively for investors.
Simplification of the tax system cannot be approached in a simplistic way if we are to meet effectively and equitably the
The Budget-Mr. Lalonde
varied circumstances of Canadian businesses. To pursue this effort, the co-operation of the private sector is needed. I am, therefore, pleased that the Canada Tax Foundation has accepted my suggestion to hold a national symposium on the subject this summer. I want to assure the Foundation that my Department will participate in this symposium and in followup activities.

[Stage Direction]
Canadian farmers will derive benefits from Special Recovery Projects and from the tax measures I am introducing to facilitate investment and strengthen the financial position of the private sector. Of particular advantage to them will be the special provision allowing farming losses to be carried forward ten years, rather than the seven years applicable to other business losses, in addition to the three-year carryback also available to them.
In recognition of the exceptional financial difficulties being faced by many farmers, the Government is also extending tonight the Special Farm Financial Assistance Program administered by the Farm Credit Corporation. An additional $100 million will be made available this year for these special FCC loans to farmers in financial distress, bringing the total available in 1983-84 to $150 million. Eligible recipients will be entitled to interest rebates of four percentage points for the first two years. As in the past, I expect that these loans will enable the recipients to remain in agriculture and to become commercially viable contributors to Canada's agricultural economy.
I would be remiss if I did not emphasize in this budget the critical importance of the Government's Western Transportation Initiative for national recovery. The program, proposed by my colleague, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), calls for federal expenditures of $3.7 billion over the next four years. I point out that even though many of the Special Recovery Capital Projects will enhance agricultural and transportation development, they do not include any of the capital outlays arising from or associated with the Western Transportation Initiative. These two major national programs have been designed to reinforce each other.

[Stage Direction]
The housing industry has made great strides towards recovery in recent months. Home buyers and builders have benefited quickly from the steady decline in interest rates. Mortgage rates are now in the 11 to 13 per cent range, down from last year's highs of 19 to 20 per cent. This drop has made homes much more affordable for Canadians. The reappearance of five-year mortgages has reduced uncertainty for potential home buyers and homeowners alike. Housing starts, which reached a low of 96,000 in the third quarter of 1982, recovered strongly in the fourth quarter and reached a level of 177,000 in March. This strength is expected to continue through 1983 as a result of lower mortgage rates, higher personal incomes and the additional stimulus I am announcing tonight.
[Stage Direction]
April 19, 1983
The Budget-Mr. Lalonde
The Government is committing an additional $355 million to spur recovery in the housing industry. Five existing programs are being extended or expanded. These programs have all proven successful and support an industry that employs a large number of people and uses materials primarily made in Canada. Their expansion will create jobs in all parts of the country through the construction and renovation of housing units. I am also proposing a new housing tax incentive.
[ Translation]
First, I am making available an additional $120 million for the Canadian Home Renovation Plan. This program provides grants of up to $3,000 to low- and middle-income Canadians wishing to renovate their homes.
Second, an additional $40 million is being allocated over two years for the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program. This program is directed to the improvement and repair of substandard housing in designated areas.
Third, the annual allocation of social housing units is being increased by 2,500 units in 1983, which will maintain the total allocation at 25,000 units. This will provide additional support to the housing needs of low-income Canadians.
Fourth, an additional $40 million is being committed for Indian on-reserve housing in 1983-84. This is supplementary to a special increase of $22 million per year approved recently by the government, starting this year.
Fifth, I am allocating $30 million more to the Canadian Home Ownership Stimulation Plan, which should be sufficient to extend this program until about the end of May. This program, introduced last June by my predecessor, has been highly successful. Over the past nine months, about 200,000 Canadians have benefited from the $3,000 home ownership grants it provides.
The Minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will shortly provide more detailed information on these measures.
[Stage Direction]
I am also announcing tonight important changes to the Registered Home Ownership Savings Plan to assist eligible individuals purchasing newly constructed homes. It is expected that this new tax incentive will provide about $125 million to new homeowners.
RHOSPs were introduced as a tax-exempt savings vehicle designed to encourage Canadians to save towards a down payment on a home. Currently, tax deductible contributions up to a total of $10,000 can be made to a RHOSP at the rate of up to $ 1,000 per year. There are now more than half a million Canadians with RHOSPs. Individuals eligible to contribute to a RHOSP who buy newly constructed homes and associated furnishings before the end of 1984 will be able to deduct from taxable income in one lump sum the amount needed to bring their total deductions up to the $10,000 limit.
Home buyers and others will need new furnishings in 1983. Canadians have delayed purchases of furnishings and appliances as a result of the uncertainty caused by the recession. I am therefore proposing a special, short-term incentive for RHOSP holders to spur consumption of these items. Rules governing the use of RHOSPs will be changed to allow once-and-for-all tax-free withdrawals in 1983 of any amount currently in a RHOSP for purchase of designated home furnishings or appliances, even where the holder does not take advantage of the above measure to buy a newly constructed home.

[Stage Direction]
The measures I have just announced will create jobs in the private sector. But I am realistic. Unemployment is very high. It will take time for the employment effects of the Special Recovery Program and of the other measures I have just announced to be fully felt. We cannot turn our backs on those who are bearing the economic, social and human burdens of unemployment. That is why the Government has not only maintained social programs during the recession but acted to strengthen them and make them more effective.
I am proud to be associated with a Government that has not, despite intense fiscal pressures, forsaken its compassion or its obligation to support those Canadians who most need help. The Government has taken significant actions in the past ten months to contain the rise in unemployment. To reinforce these actions, I am announcing tonight a seven point package of new or expanded employment initiatives, requiring additional funding of $710 million over the next two years. This new allocation will raise to $1.5 billion the funds committed this year to support directly the creation of jobs for those Canadians most seriously affected by the recession. This is almost $900 million more than last year. The Government will have in place in this fiscal year the largest program of direct support for job creation ever undertaken in Canada.
An additional $280 million, of which $180 million are new funds, will be provided for the expansion of the NEED program. Support will continue to be channelled through the private sector, federal departments, municipalities, voluntary organizations, labour unions and provincial Governments participating in the program. I am pleased to report that the private sector, and small businesses in particular, are making increasing use of the NEED program.
I invite the private sector to expand this use of the NEED program in the months to come.
Authorized spending on community employment under Section 38 of the Unemployment Insurance Act will be increased by $100 million over the next two years. Under this program, workers who have been laid off may continue to receive benefits while voluntarily participating in productive activities of value to their community. A further $150 million will be provided for increased spending on local employment-
April 19, 1983
[Stage Direction]
intensive projects under existing Government construction and other programs.
Employment opportunities are improving for Canadian workers, but youth unemployment rates are expected to remain high for some time. Young people with little or no job experience will have difficulty finding work until skilled and experienced workers laid off during the recession have been recalled. The Government has acted to address this problem. Over 270,000 young people are now benefiting from federal training and employment programs.
[ Translation]
But more needs to be done to provide young people with employment opportunities in this critical phase of the recovery, Madam Speaker. A cooperative strategy for youth employment is essential. It must involve business, unions, all Governments and young people themselves. It must focus not just on job creation and training but also on work experience. To help ease the difficult transition from school to work, I am announcing tonight that an additional $280 million is being committed in this budget to meet the needs of young Canadians who have not been able to find jobs.
Ninety-five million dollars will be allocated to establish, in consultation with the private sector, a Youth Wage Subsidy and Internship Program. Work experience, coupled with training programs ... No children allowed-let them go to meetings of candidates for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party.
Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Work experience, coupled with training programs, will ensure that young people gain from the kind of on-the-job skills that are demanded in the permanent job market. These funds will also be used to expand the Youth Job Corps Program, which offers young Canadians vocational training courses, education, counselling and work experience.
I am also providing an additional $40 million for Katimavik over the next two years. This youth program was established in 1977 to serve Canadian communities, assist the personal development of participants, and provide young Canadians with opportunities to acquire a greater understanding of their country. It is expected that an additional 4,000 participants will be added to the existing 1,700 over the next two years.
In addition, I am committing $75 million to fund an Extended Youth Training and Employment Program to be run by the Department of National Defence. This program is designed to provide employment in a military context that includes general as well as basic trades or vocational training for approximately 5,000 young people. The program will provide job experience for a period of about a year and will help those involved make the transition from school to work.
I have made available $70 million to increase funding for student employment this summer. This increase raises the
The Budget-Mr. Lalonde
Government's total commitment to this program to $170 million this year, as recently announced by my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy). The Government is also providing additional support, as I will indicate later, to young Canadians who wish to continue their studies on a full or part-time basis.
Over and above these special youth employment initiatives, the massive effort the Government will pursue to improve the skills and training of Canadian workers will be largely directed at young people. Total federal support for human resource development will be increased to $1.2 billion this year. I expect that about half of the beneficiaries of these programs this year will be young people.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne) and the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal) will provide further details on these initiatives shortly.


EMPLOYMENT DEDUCTION
[Stage Direction]
Working Canadians with modest incomes are having a difficult time making ends meet, even though they are now benefitting from lower inflation. I am therefore introducing a significant change in the employment expense deduction allowed under the Income Tax Act. Effective this year, this employment deduction will increase from 3 to 20 per cent of employment income, subject to the current maximum amount of $500. This measure will return this year about $130 million of federal revenues to Canadians with employment income below $16,700. About four million low income Canadians will benefit from this measure this year.

[Stage Direction]
I am proposing tonight four changes in the tax components of the federal child benefit system to provide additional income support for lower income families, working parents and others in need. I am not making any changes to family allowances.
First, I propose to double, starting this year, the Child Care Expense Deduction from $1,000 to $2,000 per child and $4,000 to $8,000 per family. These increases will ease the burden of child care expenses for families in which both parents work outside the home, as well as for single-parent families for whom the deduction is critical. I am also making changes to ensure that the deduction does not discriminate between men and women.
Second, I propose to maintain the enriched child tax credit introduced in the last budget. Under existing legislation, the credit would otherwise have dropped from $343 to $326 in 1983. I propose to extend the credit at $343 for the 1983 taxation year, I also propose to continue full indexation of this higher credit in subsequent years to protect its value for low
[Stage Direction]
April 19, 1983
The Budget-Mr. Lalonde
and moderate income families, and for single parent families for whom the credit is of vital importance. Over the last five years the credit has gone up from $200 to $343 per child, evidence of the Government's continuing commitment to families with children, in this country.
Third, I propose to hold at its present level the family income threshold above which the Child Tax Credit begins to be phased out. For the current and subsequent taxation years, the threshold will remain at its 1982 value of $26,330. Below this threshold, the maximum credit will be paid. Above the threshold, the credit will decline as family income rises. It will only cease to be paid for families with two children having a family income of about $40,000 or more.
Finally, starting next year, I propose to keep at its current level of $710 the tax exemption for children and other dependants under 18 years of age. This measure will complement the child tax credit changes by helping to ensure that limited Government funds are directed to the families that need them the most.
[ Translation]
The net effect of these changes will be to increase federal support for lower income Canadians with children and for Canadians who have to incur child care expenses in order to work. In the current fiscal year, the changes will be roughly self-balancing. Over the following three fiscal years, they will result in increased Government revenues. However, I am not removing these monies from the social security system that provides important social benefits to Canadians. I am designating them as a special Social Policy Fund that will be used to reinforce social programs available to Canadians in need.
[Stage Direction]
For recovery to be sustained in Canada, and for real growth of our incomes and our living standards to resume, we must raise our sights beyond the period immediately ahead of us. A broad national effort is required over the remaining years of the decade to make sure that Canada remains one of the most productive, competitive and prosperous economies in the industrialized world. Our major trading partners will continue to move forward. To remain competitive, Canada therefore has no choice but to move forward too. We must put our businesses and our workers in a position to meet and beat the competition.
Many people are under the impression that productivity gains cause unemployment. Nothing could be more wrong. In fact, strong and steady productivity gains sustain the growth of employment.
Our collective search for the means to improve Canada's productivity performance will be complex and difficult. Success will not come overnight. Neither business nor labour will get very far if either tries to move forward without the cooperation of the other. We will have to do it together. A national cooperative effort is required. And for such a national effort to have any chance of success, Canadians will have to set rhetoric aside and stop "scapegoating" each other.
We will not get ahead if we continue to blame each other for the problems we face. We should recognize, for example, that the concerns of the labour movement for working conditions, the quality and safety of the work place, the involvement of workers in what they are doing, and the possibilities for selfdevelopment offered to them, are entirely legitimate and can, if properly addressed, improve our productivity performance. By the same token, we should acknowledge that businesses do not invest in more efficient and cost-cutting equipment just to throw people out of work. We should recognize that productive investment sustains employment and that too little of it causes unemployment.
There will always be tensions between labour, business and Government. But that should not prevent labour, business and Government from cooperating to improve the productivity and competitiveness of the Canadian economy. This is the key to higher wages and better profits. More importantly, it is the best way, in the long run, to provide Canadians with the jobs they need.

[Stage Direction]
The Government, therefore, intends to consult with labour unions and business organizations over the next few weeks to launch a national drive towards higher productivity and employment growth. These consultations will focus in the short term on the establishment of a national centre for productivity and employment growth.
What we have in mind is not a research institute. Rather, it is a place where labour and business can meet, away from the bargaining table, to talk and to take a hardnosed and practical look at issues of mutual concern that cannot be addressed adequately in the course of collective bargaining. Experience has shown that it is not enough to study or talk about these issues. Nor can progress be mandated, legislated or bought.
To make progress, ways must be found of bringing action where action is needed-the plants, offices and boardrooms of the nation. This can only be done by practical people who know what they are talking about, workers and managers. It is that kind of practical experience that, we hope, a national centre for productivity and employment growth will bring together.
The Government will shortly consult with labour and business representatives to appoint a founding committee for the proposed centre. This committee will be asked to recommend within three months an appropriate designation, mandate, structure and mode of operation for the centre.
[Stage Direction]
Madam Speaker, the Government's broad policy framework for recovery places a high priority on technology policy and support for research and development. It is of critical importance for our economic future that we increase our R&D effort and that we support the development of "sunrise" industries. We must also promote more actively the dissemination and application of technological advances in all sectors of the economy.
April 19, 1983
[Stage Direction]
The federal Government already provides massive support for science and technology. Expenditures on the natural sciences will amount this year to $2.6 billion. This includes over $450 million in direct federal funding of research and development undertaken by the private sector. Federal and provincial revenue forgone under tax incentives for private research and development is expected to be in excess of $200 million in 1983, even before the changes I will be proposing tonight.
I have already announced, under Special Recovery Capital Projects, two initiatives to enhance federal support for science and technology. First, over $290 million will be spent on research facilities critical to mastering new technologies. Fifteen new facilities will be built in all parts of Canada. Second, about $180 million will be allocated for high technology procurement. I am allocating tonight a further $100 million over the next two years for other new technology policy initiatives. My colleague, the Minister of State for Economic Development and for Science and Technology (Mr. Johnston), will provide detailed information on these initiatives shortly.

[Stage Direction]
One of the most critical factors in meeting the challenge of technological change is the adequacy of research and development in the private sector. In line with the Government's commitment to consult on major issues of tax policy, I will be tabling tonight a paper entitled "Tax Policies for Research and Development" that reviews existing federal tax incentives for R&D and sets out proposals for change.
This paper shows that Canadian tax incentives compare very favourably with those of other countries. It identifies areas where they could be made simpler, more accessible and more effective. It proposes new provisions that will be of great benefit to small businesses who need help in financing R&D ventures. The overall impact of these new provisions, combined with the general tax measures already proposed as they apply to R&D, would be to increase the value of federal and provincial R&D tax incentives by some $185 million in the first full year in which they will apply. This is a clear demonstration of the Government's support for research and development in the private sector.

[Stage Direction]
To take full advantage of technological advances, Canada will increasingly need well-educated and well-trained workers. Moreover, workers will have to acquire new skills and knowledge throughout their working lives. With this in mind, I am allocating tonight an additional $155 million for human resource development programs. This will bring to $1.2 billion this year the funds allocated for skills development in occupations that are significant for economic growth. Over 250,000 Canadians, half of them young people, will benefit this year from federal support for human resource development.
The Budget-Mr. Lalonde
With the National Training Act of 1982, the Government took steps to make the training system more responsive to our human resource development objectives. It was recognized that, in order to identify occupations in demand and ensure that training funds are allocated accordingly, a cooperative effort involving labour, business and Governments was required. This cooperation has already produced substantial dividends.
[Stage Direction]
Young people are very much aware today of the importance of education for their career prospects. Because of weak employment opportunities, however, students face increasing difficulty in financing their education. The Secretary of State has proposed changes to the Canada Student Loans Act that will expand loan availability to include part-time students, increase the size of available loans and ease repayment conditions for those having difficulty obtaining employment upon graduation. I am providing an additional $60 million over the next two years to fund these changes. This will raise total funding for the Canada Student Loans Program to $141 million this year. Over 185,000 Canadian students will benefit from the program this year.

[Stage Direction]
The structure of the world economy is changing to reflect the emergence of new economic powers. The countries of the world have become more interdependent and more vulnerable to each other's actions. With almost 30 per cent of our GNP generated by exports, Canada shares this interdependence and vulnerability with other major industrialized countries. But international competition also provides Canada with the opportunity to exploit world markets, increase our productivity, rationalize our production and capitalize on our comparative advantage. We must recognize, however, that if we do not import from other countries they will not have the means to buy our exports and to repay our loans to them.
There are strong pressures for protectionism in the world today. I have felt them here in Canada. While I understand the concerns underlying these pressures, I believe they are shortsighted and counterproductive. I acknowledge that there may occasionally be overwhelming reasons for protection in particular cases, but these must be the exception rather than the rule. It is in Canada's abiding interest, as a major exporting nation, to maintain an open trading system subject to the rule of international law. This remains the Government's first priority in the area of trade policy.
[Stage Direction]
I have announced earlier the creation of a Special Recovery Export Financing Fund of $180 million to improve Canada's export performance. I would now like to refer briefly to three other initiatives I am taking to improve the competitiveness of the economy. First, I am increasing the funds available to the Program for Export Market Development in each of the next
[Stage Direction]
April 19, 1983
The Budget-Mr. Lalonde
four years. Second, I am proposing a change in the tax treatment of Canadians working abroad. This will enhance the ability of Canadian firms to undertake projects in other countries. Third, I am commissioning a study, in cooperation with the Export Trade Development Board, of the impact of tax systems in Canada and other countries on the competitiveness of resource-based and manufactured exports.
I am proposing tonight a number of reductions in the rates of duty on goods from developing countries. These reductions are part of a series of adjustments being made to meet Canada's commitment to assist developing countries in their efforts to increase their exports and to improve their balance of payments. Most other proposed tariff changes provide for lower rates of duty or free entry for products not produced in Canada.
I also propose to double the limits on the value of goods that can be brought back to Canada free of duty and tax by returning Canadians under the tourist exemptions. Effective April 20, 1983, the quarterly exemption is being increased to $100 from $50. The annual exemption is being increased to $300 from $150.

[Stage Direction]
I would now like to propose two other tax changes.
The Minister of Communications recently announced a Broadcasting Strategy for Canada, designed to enable the nation's broadcasting system to respond to the technological and programming challenges of the 1980s and 1990s. A critical part of this strategy is the establishment of a fund to assist private production companies and independent producers. To help finance the expenditures associated with this new broadcasting strategy, I am proposing a tax of 6 per cent on the amount charged to subscribers for basic cable rental, pay TV and other programming services provided by means of telecommunications.
All individual taxpayers are currently allowed to claim a standard deduction of $100 in lieu of itemized deductions for charitable donations and medical expenses. Representatives of voluntary organizations have expressed concern that this deduction reduces the tax incentive for charitable giving since the deduction is not directly related to actual amounts given. I propose that all deductions for charitable and medical expenses be receipted, starting in the 1984 taxation year, to replace the standard deduction.

[Stage Direction]
I will be tabling with this budget a background paper on "The Economic Outlook for Canada", which sets out projections of economic performance.
Most forecasters expect that recovery will proceed at a moderate pace in 1983. The housing sector will be strong, along with inventory rebuilding, and these sources of growth will be supported by higher consumption and continued strength in our trade balance. But private investment will remain weak this year and will recover only as markets
improve, excess capacity is run down, and the overall financial position of the business sector is strengthened.
The average level of our real gross national product is forecast to be 2.3 per cent higher this year than it was last year. Growth through the year will be fairly strong, and real GNP at the end of 1983 should be about 6.5 per cent higher than it was at the end of 1982. I expect strong growth to continue through 1984, at an average rate of 5.2 per cent. It will also become more broadly based as investment gathers strength.
Inflation should continue to decline, averaging 6.3 per cent this year and 5 per cent in 1984. Employment should grow fairly strongly in the course of this year and even more strongly in 1984. Over 600,000 more Canadians are expected to be working at the end of 1984 than at the end of 1982. But the job losses we have suffered in this recession have been severe and, as employment begins to grow again, many workers who withdrew temporarily from the labour force will once again seek work. This will maintain upward pressure on the unemployment rate. The unemployment rate is forecast to average 12.4 per cent this year and to fall to 11.4 per cent in 1984. Although the average level may only fall to 11.4 per cent in 1984, I expect unemployment to be on a clear downward trend through the coming years.
There are still many uncertainties about the strength and durability of the recovery. Growth in our trading partners is reviving, but questions remain about the likely course of interest rates in the United States and growth prospects in the Third World. Protectionism could damage our international trade and export opportunities. The impact of volatile world oil markets on economic growth and the international financial system is still unclear.
The indebtedness problems of developing countries will remain serious, but I am encouraged by the prompt and effective way in which Governments, international financial institutions and the commercial banks have responded to meet the threats that emerged late last year. As a result of recent decisions to augment the resources of the International Monetary Fund, the world is now better equipped to manage similar situations should they arise in the future. The Government, particularly through the Bank of Canada, as well as the major Canadian banks, have participated in these efforts in a way commensurate with Canada's international responsibilities and long-term interests.
Early next month, I will be meeting with my counterparts in other OECD countries. Following that meeting, the Prime Minister will join the heads of Government of the other major industrial countries at the Economic Summit in Williamsburg. On both these occasions Canada will continue to press our major trading partners to do all they can to ensure that world recovery strengthens and endures.
Within the current international environment, the framework for economic recovery set out in this budget will enable
April 19, 1983
[Stage Direction]
us to improve our economic prospects in the near term and lay the basis for healthy growth in the medium term. The measures 1 have announced will help create more jobs for Canadians this year and in years to come. They will do so primarily by supporting growth in the private sector. Our unemployed relatives, neighbours and friends want to work, but they also want secure, productive and satisfying jobs. These jobs will have to come from a strong and dynamic private sector.
Ten months ago, the Government proposed the 6&5 program. Canadians were asked to join in a national effort to bring down inflation. That effort has brought results more quickly than most people expected. Millions of Canadians shared in this national effort by having their salary increase, or their family allowance indexing, or their pension increase, limited to 6 per cent in 1983. They will find that their real purchasing power has not decreased much, if at all, in these two years. Indeed, they will have fared better than many other Canadians who have seen their incomes grow by much less than 6 per cent in the aftermath of the recession. In the spirit of the 6&5 program, I am asking Canadians tonight to join in a collective effort to build a stronger economy.
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
I have said many times tonight that the Government alone cannot bring about lasting recovery. But there is one area where it must, by its own actions, take the responsibility for ensuring satisfactory growth in the medium term. This is the management of the federal deficit and of the Government's financial requirements.
When I reported to the House in February, I gave estimates for the deficit and financial requirements for 1982-83. Since February, it has become apparent that expenditures have been about $300 million lower than anticipated and revenues almost $1.7 billion higher. This development provides a further indication that recovery has begun. Final figures for last year will not be available for some time, but I now estimate that the 1982-83 deficit will be about $2 billion lower than expected two months ago, or about $25.3 billion. Cash requirements will be about $23.5 billion.
The causes of last year's high deficit are well understood. The depth of the recession forced a substantial increase in Government expenditures, most of it to help those Canadians most seriously affected by the recession. At the same time, federal revenues grew by only 1.5 per cent. The deficit increased sharply, but its financing did not put upward pressure on interest rates. Indeed, interest rates moved down dramatically in 1982.
The fact that the deficit has reached such a high level means that it will inevitably take time to bring it down. Indeed, as I have indicated previously, because recovery will be moderate, because unemployment will remain high, and because oil prices have fallen abroad and will fall in Canada, the deficit would have been higher this year than last year even without
The Budget-Mr. Lalonde
the actions I have announced in this budget. The direct impact of all the measures I have announced tonight will increase the deficit by $1.9 billion and bring it to $31.3 billion for the current year.
Financial requirements, which are a better measure of the pressure that the federal Government will put on financial markets, will increase by less than the deficit. They are projected to reach a level of $26.7 billion, about $3 billion higher than last year. I have no doubt that these requirements can be financed this year without putting pressure on interest rates and without threatening economic recovery. Private investment will continue to be weak and savings rates to be high in 1983.
Over the medium term, however, the deficit problem is more difficult. In the absence of further action, the deficit would have declined after this year, but it would do so only very slowly. Government borrowing requirements would decline more quickly but would still be high in 1986-87.
[Stage Direction]
It is important that Canadians understand how the deficit arose, how it ought to be interpreted and what its implications are for economic performance. I have found in my consultations with Canadians that there is a great deal of legitimate concern, which I share, about the level of future deficits. But I have also been struck by the complexity of the issues involved and the need for a balanced understanding of them. I will therefore be tabling tonight with this budget a background paper entitled "The Federal Deficit in Perspective". I hope that this paper will make a useful contribution to the continuing debate on this important subject.
This background document makes four important points, and I invite the Opposition to read it.
First, the federal deficit over the second half of the 1970s was not due to runaway expenditures. It was due in large part to a succession of tax cuts introduced in response to weak economic activity.
Second, the impact of the federal deficit on financial markets and interest rates cannot be looked at in isolation. From 1975 to last year, other Governments in Canada ran a consolidated surplus on a national accounts basis and this surplus helped to offset federal borrowing requirements.
Third, the so-called structural deficit, after allowing for the impact of economic cycles on federal revenues and expenditures, fell steadily from 4.3 per cent of GNP in 1978 to only 1.8 per cent of GNP in 1981. It rose in 1982, but will decline again through the medium term.
Fourth, because accounting procedures for Governments are distorted by inflation just as they are for companies in the private sector, the growth of the real value of the national debt is less than implied by the deficit numbers. This has important implications for the ability of the Government to finance its deficit without putting pressure on interest rates.
[Stage Direction]
April 19, 1983
The Budget-Mr. Lalonde
If we are to address the issue of deficits over the medium term in a realistic way, we must put rhetoric aside and look at the facts. We cannot eliminate the deficit quickly. To do so would require us to slash Government programs or to accept massive tax increases. Either course of action would jeopardize our prospects for economic recovery. But we must manage the deficit now to ensure that it will come down as quickly as possible. Simply put, as private demand for savings grows, Government borrowing requirements must shrink.
The first area we must look to is Government expenditures. In 1975, this Government made the commitment that, over the medium term, expenditures would grow no more quickly than the trend growth in GNP, so that the share of the federal Government in the economy would not increase.
This commitment was met until the recession last year. I am reaffirming this commitment tonight. "The Fiscal Plan" I will be tabling with this budget shows that total outlays as a share of GNP will fall steadily from this year to 1986-87. By that year, federal spending will be virtually the same size relative to the economy as it was in 1981-82, before the worst of the recession. To achieve this outcome will demand continuing diligence in restraining expenditure growth.
The second area is revenues. As I pointed out earlier, a succession of tax cuts in the second half of the 1970s caused federal revenues to grow much less rapidly than the economy. In 1974-75, federal revenues were almost 19 per cent of gross national product. This share fell to less than 15 per cent in the late 1970s. I am therefore proposing tonight changes in the personal income tax that will take effect only in future years, when the recovery is secured, to help reduce the federal deficit more quickly over the next four years.
Individual taxpayers are now eligible for a federal tax reduction of $200. This tax reduction was originally introduced in 1973 at a rate of 5 per cent of tax otherwise payable with a minimum of $100 and a maximum of $500. It is not an integral part of the basic structure of the personal income tax system and has been modified from time to time in response to changing economic circumstances.
I am proposing further modifications to this tax reduction applicable to 1984 and subsequent years. The federal tax reduction will become income-tested as of January 1, 1984. The $200 credit will be phased out in that year for taxpayers paying more than $6,000 in basic federal tax. Those paying less than $6,000 in basic federal tax, which is equivalent to income levels in the $35,000 to $40,000 range, will not be affected in 1984. The base amount of the credit will be reduced to $100 in 1985 and to $50 in 1986 and subsequent years.
These changes will take effect gradually and only when the recovery has firmed up. No taxpayer will be affected in 1983, and only those with high incomes in 1984.
[Stage Direction]
The direct impact of all the measures I have announced tonight will be to increase the deficit by $1.9 billion in the current fiscal year and by $650 million next year. In the following two fiscal years, as the economy improves, these measures will reduce the deficit by $1.8 billion and $2.6 billion, respectively.
I believe that the nature and timing of these measures are both appropriate to our short-term economic situation and necessary to safeguard the ability of the private sector to provide jobs for Canadians over the medium term. I will continue to monitor the medium-term deficit and take appropriate action as necessary to bring it down as quickly as possible without compromising the performance of our economy.
Madam Speaker, I am tabling with this budget Ways and Means Motions to give effect to the tax and tariff changes I have proposed, and I also ask the consent of the House for tabling the budget papers to which I have referred.
Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


CONCLUSION
Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the most critical and also the most difficult step towards recovery is to break out of the recession mentality. It is to cure ourselves of the collective trauma engendered by present difficulties and to look once again squarely and confidently into the future.
This can be achieved only by an act of national will. The Government by itself cannot will the economy onto the path of lasting recovery.
But the Government has the capacity to act decisively to restore confidence in the ability of Canadians to mobilize brain and brawn, to muster our energies, and to make our economy more productive and more competitive. It has the capacity to strengthen our private sector and to enable it to provide once again the jobs Canadians need.
This is what this recovery budget seeks to achieve for Canada.
I set out with two goals: to ensure that recovery firmly take hold and that it be durable. To create the jobs Canadians need, I proposed actions that will go into effect immediately but that will also be geared to the medium term.
The budget provides targeted stimulus to boost the recovery. It introduces a $4.8 billion Special Recovery Program. This program will create jobs and make possible new private and public investment that would otherwise have been undertaken only later in the decade.
The budget provides more direct support for employment, more buying power for lower income Canadians and more stimulus for housing. It proposes actions to improve our growth prospects by strengthening the financial position of our
April 19, 1983

businesses, and by supporting the technological advances necessary for Canadians to compete successfully in the world.
[ Translation]
The budget does not provide excessive stimulus for the economy. To have done so would have been irresponsible. Indeed, it would have jeopardized the recovery by increasing the deficit to levels that would have pushed interest rates up.
The budget proposes a national drive for higher productivity and employment growth. This is the high goal that the Government is urging all Canadians to strive for, individually and collectively, during the rest of the eighties.
We Canadians can reach this goal if we are prepared to work hard at it, to make tough and bold decisions, to resolve or set aside our differences, and to act as the national community we are.

The pain and the hardship of recent years have clearly shown that a new national partnership amongst labour, business and Governments is urgently needed in Canada. This new partnership for recovery is essential if we are to meet the tough competitive challenge of the eighties and provide the jobs Canadians need.

I want to repeat what I said earlier, Madam Speaker, because I think it is extremely important: A new national partnership among labour, business and Governments is urgently needed in Canada. This new partnership for recovery is essential if we are to meet the challenge of the eighties. [English]
This budget has laid a firm basis on which to build this partnership. In the coming weeks, the Government will seek out its labour, business and provincial partners to get on with the job of speeding recovery.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, we now know what it costs to save the Minister's face. It costs $200 million over three years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An Hon. Member:: And he is not worth it.


Pat Carney: That is the amount by which the Minister has increased his spending and his borrowings this year for his $200 million photo opportunity. In comparison he is planning to spend only $95 million on a youth job program aimed at getting young people their first jobs. He obviously considers that saving his face is worth twice that of saving jobs for our Canadian youth.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
The Budget-Miss Carney


Pat Carney: The Minister calls this a recovery budget. What he is trying to recover is his lost prestige. He says his budget contains a job creation program. The only job that is being protected is his own.
In terms of the additional interest that it will cost for the $200 million photo opportunity, at 12 per cent interest it will amount to $1 million a month. That is the cost of the Minister's carelessness. That is the cost of his showboating. That is what Canadians will pay for this Minister's ego.
He does not tell us how he was going to spend the money. We know only that it will be added to the Special Recovery Program. But in addition to the budget which we received only a few minutes before he gave his speech in the House, he indicated that he does not know how he is actually going to spend the money. It will be added to a program which will spend $2.2 billion in the next few years in the country on 100 projects. Never before has it cost us so much to save something of so little value, the Finance Minister's reputation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: And never before has the Canadian taxpayer been asked to finance a potential pork barrel of such grandiose proportions. Many of the budget measures will be administered by the Minister's colleagues. For instance, the Special Recovery Capital Project Program at $2.2 billion will be administered by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lumley) assisted by a Special Committee of Cabinet. The line up will form on the right-hand side of the Chamber.
The Special Recovery Investment Fund of $300 million will be administered by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. There are no details given. Another $100 million for new technology will be administered by the Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Johnston). No details are given.
Further, the Canadian ownership charge levied on all products made from crude oil will be extended, probably to bail out Dome Petroleum and its banks. This is the tax, Hon. Members will remember, that was brought in to pay for Petrofina. If Dome is not available, other companies will be standing in line to be bailed out at inflated prices.
Further, the Liberals will be spending, but the Tories will be paying the bills since most of the major tax increases come into effect in the 1984 tax year. The spending is now, but the bills come later. As they said in the Department of Finance "It is Tory money we are spending."


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: This, of course, includes an increase in the federal sales tax on manufactured goods and a large personal tax increase which will hit hardest on married Canadians with children under 18 years of age since in effect the Minister is de-indexing the dependant child exemption.

April 19, 1983
The Budget-Miss Carney
We commend the Minister's efforts to increase the child tax credit, but he is collecting more than his share. Canadians face a personal income tax increase of $1.9 billion by the year 1986-1987. That is when we will be in power. Not only do Canadians face increased taxes in the future, Canadians face permanently higher deficits of at least $25 billion each year for the next four years. These deficits will total $112 billion. This will make a mockery of the Minister's statement that he wants a durable recovery. You cannot finance deficits of this magnitude without keeping interest rates high and possibly forcing them higher, and that will abort the recovery we so badly need.
The Minister also says in the opening line of his budget speech that his dominant concern is to help the more than 1.5 million Canadians who want to work but cannot find jobs. Yet his own economic projections show that 100,000 fewer Canadians will be working in 1984 than in 1981 when the Government introduced the disastrous MacEachen budget.
The unemployment rate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) is forecasting will stay above 10 per cent right through to 1986. For young people whose current unemployment rate is 21.3 per cent, he proposes to add less than 30,000 new jobs over the next few years. If you add up the jobs in his budget proposal, they total 30,000.
Furthermore, in the October statement the Minister said that allocations for employment creation would be $1.4 billion. In his current statement, direct support for employment creation is shown as $1,484 billion. That is an increase of only $74 million. According to the figures we were given just before the Minister made his speech in the House, he has allocated $74 million for unemployed Canadians in new programs versus $200 million for his own reputation.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: The Minister said in his speech that he is looking to the private sector to help lead the way to recovery. The great intervenors have become the great entrepreneurs.
The team that blew away $20 billion in investment, both domestic and foreign investment when it introduced the National Energy Program has now rediscovered the need for equity capital. This is the Government that hands $150 million to Canadair to produce jets that cannot be sold. These are the same people who poured $125 million into Consolidated Computer and sold that company for $100,000 to private interests which put it back in business.
The master minds of the previous budgets which turned a business downturn into the worst recession in 50 years have now discovered that they must rely on the private sector to lead us toward recovery. Yet there is very little in the budget for small business. There are many good proposals which we know the Minister had which would have increased the healthy cash or equity position of small business but although there are some investment tax credits there are a whole series of companies which cannot participate; small business companies in the service sector, for instance. It should be very clear to farmers and fishermen that this Government has written them off completely one more time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, because of the time I move:
That the debate be now adjourned.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, under the Standing Orders I move:
That this House do now adjourn.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House agree to the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Madam Speaker:: Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
On motion of Mr. Pinard, the House adjourned at 9.58 p.m.

Wednesday, April 20, 1983